AgoraXVI 333 Assembly decree accepting the revision of laws by the Council of the Areopagos

Assembly decree accepting the revision of laws by the Council of the Areopagos

Agora XVI 333 Date: Early 1st cent. BC

[For the good fortune of the Council and the People of the Athenians. In the archonship of] [ . . . in the - prytany of - for which - son of Demetrios] of Ana- [was secretary . . . ] twenty-sixth [day of the prytany.^[1] Assembly in . . . ] (5)having been transferred from . . . .^[2] [Of the presiding committee], Neon son of Dorotheos of - [was putting to the vote and his fellow members of the presiding committee. The People decided]. Demeas son of Demeas of . . . proposed. [Since the People of the Athenians? ] in a democracy (dēmokratiai) . . . [of the magistrates chosen] by lot (klērōi) and by [election (cheirotoniai)?^[3] . . . ] (10)and giving thanks . . . and the allotted (klērōtas) (magistracies) . . . and some, through bad practices . . . the pre-selected public advocates (sunēgorous) . . . ^[4] from which it happens that they have achieved a common and . . . , (15)being well-disposed (eunous) in the same way about . . . it is allowed to all Athenians already to give consideration to the things written in [the laws?. For good fortune, the People shall decide] that what has been provisionally or previously legislated (pronenomothetēmena) [ . . . by the Council of] the Areopagos shall be valid (kuria),^[5] . . . (20)but it shall be allowed for the other Athenians . . . [to participate in] the allotted magistracies, [and anyone who attempts], in any way, to undo (kataluein) . . . [shall be deprived of his civic rights (atimon)] and accursed (eparaton), and for whoever . . . is an allotted [magistracy . . . ]^[6] (25) . . . . . .

Previous - Agora XVI 332A Next - Agora XVI 335

References:

Agora XVI 333 (Translated text) (PHI)

SEG 26.120

SEG 30.80

Roman Attica Project, Normative Texts no. 4 (RAP)

Translation by: Chris de Lisle

Images: Agora Excavations - (1)
Ohio - (1)

Monument type: Stele

Inscription type: Decree (People)

Fr. a - Findspot: Agora (Ag. I 2351)
Fr. b - Findspot: Agora (Ag. I 1619)

Transliterations on Places on

[1] Textual note: AIO follows the text of Agora XVI, but excludes conjectural supplements in ll. 8-9, 12, 14, 18-20, originally proposed by J. H. Oliver (SEG 30.80 = JHS 100, 1980, 199-201). In l. 7, we follow Habicht, Athens, 320 and the Athenian Onomasticon in omitting the demotic Ἀζηνιεὺς, originally proposed by D. Geagan (SEG 26.120 = Hesp. 40, 1971, 101-108) and already queried in Agora XVI.

This fragmentary Assembly decree accepts a revision by the Areopagos Council of the law on the appointment of magistrates. The decree refers to the Athenian government as a democracy in l. 8, there are several democratic features and formulae, and the decree is passed by the People in an Assembly (see n. 3), but other aspects, notably the central role of the Areopagos Council in the process appear oligarchic and foreshadow the government of Athens in the Imperial period (see n. 5). It has thus proven difficult to assign this decree to a particular historical context. Letter forms and formulae suggest a date in the first half of the first century BC (Woodhead in Agora XVI), so this decree has tended to be linked to the period of turmoil and rapid regime change from 91 to 86 BC, when a single eponymous archon was in office for three years (91/0-89/8 BC), Athens joined the First Mithridatic War against Rome in 88/7 BC, and was sacked by Sulla in 86 BC (Habicht, Athens, 297-314; R. Kallet-Marx, Hegemony to Empire, 1995, 205-20). D. Geagan associates this decree with an oligarchic and pro-Roman regime established after 86 BC (SEG 26.120), on which see I Rhamnous 423 with notes. E. Badian, J. H. Oliver, and I. B. Antela-Bernárdez connect the decree with the regime of Athenion, which led Athens into the Mithridatic War in 88/7 BC, which they suggest might have been democratic (Badian, AJAH 1, 1976, 115-17; Oliver = SEG 30.80; Antela-Bernárdez, ZPE 171, 2009, 105-8). Athenion was a peripatetic philosopher and Oliver cites echoes of the peripatetics Aristotle and Theophrastos in ll. 13 and 18-20 as evidence for linking the text with him, but all of these echoes are restorations. The situation is very uncertain and a date before 88 BC cannot be excluded (Habicht, Athens, 317-321). It is not clear whether the decree was part of a larger constitutional overhaul, nor how much the law on selection of magistrates was changed by this decree. Regardless, it exemplifies key trends in Athenian politics in the late Hellenistic and early Imperial periods: the continued power of democratic ideas and language (see n. 3), and the increased prominence of the Areopagos (see n. 5). [2] In the Hellenistic period, meetings of the Assembly took place at the Theatre of Dionysos, the theatre in Piraeus, and other venues. Transferring meetings to a different venue was common. Cf. IG II² 1039, W. A. McDonald, Political Meeting Places of the Greeks (1943), 47-61; and see now G. Tozzi, Assemblee politiche e spazio teatrale ad Atene (2016) (= SEG 67.17). [3] In the Hellenistic period, ‘democracy’ (demokratia), 'the sovereignty of the People' was a flexible term, which could be used by both democratic and oligarchic regimes (see M. Canevaro and B. D. Gray, Hellenistic Reception of Classical Athenian Democracy, 2018). Most of the surviving decree deals with the appointment of magistrates by sortition (ll. 10, 20). This was a key feature of the Classical Athenian democracy; election was considered oligarchic (Aristot. Pol. 1294b7; M. H. Hansen, Athenian Democracy in the age of Demosthenes 1991, 229-37). The reference to allotted and elected magistrates here (if correctly restored) suggests that this decree charted a moderate path, safeguarding sortition for some magistracies while allowing election for others. In fact, some magistrates, notably the generals, had always been elected (Habicht, Athens, 326). [4] In Classical Athens, advocates (synegoroi) were orators who spoke in court on behalf of another individual or institution. Public advocates were selected to ‘defend’ the existing laws during the process of nomothesia (Dem. 24.36, more often called syndikoi; L. Rubinstein, Litigation and Cooperation, 2000, 41-45) and also to assist in auditing outgoing magistrates (euthynai, Ath. Pol. 54.2; P. J. Rhodes, Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia, 2020, 597). It is probably the nomothesia that is referred to here, since in l. 18 indicates that one had taken place, but it is possible that the reference to “bad practices” in l. 12 indicates that we are dealing with audits. [5] The Council of the Areopagos consisted of former archons, king archons, polemarchs, and court presidents (thesmothetai). In the Classical period, it judged capital trials and had a vaguely defined duty to “protect the laws” (cf. RO 79), but it played no role in the process for making and revising laws (nomothesia), on which see RO 25. In the Roman Imperial period, it was seen as the Athenian analogue of the Roman Senate (Cic. De Off. 1.75). At that time, decrees of the Council and People were passed to the Areopagos which would pass a memorandum (hypomnematismos) confirming or revising the decree (e.g. IG IV.1² 82-84; AIUK 4.3A, no. 10; SEG 30.82). Decisions of the Areopagos were sometimes passed to the Council and Assembly (e.g. IG II² 1069), but it is unclear whether the Council and Assembly could confirm or revise the Areopagos' decisions (cf. Geagan, Athenian Constitution after Sulla, 32-36). This collaborative process is presumably behind the many honorific monuments awarded by "the Council of the Areopagos and the Council of the 600 and the People," which first occurs in the mid-first century BC (IG II² 4111 of ca. 50-45 BC and IG II² 4106 of ca. 40 BC or ca. 15 AD) and becomes the most common honorific formula from the first century AD. However, all three bodies erected honorific monuments independently. In the first century BC most honorific monuments are attributed to the People and/or the Council (IG II² 4113 of 42-40 BC is the only example of honours from the Areopagos alone before the reign of Augustus). The rise of the Areopagos might have been a consequence of revisions to Athenian laws following the Sullan sack, but there are hints that its prominence was already increasing in the late second century BC (cf. the role given to it in SEG 66.125, ll. 59-60, from ca. 120 BC). By the mid-40s BC, Cicero could cite "the Athenian state is ruled by the Council... of the Areopagos" as a commonplace (Cicero Nat. Deor. 2.74) and when the apostle Paul's proselytising attracted attention in AD 50, he was brought before the Areopagos to explain himself and his teachings (Acts 17.16-34). [6] Ll. 19-21 appear to state the principle that all Athenians are eligible for magistracies except for some specifically barred group, while ll. 21-24 protects something by prescribing disenfranchisement (atimia) and cursed status for anyone who dissolves it. Oliver suggests that the barred group are those convicted of crimes and that the protected thing is the selection of magistrates by sortition (SEG 30.80).

Added: 12 Dec 2022
Updated: 26 Oct 2023
Feedback

ID: AIO_2397