I. SOURCES (AND PROBLEMS) ABOUT NOMOTHESIA

In the fifth century b.c.e. the Athenians did not make any distinction between laws (nomoi) and decrees (psêphismata). The Assembly passed both kinds of measures in the same way, and both general enactments and short-term provisions held the same legal status. At the end of the fifth century, however, the Athenians decided to make a distinction between the two kinds of measures and created the rule that no decree would be superior to a law (Andoc. 1.86; Dem. 23.86, 218; 24.18, 59, 116, 188; 46.2).Footnote ¹ The Assembly continued to pass decrees in the same way, but a new body of nomothetai was created to ratify laws (nomoi). There were also two separate procedures for rescinding the two kinds of measures: one could bring a graphê paranomôn (a public action against an illegal decree) against a psêphisma and a graphê ‘nomon mê epitêdeion theinai’ (a public action against an inexpedient law) against a nomos. This much is clear; scholars do not agree however about the procedure for passing a new law (nomothesia) in fourth-century Athens.

The main evidence for the procedure of nomothesia is found in two speeches preserved in the Demosthenic corpus, Against Leptines (20) and Against Timocrates (24). A passage from Aeschines’ Against Ctesiphon (3.38–40) discusses the procedure to be followed for ensuring that there are no contradictions among the laws, but this evidence is not pertinent to the topic of this essay.Footnote ² Contemporary inscriptions provide the following evidence about the procedure of nomothesia.Footnote ³ First, the motion and the enactment formulas for a law are usually ‘be it resolved by the nomothetai’ and ‘the nomothetai have resolved’ (δεδόχθαι τοῖς νομοθέταις or ἔδοξɛ τοῖς νομοθέταις)Footnote ⁴ and does not mention the Council or the Assembly.Footnote ⁵ Decisions of the Council subsequently passed by the Assembly mention both (δεδόχθαι τῆι βουλῆι καὶ τῶι δήμωι, or a probouleumatic formula requiring that the proposal be submitted to the Assembly). The formula δεδόχθαι τῆι βουλῆι is consistently used for decisions of the Council that do not need any further approval by the Assembly.Footnote ⁶ By analogy, the decisions of the nomothetai, since the Assembly is never mentioned, must be final.Footnote ⁷ Second, the prescripts of the nomoi preserved in contemporary inscriptions indicate that they were passed not at one time of the year but at different dates throughout the year.Footnote ⁸ Sessions of the nomothetai could therefore be summoned at any time during the year, and laws could be passed in any prytany. Third, three decrees of the Assembly order that a proposal be submitted to the nomothetai.Footnote ⁹ One of them, IG VII 4254 (lines 39–40), employs the expression ἐν τοῖς πρῶτοις νομοθέταις, which implies that minor legislation did not require a session of specially appointed nomothetai, but could wait for the first one available.

This essay examines the information concerning nomothesia found in the Demosthenic speeches Against Leptines and Against Timocrates, which were delivered between 355 and 353Footnote ¹⁰ at trials involving the public action against inexpedient laws (γραϕαὶ νόμον μὴ ἐπιτήδɛιον θɛῖναι). The speakers in each case discuss the laws about nomothesia and ask the clerk to read the relevant statutes to the court. In Against Leptines Demosthenes (20.92) asks for a single law about nomothesia to be read out, then discusses its contents, which concern the procedure for enacting new laws. The manuscripts of the speech do not however preserve a text of this law. In Against Timocrates there is a discussion of the procedures for enacting new laws (Dem. 24.18–36), and two documents are inserted into the text at Dem. 24.20–3 and 33. The information about nomothesia found in Against Leptines does not however agree with the provisions contained in the documents preserved in Against Timocrates. As a result, there has been much debate about the procedure in the past thirty-five years, and several scholars have offered different reconstructions of the procedure and its evolution.

MacDowellFootnote ¹¹ has identified no fewer than five different procedures. One of these procedures was concerned with enacting new laws (Dem. 20.92) and replaced an older procedure (Dem. 20.89–91, 93–4). The other procedures are described in Aeschines’ Against Ctesiphon (3.38–40) and in the two documents of Demosthenes’ Against Timocrates (24.20–3 and 33), the second being again a procedure laid down later in the fourth century. His reconstruction encounters several objections. In particular, Demosthenes at 20.91–2 does not seem to discuss an actual law; he is only describing how bad politicians break the law. More importantly, if MacDowell were correct in his chronology of the different procedures, there would have simultaneously been two different panels of nomothetai in the middle of the fourth century, one, attested by the document at Dem. 24.20–3, appointed from those who had sworn the Heliastic Oath and another panel appointed from all Athenians (Dem. 20.92), both performing exactly the same functions. One of the two sources must be mistaken.Footnote ¹² Furthermore, if MacDowell's chronology is right, Demosthenes (20.92) would be claiming that a law which had been repealed many years before was still valid.

Rhodes followed MacDowell in his belief that nomothesia went through several stages in the early fourth century but offered a different reconstruction.Footnote ¹³ Rhodes believes that Dem. 20.89–94 refers to the procedures found in documents inserted at Dem. 24.20–3 and 33. The latter was originally a rider to the former but gradually became an independent statute. During this time the law at Dem. 24.20–3, which required that new legislation could only be enacted in Hekatombaion, was forgotten. As a result, politicians started enacting laws at any point during the year. At both trials Demosthenes was attempting to restore the correct practice. This reconstruction is implausible: first, the law described at Dem. 20.89–94 does not correspond to the procedures described in the documents found in Against Timocrates. The law at Dem. 20.89–94 concerns the procedure for enacting new legislation; the two documents in Against Timocrates concern a general confirmation of the law code and the procedure for repealing laws. Nor do the individual provisions match, and the documents in Against Timocrates do not lay down the procedure for the public action against an inexpedient law. If both sources are reliable, they can hardly refer to the same procedure. And yet if they do, we would have multiple overlapping procedures, enacted at the same time, whose purpose is roughly the same, legislation. Rhodes also believes, relying on the document at Dem. 24.20–3, that early in the fourth century legislation could only be enacted at the beginning of the year and only to replace existing statutes repealed on 11 Hekatombaion. This is implausible because it would have made it impossible for the Athenians to enact necessary legislation during the rest of the year (e.g. ad hoc changes of the merismos for the purpose of funding a festival or a grant of honours like those prescribed in IG II² 222, IG II² 330 and IG VII 4254 would not have been possible). It is on the other hand implausible that the Athenians would have ignored a valid law, if it actually contained a provision on such an important issue, for several years before Demosthenes brought the violation to everyone's attention.

Hansen reduces the procedures to three.Footnote ¹⁴ The first procedure is described in the document found at Dem. 24.20–3, the second in the document found at Dem. 24.33 (which Hansen believes is the same procedure which is discussed at Dem. 20.89–94) and the third at Aeschin. 3.38–40 (a procedure for removing contradictory laws). According to Hansen, the first two procedures existed simultaneously and were used to appoint nomothetai. On this reconstruction the law at Dem. 24.20–3 provides a procedure to modify, repeal or introduce new laws starting at a meeting of the Assembly to be held on 11 Hekatombaion and ending with a decision of the nomothetai. The procedure in the document at Dem. 24.33 would lead to the same outcome, but through a procedure which could be initiated at any time of the year. This reconstruction also meets with several objections. First, the document found at Dem. 24.33 does not correspond to the description of the procedure discussed at Dem. 20.89–94. Many provisions mentioned in the latter are missing in the document (like the requirement to post the new laws before the Eponymous Heroes). Hansen tries to evade this objection by claiming that the document at Dem. 24.33 is incomplete and that the complete document would have contained the missing provisions. Yet many of these missing provisions are in fact found in the document at Dem. 24.20–3; it would have been perverse for the Athenians to enact two different laws at the same time for the same purpose and with almost identical contents. Finally, it strains credibility to believe that in Against Leptines Demosthenes (20.89–94) describes a statute about repealing existing laws (document at Dem. 24.33) as one about enacting new laws.Footnote ¹⁵ These sources, if they refer to the same statutes, contradict each other.

All these reconstructions contain implausible hypotheses, and none of them accounts for all the evidence and is therefore clearly superior to the others. The reason why none of these reconstructions has been successful is that the evidence they attempt to explain is itself contradictory. The solution to the problem is to start by recognizing that the documents at Dem. 24.20–3 and 33 are not authentic. Many scholars in the nineteenth century regarded these documents are forgeries,Footnote ¹⁶ and the stichometry of the Against Timocrates reveals that they were not in the Urexemplar of the speech but were added later.Footnote ¹⁷ At the end of the nineteenth century Schöll and Drerup argued that they were genuine documents, and their authenticity has not been questioned since then.Footnote ¹⁸ The conclusions of Schöll and Drerup rest however on their reconstructions of the nomothesia procedure. Since their reconstructions have been abandoned,Footnote ¹⁹ their defence of the documents must also be called into question. It is time to take a fresh look at the documents.Footnote ²⁰

This essay begins by analysing the summaries of the laws about nomothesia found in Against Timocrates and Against Leptines and shows that they are consistent with each other and provide a reliable account of the procedure (§ II). Section III then compares this account with the information found in the documents inserted at Dem. 24.20–3 and 33 and shows that they contain internal contradictions and language that is inconsistent with the terminology used in Athenian official documents during the fourth century b.c.e.

II. DEMOSTHENES ON NOMOTHESIA: A RECONSTRUCTION

In the Against Timocrates Demosthenes (24.17) starts the main part of his legal case by saying that he wishes first to explain the statutes which Timocrates has violated in passing his law.Footnote ²¹ He claims that the laws are clear about the procedures to be followed when enacting a new law (πɛρὶ τῶν μɛλλόντων τɛθήσɛσθαι νόμων). At 18 he states that first (πρῶτον) there is a time (χρόνος) during which one must legislate (νομοθɛτɛῖν). Then (ɛἶτα), even at that time (τότɛ) one is not allowed to legislate as one pleases but must first place a copy of one's proposed law in front of the monument of the Eponymous Heroes for everyone to see (σκοπɛῖν τῷ βουλομένῳ). Next (μɛτὰ ταῦτα), the proposed law must be the same for all citizens, and in addition to all this (πρὸς τούτοις) all opposing laws must be repealed (λύɛιν τοὺς ἐναντίους). Demosthenes mentions the fact that the laws contain other provisions that are not relevant for his case. Finally he states that if the proposer of legislation fails to follow any of these provisions, any Athenian who wishes is allowed to bring a public charge against him (τῷ βουλομένῳ δίδωσι γράφɛσθαι). The provisions listed are linked by connectives like πρῶτον, ɛἶτα, μɛτὰ ταῦτα, πρὸς τούτοις, whose exact meaning is here unclear. Some of the provisions describe the procedure to be followed when enacting new laws; others contain rules about the substance of new laws. There is no need to think that Demosthenes follows the order of the provisions found in the actual statute. He has more likely selected only those provisions relevant to his case and placed them in an order determined by the sequence of his arguments.

At § 19 Demosthenes accuses Timocrates of violating every provision listed so far. He will start with the fact that Timocrates enacted his law in defiance of all the laws (παρὰ πάντας τοὺς νόμους ἐνομοθέτɛι), and afterwards he will deal with his other offences. Then he asks the grammateus to take and read the relevant laws (in the plural: καί μοι λαβὲ τουτουσὶ τοὺς νόμους). Demosthenes’ legal discussion follows this arrangement: it starts with a section about the procedural violations committed by Timocrates (§§ 24–32), then discusses the rule requiring the repeal of any law with clauses contradicting the new law to be enacted (§§ 34–9). Finally, after the law of Timocrates is read out, Demosthenes lists the opposing laws which should have been repealed but were not (§§ 39–67). In this last section we find the statute ordering that a law must be the same for all the Athenians (§ 59).Footnote ²²

Demosthenes’ account continues at § 24, where he starts to discuss the law just read by the grammateus. After a general praise of the statute, at § 25 he states that first (πρῶτον) there must be a διαχɛιροτονία on whether a new law is to be proposed (πότɛρον ɛἰσοιστέος ἐστὶ νόμος καινός) or the laws in force are considered sufficient. This vote must be held ἐϕ᾽ ὑμῖν, which must be interpreted here as ‘in the Assembly’, since the stage at which the nomothetai are summoned is still to come, and the word διαχɛιροτονία is never used in Athenian sources for a vote by judges in court.Footnote ²³ After this stage (μɛτὰ ταῦτα), if the Assembly votes that proposals for new legislation can be introduced (ἂν χɛιροτονῆτ’ ɛἰσφέρɛιν), it is however not permitted for anyone to enact new statutes immediately (οὐκ ɛὐθὺς τιθέναι προσέταξαν). The law orders that the appointment of the nomothetai be discussed at the third meeting of the Assembly (and does not allow legislation to be enacted at that time either). In the interval between the two meetings whoever wants to propose a new law must post it before the monument of the Eponymous Heroes for everyone to read (τοῖς βουλομένοις ɛἰσϕέρɛιν ἐκτιθέναι τοὺς νόμους πρόσθɛν τῶν ἐπωνύμων).

Up to this point the procedure prescribed by the law asked to be read out at § 20 is quite clear. To present new laws a vote on whether new legislation can be proposed must be held in the Assembly. If the decision is positive, copies of the proposals must be placed before the monument of the Eponymous Heroes. At the third Assembly the method for appointing nomothetai must be discussed, and, presumably, a decree of appointment must be passed. In my discussion I have consistently used the plural, speaking of ‘proposals’ for ‘new laws’. That the preliminary vote must have been a general vote, allowing, if positive, to propose laws in general, is clear from the clause τοῖς βουλομένοις ɛἰσϕέρɛιν ἐκτιθέναι τοὺς νόμους. This inference is confirmed by IG VII 4254, lines 39–40: the Assembly prescribes in a decree that the prytaneis submit a piece of legislation ἐν τοῖς πρῶτοις νομοθέταις, in the first available meeting of the nomothetai. As soon as the procedure for new legislation was begun after a preliminary vote, one had to submit a proposal to the nomothetai on behalf of the Assembly, but there did not have to be another preliminary vote for that proposal. This implies that the preliminary vote, if positive, would have allowed several proposals to be made, and was therefore a general invitation to submit proposals.

What Demosthenes says about nomothesia up to this point is sufficiently clear. It is equally important to pay attention to what Demosthenes does not say in this section. At § 26 Demosthenes lists the violations committed by Timocrates: he did not place a copy of his proposal before the Eponymous Heroes and did not therefore give the Athenians a chance to read it. Most important, he did not observe the times prescribed in the laws (οὔτ’ ἀνέμɛινɛν οὐδένα τῶν τɛταγμένων χρόνων ἐν τοῖς νόμοις): ‘the meeting of the Assembly at which you voted on the laws being on 11 Hekatombaion (ἐν ᾗ τοὺς νόμους ἐπɛχɛιροτονήσατɛ, οὔσης ἑνδɛκάτῃ τοῦ ἑκατομβαιῶνος μηνός), he proposed his law on the 12th of the same month’.

What about the specific clause ἐν ᾗ τοὺς νόμους ἐπɛχɛιροτονήσατɛ at § 26? The key to understanding this clause is the meaning of ἐπιχɛιροτονɛῖν. Scholars, under the influence of the document at §§ 20–3, have always interpreted this sentence as referring to an ἐπιχɛιροτονία τῶν νόμων, a general approval (confirmation) of all the laws to be held every year on the 11th of the first prytany. However such an interpretation would imply that Demosthenes is alluding here in passing to a general, annual vote on the laws, the key element of the procedure he is commenting on, after having ignored it all through his account. I believe the verb should be interpreted in a less specific way as ‘to put a matter to the vote’ and refers to the διαχɛιροτονία described at § 24.

In the Demosthenic corpus the verb, or the substantive ἐπιχɛιροτονία, occurs ten times (excluding our case): it occurs twice in spurious documents of On the Crown (Dem. 18.29 and 105), which cannot be used to determine its meaning. Moreover, six other occurrences are in Demosthenes’ Against Timocrates. The First Philippic (Dem. 4) and the speech Against Theocrines ([Dem.] 58) yield one each. Three of the occurrences of ἐπιχɛιροτονɛῖν (or ἐπιχɛιροτονία) are in the document at Dem. 24.20–3. The remaining three occurrences in the Against Timocrates refer to different contexts. At § 39 the verb is used in the document reporting the law of Timocrates, and its wording is confirmed by § 84: the law prescribes that τοὺς δὲ προέδρους ἐπιχɛιροτονɛῖν ἐπάναγκɛς, ὅταν τις καθιστάναι βούληται sureties for their debt. The meaning in this context is clearly the etymological one: to put a particular matter to the vote, in this case the acceptance of sureties.Footnote ²⁴ At § 50 the word ἐπιχɛιροτονία is used in a document that purports to be a law about supplication to the Council or the Assembly on behalf of a debtor. The proedroi shall not allow an ἐπιχɛιροτονία before the debtor has paid his debt. Whether authentic or not,Footnote ²⁵ this document uses the word, again, with the simple etymological meaning ‘a vote on’ a matter. Particularly useful is the usage of the verb at Dem. 4.30: ἐπɛιδὰν δ᾽ ἐπιχɛιροτονῆτɛ τὰς γνώμας, ἂν ὑμῖν ἀρέσκῃ, χɛιροτονήσɛτɛ. In this passage the action of ‘putting proposals to vote’ is followed by the approval (χɛιροτονήσɛτɛ) of one of them. As G.A. Davies rightly pointed out, ‘there is no sound support for Liddell and Scott's rendering “sanction by vote”: also τὰς γνώμας means “all the proposals before you”, i.e. my own and others which may be made; and they cannot all be sanctioned’.Footnote ²⁶ This particular meaning is the essential one, and is found also in the Constitution of the Athenians. At § 43.5 we read that in the sixth prytany the prytaneis put to the vote whether there shall be an ostracism or not (ἐπὶ δὲ τῆς ἕκτης πρυτανɛίας … πɛρὶ τῆς ὀστρακοϕορίας ἐπιχɛιροτονίαν διδόασιν, ɛἰ δοκɛῖ ποιɛῖν ἢ μή). At § 37.1 the Thirty present two laws to the Council and order them to be put to the vote (νόμους ɛἰσήνɛγκαν ɛἰς τὴν βουλὴν δύο κɛλɛύοντɛς ἐπιχɛιροτονɛῖν).Footnote ²⁷ Rhodes singles out a more specialized use of the verb (and of the connected substantive) meaning ‘to confirm a decision already taken’.Footnote ²⁸ The verb is used in this sense in regard to a particular vote held in every kuria Assembly on whether the magistrates are satisfactorily performing their duties or not. This vote is mentioned in Ath. Pol. 43.4, 61.2 and 61.4 and [Dem.] 58.27. However, it is clear that such a specialized meaning is secondary, and derived from the primary ‘to put a matter to the vote’. Ath. Pol. 55.4 makes this passage clear: the dokimasia of the nine archons is held in front of the Council, and then in a tribunal. The procedure leads to an ἐπιχɛιροτονία in the Council, and to a ψῆφος in the tribunal (δίδωσιν ἐν μὲν τῇ βουλῇ τὴν ἐπιχɛιροτονίαν, ἐν δὲ τῷ δικαστηρίῳ τὴν ψῆφον). Although the vote in the Council is technically speaking a vote of confidence (a ‘confirmation of a decision already taken’), it is apparent that the reason for its name, whatever specialized meaning one wants to attribute to the word ἐπιχɛιροτονία, is that it is a ‘vote on’ the archons held by raising of hands. The main meaning of ἐπιχɛιροτονɛῖν is simply ‘to put a matter to the vote.’Footnote ²⁹

Now, nothing in Demosthenes’ account of the law on nomothesia points to any other meaning for ἐπιχɛιροτονɛῖν than ‘put a matter to the vote’. At Dem. 24.24 he describes, as we have seen, a διαχɛιροτονία on whether new laws can be proposed or not. After the vote, if positive, anyone could present proposals for new laws. The vote is on πότɛρον ɛἰσοιστέος ἐστὶ νόμος καινός, whether a new law can be proposed, and not a vote of approval of the ‘code’ of Athenian laws. The διαχɛιροτονία was held in two stages, at which voting by raising of hands followed each one of two questions: the first question was probably ‘Who thinks that a new law is to be brought in (ɛἰσοιστέος ἐστὶ νόμος καινός)?’Footnote ³⁰ The second was therefore ‘Who thinks that the existing laws are sufficient (ἀρκɛῖν οἱ κɛίμɛνοι [νόμοι])?’ This has nothing to do with a vote of approval of the ‘code’ of law. A parallel for such a preliminary vote allowing proposals is provided by the law on adeia discussed at §§ 45–6 of this speech: no proposal is allowed about the condition of atimoi and debtors of the public treasury unless a preliminary vote (with a quorum of six thousand) in the Assembly grants adeia to consider such matters.

The obvious reading of ἐν ᾗ τοὺς νόμους ἐπɛχɛιροτονήσατɛ at § 26 is therefore ‘at which you voted on the laws’ (plural), meaning ‘on whether laws can be proposed’. Basically the same concept (in a different context) is expressed at Ath. Pol. 43.5 with πɛρὶ τῆς ὀστρακοϕορίας ἐπιχɛιροτονίαν διδόασιν, ɛἰ δοκɛῖ ποιɛῖν ἢ μή. The verb ἐπɛχɛιροτονήσατɛ is only a brief way of describing the entire process described at § 24, and is not referring to a general vote of confidence on the ‘code’ of laws. This meaning is found in our sources only in connection with the ἐπιχɛιροτονία τῶν ἀρχῶν, and even in that case it is subordinated to the primary, generic meaning of ‘putting the conduct of the magistrates to the vote’. Demosthenes here only refers, again, to a preliminary vote about whether to allow proposals of new laws.

The last issue to discuss in relation to Demosthenes’ account of the text read out at § 20 are the ‘times prescribed by the laws’ (§ 26 τɛταγμένων χρόνων ἐν τοῖς νόμοις) that Timocrates has not respected. ‘Times’ had already been mentioned at § 18. At § 26 Demosthenes, as we have seen, lists the infractions committed by Timocrates. He does not discuss here other provisions of the law; he just lists which provisions Timocrates has not respected, and then tells the judges what he has done instead. Every violation in the list corresponds to one of the clauses in the law presented at § 25: the bills must be published before the monument of the Eponymous Heroes for everybody to see and make up their mind, while Timocrates has neither published his proposal nor allowed the Athenians the chance to consider it. Moreover he did not respect the ‘times’ prescribed by the law. Demosthenes is here alluding, again in passing, to something he has already discussed: after the preliminary vote the appointment of nomothetai must be discussed in the third Assembly (§ 25 τὴν τρίτην ἀπέδɛιξαν ἐκκλησίαν). These are the τɛταγμένοι χρόνοι Demosthenes is alluding to. In fact, he proceeds to show how Timocrates infringed this provision: the preliminary vote was held on the 11th of Hekatombaion, and Timocrates enacted his law on the 12th of the same month, without waiting for the third Assembly to discuss the appointment of the nomothetai. The ἀλλά in the middle of the sentence, creating a strong opposition between the τɛταγμένοι χρόνοι and Timocrates's behaviour, grants this. Therefore, Demosthenes is not alluding here to a provision of the law on nomothesia setting a compulsory vote on the 11th of Hekatombaion. At § 28 Demosthenes emphasizes again that Timocrates’ offence was to propose that his law be enacted on the next day (ἔγραψɛν αὔριον νομοθɛτɛῖν). Demosthenes never states nor implies that there was a requirement to hold a vote about the laws on the 11th of Hekatombaion. If there was to be such a vote, he would have listed it with the other provisions at § 25. Nothing in Demosthenes’ account of nomothesia in this section is inconsistent with the epigraphic evidence, which shows that one could initiate the nomothesia procedure at any time of the year.

I will now discuss Demosthenes’ account of the law read out at § 33, and I will then compare my provisional results with the discussion of nomothesia in the Against Leptines. After listing Timocrates’ infractions the grammateus reads out (§ 27) a decree summoning the nomothetai the day immediately after the preliminary vote, with the excuse of the arrangements for the Panathenaea.Footnote ³¹ The discussion of the procedural infractions committed by Timocrates carries on to § 31. At § 32 Demosthenes closes this part of his discussion and introduces a new topic, already anticipated at § 18: Timocrates enacted a law that violates many other statutes. This, Demosthenes anticipates, is illegal because a law prescribes that nobody can present new laws contrary to existing ones. If one does, a public action can be brought against the proposer (ἀνάγνωθι δέ μοι λαβὼν τουτονὶ πρῶτον τὸν νόμον, ὃς διαρρήδην οὐκ ἐᾷ νόμον οὐδέν’ ἐναντίον ɛἰσϕέρɛιν, ἐὰν δέ τις ɛἰσϕέρῃ, γράϕɛσθαι κɛλɛύɛι).Footnote ³² What is the relationship between this law and the one discussed at §§ 24–6? This law is described by Demosthenes as new and different from the previous one (τουτονὶ πρῶτον τὸν νόμον). However, a law such as the one summarized here obviously concerns legislation, and defines what the previous one ignored: it states what a new law cannot contain, and provides a procedure to bring against new laws that do not respect its provisions. Hansen rightly points out that ‘nomos can mean anything from one line of a law to complete legislation’, and adduces as evidence of this the case of the Against Aristocrates, where at §§ 37 and 60 Demosthenes discusses as different laws two texts that are found in the same inscription as part of a single statute (IG I³ 104.26–9, 37–8).Footnote ³³ Therefore the law read out by the grammateus at § 33 of the Against Timocrates is likely to be a further section of the legislation on nomothesia. The law one would expect to find here would be one prohibiting anyone from proposing a law that contradicts an existing one and providing public actions against an inexpedient law if such a law is enacted by the nomothetai.

The account of the law at § 34 is consistent with what has been anticipated at § 32: Demosthenes again clearly states that one cannot pass a law contradicting other statutes. Demosthenes adds that if anyone proposes such a law, he must repeal the opposing laws before enacting the new one (οὐκ ἐᾷ τοῖς ὑπάρχουσι νόμοις ἐναντίον ɛἰσφέρɛιν, ἐὰν μὴ λύσῃ τὸν πρότɛρον κɛίμɛνον). Demosthenes proceeds to explain the rationale behind this rule: this provision is necessary in order to let the judges cast a righteous vote (πρῶτον μὲν ἵν’ ὑμῖν ἐξῇ τὰ δίκαια ψηϕίζɛσθαι μɛτ’ ɛὐσɛβɛίας). In fact, if there were laws contradicting each other, the judges would not be able to make decisions and would be forced to violate their pledge in the judicial oath to vote according to the laws because they would have to follow one law and not follow another law (§ 35).Footnote ³⁴ The lawgiver enacted such rules in order to protect the judges against this hypothetical situation. The law just read out therefore prescribes that no law contradicting existing statutes can be proposed, unless these statutes are repealed. If anybody fails to follow these provisions, anyone can accuse him through a γραϕὴ νόμον μὴ ἐπιτήδɛιον θɛῖναι.

Demosthenes also states here (καὶ ἔτι πρὸς τούτῳ) that the lawgiver enacted such provisions in order to make ‘you’ guardians of the laws (βουλόμɛνος ϕύλακας ὑμᾶς τῶν νόμων καταστῆσαι). The word ὑμᾶς in forensic speeches can refer to the judges only, or to the entire citizen body. Because he is describing how difficult it is to render verdicts according to the oath, it is clear that here ὑμᾶς refers explicitly to the judges, those among the Athenians who swore the annual Heliastic Oath. However Demosthenes in the following passage at §§ 37–8 seems to extend this claim to the people of Athens as a whole: he lists many different safeguards of the laws, claiming that none of them is in itself sufficient and concludes with: τίς οὖν μόνη ϕυλακὴ καὶ δικαία καὶ βέβαιος τῶν νόμων; ὑμɛῖς οἱ πολλοί.

In this section Demosthenes, following his claim that his audience are the real guardians of the laws, provides, as we have seen, a list of ‘insufficient’ safeguards. Demosthenes here is no longer summarizing the provisions of the law read out at § 33. He is just singling out all the mechanisms of control deployed throughout the procedure of nomothesia, to reveal their weaknesses. There is no need therefore to attribute all these mechanisms to the law at § 33.Footnote ³⁵ Two of the mechanisms discussed here have already been mentioned: the provision for publication of the bills before the monument of the Eponymous Heroes has been mentioned at § 25 and must have been contained in the law read out at § 20. The provision granting everybody the right to bring a γραϕὴ νόμον μὴ ἐπιτήδɛιον θɛῖναι is mentioned at § 32 and must have been the final provision of the law read out at § 33, and possibly the last of the provisions on nomothesia, granting a way to prosecute whoever infringes any of the rules previously stated. Demosthenes however mentions here a further safeguard: the election of sunêgoroi (τοὺς συνηγόρους, οὓς χɛιροτονɛῖτɛ).Footnote ³⁶ He does not give many details about their role, and simply points out that they might be ineffective, since somebody could convince them to stay silent. We can assume however that such sunêgoroi must have been elected to speak in defence of the opposing laws that would have been repealed before the enactment of a new one. There is in fact no need for elected sunêgoroi speaking for the new law, since the proposer himself would have argued his case in person. Such a function is consistent with the role of the four sundikoi elected (ᾕρηνται) to assist Leptines in defending his law (Dem. 20.146, 152, 153), whatever the differences between the two cases and the two procedures followed.Footnote ³⁷ At what point of the procedure were they appointed? Schöll more than one century ago correctly pointed out that the election in Athens was used only when experts were needed, and this must be the case here.Footnote ³⁸ In our reconstruction such an observation carries even greater weight, since, as we have seen, the preliminary vote opened the doors to any proposal, and it was impossible before the ‘third Assembly’ to know what laws had been proposed, and what opposing laws had therefore to be repealed. Electing the sunêgoroi at any point before the ‘third Assembly’ would have been pointless, since it would not have been possible to select experts on the laws to be repealed. Moreover, the very mechanism of the publicity in front of the monument of the Eponymous Heroes in order to let the Athenians make up their minds seems to be explicitly established in order to have, at the ‘third Assembly’, candidates for the election of the sunêgoroi. To sum up, the election of the sunêgoroi is likely to have happened at the ‘third Assembly’, together with the appointment of the nomothetai. A provision about this was certainly contained in the legislation on nomothesia, but it is impossible to tell whether it was part of the section read out at §§ 20–3, or the section read out at § 33.

At this point our reconstruction of the Athenian nomothesia based on the Against Timocrates seems to be consistent in itself and with the epigraphical material. We need now to check it against the other Demosthenic speech written for a γραϕὴ νόμον μὴ ἐπιτήδɛιον θɛῖναι: the Against Leptines.Footnote ³⁹ I will concentrate on the summary of the legislation on nomothesia (§§ 93–4) provided immediately after the grammateus read out the relevant law. That is the place where Demosthenes is more likely to give a faithful picture of the law(s) about nomothesia.

At § 93 the speaker starts his account claiming that it is clear to anyone who has listened to the text of the law how excellent are Solon's provisions for the enactment of new laws (ὃν τρόπον … ὁ Σόλων τοὺς νόμους ὡς καλῶς κɛλɛύɛι τιθέναι). This is consistent with Dem. 24.18 (πɛρὶ τῶν μɛλλόντων τɛθήσɛσθαι νόμων) and 24 (πότɛρον ɛἰσοιστέος ἐστὶ νόμος καινός): the topic of the statute is the enactment of new laws. Demosthenes also states that opposing laws must be repealed when enacting a new law.Footnote ⁴⁰ This provision is recalled at Dem. 24.32 and 34 as the main topic of the law read out at § 33. The reasons given for this provision, mainly to avoid confusion for the judges, are consistent in both speeches. Demosthenes then (§ 94) turns to stages of the procedure prior to those just listed (καὶ πρὸ τούτων) and recalls that the proposals must be first published before the Eponymous Heroes, as we know from Dem. 24.25 and 37. He then adds that the bills must be read ‘often’ in the Assembly by the grammateus (καὶ τῷ γραμματɛῖ παραδοῦναι, τοῦτον δ’ ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις ἀναγιγνώσκɛιν, ἵν’ ἕκαστος ὑμῶν ἀκούσας πολλάκις). This rule is not found in the Against Timocrates, but is confirmed by Din. 1.42 and supplies a further detail about the procedure.

It is easy to see that this short account is coherent with the reconstruction we have drawn from the Against Timocrates. The two accounts are consistent with each other to provide the following rules: 1) a preliminary vote in the Assembly, at any point of the year, had to be held in order to allow new laws to be proposed (Dem. 24.25); 2) the new proposals had to be posted in front of the monument of the Eponymous Heroes (Dem. 24.25; 20.94); 3) the bills had to be read out by the grammateus in each Assembly until the appointment of the nomothetai, to allow everyone to make up their mind (Dem. 20.94); 4) in the third Assembly after the preliminary vote, on the basis of the bills presented, the people had to discuss the appointment of the nomothetai and pass a decree of appointment (Dem. 24.25; 20.92); 5) presumably in the same context expert sunêgoroi were elected to defend those laws whose repeal was necessary for enacting the new laws (Dem. 24.36; 20.146); 6) opposing laws had to be repealed before enacting new laws (Dem. 24.32, 34–5; Dem. 20.93); 7) if the proposer of a new law failed to abide by any of these provisions, anyone could bring him to trial through a γραϕὴ νόμον μὴ ἐπιτήδɛιον θɛῖναι (Dem. 24.32).

III.1. THE DOCUMENT AT DEM. 24.20–3

I shall now examine the two laws on nomothesia inserted in the speech Against Timocrates. The first law is found at §§ 20–3. Stichometric calculations have shown that this document cannot have been part of the Urexemplar of the speech. Its text is however abundantly commented on in the scholia, which shows that the document was present in copies of the speech circulating in late antiquity.Footnote ⁴¹

ΕΠΙΧΕΙΡΟΤΟΝΙΑ ΝΟΜΩΝ.

There are major differences between the document and Demosthenes’ accounts in this speech and in the Against Leptines. 1) The procedure described by Demosthenes is one for enacting new laws, whereas the document provides for an annual vote of approval of the entire ‘code’ of laws and for the rejection of some. 2) Demosthenes describes a preliminary vote to allow new proposals (plural) to be made whereas the document describes a vote of approval for the existing laws section by section. 3) The document sets this vote of approval in the 11th day of the first prytany of every year and provides, in case some laws are not approved, for the appointment of the nomothetai following a discussion in ‘the last of the three Assemblies’. Demosthenes, on the other hand, supported by the epigraphical evidence, shows that the nomothetai could be appointed at any point of the year. 4) The document provides for the election of five sunêgoroi in the same Assembly on the 11th of the first prytany. Demosthenes, on the other hand, implies that they were appointed later after the proposals for new laws were presented. A closer analysis of the features of the document confirms that it cannot be an authentic Athenian statute.

1) The expression ‘after the herald says the prayers’ (ἐπɛιδὰν ɛὔξηται ὁ κῆρυξ) to indicate that a matter must be the first item on the agenda of an Assembly meeting is unparalleled in Athenian inscriptions. The customary expression, in Athens and elsewhere, was μɛτὰ τὰ ἱɛρά (‘after the sacrifices’).Footnote ⁴³

2) In the document we find the phrase ἐπιχɛιροτονίαν ποιɛῖν τῶν νόμων. The verb ποιɛῖν is in the active, but there is no subject for it. The subject here should be the proedroi or the people. Even if we assume that the subject is understood, the expression is nevertheless unparalleled. In Athenian inscriptions the proedroi put to the vote (ἐπιψηφίζɛιν), they never ποιɛῖν χɛιροτονίαν (or words derived from the same root), it is always the δῆμος (or the βουλή) that (ἐπι- or δια-) votes by show of hands (χɛιροτονῆσαι).Footnote ⁴⁴ In literary sources the verb used with χɛιροτονίαν (or derivatives) is invariably δίδωμι.Footnote ⁴⁵ It is easy to see where a later forger could find such an expression: at § 25 Demosthenes writes καὶ πρῶτον μὲν ἐϕ’ ὑμῖν ἐποίησαν διαχɛιροτονίαν. However, the subject of ἐποίησαν is there οἱ νόμοι, specifically those about nomothesia. The expression means ‘and first the laws set a vote among you (in the Assembly)’, and in this sense is perfectly normal. The forger took it from this context and misunderstood it.

3) The document describes the procedure for ἐπιχɛιροτονία and orders the confirmation πρῶτον μὲν πɛρὶ τῶν βουλɛυτικῶν, δɛύτɛρον δὲ τῶν κοινῶν, ɛἶτα οἳ κɛῖνται τοῖς ἐννέα ἄρχουσιν, ɛἶτα τῶν ἄλλων ἀρχῶν. Scholars have seen in these categories the organization of the Athenian ‘code’ of laws. Laws would have been grouped in these broad categories, in the Stoa Basileios or in the archives, according to the official responsible for them.Footnote ⁴⁶ The second part of the Ath. Pol. would be based on the actual arrangement of the laws of Athens, and would confirm the content of the document.Footnote ⁴⁷ MacDowell has also, accordingly, argued that if the laws were arranged according to the officials in charge of them, then the category τῶν κοινῶν cannot refer to laws common to all citizens, but must refer to laws common to all the officials.

This is not the place to discuss the hypothesis of a ‘code’ of laws arranged by the names of the competent officials. I shall limit myself to pointing out a few difficulties in the text of the document. First, the grammar of the clause does not work: the clause ἐπιχɛιροτονίαν ποιɛῖν τῶν νόμων requires a genitive of the categories, and πɛρὶ τῶν βουλɛυτικῶν (‘make a vote of confirmation about the laws about the bouleutic [sc. laws]’) as it stands does not make any sense.Footnote ⁴⁸ Moreover τῶν ἄλλων ἀρχῶν as it stands recalls the ἐπιχɛιροτονία τῶν ἀρχῶν, a procedure that has nothing to do with an approval of the Athenian ‘code of laws’, and is, unlike this procedure, well attested (cf. Ath. Pol. 43.4, 61.2 and 61.4 and [Dem.] 58.27). Schöll, in order to save the provision, proposes that τῶν ἀρχῶν is haplography for τῶν τῶν ἀρχῶν.

A second difficulty is in the next sentence (ἡ δὲ χɛιροτονία ἔστω ἡ προτέρα, ὅτῳ δοκοῦσιν ἀρκɛῖν οἱ νόμοι οἱ βουλɛυτικοί, ἡ δ’ ὑστέρα, ὅτῳ μὴ δοκοῦσιν· ɛἶτα τῶν κοινῶν κατὰ ταὐτά). The document spells out the procedure of approval, but stops with the ‘common laws’ and does not say anything about the last two categories. Their absence from the description of the actual procedure points to an interpretation of the last categories not as subdivisions of the ‘code’ of laws, but rather as an actual ἐπιχɛιροτονία of the officials, which has nothing to do with the legislation on nomothesia.Footnote ⁴⁹

The third difficulty is that later in the document we read that ἐὰν δέ τινɛς τῶν νόμων τῶν κɛιμένων ἀποχɛιροτονηθῶσι (‘if some existing laws are rejected’), a later Assembly must discuss the appointment of the nomothetai πɛρὶ τῶν ἀποχɛιροτονηθέντων. This passage refers to actual laws rejected in the annual vote of approval, but the document provides only for approval of macro-sections of the ‘code’. When and how ‘were some of the existing laws rejected’ (τινɛς τῶν νόμων τῶν κɛιμένων ἀποχɛιροτονηθῶσι)? One might argue that the Athenians voted on every single law section by section, but this would have taken far longer than one meeting of the Assembly. A further, general difficulty in accepting a vote kapitelweise is that we never find in our sources, either literary or epigraphic, any mention of such categories. If these categories were listed and spelt out every year in the Assembly, we would expect the Athenians to be generally aware of them, and the orators to refer to them in order to make the statutes mentioned easily recognized. Instead, we find νόμους τɛλωνικούς (Dem. 24.101), ϕονικοὺς νόμους (Dem. 23.51), a μɛταλλικὸν νόμον (Dem. 37.35), ἐμπορικοὺς νόμους (Dem. 35.3), πɛρὶ διαθηκῶν νόμους (Hyp. 3.17), a πɛρὶ τῆς κακηγορίας νόμον (Isoc. 20.3), a πɛρὶ τῆς ἀργίας νόμον (Dem. 57.32), but never a single mention of any of the categories found in the document.Footnote ⁵⁰

4) The next clause in the document, τὴν δ’ ἐπιχɛιροτονίαν ɛἶναι τῶν νόμων κατὰ τοὺς νόμους τοὺς κɛιμένους, is otiose. The document purports to report the statute about the ἐπιχɛιροτονία τῶν νόμων, and it lays down the procedure for approval. Thus there is no point in providing that the vote of approval is given κατὰ τοὺς νόμους τοὺς κɛιμένους: either there were no pre-existing laws on the topic, or the new procedure overrode them. The rule therefore makes no sense.Footnote ⁵¹

5) The next sentence provides that in case any of the laws is rejected, the prytaneis must schedule the discussion of the rejected laws τὴν τɛλɛυταίαν τῶν τριῶν ἐκκλησιῶν. Such an expression (or similar) is unparalleled in Athenian inscriptions and has troubled many scholars. Its meaning seems to be clear: it specifies a total of three Assemblies that were held, presumably, every prytany, and prescribes that discussion on the rejected laws must be scheduled for the third of these meetings in the first prytany. Ath. Pol. 43.3, however, clearly states: οἱ δὲ πρυτανɛύοντɛς … συνάγουσιν … τὸν δὲ δῆμον τɛτράκις τῆς πρυτανɛίας ἑκάστης. Hansen and MitchelFootnote ⁵² have proposed that the system of four meetings of the Assembly every prytany must be dated later than this speech, as late as about 350 b.c.e., and previously, in accordance with the document, there were only three meetings per prytany. Demosthenes (24.25) however states that the discussion about the appointment of the nomothetai must be held τὴν τρίτην … ἐκκλησίαν. SchöllFootnote ⁵³ rightly noted that in Athenian inscriptions ɛἰς τὴν πρώτην ἐκκλησίαν always refers to the following Assembly (e.g. IG II² 103, line 14) and therefore τὴν τρίτην … ἐκκλησίαν must refer to the third Assembly after the first one. This would confirm the figure of four Assemblies per prytany provided by the pseudo-Aristotelian Constitution of the Athenians.

Hansen tries to refute Schöll's argument by pointing out that the Greeks usually counted inclusively, and the fact that τὴν πρώτην ἐκκλησίαν means ‘the following Assembly’ does not prove that τὴν δɛυτέραν ἐκκλησίαν means ‘the second Assembly’ after the original one. I doubt whether such an ambiguity would have been acceptable in official language: if Hansen is right, ideally it would have been possible to refer to the ‘following Assembly’ both with τὴν πρώτην ἐκκλησίαν and τὴν δɛυτέραν ἐκκλησίαν, and this second expression would have meant both ‘the following Assembly’ and ‘the second Assembly’ after the original one. No evidence supports this implausible hypothesis. Moreover at Dem. 20.94 we read that the bills had to be read many times (πολλάκις) in the Assembly. One could not call one meeting of the Assembly, or even two, ‘many times’. It would require at least three meetings. Moreover Din. 1.42 states that Demosthenes μɛτέγραϕɛ καὶ μɛτɛσκɛύαζɛ τὸν νόμον (his trierarchic law) καθ᾽ ἑκάστην ἐκκλησίαν. Again, I find it hard to believe that ἑκάστην ἐκκλησίαν can refer to one, or even two (it would have been ἑκατέραν) meetings of the Assembly. Hansen counters this argument claiming that in the first case the procedure was probably a different one, and in the second the number of Assemblies per prytany had already been changed. This begs the question. Demosthenes’ wording clearly points to ‘the third Assembly’ after the original one. The document is clearly in disagreement with the orator. Schöll tried to solve this difficulty by hypothesizing that τὴν τɛλɛυταίαν τῶν τριῶν ἐκκλησιῶν might mean ‘the last of the three (remaining) Assemblies’. But this interpretation strains the Greek and is less satisfactory than the straightforward reading of the phrase.

However an alternative solution exists. If we look at the scholia to this passage (Σ Dem. 24.20 Dilts) we read κατὰ μῆνα τρɛῖς ἐκκλησίας ἐποιοῦντο, and then a list of typical days for Assemblies that is confirmed by the epigraphical evidence.Footnote ⁵⁴ This piece of information is found also in Σ Dem. 18.73, 19.123, 154 Dilts, Σ Aesch. 1.60, 3.24 Schultz, Σ Ar. Ach. 19, Phot. s.v. κυρία ἐκκλησία. All these texts are likely to derive from an independent source which was, as the wide spread of attestations show, well known from at least the second century a.d. (Harpocration, s.v. σύγκλητος ἐκκλησία provides the terminus ante quem). A later forger, independently aware of this piece of information and faced with τὴν τρίτην … ἐκκλησίαν in Demosthenes’ account might easily have concluded that the orator was referring to the third Assembly of the month. Yet this is not what Demosthenes says. He states that the discussion about the appointment of the nomothetai is to take place at the third meeting of the Assembly after the initial vote to allow new legislation, no sooner, no later.

6) The date at the beginning of the document is given according to the bouleutic calendar, whereas at the end we find ‘on the eleventh of the month Hekatombaion’, which follows the festival calendar. However in the fourth century we never find in inscriptions the date expressed according to the festival calendar before 341/0.Footnote ⁵⁵ This law, if authentic, would have been enacted at the end of the fifth or at the beginning of the fourth century. The speech itself dates from the 350s. The presence of a date expressed according to the festival calendar is unacceptable.Footnote ⁵⁶

7) There follows a long section about the penalties for prytaneis, proedroi and thesmothetai who do not perform their duties. Afterwards the document requires that copies of the proposals be placed before the monument of the Eponymous Heroes, in order to allow the people to assess the time needed by the nomothetai and appoint them accordingly. The last provision deals with the election (αἱρɛῖσθαι) of advocates of the laws to be repealed (τοὺς συναπολογησομένους τοῖς νόμοις). We have seen above that the rationale for the election of advocates of the laws would require them to be chosen when the laws to be repealed are known, that is ‘in the third Assembly’. One could not know what opposing laws (if any) were to be repealed until after the proposals for new laws were made at subsequent meetings of the Assembly.Footnote ⁵⁷ In the document they are nevertheless appointed τῇ ἑνδɛκάτῃ τοῦ ἑκατομβαιῶνος μηνός. Schöll, in order to solve this problem, has proposed to athetize the indication of the date. Such an emendation is not acceptable unless the document's authenticity can be independently confirmed.

8) Demosthenes at § 36 calls the advocates of a law συνηγόρους. At Dem. 20.146 he calls them σύνδικοι. Both these terms are attested in contemporary Athenian inscriptions.Footnote ⁵⁸ Instead, the participle συναπολογησομένους or any other form of the verb συναπολογέομαι are unattested in Attic inscriptions. The two words employed by Demosthenes are technical terms, yet the participle in the document, where we should expect official language, is not.Footnote ⁵⁹

To sum up. The person who composed the document at Dem. 24.20–23 was a skilful forger, one who knew the Attic orators and possibly had access to a lexicon or commentary. Whatever he knew, the document is not consistent with Demosthenes’ accounts in Against Leptines and Against Timocrates and contains features which find no parallel in contemporary documents or betray the composer's misinterpretation of his sources.

III.2. THE DOCUMENT AT DEM. 24.33

The stichometry shows that this document was also not present in the Urexemplar of the speech.Footnote ⁶⁰ The scholia provide comments on the document, which show that it was present in manuscripts circulating in late antiquity.

ΝΟΜΟΣ.

Demosthenes, both in his adjacent summary (§§ 32–5) and in his summary of the law about nomothesia in the Against Leptines (Dem. 20.93–4), clearly states that the statute supposed to be read here by the grammateus ordered that those who proposed new laws according to the procedure previously described had to propose the repeal of any contradictory law. If they failed to do so, they were liable to a γραϕὴ νόμον μὴ ἐπιτήδɛιον θɛῖναι. This document instead provides a procedure for repealing existing laws to which Demosthenes never refers, and orders that those who repeal a law have to propose a new law in its place. This reverses the order of the procedure's steps in Demosthenes’ paraphrase. If the law proposed to replace the existing law contradicted existing statutes, the repeal of those laws had to be proposed too. This procedure has nothing to do with the straightforward provisions summarized by Demosthenes.

The document is moreover inconsistent in itself, and some of its features reveal that it cannot be a genuine document.

1) The document contradicts itself: in its first sentence it states that ‘it is prohibited to repeal any existing law except at a session of nomothetai’,Footnote ⁶² but in its last sentence it provides a different way to do it, through a γραϕὴ νόμον μὴ ἐπιτήδɛιον θɛῖναι, which had to be heard by judges, not nomothetai. That a γραϕὴ νόμον μὴ ἐπιτήδɛιον θɛῖναι, if successful, resulted in the repeal of the law enacted by the defendant is witnessed by the very existence of the speeches Against Timocrates and Against Leptines. In fact, we know that the charge brought by Apsephion was successful and resulted in the repeal of Leptines’ law.Footnote ⁶³ Both cases were heard by judges, not by a panel of nomothetai.Footnote ⁶⁴

2) The sentence ‘the chairmen shall take a vote by showing of hands about those laws’ (διαχɛιροτονίαν δὲ ποιɛῖν τοὺς προέδρους πɛρὶ τούτων τῶν νόμων) is unparalleled. In all our sources the proedroi always give (διδόναι) a διαχɛιροτονίαν. This expression derives, again, from § 25 (καὶ πρῶτον μὲν ἐϕ’ ὑμῖν ἐποίησαν διαχɛιροτονίαν: ‘and first the laws set a vote among you’) where, however, the subject was the laws on nomothesia.

3) At § 32 Demosthenes states that the law about to be read by the grammateus, in case someone enacts a law in contrast with existing statutes, γράϕɛσθαι κɛλɛύɛι. This expression means that the law permits anyone to bring a public action and lays down the procedure for it.Footnote ⁶⁵ The document on the other hand does not lay down any procedure, but states that if one enacts a law in contrast with existing statutes and does not repeal them, the γραϕαί ‘shall be lodged against him according to the existing law regarding the proposer of an unsuitable law’. Instead of describing the proper procedure, the document refers to a further law: τὸν νόμον ὃς κɛῖται ἐάν τις μὴ ἐπιτήδɛιον θῇ νόμον.

To sum up, the provisions described in this document are quite inconsistent with Demosthenes’ accounts of nomothesia in the Against Leptines and Against Timocrates. They are also contradictory, and one phrase finds no parallel in contemporary inscriptions. Moreover there is no reason to believe that the additional information found in the inserted document that is not found in the accompanying summary derives from an independent source and is reliable. The disagreements between the document and the orator's account can be more likely explained as due to clumsy composition from the orator's words.