Our knowledge of Athenian decrees of the classical period has advanced considerably over the past decade. Especially notable have been studies by S. Lambert (Inscribed Athenian Laws and Decrees 352/1–322/1 bc. Epigraphical Essays [2012]; Inscribed Athenian Laws and Decrees in the Age of Demosthenes. Historical Essays [2017]) and M. Canevaro (The Documents in the Attic Orators: Laws and Decrees in the Public Speeches of the Demosthenic Corpus [2013]). Along with the new third edition of Inscriptiones Graecae vol. 2/3 (of which Lambert has edited Part 1, Fascicle 2), these works have put the study of Athenian decrees, particularly those that survive epigraphically, on sounder footing. L. has now delivered his own blockbuster catalogue and analysis of all the decrees mentioned in the literary evidence, down to the dissolution of the Athenian democracy by order of Antipater after the Lamian War. Rich in insight, up-to-date bibliography and theoretical sophistication, this contribution provides new quantitative evidence sufficient to alter our conception of fourth-century decrees as well as much argumentative food for thought for future discussions.
The long first volume collects 245 decrees, some dated with certainty and others floating, that can definitely be ascribed to a decision of the Athenian assembly (Inventory A, in two chronological segments, 403/2–353/2 and 352/1–322/1) as well as 90 actions that probably entailed decrees of the assembly (Inventory B). The extremely useful Table 1 compares the subject matter of this literary evidence with that of the epigraphical material. It is a truism that the great majority of inscribed decrees from Greek antiquity are honorific in nature, and that is indeed the case for the period in question at Athens (69.2%). What is striking is the diverse range of topics of the decrees attested in the literary sources, a majority of which deal with non-honorific matters (64.1%): the proportions are almost exactly reversed. Notwithstanding the incomplete nature of our evidence, this figure lends support to the position, defended among others by Lambert (Inscribed Athenian Laws and Decrees in the Age of Demosthenes, Chapter 2), that not all Athenian decrees were inscribed on stone. One can only speculate that this may have also been the case with other poleis for which literary evidence is lacking, but whose epigraphic corpora give the (perhaps misleading) impression that they did little else other than honour benefactors.
Each entry in Inventory A of Volume 1 provides a section on the literary context of the text quoted, testimon(ies) for the decree in question (in facing-page Greek and English translation), a commentary, a note on the date and a bibliography. If the proposer of the decree is known, his PA and PAA numbers are noted, as is his appearance in J.K. Davies's Athenian Propertied Families where applicable. It is not surprising that a majority of the decrees fall into the later period (352/1–322/1), when the texts of Demosthenes, Aeschines and their contemporaries furnish so much evidence. More striking is the sheer number of decrees emanating from 403/2 alone (19 or so), although it makes sense that the Athenians felt there was much that needed to be done after the oligarchic interlude of the Thirty. L.'s commentaries are admirably current in their bibliography and judiciously argued. He tends to follow the arguments of Canevaro and E.M. Harris (CQ 62 [2012], 98–129) where there is a possibility that documents cited in the texts of the Attic orators are later forgeries. Thus, for example, the decree of Demophantos protecting the democracy, supposedly given at And. 1.96–8, is dated by L. to 403/2 or later rather than immediately after the regime of the Four Hundred. Given that many rhetores proposed more than one of the decrees listed in the Inventory (and in Volume 2, Appendix 1, L. helpfully adds to their lists of decrees any known epigraphic examples), there are good discussions herein of the careers and policies of many leading politicians, including Archinos, Aristophon, Hegesippos and Kallistratos, in addition to the better known Demosthenes. New evidence has come to light that could be added to L.'s findings: a copy of an Athenian decree preserved in a Hellenistic inscription from Iasos (SEG 51.1506) shows that the proposer of a fragmentary Attic decree (IG II2 3) was one Teisamenos (see further SEG 51.67); this is likely the proposer of L.'s decree D7. (I have argued for the identification of the Teisamenos from the Iasian decree with the individual known from Lys. 30.28 in TAPA 150 [2020], 1–38; on the Iasian decree, see further below.) It is impossible to do justice here to the huge number of topics and scholarly debates ably covered by L. in Volume 1; the commentaries display a true mastery of the material. One thing that struck me as the volume progressed was the interplay between decree language, decrees as monuments, and the (sometimes earthy) physical treatment of decrees and monuments. Thus we read that the statue group decreed for Chabrias featured the figures in a physical pose that was meant as an insult to the enemy (D46); that Hypereides parodied a decree of Demades and suggested it be set up at a refuse heap rather than in a temple (D177); that the Athenians supposedly poured urine over a statue voted for Philip of Macedon (D180); and that Polyeuktos mockingly imagined a bronze statue of Demades which revealed his treachery and that the statues of Demades were melted into chamber pots (D187; cf. V. Azoulay, Annales HSS 64 [2009], 303–40, not cited by L.). Translations from the Greek are in general flawless and very readable, but note that at T13 in D130 Demosthenes is incorrectly made the agent in the decision to pull down a stele, instead of the demos (translated correctly at T3 of D159).
Volume 2 presents a series of studies on Athenian decree-making as an institution and, indeed, as a kind of ‘culture’. There are three primary theoretical perspectives adopted: the sociologist P. Bourdieu's notion of ‘symbolic capital’; the ‘New Institutionalism’ in the social sciences and in particular the branch known as ‘Historical Institutionalism’; and the concept of collective memory. Of these the last two provide the most explanatory power in what follows: the Historical Institutionalist concept of ‘path-dependence’ explains how and why political actors’ approaches to decree-making were circumscribed within traditional institutional parameters, and the idea of collective memory illuminates how the mass Athenian public conceptualised decrees (usually not as written documents consulted in the archive but as things bruited about informally, through social networks). (I note that L.'s attribution to B. Steinbock of the position that there was a ‘monolithic group mind’ in Athens [p. 9] is somewhat misleading; in his book, Steinbock is concerned precisely with avoiding the suggestion of a reified group mind.) Bourdieu's notion of symbolic capital figures rather more sparsely – or at least, it remained somewhat unclear to me in what contexts politicians converted the symbolic capital inherent in decree-passing into further political gains. It was nevertheless obvious that proposing and carrying decrees was part of an incredibly competitive milieu.
Chapter 1 explores the authority of Athenian decrees, particularly in the context of the fourth century and the decline of Athenian hegemony. L. sees Athens’ chastened circumstances as one reason for the heightened prominence of decrees as well as for the novel tactic of honouring fellow Athenian citizens. Chapter 2 focuses on the relationship of decrees to the political self-interest of individual actors: while high-profile rhetores clearly viewed the decree as a way to advance their careers and prominence, knowledge of decree-formulation was accessible enough so that non-elite individuals might reasonably hope to pass decrees themselves. Chapter 3 looks at the local reception of decrees within Athens. L. deftly utilises Theophrastus’ Characters to show that knowledge of the content of decrees could be widespread. At the same time, a very useful comparison of the literary mentions of decrees with their extant inscribed counterparts (Table 2) shows that orators were only in rare circumstances concerned with decrees qua physical monuments. If the precise language of past decrees was consulted, it was probably in the archives, not by autopsy of an inscribed stele. A further comparison of the subject matter of literarily and epigraphically attested decrees leads to the conclusion that religious matters feature relatively infrequently (in fewer than 5% of decrees) and that the bulk of the assembly's energy was taken up with foreign policy. Although L. does not mention it, this finding deserves to be considered in discussions of the religious aspects of Athenian citizenship, which have been highlighted recently by J. Blok, among others (Citizenship in Classical Athens [2017]).
Chapter 4 considers audiences beyond Athens. Decrees as inscribed physical objects might serve as symbols of power for pro-Athenian partisans in other Greek poleis, which might then be treated well or ill according to local attitudes (as is revealed by the inscription RO 39, from Iulis on Keos, in which anti-Athenian partisans knocked over existing Athenian stelai). While L. covers most of the relevant cases, we have already seen the curious instance of the family from Iasos that retained a poorly preserved copy of a fourth-century Athenian decree down to the Hellenistic period (SEG 51.1506); this is an important new example of an Athenian decree doing political and ideological ‘work’ beyond Athens and beyond the Classical period. A further omission is the Samian decree IG XII 6 42, issued sometime shortly after the Lamian War, but concerning an Athenian decree of 323 bce moved by one Aristophon. The decree ordered that the ‘general who had been elected by the Athenians for Samos was to arrest those of the Samians who had returned from exile from Anaia, along with their children, and send them to Athens’ (lines 4–7; this is the Samian decree's version of events, not necessarily the exact language of Aristophon's proposal). This is an interesting case of an Athenian decree being quoted or paraphrased without editorial comment, but presumably as a means of highlighting the harshness of the rogator's position. The explicit mention of Aristophon's name can hardly be a matter of respecting bureaucratic record-keeping, but probably represents instead a ‘memory sanction’ against him on the part of the Samian community. This is in keeping with L.'s observation that ‘[a]mong some communities … news of Athenian decrees might have been treated with … outright hostility’ (p. 186). Chapter 5 studies representations of Athenian decrees in literary genres, including historiography, biography, tragedy and comedy (note, in addition to the other Middle Comic fragments cited by L., Alexis, frr. 130–1, on a ‘law’ [nomos] introduced by Aristonikos about fish prices, probably a comic invention). An excellent discussion of references, down to Lucian, shows how closely Athens was associated with the production of decrees. A Conclusion summarises findings, Appendix 1 lists known proposers in alphabetical order (Demosthenes predominates), and Appendix 2 documents forged decrees.
L.'s two-volume study is a major achievement regarding decrees of the Athenian democracy within the chronological boundaries set by the author. Limits must always be drawn somewhere, but the endpoint of 322/1 bce should not be taken as an indication of the cessation of Athenian democratic decree-making in the fourth century, since many decrees were passed under the restored democracies of 319/18 and 307/6 (and, one should note, by the intervening oligarchic regimes). It is left to future studies to connect L.'s findings with the evidence from the Hellenistic Athenian democracy, with which there is considerable continuity from the late classical period (see, e.g., J. Miller, ‘Euergetism, Agonism, and Democracy: The Hortatory Intention in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic Athenian Honorific Decrees’, Hesperia 85 [2016], 385–435, the Hellenistic evidence of which is briefly noted by L. at Vol. 2, p. 127 n. 64). One can and should compare decree practices of other cities, too (see now F.R. Forster, Die Polis im Wandel. Ehrendekrete für eigene Bürger im Kontext der hellenistischen Polisgesellschaft [2018]). But these are merely further suggestions to the interested reader, not criticisms of L.'s considerable accomplishment. It is an exciting time to be working on the decrees of the Greek city-states, in no small part due to the contribution reviewed here.
