NOMOS AND

THE BEGINNINGS OF
THE ATHENIAN
DEMOCRACY

OXFORD
AT THE CLARENDON PRESS
1969
 GLASGOW I'\EW YORK TORONTO MELBOUR~E WELLINGTOX

CAPE TOWN SALISBURY IBADAN NAIROBI LUSAKA ADDIS ABABA

BOMBAY CALCUTTA MADRAS KARACHI LAHORE DACCA

KUALA LUMPUR SI~GAPORE HONG KONG TOKYO

PRINTED IX GREAT BHITAIX

AT THE UNIVERSITY PUESS, OXFORD

BY VIVIAN RIDLEH.

PH.INTER TO THE UNIVERSITY

 might almost be described as accidental that this has become

I
T

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 Univer-
sity and now of the University of Munich, I had long been inter-
ested 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 un-
written, the first and most important step seemed to be to subject
vOfLoS to an exhaustive and systematic analysis of all its connota-
tions, 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 re-
garded 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 sur-
prised to discover that BWfLo, and vOfLoS do not overlap chrono-
logically 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
 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 occur-
rence 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 re-
sponsibility 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 OSTWALD
Swarthmore College
and the University of Pennsylvania
August 1968
 PART I

BWf-Loc; and NOf-LoC;

I. BWf-LOC;

2. NOf-LoC;

3. Summary and Conclusion

PART II

NOf-LoC;becomes 'Statute'
1. The Problem Defined 57
2. Evvof-L{a, L1vavof-L{a, and }4vof-L{a 62

3. ' Iaovof-L{a and Athens 96

PART III

Nomos and the Beginnings of the Athenian Democracy

I. ' Iaovof-L{a, Cleisthenes, and NOf-LoC; I37

2. The Originality of Cleisthenes 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. A. Andrewes, 'Eunomia', CQ32 (1938) 89-102.
Bowra, GLP C. M. Bowra, Greek Lyric Poetryt (Oxford, 1961).
Brunnsiiker S. Brunnsiiker, The Tyrant Slayers of Kritios and
Nesiotes (Lund, 1955).
G. Busolt and H. Swoboda, Griechische Staatskunde,
2 vols. (Munich, 1920 and 1926).
Buck, GD C. D. Buck, The Greek Dialects (Chicago, 1955).
Busolt, GG 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).
-GS -- The Greek State (Oxford, 1960).
-- Ison. -- RE, supp!. 7 (1940) 293-301, s.v. 'Isonomia'.
-aD -- 'Origins of Democracy', Historia 1 (1950)
515-48.
-- 'Das Harmodioslied', Wiener Studien 69 (1956)
57-69.
H. Frisk, Griechisches etymologisches Worterbuch
(Heidelberg, 1960- ).
Gigante, NB M. Gigante, Nomos Basileus (Naples, 1956).
Gomme, HCT 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).
Heinimann, NP F. Heinimann, Nomos und Physis (Basel, 1945).
Hignett, HAC C. Hignett, A History of the Athenian Constitution to
the End of the Fifth Century B.C. (Oxford, 1952).
R. Hirzel, "'Aypa1Jo<; N6/Lo<;", Abh. d. philol.-hist. Cl.
d. Kgl. Sachs. Ges. d. Wiss. 20. I (Leipzig, 1900).
-- Themis, Dike und Verwandtes (Leipzig, 1907).
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

F. Jacoby, Atthis: The Local Chronicles of Ancient

Athens (Oxford, 1949).
W. Jaeger, 'Solons Eunomie', Sber. d. Preuss. Ak. d.
Wiss. Philos.-hist. Kl. (Berlin, 1926) 69-85.
L. H. Jeffery, The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece
(Oxford, 1961).
G. S. Kirk, Heraclitus: The Cosmic Fragments (Cam- }4ypaepo/ OE vOfko/ TUS apxus J.t~ xpija()at J.tl)OE 71'EPLEVOs. if;~epwJ.ta OE
bridge, 1954). J.tl)OEv J.t~TE {3ovAijs J.t~TE O~J.tov voJ.tov KVPLWTEPOV E[vaL. This law,
G. S. Kirk andJ. E. Raven, The Presocratic Philoso- cited by Andocides in his speech On the Mysteries, not only set the
phers (Cambridge, 1957).
seal on the revised law code adopted by the restored democracy at
E. Laroche, Histoire de la racine NEM- en grec ancien Athens in 403/2 B.C.,! but marks also the conclusion of a curious
(Paris, 1949).
development in Athenian political terminology. From the end of
J. A. O. Larsen, 'Cleisthenes and the Development
?f th~ !heory of Democracy at Athens', Essays
the fifth century on, the primary connotation of v0J.t0s in legal as
1n Polztzcal Theory Presented to G. H. Sabine (Ithaca, well as in non-legal literature and documents is that of 'statute' ;
N.Y., 1948) 1-16. it signifies a-usually written-enactment which had either
J. H. Lipsius, Das attische Recht und Rechtsverfahren been embodied in the law code at the time of its completion in
3 vols. (1.eipzig, 1905-15). ' 403/2 B.C. or had been incorporated into it additionally through
R. Meiggs and A. Andrewes (edd.), Sources for the cumbersome procedure of V0J.t0()wLa.2 This does not mean of
Greek History between the Persian and Peloponnesian
course that voJ.tos, especially outside the orators, ceased hence-
Wars, collated and arranged by G. F. HilI
(Oxford, 1951). forth to carry the several non-legal meanings which had attached
PMG D. L. Page, Poetae Melici Graeci (Oxford, 1962). to it before;3 but it does mean that the law intended to deprive
Podlecki A. J. Podlecki, 'The Political Significance of the of legal validity any voJ.tos which was not written and, we may
Athenian "Tyrannicide" -Cult', Historia 15 (1966) assume, officially published in an authoritative manner.4
129-41.
H. J. Rose, A Commentary on the Surviving Plays of I Andoc. I. 87, cr. also 85, and Dem. 24. 30. For the date see D. MacDowell,
Aeschylus, 2 vols. (Amsterdam, 1957-8). Andokides: On the Mysteries 197.
2 For this procedure in the fourth century see Dem. 24. 20-3 with R. Scholl,
E. Schwyzer, Dialectorum Graecarum exempla epi-
'Ueber attische Gesetzgebung', Sber. d. philos.-philol. Cl. d. k. bay. Ak. d. Wiss.
graphica potiora (Leipzig, 1923). Miinehen 1886,83-139;]. H. Lipsius, Berliner philologisehe Woehensehrift 37 (1917)
F. Solmsen, Hesiod and Aeschylus (Ithaca, N.Y., 902-12; BS 2. 1010-14; U. Kahrstedt, 'Untersuchungen zu athenischen Behorden',
1949)· Klio 31 (1938) 1-25; and F. Wotke in RE, supp!' 7 (1940), S.v. NOfJoo8ETa"578-81.
H. E. Stier, "N6fkoS BaazAEVs", Philologus83 (1928) Hignett's view, HAC 300, that the Teisamenus decree in Andoc. I. 83-4 is the first
instance of this procedure, has to be modified in the light of the objections raised by
225-58.
A. R. W. Harrison, 'Law-making at Athens at the End of the Fifth Century B.C.',
M. N. Tod, A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions, ]HS 75 (1955) 33-5, and by MacDowell, op. cit. 123.
2 vols. (Oxford, 19462 and 1948). 3 In some examples taken at random from Plato VOfJoOS denotes (a) a conven-
Vlastos, Ison. G. Vlastos, AJP 74 (1953) 337-66.
'Isonomia', tionallinguistic usage (Crat. 384 d 7,388 d 12, Tim. 60 e 2); (b) a customary prac-
--IP -- '''Iaovofk{a71'OAtTlK.ry", in J. Mau and E. G. tice (Symp. 182 a 7, Laws 7. 795 a I); (e) a conventional belief (Corg. 482 e 6, Laws
10.889 e 6, 890 d 4,6,904 a 9); (d) a norm of individual behaviour (Rep. 9. 587
Schmidt ;edd.), Isonomia: Studien zur Gleichheits-
c 2, 10.604 a 10, b 6,9,607 a 7, Polito 291 e 2, Laws 2. 674 b 7,8.835 e 5,836 e 4);
vorstellung im griechischen Denken (Berlin, 1964) 1-35. (e) a religious practice (Phaedo 58 b 5, Phaedr. 256 d 7); (f) a condition oflaw-and-
H. T. Wade-Gery, Essays in Greek History (Oxford, order (Rep. 9. 587 a 10, Laws 6. 780 d 5, 10. 904 c 9).
1958). 4 Andoc. I. 86 and 89 show that aypaqJOSis here the opposite not of YEypafJofJoEvOS

U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Aristoteles und but of Q.vayEypafJofJoEvos.

No proof is required to show that vOfJoOS refers primarily to
Athen, 2 vols. (Berlin, 1893). written statutes in the orators. For usage in the inscriptions see Tod, CHI 2,
Nos. 100.6, 116.21, 162. 15, [36], 181. 25, 200. 217,246. But laws governing inter-
state relations, especially those involving religious sanctions, were presumably
814277 B

There is evidence that the distinction between vOfloS and
ifi~~tafla, which the law of 403/2 B.C. tried to establish, although
it had broken down in practice by the middle of the fourth
century, remained valid in Greek legal thought. I In the fifth
century, however, there seems to have been little difference ,
theoretically or practically, between these two terms either in
form, content, or legal validity.2 In order to have legal authority,
all that mattered in fifth-century Athenian democracy was that
a measure had been passed by a majority vote of the Council
or the Assembly or of both and that no successfulaction had been
~rought against it in court under the ypa~~ 7Tapavoflwv,3 and
SInceall Athenian VOflOt as well as ifi7)~taflaTa, with the exception
of Solon's laws, were enacted in this manner, ifi~~wfla seems to be
merely a procedural term, derived from the fact that the measure
was approved by voting (ifi1)~{~€tv),4 while vOfloS describes the
same measure substantively as a statute.s
Still, even though we cannot determine any difference between
vOflOS and ifi~~wfla in the fifth century as far as form, content, and
nei,ther ~ritten nor published; e.g. Tod, GHI2, No. 137. 13-14, where the Aetolian
Tnchomans are accused of having arrested the U1TOVSOepOPOtof the Greater Eleusinian
Mysteries 1Tapa Tavs v6J.LoUS T[OVS' KOl.V]ovs TWV rEAA~vwv.
'Dem. 20. 92, delivered in 355 B.C., denies any difference between the two,
whereas the distinction is maintained by Arist. EN 5. 10, I I 37b28-9, and Pol. 4. 4,
1292a36-7· .On thi~ point see the remarks of Harrison, op. cit. 26-35, esp. 27.
2 The eVIdence IS best assembled and discussed by]. Schreiner, De corpore iuris
Atheni~n;ium 16., Cf. als? ~ilamowitz, AA 2. 1.93, and Kahrstedt, op. cit. 17-18.
B. Ked s ~ssertlOn, Grzechlsche Staatsaltertiimer In Gercke-Norden, Einleitung in die
AltertumswIssenschaft 32• 381, approved by BS 1. 459 with n. 2, that 'das Unter-
scheidende ist eben nicht der Inhalt, sondern die Form', applies to the fourth
century rather than to the fifth.
3 The introdu~tory. formula for most enactments, ESOtEV 'Tfj f30UAfj Ka1 'Tip S~fL'I',
suggests that r~tIficatlOn by both Council and Assembly was normally required.
But the SalamIS decree (IG 12• 1. I), the Hecatompedon inscription (IG 12• 3. 16
and 4·26), and perhaps also Xen. Mem. 1. 2.42 show that sometimes ratification
by the SfjfLos alone, and [Xen.] Ath. Pol. 3. 2 that occasionally approval by the
f3ouA~ alone, was sufficient. The date of the introduction of the ypaep-Tj 1TapavofLwv is
not .known; t~e earliest attested case was brought in 415 B.C. by Andocides' father
agaInst SpeuSIppuS (Andoc. I. 17) ; Antiphon's speech against the general Demos-
thenes ma~ have been a little earlier, but cannot be dated on the basis of [Plut.]
Life of Anttphon 20 (= Mar. 833 d). See Hignett, HAC 210-13.
4 Although the voting procedure in fifth-century Athens no longer involved the
castIng of a pebble (.pfjepos) but took place by a show of hands ; see BS 2. 1000 with
n·3·
.5 Cf. K~hrstedt, op. cit. 17-18, esp. 18; 'Vor 403 bedeutet Psephisma iiberhaupt
k~me bestlmmte Art von BeschluB, sondern den Modus procedendi bei der
Schaffung von Nomoi.'
INTRODUCTION 3
legal validity are concerned, it is nevertheless as true for the fifth
century as it is for the fourth that vOfloS enjoyed the greater
prestige, probably because it was regarded as the more per-
manent regulation of the two. Thus, while the nature of Solon's
office and the manner in which his legislation was enacted
explains why later authors referred to his laws as VOflOt but never
as ifi1)~{aflaTa, it is remarkable that the laws of Cleisthenes, which
were doubtless validated by the vote of the Athenian Assembly
and may well have taken the form of ¢rfJ~{aflaTa, are also in-
variably called VOflOt, never ifi7)~taflaTa.I
The fact that the law cited by Andocides affirms a higher status
for VOftas than for ifi~~tafla would in itself not be remarkable,
were it not for the circumstance that statutes had not always been
called vOflOt in Athens. Draco and Solon, to whom the earliest
written lerrislation in Athens is attributed (Arist. Ath. Pol. 41. 2,
,'"
7. I), referred to their enactments not as VOflOt but as BWlwt.
For Draco himself, we have only one text, the re-publication in
409/8 B.C. of some of his laws on homicide, which refers to itself
as a BWfloS;z but BWfLOS is so well and so widely attested in later
descriptions of his legislation that there can be no doubt that it
was the only technical term he used for his statutes.3 In the case of
Solon, we know that at least one of the laws on the axones re-
ferred to itself as BWflos, 4 and that in his poems he calls his
enactments BWfw{ but never VOflOt.s Moreover, it is likely that
the oath exacted from the nine archons, which is placed into
the context of Solon's reforms by both Aristotle and Plutarch,
I Tbat Cleisthenes' legislation was submitted to the Assembl): and presumably
also to the Council is implied in Hdt. 5.66. 2,69.2, as well as Anst. Ath. Pol. 20. I,
4,21. 1-2. That it took the form of.p1J<P{UfL(J.'Ta is forcefully argued by Wade-Gery,
Essays 135-54, esp. 139-47. 2 See below, p. 5 n. I.
3 Arist. Ath. Pol. regularly uses I)wfLo{ of Draco's legislation (see 4. I, 7. I); the
decree of Teisamcnus of 403 B.C. (Andoc. 1. 83, cr. 81) speaks of the vO/-,Ot of Solon
but of Draco's I)w/-,o{; and as late as the third century A.D. Porphyry, De abstinentia 4.
°
22, could speak of a Draconian I)EU/-,OS.
• Plut. Solon 19. 4: O'TE I)w/-,os .epav1J oS•.
5 Solon, frg. 24. 18-20: I)((J/-'OVS ... Eypa.pa; cr. also the two lines cited by Plut.
Solon 3. 5: I)w/-,ois 'TOiuS. 'TUX~V a.yal)~v Ka1 KDSos o7T<iuuat.- The reading of frg. 24.
15-16: Kpa'TEL I vO/-,ou f3{1JV'T' Ka1 S{K1JV uuvap/-,ouas, which is based on the London
papyrus of Arist. Ath. Pol. 12. 4, is less satisfactory than that based on the Berlin
papyrus, which reads o/-,oD in place of VOfLOU.The reading o/-'oD is also supported by
the quotation of these lines in Plut. Solon 15, and in Aelius Aristeides 28.138 (Keil).
As has been rightly stressed by Ehrenberg, Eun. 82, the choice is not of a lectio
difficilior. The decisive arguments against vO/-,ou are its inappropriateness in the
context of Solon's seisachtheia and the fact that it does not carry the sense of either
4 INTRODUCTION
included a promise to abide by the 8wp.,ot.l Finally, a fragment of
Cratinus' Nomoi (frg. 127), which is believed to have been spoken
by Solon, confirms that 8wp.,oswas the Solonian expression for
'statute', and, according to Aristotle (Ath. Pol. 35. 2), it was from
Solon's 8wp.,ot that the Thirty removed ambiguities.
After Solon, it is probable that 8wp.,osremained the technical
term for 'statute' at least throughout the tyranny, if we may draw
this conclusion from Herodotus' assertion (I. 59. 6) that Peisis-
tratus did not change the 8EUp.,W of Athens, and from the pre-
script of a regulation dating from the time of the expulsion of
the Peisistratids, in which the old Draconian legislation against
tyranny is described as 8EUp.,W Ka~ 7fUTpW.2 Thereafter it is only
in the archaic (or at least arehaizing) language of the ephebic
oath3 and oflocal religious ritual4 and in the elevated language of
poetry, where we do not expect to find strict legal terminology,
that 8wp.,osretains its Solonian meaning after the end of the
sixth century.s The evidence points, accordingly, to 511/10 B.C.,
the year in which the Peisistratids were expelled, as the latest
current use of 8wp.,os--or, more correctly, its derivative 8EUp.,LOV-
in the sense of 'statute'.
'law' or 'norm' elsewhere in Solon; see Ehrenberg, Eun. 82-4-, and A. Masaracchia,
Solone 34-7-9, where also the most important modern discussions are cited.
I Plut. Solon 25. 3: W/-,VVEV ... 18lws I)' EKauTos n;,v OW/-,OOET(;JV EV ayopq 7TPOS T0
)"{8<.p KaTarPaT{~wv EL 71- 7Tupaf3a{YJ TWV 8EGp.fiJV, avoplcLvTU xpvaouv laoftETpYJTov ava8~-
UftV EV .d.€Aq;ofs; cf. Arist. Ath. Pol. 7. I: CL 8' fVV€U apxovTES O/-LVVVTES 7Tpas 70 'Al84J
KaTErpaTL{ov dvae~a£Lv Uvopu.lvru XPVGoiJv, Jav Twa 7Tapa{3wr:JL TWV VOJLwv. 'The use in
both passages of KaTac/JaTl'w (according to LSJ, not attested elsewhere in Greek
literature) suggests a common source. Plut.'s independence and more faithful
adherence to the original formula is indicated by two details missing in Arist. but
corroborated by P!. Phaedr. 235 d: (a) the statue is to be life-size, and (b) it is to be
set up at Delphi. On the use of Ow/wl in the formula see also F. Jacoby, FCH 3b,
supp!' I (1954-)312, who suggests that Plut.'s 'Ow/-,oOETaL instead of apxovTES is rather
a mannerism than a mistake'.
2 Arist. Ath. Pol. 16. ro, with my article in TAPA 86 (1955) 106~9, esp. ro8-9.
3 Tod, CHI 2, No. 204-. 12, with Stob. Flor. 4-. I. 48, and Pollux 8. ro6, as col-
lated by W. Hofmann, De iurandi apud Atheniensesformulis 28-38.
4 B. D. Meritt, Hesperia 36 (1967) 72-84- (No. 15), publishes a 'new inscription of
[TOS apxalos] Ow[/-,o,] ... undertaken after a period of war and desolation when
much that was sacred had been destroyed by the enemy' (84), which he believes
contains a deme-decree of Mclite replacing some of the stones destroyed by the
Persians at the Therrikleion, the shrine of the phratry of the Therrikleidai. If he is
correct, the original regulation may well date back to the sixth century or earlier.
But the fragmentary state of the inscription invites caution.
S e.g. Aesch. Eum. 484-, 571,615, 68l ; Soph. Aj. 1104, Ant. 801, Trach. 682; Eur.
Med. 494-, Tro. 267, frg. 360. 45; Ar. Av. 33 I; and the epigram on the dead of
Phyle cited hy Aeschines 3. 190.
This does not mean, of course, that 8wp.,oswas no longer
applied to the legislation of Draco and Solon after the end of the
sixth century. But it is interesting to note that the older term
was used for antiquarian and not for substantive reasons. This is
proved by the fact that simultaneously with 8wp.,os the new ~erm
for 'statute', vop.,oc;, is also applied to Draco's and Solon:s le?lsla-
tion. A striking example of this appears in the re-publIcatIOn of
Draco's law on homicide, to which reference was made above.
For while the Draconian law speaks of itself as a 8wp.,os,the decree
authorizing its re-publication, which precedes it, refers to it as
a VOp.,OS.1 Similarly, Andocides and Aristotle use 8wp.,os and vop.,os
indifferently when they speak of Draco's laws,2 although most
fourth-century authors speak of them only as VOp.,OL.3The same is
true of the terminology applied to Solon's laws. Aristotle spe~ks
in his own person only of VOp.,OLwhen he dis~usses the S~l?man
reforms in Ath. Pol. 7-12; but when he descnbes the reVlSlonof
the laws by the Thirty, he differentiates between the VOp.,OL of
Ephialtes and Archestratus and the 8wp.,ol of Solon (Ath. Pol.
35.2). The decree ofTeisamenus, on the other hand, confines the
old term 8wp.,osto Draco but uses VOp.,OLofSolo~'s ~tat~tes (Ando~.
I. 83), and from the mid fifth century on It IS vop.,os that IS
normally used of the Solonian laws.4
We shall postpone until later a discussion of when vop.,os first
came to occupy the place which had been reserved for 8wp.,os
until at least 511/10 B.C., and content ourselves for the moment
with the observation that vop.,oc; was well established as the only
current technical legal term for 'statute' by the time the law cited
by Andocides was enacted in 403/2 B.C. What our discussion so
far has shown is that at some point between these two dates the
technical term for 'statute' in Athens changed from 8€up.,os to
vop.,os and that the two terms exclude one another: before the
I For the law, IC 12• II5 (= Tod, CHI I" No. 87) 19-20: [Kat hot 7TpO]T€[P]?V
ICTE[v]a[vTES EV T]0[,8E TO' Ow/-,o, EVEXEcrOOV .(restoration~ ~uaranteed ,by the, lex m
[Dem.] 43. 57). For the introductory enablmg decree, Ibid. ~-5.: [T]O[V] L1paKovToS
v0J.'OV TO/-, 7TEP<TO c/J[Ov]o. See also Jacoby, Atthis 30~ n. ?4·Similarly I?em. 23·62
quotes an ancient statute (without, however, nammg Its author) whIch refers to
itself as a Om/-,o,> while Dem. himself calls it a vO/-,OS.
2 Andoc. 1. 8; and I. 83 OEu/-,ol, but I. 82 vO/-,OL. Arist. Ath. Pol. 4· I and 7·1
O€u/-,os, but 41. 2 and Pol. 2. 12, 1274b15-16 vO/-,os.
3 e.g. Xen. Gecon. 14.4; Dem. 20. 158,23. 51; Xenarchus, frg. 4·?2. ,
4 First in Hdt. I. 29. For a summary of ancient references to Soloman vo/-,o, see
W. Aly, RE, s.v. 'Solon', 958-70.

expulsion of the Peisistratids no VOfLOt were enacted in Athens,
and there were no new 8wfLo{ after at least the end of the fifth
century. The fact that this change in terminology occurred has
often been noticed, but its significance has not yet received the
I them we shall be able to discover the basic concept underlymg
attention it deserves, and the problems which it raises have, to
the best of my knowledge, never been recognized.
The first and most fundamental problem may be formulated:
why did the change take place at all? In Greek, as in English,
the terminology applied to social and political institutions tends
in general to be conservative. Expressions once adopted usually
survive the vicissitudes of changing historical situations and con-
tinue to be applied even when the original term no longer pro-
vides an accurate or modern description of the institution which
it identifies, and often the incumbents of an office are no longer
aware why their office or why an institution accompanying it
bears the name that it does. This is in our times true in the
United States of the Department of 'State', for example, which
acttttlly handles foreign affairs, and in Great Britain of the
'Chancellor of the Exchequer', the 'First Sea Lord', and many
other offices and institutions. In Athens, the office of 8WfL08ETYJS
survived long after 8eufL6s had fallen into disuse as a political
term, and a (3aatAeDS was annually elected long after kingship
had ceased to exist as a constitutional form. Moreover, the
vaVKpapOt seem to have lost their original association with ships
already in Solon's time,2 and it is very doubtful whether the
KWAaKpETat of the fifth century B.C. remembered the functions of
the officialswho bore this title originally.3 One would expect this
kind of conservatism also to extend to the technical term for
'statute'. Accordingly, the fact that in Athens a change from
8WfLoS to vOfLoS took place is a sufficiently striking phenomenon to
infer that it reflects a deeper change in Athenian thinking about
the nature of law and the attitude of the Athenians toward their
laws. For since language is the image of thought, a significant
change in terminology is likely to reflect an important change in
thinking.
In attempting to assess the significance of this change, we are
1 See especially Hirzel, AN 49 and TD V 358, :3 73-8; Ehrenberg, Rechtsidee I 13-
14; and Heinimann, NP 72 with n. 42.
2 Arist. Ath. Pol. 8. 3, with H. Hommel, RE, s.v. 'Naukraria', 1938-46. Cf. also
F. Wiist, Historia 6 (1957), 176-8, and Ehrenberg, CS 30-1.
3 BS 1. 589 and Frisk, CEW, S.v. KwAaKpl"Ta,.
INTRODUCTION 7
helped methodologically by the fact that 'statute' is not the ~nly
connotation of 8WfL6s and V6fLOS. Both terms have a great vanety
of uses, and by ascertaining what they are and by classi£y~ng
each term in its own right and, consequently, determine the
differences between them. This means that our first task is to
examine every occurrence of 8WfL6s and v6fLoS in Greek lite~ary
and epigraphic documents with a view to establishing the v~nous
categories in which each term is used. In doing so ther? WIll be
no need to take into consideration the whole of Greek lIterature
and all Greek inscriptions; for since the law cited by Andocides
shows that by 403/2 B.C. v6fLos was firmly entrenched as .the
authoritative legal term for 'statute' in Athens, it will be suf?Cl~nt
to examine all occurrences of 8WfL6s and v6fLoS from the begmnmg
of Greek writing to the end of the fifth century. ~or it is wi~hin
that period that the change began and reached I~SconclUSIOn.
This stage of our investigation will be ~ndertaken m. Part .1.
The results arrived at in that part WIllbe helpful m trymg to
answer a second problem posed by the fact that v6fLoS came to
supersede 8eufL6s as the official term for 'statute' in Athens. If,
for reasons still to be ascertained, the Athenians wanted a new
word to take the place of 8WfL6s in the sense of 'statute', why did
they choose V6fLOS? It cannot be argued that no word other th~n
vOfLoS was available to them either in the G~eek ~anguage ~n
general or in the Ionic dialect in particular. lomc ChIOScalled Its
statutes !)'T]Tpat in the early sixth century B.C.,I and the same te.rn~
was used not only by such Dorian states as Sparta,2 Messema,
Tarentum 4 and Heracleia,5 but also at Olympia6 and on Cyprus.7
Derived f:om the same root as MTpa is the participial form TCt
EipYJfLEva, which is attested as a term for 'statute' at Mycenae.8
1 Tod, CHI 12, No. 1. 2 ; Jeffery, LSAC, pI. 65, No. 41. A. 2, dated 575-550 B.C.
by the same author in BSA 51 (1956) 159-60. .
2 For the pfj"Tpat of Lycurgus see Pluto Lycurgus 6 and 13; Suda (= PhotIUs), S.V.
pfj"Tpat. For later Spartan pfj"Tpat see Xen. Anab: 6. 6. 28 (spoken before a Spartan
judge against a Spartan defendant) ; Pluto AgIs 5, 8, 9, I I ; and IC 5· I, 20. 2-3
(age of Trajan).
3 IC 5. I, 1498. 12 (early second century B.C.).
4 Suda (= Photius), S.v. pfj"Tpat.
5 IC 14. 645. 145-6 and 151 (late fourth century B.C.). .
6 Schwyzer, DCE, Nos. 412, 413, 414, and 409, all of the late Sixth or early
fifth century B.C.; see Jeffery, LSAC 218 and 220, Nos. 5,6,8, and 15·
7 Buck, CD, No. 23. 28-9 (second half of fifth century B.C.).
8 IC 4. 493: Ko. "To. >€ FP€flolva (early fifth century B.C.).
8 INTRODUCTION

Also available was 'TO ypuepos, which occurs side by side with
p~'Tpa in some of the sixth-century inscriptions from Olympia,
where it refers no doubt to a written law;' 'Tn ypujLjLa'Ta or some
periphrasis involving the verb ypuepw, which is the way in which
the fifth-century code ofGortyn invariably refers to itself;2 a Ci80s,
which appears in Halicarnassus about 460-455 B.C. as a term for
a regulation ratified by an assembly;3 or a alvoc;, which is attested
in a legal sense for Epidaurus and for Delphi.4 It cannot be said,
either, that the Athenians chose v6jLoC; simply because 8wjL6c; was
vanishing as the term for 'statute' in the Greek world. For we
know of TegeaS and of the Locrians6 that their term for 'statute'
was 8€ujL6c; until at least the early fifth century B.C. In other
words, it was not inevitable that v6jLoc; should have been chosen HE recognition that 'statute' is not the only sense in which
to occupy the place left vacant by the abandonment of 8wjL6c;,
for many alternative terms were current elsewhere in the Greek
world to describe a statute.
T 8WfL6c; and v6jLoC; are used in Greek constitutes a ~on:enient
point of departure for our attempt to assess the slgmficance
of the abandonment of 8WfL6c; in favour of v6fLoS. An examina-
Obviously, the question why v6jLoc; came to supersede 8WfL6c; is tion of every occurrence of each of these terms in Greek writings
closely linked with the answer to the question when the change will enable us to determine what particular associations attach
took place. Only after we have some idea of the historical to each and what basic idea, if any, underlies each. And once
circumstances that may have constituted the framework within that has been established, it will be possible to determine how
which the change took place can we venture to surmise what the O€ujL6c; and v6jLoC; are, each in its own way, related to a concept
cause may have been which gave v6jLoS its exalted position in of 'statute'.
Athens. The historical limits we have so far established-after Two methods seem to be available for the attainment of this
511/10 B.C. but before the end of the fifth century-are too goal. The first, which may be called 'etymological', is deductive
wide to be significant, and we shall have to try in Part II to in character and has, therefore, only a limited usefulness for our
narrow the gap between them as much as we can and find, if purposes. For while it may help on occasion to know that OWfL6s
possible, an event or set of events to which it can be attributed, is derived from the same root as 'T{07)fL~ = 'put', 'set', 'place',
and the nature of the event will provide the clue to the signifi- this knowledge may turn out to be a liability rather than an
cance of the terminological change. asset in contexts in which a notion of 'placing' or 'setting' is not
self-evident but depends for its presence entirely upon the in-
1 Schwyzer,DCE, Nos.410. 5,4'3.7,412.'-2,4,8. '9; cf. 'TOypaf'f'a, DCE, No. genuity of the interpreter, especially ifit should appear unrelated
424. 10-1I (mid fourth century B.C.).
•J. Kohler and E. Ziebarth, Das Stadtrecht van Cartyn: at 'Tao€ 'To.ypaf'f'U'T' Eypa'T'Tat to other usages of OWfL6c;. The etymological method is fraught
et sim., VI. '5, IX. 15-16, XI. '9-23, XII. '5-19; a Eypa-rat et sim., III. 29-30, IV. with even greater danger in the case of v6fLoS. There is universal
3', 45-6, 48, VI. 3', VII. 47-8, VIII. 10, 25-6, 29-30,35-6,40, IX. 23-4, X. agreement, as far as I know, that this noun is derived from the
44-5,46, XI. 26-7, 28-9, XII. 15-19; Ka'To. 'To. eypaf'f'Eva, III. 20, IV. 11,50-1,
XII. 22-3. same root as V€fJ-w, whose basic concept involves a 'distribution'
3 Tod, CHI I', No. 25. 19. or 'assigning' of some kind. Still, although the notion of 'dis-
4 Dittenberger, SICJ, Nos. 471. 4 and 672. '5.
tribution' does contribute to an understanding of such relatives of
5 IC 5.2, '59 A. 8; B. 20.
6 Tod, CHI I', No. 24. 46, and Buck, CD, No. 59. A. I and '4. v6fJ-0C; as the geograp h·lca I concepts 0 f VOjL7)" = pasturage,, VOfJ-0S
I

= 'pasture', 'abode', 'district', and also of their derivatives

V0fJ-€VC;= 'herdsman' and the adjective V0fJ-US = 'roaming about
 NOTE ON METHOD II

for pasture', attempts to interpret either the musical concept of

I
years earlier, it will be sufficient to limit our examination to
vop,o, = 'melody', 'tune', or the social sense of vop,o" with which every surviving occurrence of the two words down to the end of
we are concerned here, in terms of the verbal connotations have the fifth century B.C. and pass over into the fourth century and
not been very convincing.2 later periods only when a special point requires us to do so.
A more reliable guide to the basic notions underlying 8wp,o,
and vop,o, is provided by what we may call a 'semantic' method.
Its characteristic is that it proceeds inductively from the particu-
lar contexts in which each of the two terms is found, in order to
define the variety of usage of each in different areas of Greek
thought and action. Once this is done, an attempt can be made
to discover whether a common denominator exists which at
once gives a basic meaning of each term and explains how this
meaning is applied in practice in the contexts in which each term
appears. It is at this stage that etymology may shed some light on
our investigation, since the basic idea of a term is likely to reflect
its linguistic connections and ancestry.
Ideally, then, we ought to examine every occurrence of 8wp,o,
and vop,o, in all Greek literature and documents in order to
establish the full range of each term and arrive at its basic mean-
ing. However, to cover in such an inquiry all Greek writings from
Homer3 to, let us say, Galen would not only be tedious but also
unnecessary. Our purpose is to ascertain the relation in which
the sense of 'statute' stands to the other connotations of 8wp,o,
and vop,o" and since we know that vop,o, was firmly entrenched in
Athens as the proper term for 'statute' by 403/2 B.C. and that
8wp,o, had lost this meaning in Athens more than a hundred
I Frisk, GEW, S.v. V€fLW. E. Benveniste, Noms d'agent et noms d'action en indo-
curopeen 79, takes the basic idea of V€fLWto be 'partager ltgalement; faire une attribu-
tion rtguliere, conforme au rang des personnes ou aux convenances de la situation'.
However, Benveniste's definition fails to recognize that the root V€fL- never regards
the distribution from the point of view of an agent who distributes, but assumes
a distribution or assignment already made in an authoritative and generally
accepted fashion.
2 Such attempts are at least as old as PI. Laws 4. 714 a; cf. also [Archytas] in
Stob. Flor. 4. I. 138; Pluto Quaest. conv. 2. 10, 644 c; Et. Mag. S.V. V€fLW. For
modern linguistic interpretations along etymological lines see Benveniste, loco
cit.; M. Pohlenz, 'Nomos', Philologus 97 (1948) 135-42; and the works cited by
Laroche, 206 n. 2. Among historians the relation of the social sense of v6fLoS to the
verb is stressed notably by Hirzel, TDV 379 n. I, and by Ehrenberg, Rechtsidee
114-15. The limitations of the etymological method in the case ofv6fLOS are recog-
nized by Heinimann, NP 59 with nn. I and 2, and by Laroche 163, cf. also 177
and 187.
3 No precursor of either 6£UfL6sor v6fLOS has so far been found in the Linear B
tablets; see A. Morpurgo, Mycenaeae Graecitatis Lexicon 'Index Graecus'.
 NOTE ON METHOD II

for pasture', attempts to interpret either the musical concept of

I
years earlier, it will be sufficient to limit our examination to
vop,os= 'melody', 'tune', or the social sense ofvop,os,with which every surviving occurrence of the two words down to the end of
we are concerned here, in terms of the verbal connotations have the fifth century B.C. and pass over into the fourth century and
not been very convincing.2 later periods only when a special point requires us to do so.
A more reliable guide to the basic notions underlying 8wp,os
and vop,osis provided by what we may call a 'semantic' method.
Its characteristic is that it proceeds inductively from the particu-
lar contexts in which each of the two terms is found, in order to
define the variety of usage of each in different areas of Greek
thought and action. Once this is done, an attempt can be made
to discover whether a common denominator exists which at
once gives a basic meaning of each term and explains how this
meaning is applied in practice in the contexts in which each term
appears. It is at this stage that etymology may shed some light on
our investigation, since the basic idea of a term is likely to reflect
its linguistic connections and ancestry.
Ideally, then, we ought to examine every occurrence of 8wp,os
and vop,osin all Greek literature and documents in order to
establish the full range of each term and arrive at its basic mean-
ing. However, to cover in such an inquiry all Greek writings from
Homer3 to, let us say, Galen would not only be tedious but also
unnecessary. Our purpose is to ascertain the relation in which
the sense of 'statute' stands to the other connotations of 8wp,os
and vop,os,and since we know that vop,oswas firmly entrenched in
Athens as the proper term for 'statute' by 403/2 B.C. and that
8wp,os had lost this meaning in Athens more than a hundred
I Frisk, GEW, S.v. V€fLW. E. Benveniste, Noms d'agent et noms d'action en indo-
europeen 79, takes the basic idea of V€fLW to be 'partager ligalement; faire une attribu-
tion rtguliere, conforme au rang des personnes ou aux convenances de la situation'.
However, Benveniste's definition fails to recognize that the root VEfL- never regards
the distribution from the point of view of an agent who distributes, but assumes
a distribution or assignment already made in an authoritative and generally
accepted fashion.
2 Such attempts are at least as old as PI. Laws 4. 714 a; cr. also [ArchytasJ in
Stob. Flor. 4. I. 138; Pluto Quaest. conv. 2. 10, 644 c; Et. Mag. s.v. V€fLW. For
modern linguistic interpretations along etymological lines see Benveniste, loco
cit.; M. Pohlenz, 'Nomos', Philologus 97 (1948) 135-42; and the works cited by
Laroche, 206 n. 2. Among historians the relation of the social sense of v6fLoS to the
verb is stressed notably by Hirzel, TDV 379 n. I, and by Ehrenberg, Rechtsidee
1I4-I5. The limitations of the etymological method in the case of v6fLOS are recog-
nized by Heinimann, NP 59 with nn. I and 2, and by Laroche 163, cf. also 177
and 187.
3 No precursor of either BEUfL6s or v6fLoS has so far been found in the Linear B
tablets; see A. Morpurgo, Mycenaeae Graecitatis Lexicon 'Index Graecus'.

o begin with (JWfLa,. Its earliest occurrence which is at
T once its ?nly appearance in the Homeric poe~s, comes in
what ~nstophanes of Byzantium and Aristarchus regarded
as the last lme of the Odyssey;2 the marriage-bed which Odysseus
I
and Penelope resume after peace has returned to the household is
described as a.A€KTpOtO 1TuAuwv BWfLa,. Some scholars, influenced
by lat~r meamngs of BWfLo" have seen in this expression the re-
establIshment of an 'order' or of a 'relationship'.3 But, as Ehren-
berg has seen, the context demands a simpler and more concrete
interpretation; in view of t~e fact that earlier in the same pas-
sage. (23. 177-230) the 10catlOn of the bed forms a subject ofdis-
CUSSlOn between Odysseus and Penelope and crowns as it were
Penelope's recognition of her husband, BWfLo, refers 'both to th~
couch and the place at which it is situated and describes there-
fore, a thing placed in a significant location.4 A similar ~sage is
also found in Pindar, who calls the wreaths placed upon the
brow of ?Ce~ophon of Corinth an EYKWfLWV nBfLov (Ot. 13. 29),s
and agam m a fragment of Anacreon (frg. 61), where the
word seems to describe something 'stored away', a 'treasure'.
(9wfLo, may denote a thing placed in a significant location also
in that difficult passage in Euripides' Helen where Theonoe
calls the sulphurous brimstone which she is to use in fumi-
gating the air a (JEofLo, aEfLvov UllJEpO" indicating both the brim-
stone and the air it is about to fill,6 and, if Deubner is right,
I Homeric Hyr;zn 8 ('To Ares'), which has ()wfLoiat in I. 16, is generally admitted
to be ~ost-classleal; see T. W. Allen, W. R. Halliday, and E. E. Sikes (edd.), The
Hommc Hymns· 384-5.
• ad. 23·296, with schols. HMQand MV Vind. 133. The view that the Homeric
Ot[ysstry ends here has recently been supported by D. Page, The Homeric Odysstry
101-36.
3 ~o especially Hirzel, TD V 323 with n. I, and E. Weiss, Criechisches Privatrecht I.
64 With n. 106.
4 Cf. Ehrenberg, Rechtsidee 105-6. Busolt, CC 22• 173 n. 2, and W. B. Stanford
(ed.), The Ot[ysstry of Homer 2.404, do not go far enough when they interpret ()wfL6,
here merely as 'place', 'location'.
5 For the interpretation see Endnote, p. 174 below.
6 Eur. He!' 866. I reluctantly accept Murray's text ()••6v orE, u'fLvOU ()WfLoV
the same concrete sense underlies Demeter's attribute (JWfLo-
epOpO,.1
Although the other connotations of (JWfLo, are less concrete
than this, their relation to the Homeric sense is fairly transparent.
In a well-known passage in Aeschylus' Eumenides,2 (JWfLo, de-
scribes the place or position in the universe granted definitively
to the Erinyes by the gods in accordance with the decree of fate.
The term here does not designate a concrete object but a certain
status conferred by an external agency. From here it is only
a small step to the notion of (JWfLo, as the establishment of a
fundamental institution, a sense of which we find a good exam-
ple in the same play, when the Areopagus is called a (JwfLo, of
Athene for the trial of murder cases (484,615), or when in the
Supptices (1034) sexual relations are a (JWfLo, of Aphrodite.3 In the
same vein, Pindar describes as a nefLo, the institution of cele-
brating an Olympic victor in song (Ot. 7. 88), the establishment
of the Olympic Games by Heracles (Ot. 6. 69, Nem. 10.33),4 and
of the Isthmian Games by Poseidon (Ot. 13.40).
In addition to denoting the institution established, (JEO"[LO,may
also designate the pronouncement or decree which constitutes its
founding act. Thus Athene in Aeschylus' Eumenides (68 I ; cf. 57 I )
bids the people of Attica listen to the (JWfLo, by which she estab-
lishes the Council of the Areopagus as a court of law, and by
a n(JfLa, of the immortals Aegina became a pillar for strangers
from all parts of the world.s The decree which constitutes the
founding act may later become the basic instrument for the
institution which has been established by it, and thus we find
aUJfpo" fLvxwV in preference to Hermann's ingenious (hiov D.
GEfLVOV()W/LOV al()Epo,
fLVX6v, which most editors favour, including most recently A. M. Dale, Euripides:
Helen ad loc., since I can make no sense of or find any parallel to the kind of in-
ternal accusative which these editors posit for GEfLVOV()wfL6v.
I L. Deubner, Attische Feste 44~5, accepted by M. P. Nilsson, Ceschichte deT
griechischen Religion 12• 4,64 with n. 4. For a further concrete use of eWfL6, in a re-
ligious context see R. Herzog, 'Heilige Gesetze von Kos', Abh. d. preuss. Ak. d.
Wiss. Berlin. Phil.-hist. KI. 1928, No.6. 22, line 17, where it seems to mean 'place of
burial'.
2 391-3: fiLoV KAvwv 8EGfLOV I TOV P.oLpoKpavTov €K 8fWV I oo{}€vru T€A€ov.
3 For this interpretation, which makes better sense of the problematic line, see
Rose, CSPA 1. 83.
4 Cf. also Nem. I I. 27, where the Nemean Games are referred to as 7l'EVTaET"IpiIJ'
EopTflv flJpaKAEo~ reap.tOv.
~ Pi~d., 01. 8. ~5-7: TE,()fLO,OE n"
d()ava.Twv Kat T<lvO' ciA"pKEa xwpav ! 7TavToOu-
7TOLULV U1T€GTaG€ gevoLS / KLOva OaLjkOvLav.
 {)WfLO, also describing a fundamental regulation. For example,
the {)WfLol of Aigimios are binding not only for his sons and the
Doric tribes sprung from them, but also for the descendants of
Heracles through his son Hyllus (pind. Pyth. 1. 64). In this con-
text belongs perhaps also the ()€{)< T)fLo" which is found in a law
from Olympia of about 475 B.C. containing regulations con-
cerning the tenure of sacred lands by the theokolos.1 Its precise
meaning is hard to determine, but it seems to denote some kind of
title or contract, by virtue of which an owner may claim a piece
of land as his own.2 In some cases, {)WfLol of this sort are found in
the plural and are political in character, but their content is not
usually specified. The ephebic oath in Athens, for example, con-
tained a promise of obedience to 'the established {)wfLo[ and any
others which the rulers in their wisdom may establish in future', 3
Aristophanes parodies the {)wfLov, apxulov" presumably ofAthens,
in the Birds (331), and Herodotus (3.31. 3) reports that one of
the functions of the Royal Judges of Persia was to expound the
ancestral {)wfLol. If these passages have a clear political context,
there are other fundamental regulations in which the precise
force of the {)wfLol and the authority that stands behind them is
not entirely clear. The word occurs twice in successive lines in
Sophocles' Antigone (800-1). In the first of these, the yearning
which appears in a bride's eyes is described as 'sitting enthroned
in power by the side of the great {)wfLo[', presumably signifying
the fundamental laws safeguarding the institution of marriage,
and in the anapaests which follow, the chorus states that it is
carried 'outside the ()wfLo[' by the sight of Antigone proceeding
to her death. Here the allusion is perhaps to the fundamental
laws of allegiance to constituted authority, which the Old Men
are bound to support and adherence to which has prevented
them from opposing Creon's measures.4 A similar vague use can
be detected in some passages in which the neuter plural forms of
1 Schwyzer, DGE, No. 411. 3 with SEG II, No. 1178. For the dale see Jeffery,
LSAG, p. 220, No. 10.
2 Cf. D. Comparetti, ]HS 2 (1881) 365-73, csp. 368--9, and T. Rcinach, REG 16
(1903) 190-2, for this interpretation.
3 Tad, CHI 2, No. 204. 11-[4: Kat €i)'TJKo~aw TOW afL KpULVOVTWV Ep..ePpOVW'i Kat
TWV 8€UI_u»v TWV iopvp..€vwv Kat oUS" av TO AOL7TOV i8pvaWVTUt fj.LeppOVW';. For the literary
versions of this oath see above, p. 4-n. 3.
4 Jebu implies a similar interpretation in his translation 'beyond the bounds of
loyalty' and in his note ad lac.: 'i.e. like Haemon, I also am moved to rebel
against Creon's sentence, and to take Antigone's part.'
the adjective {){ufLw, occur. -When, for example, Herodotus (I.
59. 6) tells us that Peisistratus did not change the {){UfLLU of
Athens, he probably means the fundamental regulations which
formed the basis of Athenian society, including not only the laws
of Draco and Solon but also other institutions and principles, and
when Medea wonders in her argument with Jason (Eur. Med. 494)
whether the {){UfLLU binding for mankind are different now from
what they were at the time when she married, the sentiments
she voices are probably not unlike those found in a fragment
(360. 45) from Euripides' Erechtheus against thos~ W?o overthr0.w
7TuAwa {){ufLLa. Sometimes, however, the adJeCtlval form III
the implied or expressed singular may specify the content of
a fundamental regulation. Aeschylus, for example, speaks of
reverence for one's parents as written in the third place among
the {){ufLLa of Dike (Suppl. 708), and toward the end of the
Agamemnon (1564) the chorus warns Clytaemnestra of the specific
8{UfLwV that the doer must suffer.
The {)wfLO[ and 8{ufLtU discussed in the preceding paragraph
are fundamental regulations sanctioned by powers outside and
apart from the human agent who is expected to obey them. But
there are also three passages which show that {)WfLo, may denote
basic rules of propriety and good behaviour whicJ¥re sanc-
tioned by forces within the agent himself. This meaning is found,
for example, in Pindar's excuse (Nem. 4. 33) that T€{)fLo, and the
onrushing hours prevent him from telling a story in its entirety,
where T€{)fLo, evidently refers to the rule that ought to be ob-
served by the composer of epinician odes, and we encounter it again
when he tells us (Isth. 6. 20) that it is for him a T{{)fLtOV UU¢>{UTU-
TOV 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 pro-
pounds 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 Eur. Stheneboea 15 in D. L. Page, Greek Literary Papyri I. 128.
2 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 establish-
ment of a tyranny at Athens, which were revived after the ex-
pulsion 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 regula-
tions concerning the disposition of newly-acquired agricultural
lands are laid down,3 and in which their law concerning homi-
cide, 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 indi-
cating 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
I See above, p. 4 n. 2.
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
CUSSlOn.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.
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 un-
written 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
and dis- 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

,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
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 relation to T£()TJJLL supports what we find in actual usage: it is
describe (a) a physical object placed in a significant location, a thing imposed by a higher power upon those for whom the
(b) an institution or establishment, (c) the ordinance by which authority of the imposing agency makes the BWJLoi> an obligation.
such an institution is called into being, (d) the propriety inherent If we apply this to the sense of 'statute', we may conclude that
in obedience to fundamental regulations, and (e) specific statutes BEUJLOi> is a law given by a lawgiver who is thought of as standing
or regulations of a political or religious character. What all these apart from and above the persons upon whom his law is binding.
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 con-
ceived 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 con-
notations 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 some-
thing 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

vOfLoS plays a more central part in Greek life and thought
5
1N C E
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
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, Unter-
suchungen 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<at flT]pat Ka,
OlWVOL~ 1TETE7]VOLS I ea8E/-LEV d"A~"OVS', chTf~Jau 8tK'Yl EUTE. P.€T' aVTois· I dvOpcfJ'rroun 8'
EOWKE O/K1JV, ~ 7TOAAOV ap{aTTJ I Y{YV€TUL.
4 See Hirzel, TDV 366 and 368 n. 2; Stier, NB 232.
5 A similar sense of vop.os seems to be required in Theog. 66, where the Graees
and Himeros 7TlIV1'WV1'E vop.ovs Kat {fflw I<EOVa/ o.vflpomwv I<AdovaL. The passage 63-7
is difficult and has been rejected by many modern editors. But, as has been rightly
observed by Solmsen HA 42 n. 133, the lines fit well into their context. They are
retained with improved punctuation by M. L. \\'est, Hesiod: Theogony, with note
on p. 178, who also accepts van Lennep's emendation of op.ws to vop.ovs in 74·
West's 'ordinances' fits his interpretation less well than our proposed 'ways of
life'.

to decide whether or not VOfLOS is used in a musical sense; if it
is not, the poet may well be claiming knowledge of the 'ways' of
all birds. Theognis' complaint that the present rulers of Megara
exercise their leadership EKTparr/),owL VOfLOLS can in its con-
text only mean that the moral norms of human life are being
perverted by them, so that shamelessness and insolence have
\'anquished respect and justice. 1
In the fifth century, this sense of VOfLOS is found in a passage in
Sophocles' Antigone (450-2), in which Antigone tells Creon that
Zeus and Dike have not given to men the kind of VOfLOL which
would permit him to deny burial to Polyneices. In Aristophanes'
Birds (r 344-5), the Parricide asks permission to participate in
the VOfLOL of the birds;2 in Euripides, Hippolytus doubts that the
ways of the gods apply to men (Hipp. 98); the chorus of the
Supplices (377-8) appeals to Athens not to desecrate vOfLOVS
(3POTWV;3 and the Hippocratic treatise On Airs, Waters, and Places
(16 and 23, 24) speaks of the institution of kingship among the
Asiatics as VOfLOL and states that in general VOfLoS can implant
courage and endurance in the souls of dwellers in valleys where
epVULS has not done so. Further, there are a few instances in the
vOfWS-epVULS literature in which vOfLoS is treated as the order of
human life in genera1.4
A second use of vOfLoS consists in the application of the term to
somewhat narrower norms of universal validity which form part
of the general vOfLoS we have just discussed. 'When, for example,
the chorus in Aeschylus' Agamemnon (1207) asksCassandra whether
she and Apollo produced any children vOfLifJ, the addition of
vOfLifJ obviously cannot refer to a custom or a statute, but it
signifies the Old Men's assumption that in the normal order of
things the union of male and female will result in children.
Similarly, the chorus of the Choephoroe (4.00) articulates as vOfLoS
the universal norm that drops of blood spilled on the ground
Theognis 289-90, as punctuated by T. ,,y. Allen, RPh II (1937) 280-1, fol-
I cedure, i.e. the normal way in which something is done. For
lowed by J. Carriere's Bude text. For the sense see Laroche 173.
2 In the lines immediately following, the comic point consists in a shift of the use
of VOjLOS from the sense of customary practice (KU/\OY VOfL!(,€Tat TOV 1TUTfpa TOrS OpVtULV
aYX<LV Kat oaKVHV) to that, of :t~tute (~OI"OS 7T~.\a,,)s, EV_ TaLS T~V 7TE~a~ywv Kvpf3~aLV).
3 Cf. Thuc. 3. [84]. 3: attDVOl TE TOVS /(OLVOV,' 7TEpL TWV TOtDVTWV OL av!Jpw7ToL VO/-,OVS
... 7TPOKUTu),..Vnv.
e.g. Eur. frg. 920; [Hippocrates],
4 De victu I. II; and Hippias apud PI. Proto
337 c-338 b.
NOMa}; 23
demand more blood, and the chorus of Sophocles' Antigone (613-
14) the rule that there is nothing great in life that does not entail
destruction (UTY)). In Herodotus we find vOfLoS used in this sense
in his account of Miltiades. The people of the Chersonese, he
tells us (6. 38. I), offer sacrifice to him and stage horse-races and
athletic competitions in his honour OJs VOfLOS OiKWTfi. From
several passages in Thucydides we learn what is the normal order
of things in time of war. The Plataeansjustify their actions against
Thebes before the Spartans by appealing (3. 56. 2) to the vOfLoS
established for all men which permits defence against enemy
attacks, and in their rebuttal (3. 66. 2) the Thebans admit that
it is 'in accordance with some sort of VOfLOS' to kill one's opponent
in battle, but they protest that it was in violation of vOfLoS
(-rrapavofLws) to slaughter prisoners of war. 1 Most famous in
Thucydides is the VOfLoS, cynically invoked by the Athenians (5·
105. 2) against the people of Melos, namely, that both gods and
men rule whatever they have in their power.
We find vOfLoS in a similar sense in two passages in Euripides.
In the Alcestis (56-7) Death accuses Apollo of favouring the
rich, if he were to establish the norm (VOfLOS) that old people get
a richer funeral than the young, and Clytaemnestra (fA 694),
thinking that Agamemnon's grief is due to Iphigeneia's impend-
ing marriage, consoles him by saying that time and vOfLoS will
help him minimize his loss. Here the sense of VOfLOS is evidently
the fact that one's children get married, which Clytaemnestra
urges Agamemnon to accept. Finally, a fifth-century usage may
be reflected in Callicles' peculiar phrase about the l'OfLOS TijS
epVUEWS (PI. Gorg. 483 e), to which we shall return again later
(pp. 39-40, 51). For the present, it will suffice to point out that the
phrase itself is clearly intended to show that epVULS and not man-
made vOfLoS is the true norm (VOfLoS) that guides human actions.
Closely related to this is a kind of VOfLoS which describes a pro-
example, when Hesiod (Op. 388) advises the farmer that the
I Interestingly enough, the Plataean appeal to the Spartans (3. 58. 3), to spare
them because they surrendered voluntarily, is based on a different kind of vO/-,os,
which is confined to the Greeks, see below, pp. 33-4; cf. the Theban assertion (3·
67.6) that the Plataeans transgressed the vO/-,os of the Greeks in attacking without
provocation. Although verbally these VO/-,OL are confined to the Greeks, the inten-
tion of their proponents is no douht to claim a universal validity for them.
VOfLaS of the plains-and of various other kinds of country-is to
strip for sowing, for ploughing, and for harvesting, he merely
describes what is the normal and proper way of going about his
work. Aeschylus uses vOfLa' in this sense to describe the natural
and proper formulation of a prayer (Cho. 93), Pindar praises
Xenocrates of Acragas for practising horse-breeding in the way
accepted as proper by all Greeks (Isth. 2. 38) and reports that
Chiron taught]ason the vOfLa' of using drugs (Nem. 3·55), while
Sophocles calls vOfLa' a hunt which proceeds in a proper way
(Ichn. 189).
Herodotus describes the vOfLa, by which the lake-dwellers erect
their buildings (5. 16.2); and of the one thousand noble lance-
bearers who followed in the train of Xerxes carrying their spears
with the point up he says that they held their spears KUTa vOfLov,
that is, in the proper way a spear should be carried, in contrast to
others who carried them point down (7. 41. I). To indicate the
improper way of doing things Herodotus twice uses au VOfLa,:
when Peisistratus did not want to have children by the daughter
of Megacles, EfL{aYETo at au KUTa vOfLaV (I. 6I. I), and elsewhere he
reports that it is au vOfLaS for a bastard son to be king of Persia, if
there is a legitimate son (3. 2. 2).1 Also expressions such as EV
XEtpwv VOfLlp (8. 89. I) and E, XEtpwv vOfLoV (9. 48. 2) designate
a proper or normal way of acting, viz. the way one acts when
things are done with one's hands.2 Finally, in a passage of
Aristophanes' Ecclesiazusae (2 16) wool is to be dyed KUTa TOV
apxu'iav vOfLav, in the way it has been done properly from time
immemorial. 3
There is a fourth area in which vOfLaS describes what is normal,
and that is the sphere of human conduct or of conduct of the
gods judged by human standards. Here vOfLa, defines the proper
1 This is one of the many instances which shows how difficult it is to keep the
vario\ls meanings of VOfLO~ in strictly separated compartments: if Herodotus had
expressed himself here positively, saying that a Persian VOfLo~ gave legitimate
children prececlence in the succession to the throne, it would make better sense to
regard this VOfLO~ as a constitutional regulation. But the negative character of the
phrase suggests that he is thinking of the impropriety this entails in Persian eyes.
2 Cf. Laroche 196.
3 In this context belongs perhaps also Menelaus' advice about the bull who
refused to go aboard the ship, as reported by the messenger in Eur. Hel. 1561:
he urged his men to carry him on their shoulders 'EAA~VWV vOf''f and throw him
into the ship.
way of acting under given sets of circumstances or for a particular
kind of individual. When Clytaemnestra in Aeschylus' Agamemnon
(594) speaks of the cry she addressed to the gods YVVaLKE{lp vOfLlp in
jubilation over the fall of Troy, the dative shows that the oAa-
AVYfLoS is a cry normally uttered by women under this kind of
condition. In Sophocles' Ajax, vOfLa' occurs in this sense in Ajax's
wish that his son be trained in that rough kind of behaviour
which is proper to his father (548), and in his words to the chorus
that they alone have stood by him op8ip vOfLlp, that is, as is the
proper conduct expected of one's companions (350). In the
Trachiniae Deianeira requests Lichas to observe the vOfLa' proper
to a messenger and not to be a busybody (616), and Heracles
admonishes Hyllus that obedience to one's father is the best
norm of conduct (II 77) ; in the Antigone the heroine explains the
vOfLa' which made her honour her brother more than any other
relative (914), and the chorus of the Oedipus at Colonus asks
Oedipus to step down from the sacred ground and to speak
where it is vOfLo, for all to do so (168).
Herodotus uses vOfLa' in this sense only once (1. 90. 2, 4),
namely when Croesus sends to Delphi to inquire whether it is the
vOfLa' of Greek gods to deceive their benefactors. In Euripides
this meaning is found more frequently than in any other Greek
author. Medea uses it (Med. 238) to tell the chorus that, when
a woman marries, she has to adopt new standards of behaviour,
and later in the play, after she has announced her intention to
kill her children, the chorus appeals to vOfLa' (812) to dissuade
her from executing her plan. Pheres in the Alcestis (683) does not
accept it as an ancestral or Greek norm of conduct that fathers
should die for their children, and in the Cyclops (299) Odysseus
calls it a vOfLaS for mortals to receive the shipwrecked. Elsewhere
in Euripides vOfLaS describes the love which all living creatures
have for their offspring (frg. 346), the honour owed to those in
power (frg. 337), and the horsemanship and archery which the
Phrygians honour as their VOfl-OL (Tro. 1210). The gods are con-
demned for contracting incestuous unions <Lv aUOE~S VOfLaS (HF
1316), Tyndareus (Or. 503) tells Menelaus that if, instead of
killing her, Orestes had banished his mother from his house, he
would have adhered to the standards of proper behaviour (vofLa')'
in the Theseus the wish is expressed that men should have the vOfLoS
of loving only those pious people who are also self-controlled
 (frg. 388. 3), and in an unidentified play someone refuses to
accept it as vO/ws not to love his mother (frg. 1064. 1). Twice
norms of conduct are treated like statutory enactments: in the
Hippolytus Artemis explains (1328) that she could not save her
devotee from Aphrodite, because the gods have a vOfLa<; pro-
hibiting them from interfering in each other's sphere, and an
old man in the Ion tells Creusa (1047) that there is no vOfLaS to
prevent a person from ill-treating his enemies. 1 It is difficult to be
sure in these two cases whether vOfLaS describes a political enact-
ment, a meaning which will be discussed later, or a norm of
behaviour. The latter seems more likely, because, as far as the
Ion passage is concerned, Euripides knew of course that there
were statutes against offences such as murder and assault and
battery, and as regards Artemis' declaration, it is difficult to
conceive even of a Euripides as believing the gods to have the
same kind of administration of justice as men do. There are two
Euripidean passages where the opposition to personal lawlessness
(dvafL{a) suggests that vOfLaS refers to personal behaviour. In the
first of these, the chorus of the Iphigeneia at Aulis, complaining of
the absence of ai8w<; and dPET~, laments that lawless conduct is
stronger than VofLat (1095), and in the Heracles there is a similar
condemnation of a man vOfLaV 7TapEfLEvaS, dVafL{q. XaptV 8t80v<;
(778).
Finally, there belongs in this group a passage in Gorgias'
Funeral Oration (frg. 6), in which he praises the deceased for having
regarded as the most divine vOfLaS, which most serves the public
interest, to speak and be silent, to act and to refrain from act-
ing, as each occasion demands.
A further use of vOfLoS in a descriptive normative sense differs
from those we have so far discussed in that it connotes not so
much the norm itself, but the source from which it emanates, the
authority which issues and guarantees norms. The earliest pas-
sage which includes this kind of vOfLaS, in Heraclitus (frg. 114),
provides at once its clearest definition and differentiation from
other sensesof vOfLOS. The difficulties of interpreting this fragment
make it necessary to discuss it at some length. The text reads: gvv
vocp MyoVTas iuxvp{'w8at Xp~ T0 gvv0 7TavTwv,
1\
17"OlltS, /(at '" 7TOIIV tUXVpOTEpWS.
, I 'A..
TpE'f'OVTat yap" 7TaVTE<; Ott av
1 Cf. frg. IOgl for the same sentiment.
V()fLOt IJ-rTa Eva<; TOU 8E{OV' /(paTE~
yap TOUaUTOV o/(ouov d8E/..H /(OL
EtOPI(f:~ 7Tllen KaL The relation between J'o/LO<; in this
7TEPI)I{!Jf.TU.L I
fragment with the Heraclitean /..oyo<; has long been seen and need
not detain us hcre,2 but a few words ought to be said about the
relation of the dv8pW7TELOt VofLOt to the 'one the divine' by which
they are sustained. The identity of these human vO/lOt with the
vOfLo~' of the city, mentioned in the preceding sentence, is made
abundantly clear not only by the context but especially by the
yap which introduces the second sentence.3 Their all-inclusive-
ness makes it impossible to confine their meaning to any specific
customs or political regulations, which thrive in the various city-
states, and they must be taken in a wider sense as referring to the
way of life or mores of a city as a whole. That this interpretation
is correct is confirmed by Heracli tus' analogy (O/{WU7TEp) of the
vOfLoS of the city with the gvvav 7TaJ'Twv, that is, with 'what is
common to all things', and that is the LogoS.4But what concerns
us most here is the statement that these av8pw7TELOt vOfLat depend
for their sustenance u7Ta Evas TOU 8E{OV. What is meant by Evas TaU
8E{aV? Are we to take it as a neuter and translate it as 'one the
divine' and compare this use to frg. 32, where the 'one the wise
alone is willing and unwilling to be called by the name of Zeus' ?s
Or are we to regard it as masculine and supply vOfLoV from the
antecedent 7TavTE<; OL av8pw7THOt VofLOt? The decision is hard to
make and is perhaps ultimately immaterial to Heraclitus' thought
in this fragment. Yet the contrast between 7TavTES and EVos
'Those who speak with intelligenee must rely with all their strength on what is
I
common to all, as a city relies on its vo,.,.o,
and with even greater strength. For all
human vOI'-Ot are sustained by one the divine; it exerts as much power as it wishes,
it is sufficient for all and is still left over.' Translation adapted with modifications
from Kirk and Raven 213. For a different and very suggestive interpretation see
A. P. D. Mourelatos, 'Heraclitus, Fr. 114', AJP 36 (1965) 258-66, with translation
on p. 265. It is difficult, however, to accept the basic idea of 'are under the ward-
ship of', which M. sces in TpEq,OVTU<. While protection and guardianship are
certainly involved in many epic uses of TpEq,W, the notion of providing sustenance is
far too common in the epic to be njected; see Ii. 5. 70 and 555, 1r. 741; Od. 18.
130, Ig. 432, 23·325.
2 See Stier, NB 237; H. Friinkel, AJP 59 (1938) 320-I; Heinimann, NP 66;
Gigante, NB 52; Kirk, HCF 51; Kirk and Raven 214.
3 K. Reinhardt's attempt in Parmenides2 215-16 to differentiate between the
two was successfully disproved by Heinimann, NP 66, and even more decisively by
O/{WU7TEP vOfLcp Kirk, HCF 51.
, 8PW7TELOt
' 4 See Heraclitus. frg. I, with the discussions cited n. 2 above.
5 ;V TO aoepov tJ-0VVQV ,\EyEv8at OUK JotAH Kat E8E/\n Z"iJVOS ovolLa. For this transla-
tion, see Guthrie, HGP I. 425.
suggests that Heraclitus does indeed posit a divine VO/LOS on which
all human PO/lOt depend for their sustenance, that is, a vOILO"- which
is the source of human vOflm but stands sovereign above them and
is not exhausted by them. If this assumption is correct, we have
I sanctioned this monstrous marriage. Likewise, when Teiresias
here a sense of vOfLoS which we have not encountered so far. It is
not the norm itself but the fountain-head of norms, which it
issues and which are regarded as binding by those who, in the
words of f[g. 114, 'speak with intelligence'.
This usage is supported by three passages in Aeschylus. In the
Supplices (670-3) the chorus says of Zeus that he guides destiny
aright 7ToAttjJ vOfLCfJ. The precise content of the 'hoary ordinance',
as we may reluctantly translate it, is hard to ascertain;2 is it an
ordinance that stands even above Zeus, is the construction in fact
a dative of cause, which we ought to translate 'by virtue of
a hoary ordinance', or are we to take it as a dative of means and
translate 'with hoary ordinance', that is, with an ordinance that
is binding on and accepted by men? The latter seems to be the
preferable alternative in view of the fact that there is no evidence
in the Supplices of an order higher than that of the gods, and the
expression here, whatever its sense, places destiny firmly in the
hands of Zeus. But in either case we are again dealing with
vOfLoS as the general source of norms or actions. Further, in the
complaint of the Erinyes in the Eumenides (778-9 = 808-g) : lw
e"€Ot V€WT€pot, 7TaI\UWVS
\" VOfLOVS / KU e t7T7TUUUU
' e'€ KUK X€PWV~ EtI\EU
"\ 8E'
fLOV, the old VOfLOt which the younger gods have ridden down and
wrested from the hands of the Erinyes can only be the authority
which formerly empowered them to wreak vengeance on a homi-
cide. The third passage, also from the Eumenides (17 I ), has the
Erinyes accuse Apollo of honouring Orestes, a mortal, 7TUPa. vOfLoV
e€Wv. Although it is possible to interpret the passage as meaning
'beyond what is customary or lawful for gods to do' or 'what is
proper conduct for a god', there may well be overtones of a
general norm which is thought of as standing above the gods.3 In
I Kirk, HCF 51-5.
2 Rose, CSP 4 I. 59, translates: 'Zeus ... who according to hoary custom main-
tains equity.' This gives a peculiar meaning to a[aa; and what is 'hoary custom'
intended to convey? Aeschylus must have known that it was more than mere
custom which entrusted Zeus with the administration of the universe.
3 Laroche 190~1 correctly interprets this passage: 'II faut prendre garde
qu'Apollon a viole la loi divine, non pas celle que les Olympiens imposent aux
mortels, mais celie qui les regit, eux les Immortels. Ihwv est un genitif objectif.'
similar language Pindar (Pyth. 2. 43) describes the birth of
Kentauros from the union of Ixion with a cloud as not being EV
8dvv vOflms, and the meaning seems to be that no divine authority
(Nem. I. 72) predicts that Heracles will, after his marriage to
Hebe, UEf-LVOV ulv~uELV vOfLov, this vOfLoS is apparently the power of
the gods to dispense norms. I
In Sophocles, we find vOfLoS once in a context similar to that in
which we noticed it above in Aeschylus' Supplices, when he calls
Dike 'her who sits by the ancient VOfLOt of Zeus' (OC 1382). In
the Antigone the authority to dispense general norms is vested in
a human ruler. Creon is told by the chorus (213) that it is
possible for him to use vOfLCfJ 7ravT£ both for the dead and for the
living, referring apparently to Creon's power to issue laws which
will be binding on Thebes, and Creon himself states (177) that
the ability of a man is not fully known until one has seen how he
has handled himself apxufs T€ KUL vOfLOWtV, that is, until his
authority in issuing regulations has been tested.2 The most cele-
brated passage in this connection is the famous ode in the
Oedipus in which the VOfLOt VljJ£7TOO€S are praised, the 'norms
which range on high', whose father is Olympus alone, and which
are the source of purity in word and deed for mortals.3
General VOfLOt vested in a human agent appear also in Euripides'
description of a tyrant as 'a single individual who possessesvOfLoV
himself in his own keeping'.4 But he also speaks of the Pythian
priestess of Apollo as 'guarding the ancient vOfLoS of the tripod'
(Ion 1322), the authority to dispense oracles which is vested in
the Delphic shrine; and in another passage (Hec. 800), we find
a general VOfLoS controlling even the gods, presumably identical
with the source of ordinances dispensed by the gods.s
I The scholiast explains the phrase: El)apwT~aftV T0 napa thofs vop.'!' or T~I'
IhavEp.wLV T~V napa Owfs <na'VEaftv. Either interpretation assumes the sense of
vop.os with which we are concerned here.
2 See Jebb's note ad loco
3 863-7 I: d p.o' tvvd') q,EpOVTLp.ofpa Tav / EVaETrTOVayvdav '\oywv / <pywv T€
7TavTwv, cLv VOIL0/, TTpoKHvTaL I I I
vljJITrooe;, ovpavLg. 'v alBEpt T€KVw8eVT€S, Jiv "O)..V/-L7TOS
1TaT~p fLovas, ovoe VLV / 8vuTa rpVULS Q.VEpWV €'TLKTEV •••
4 Suppl. 43 I -2 : E[S 'TOV vOfLoV K€KTTJfLEVOS I aUTOS nap' aVTo/.
5 Cf. p. 38 with n. 4 below, and Heinimann, NP 121-2. The role which vop.os
plays in the Hecuba has been studied by G. M. Kirkwood, TAPA 78 (1947) 61-8;
for a different interpretation, see D. J. Conacher, AJP 82 (1961) 1-26. See also
J. H. Oliver, Demokratia, the Gods, and the Free World 91-102, with a good biblio-
graphy of recent discussions on p. 9 I n. I.-To the vop.o' discussed in the preceding
 go f9EEMOE AND NOMOE
An interesting problem of interpretation is presented by The-
ognis' complaint (54) about the rulers of Megara, oi 1TpOU{}' oun
atKa, 7}LDwav OUT€ VOfLov, and who are now riding high. At a first
glance, it looks as if Theognis meant by vOfLOV, the sort of thing
we have just been discussing and criticized them for not having
formerly known anything about the dispensation of justice and
the issuing of laws. But the context argues against such an
interpretation. For Theognis goes on to describe the kind of life
the present rulers led before they attained power: 'they wore to
tatters the goatskins that covered their sides and pastured outside
the city like deer.'1 In other words, the absence of VOfLOLis here
tantamount to a condition of life outside human civilization, a
life characterized by improper and poor clothing and by a dis-
organized roaming about outside the confines of the city. The
positive conclusion to be drawn from this is that we find vOfLo,
herein much the same sense as that in which€vVOfLLais also used. It
defines the condition of an orderly civilized society and attaches
a moral value to this condition. The same sense of VOfLO, appears
again in Heraclitus' demand (frg. 44) that a people should fight
for its vOfLo, as for its wall; there may be a hint of it also in the
av{}pdJ1T€WL VOfLOLwhich are nourished by the divine (frg. 114),2
and the demand for law-and-order which this entails may further
underlie the statement that it is vOfLo, even to obey the will of
one man.3
Pindar uses vOfLo, in this sense in Pythians 2. 86-8: €V 7T(lvTa De
, '{}' ~ , , ,/.. ,
VOfLOV €V VYI\WUUO, avYJp 1TP0'f'€P€L,
/ 1Tapa' TvpaVVWL,
",,'.
XW1TOTav °
Aa{1po, uTpaTo" / XWTav 1TOAw ot U01JOLTYJPEwvn. 'A man straight-
forward in speech brings forward law-and-order to everything
<he does), both under a tyranny, and when the boisterous host,
and when the wise watch over the city.'4 N0fLO, is here placed as
section belong also two fragments from tragedy, cited by stob. Flor. 1. 1. 5 and
1. 4·2 (= Nauck2, Adespota, frgg. 471 and 502), in which 0 O€OS and aVaYKT}
are eac:h called the greatest vO/-,os.
, : 55-6: ,aAA' a/-,q,t 7TAwpar", oopas alywv KaT€Tp,{3ov, I 'tw 0' waT' .Aaq,o, Tfjao'
fiI€/-,OVTO 7TOA€OS.
2 Cf. above, pp. 26-8.
3 Frg. 33: No/-,os Kat {3oVAfi 7T€lOwOa' I.vos. This fragment in particular is too
short and its context too obscure to arrive at any firm conviction about its meaning.
4 My interpretation differs from those usually given. Gildersleeve ad loco and
Wilamowitz, Pindaros 292, take 7TPOq,€PH in an intransitive sense and are thus com-
pelled to give vO/-,os the meaning of 'constitution', for which, to the best of my
knowledge, no parallel exists. It seems more natural to regard the verb as transitive,
a value above the three types of constitution-the rule of one, of
the many, and of the few-with which Pindar's contemporaries
were familiar. It stands above party and becomes the hallmark
of a well-ordered society. A similar sense of vOfLo, comes out also
in several Sophoclean passages. In the Antigone Ismene refuses
to join her sister's plan, because it would be a violation of vOfLo,
to defy the tyrant's decree (59); at the end of the same play
a repentant Creon believes that it is best to end one's life up-
holding the established order of things;1 when Orestes takes
Aegisthus to his death at the end of the Electra (1506), he ex-
claims that anyone acting in transgression of vOfLo, should be
killed; and in the Oedipus at Colonus (914) Theseus boasts that
Athens accomplishes nothing without vOfLo,.
In Herodotus vOfLo, denotes law-and-order in the statement
(4. 106) that the Androphagi do not practise justice and use no
vOfLo, whatever, and in the celebrated statement of Demaratus
(7. 104. 4) that the Spartans owe their freedom to the mastery over
them of vOfLo, alone. Thucydides men tions vOfLo, in the senseoflaw-
and-order exclusivelyin speeches, except for his treatment of party
warfare in Corcyra, where it is said that the formation of parties
in such a situation is not contrived for the public good fL€TU TWV
KELfLEVWVvOfLwv, but for purposes of aggrandizement 1Tapu TOV,
Ka{}wTWTa, [sc. vOfLOV,] (3. 82. 6).2 For although vOfLo" strictly
speaking, may refer here to no more than the positive political
law by which a state lives, the implication is unmistakable that
the observance of such laws is equivalent to law-and-order.
As far as the speeches are concerned, vOfLo, means 'law-and-
order' in the argument of the Athenian ambassadors at the
Lacedaemonian Congress that their allies resent any legitimate
as at Isth. 5. 43, with vo/-,ov as its object. More difficult is the decision whether
7Tana is to be taken (a) as a masculine accusative singular modifying vo/-,ov or
(b) as a neuter accusative plural. I prefer (b), since EV 7Tana neatly completes the
idea begun in 7TPOq,€PH, if we take EV as the Boeotian equivalent of €ls to express the
goal or purpose. If we accept (a), we shall have to take EV adverbially as meaning
'and besides', 'moreover' (see LsJ s.v. EV C. 2), and translate: 'Moreover, a man
straightforward in speech brings forward everything that is law-and-order .. .'
] I I 13- I 4: OEOOLKU yap f-L~ TOV~ Kae€aTOrra~ v6f-Lou~ / apLuTov V u<[J'ovTa TOV {3tov
T€A€rV. Since vO/-,os is not likely to refer to Creon's edict here, as it does in 382 and
449, and since the expression TOUS KaOHJTWTas vO/-,ovs seems too wide to include
only the religious laws of burial which Antigone had championed, it is best to take
the expression to refer to the norms of a well-ordered society.
2 Cf. the statement in the spurious 84. 2, where human nature is said to have
become master of the vo/-,o, and to be accustomed to do wrong 7Tapa TOU, vo/-,ovs.

disadvantage more than if the Athenians, putting aside all con-
sideration of orderly procedure (a7ToOEfLEVO' TOV vOfLOV), had
openly aggrandized themselves (I. 77. 3), and soon thereafter,
in the speech in which Archidamus praises the Spartans for not
being well educated enough to despise law-and-order (I. 84. 3).
The most interesting Thucydidean uses of vOfLo, in this respect
are to be found in a passage which we shall have to discuss at
length in a different context later (pp. 116-19 below). In their
defence against the Plataean charge of medism during the Per-
sian Wars, the Thebans allege that they were at that time ruled
by a small oligarchical clique, (J7TEpDEEan vOfLo" fLEV KUL Tlp aw-
rpPOVEaTUT<p EvuvnwTuTov, EyyVTUTW DE TVPUVVOV; in view of this,
they claim, the city as a whole does not deserve to be censured
6JV fL~ fLETU vOfLwV Y)fLUPTEV; and the return to an orderly govern-
ment after the Persian Wars is described as TOVS vOfLoVS EAu{3E
(3. 62. 3-5)·Since vOfLo, are here opposed to tyranny as well as to
government by a small clique, whose policy is characterized as
the absence of vOfLo" and since vOfLO' are re-established only after
the clique is gone, the term cannot refer to a set of ever-present
vOfLO' that are accepted by the citizens as part of their general
way of life. For obviously Thebes had vOfLo, of this sort even
under the minority rule, just as Sophocles can speak of Thebes in
the Antigone as having vOfLo, under Creon's rule. The vOfLO' here
represent a condition which is alleged to have been totally absent
from the government of the city during the Persian Wars, a state
of law-and-order in which the citizens as a whole (~ gVfL7Tuaa
7TOA',) have some kind of voice in shaping the decisions by which
they will be bound (aiJTOKpaTWp ovaa eavTij,). Just as in Demara-
tus' statement about the Spartans, vOfLo, is here treated as the
characteristic of a free society.!
Euripides, the last author to whom we turn for this sense of
vOfLoS, enumerates among the blessings which Jason claims to
have brought to Medea (Med. 538) that she now knows how to
live a well-ordered life (vofLO', xpijaOa,) which does not gratify
brute force (fL~ 7TPOSlaxvo, Xap,v); and, in attributing to vOfLO'
the power to bring great improvements to men (frg. 252) or to
hold together the cities of men (Suppl. 313), he treats them as a
1 N0iLos seems to have a similar sense later in the same speech (64. 3), where the
Thebans accuse the Plataeans of being pro-Athenian OUTE UKOVTES 'XOVT€S TE TOVS
voj.tovs OVU1T€P j.t€XPL TOU oEiJpo.
NOMa}; 33
condition oflaw-and-order, and so also whcn he stressesthe need
to honour vOfLO, even under adverse circumstances (frg. 433).1
The vOfLo, which have been our concern so far are thought of
as universally applicable, valid, and binding. They denote a
general order of life, norms that are recogllized as prevailing in
the universe, proper procedures, norms of proper conduct for the
individual, and they are applied also to the authority which
issues norms and the condition of civilized law-and-order, which
is created by adherence to the social norms. We come now to
a group of vOfLo, whose validity is confined within a somewhat
smaller compass.
Foremost in this category is the vOfLo, which describes not the
way of life of mankind or of animals as such, but the mores of
a particular group of men. We frequently hear, for example, of
the vOfLo, which all Greeks share in common (Hdt. 6. 86 (3. 2,
7. I02. I; Eur. Or. 495, frg. 853; Thuc. I. 41) and which dif-
ferentiate them from the vOfLo, of non-Greeks (Eur. Andr. 243,
Bacch. 484), and in many other passages the vOfLo, are clearly
limited to the way oflife enjoyed by a particular people in a par-
ticular state. In this context belongs the vOfLo, for which, as
Heraclitus says (frg. 44), a city must fight as for its walls and
which we have already mentioned in a different connection
(p. 30). Similarly, the avOpw7TEW' vOfLo, of his frg. I 14 (pp. 26-7
above) also belong here, since they are the sum total of all the
vOfLO' on which the various cities rely, and in Herodotus' account
of Darius' experiment (3. 38. 4) the vOfLo, which each people
likes best obviously refer to its own mores.
Often vOfLo, designates explicitly or implicitly the mores of
a specific Greek city, such as Athens,2 Sparta, Thebes, or
1 Cf. Or. 523, where Tyndareus asserts that he will defend VOiLeS to the best of
his ability. For even though the immediate reference may be to a statute pro-
hibiting talion, the value-judgement implied suggests the larger sense of law-and-
order. A more characteristic Euripidean tone can be detected in a fragment of
unknown authorship, in which vOiLeS bears this same sense: rrws oilv ni8' ElaopwvTEs
~ Ihwv y€VOS / E{va, AiYWiLEV ~ VOiLOW' XpwiLElJa; (Nauck2, Adespota, frg. 99).
2 Aesch. Eum. 693; Thuc. 3. 34. 4, 37. 4. Cf. the statement at Thuc. 6. 54. 6
that under the tyrants Athens TO'S rrpLV KELiL€VO'S vOiLa'S 'XP"f)TO, although this may
equally wel.lrefer to Solo,n's pol,itic~l e?act;ne~ts; the pro;est of Al;ibiades' political
opponents In 8. 53. 2: WS 8ELVOV EL"f) EL TOVS vOiLovS {JtaUaiLEvos KaTEW'; and 8. 76.
6, where the soldiers on Samos object to the Four Hundred as TOVS rraTpLovs VOiLOVS
KaTa/.vaavTas. However, in these last three cases Thuc. may also be thinking of
a body of laws or specific legislative enactments.
814"77 D
 34 eEEMOE AND NOMOE
Samos;I of a loose political federation such as Thessaly;2 of the
Dorians dcscended from Hyllus (Pind. Pyth. 1. 62), or even of a
. clan such as the Pelopidae (Eur. He!. 1429)' More numerous still
are examples in which no name of a city is given and the word
denotes the mores of a city or society in general,3 or where the
ways of non-Greek peoples are referred to.4
The fact that vOj.La, appears in the plural in most of the pas-
sages we have assigned to the category of 'mores' suggests that
the Greeks regarded these vOj.La£ as the aggregate of a number of
specific vOj.La£ which dominate different aspects of the life of a
people. These vOj.La£, as we shall see presently, are norms which
a people regards as valid and binding in its social, religious, and
political life, and we shall direct our attention to them now.
The time is hard to determine when vOj.La, was first used to
describe customs, that is, those social practices which are current
among a given group and frequently constitute a typical charac-
teristic which differentiates it from other groups. The discovery
in the lyric age that different men have different standardss
would lead us to expect that this usage began among the lyric
poets, and there are indeed some scattered indications that this
may have been SO.6 But the earliest certain occurrence of vOj.Lo, in
this sense is in a choral song in Aeschylus' Choephoroe (424), in
which the maidens beat their breasts and sing an Arian dirge
after the fashion (EV vOj.La£,) of a Kissian wailing woman.
I Sparta: Hdt. 7.136. I, Thuc. 5.60.2. Thebes: Soph. Ant. 191, Eur. Barch.
331. Samos: Tod, CHI 12, No. 96.15-16.
2 Pind. Pyth. 10. 70-1, accepting the conventional accentuation. It seems to
make more sense, however, to follow the suggestion ofE. Kapp and read vOJJ-ov, see
app. crit. ad loc. in Snell+.
3 Soph. Aj. 1073, Ant. 368; Eur. Suppl. 430, El. 234, Or. 487, Bacch. 891 ; Thuc.
2.37. 1,6.18·7; AI'. Nub. 1040 and 1400, Eccl. 609.
+ Eur. Or. 1426 (Phrygians) ; Soph. OC 337-3 (Egyptians) ; and especially Hdt.
I. 94. I (Lydians), 172. I (Kaunians), 173.4 (Lycians, Cretans, and Carians); 2.
35.2,45. 2, 79·1,92. I (Egyptians); 3·20. 2 (Ethiopians), 82.5,83· 3 (Persians);
4.80.5, 105. I, 107 (Scythians with Neuroi and Melanchlainoi), 168. I (Egyptians
and Adyrmachidai), 169. 2 (Giligamai and Libyans), 170, 171 (Cyrenaeans,
Abystai, and Bakales), 187. I (Libyans); 5. 3. 2 (Thracians); 7. 8 a. I and 9·41. 4
(Persians).
5 Cf. B. Snell, The Discovery of the ;Uind, tr. T. G. Rosenmeyer, 47-50.
6 Archilochus, frg. 230 (Bude) reads: vOJJ-o<; 8. KP1)TLKO<; 8L8auKfTaL, suggesting
a Cretan practice. Similarly, Alcaeus (E. Lobel and D. Page, Poetarum Lesbiorum
fragmenta, frg. 72. 6: ii"Oa vOJJ-o<; OaJJ-' '''. L] .L] .v1)v) probably refers to a customary
practice, cf. frgg. 35. I, 129.25, and 181. I.
NOMOE ~
However, it is not until the second half of the fifth century that this
use of vOj.La, really comes into its own, especially in Herodotus .
His insatiable curiosity for the customs of other peoples and his
delight in telling them are too well known to require a detailed
discussion. He likes the Persian vOj.La, which prevents a father
from seeing his child before the age of five, lest the child's un-
timely death bring grief to him (1. 136. 2- 137. I); I he tells us
which Babylonian practices he likes and which he does not;2 he
enumerates some of the vOj.La£ of the .Massagetae (I. 2 I 6. I), of the
Egyptians (2. 37. I), of the Issedones (4. 26. I), and of many
other strange peoples.3 He also mentions a few peculiar Greek
vOj.La£ : there is the vOj.La, introduced by the Argives to keep their
heads shaved until Thyreae be retrieved from the Spartans, while
the Spartans, conversely, established the vOj.La, of letting their hair
grow long (1. 82. 7-8) ; and another vOj.La, enjoins the Spartans
to adorn their hair when about to risk their lives (7. 209. 3).4
The interests of the Hippocratic tract On Airs, ~Vaters, and
Places are so close to the ethnographic sections in HerodotusS that
it is surprising to find how few uses of vOj.La, as 'custom' it con-
tains. There is little beyond the programmatic statement (14)
that only those people will be mentioned who differ greatly from
one another ~ ePVUEL ~ vOWtJ and the ancient vOj.La, of the Makro-
kephaloi of shaping their children's heads, a vO/w, which later
developed into ePVat,.6
I For other Persian V0JJ-0L see 140. 3 (Magi may kill any creature except dogs
and men); 3. 31. 4 (the Royal Judges find a vOJJ-o<; for Cambyses, permitting the
Persian king to do what he pleases); 5.18.2-3 (Persians tell Amyntas of their vOJJ-o<;
to have concubines and wives sit with the men after a banquet) ; and 9. III. I (no
one asking a boon at a royal banquet must be refused).
2 He likes the manner of auctioning off marriageable women (I. 196. 1-4) and
their way of curing the sick (I. 197), but not the custom of temple prostitution (I.
199. 1-5). For other Babylonian VOJJ-OL see I. 195.2,200.
3 4. 68. 2 (Scythian custom to swear by the king's hearth), 103. I (Taurians),
I I 7 (Sauromatian custom that a woman cannot be married. until she has killed
a man), 172. 2 (among Nasamones a bride must sleep with all male wedding
guests), 190 (Libyans); 5. 6. 1-2 (Thracians).
+ Cf. the Spartan vOJJ-o<; of giving the kings a double portion at feasts (7.1°3. I),
and the custom introduced by Argives and Aeginetans after some troubles with
Athens, to enlarge women's brooch-pins to one-and-a-half times their original
size, to have these dedicated in the shrine of Demia and Auxesia, and to have
henceforth local rather than Attic vessels used in that sanctuary for drinking
purposes (5.88.2). 5 See Heinimann, NP 172-80 and 209.
6 Cf. the beginning of 19, where the practices of the Scythians described in 18
are called vOJJ-OL. For the only other passages in which vOJJ-o<; appears in this treatise
see above, p. 22.
 36 BEl:MOl: A:'\D NOMO};
Thucydides uses vOfL0S' similarly of the Odrysian practice of
accepting rather than giving gifts (2. 97. 4) and of the Spartan
_custom of having flute-players accompany the troops into the
field (5. 70 with 69. 2). Into this context also belongs the old custom
(7TuAUU), vOfL0S'), mentioned in connection with the colonization of
Epidamnus, that the founder (olKwT~e;) of a new city be chosen
from the mother-city (I. 24. 2), the generally Greek l'ofLoe; that
the care of sanctuaries lies in the hands of the power occupying
the territory in which they are situated (4. 98. 2),1 and also the
mLTptoe; vOfLoe; of Athens to bury those fallen in war at public
expense (2. 34. 1).2
Among the dramatists it is, as expected, Euripides who speaks
of vOfLoe; as a customary practice more frequently than any other.
But it is interesting to note that, while he usually describes as
vOfL0S' practices which are generally observed by those among
whom they prevail, he also applies vOfL0S' to many practices that
cannot have had that general validity which the term usually
implies. In other words, we see in Euripides the beginnings of
that denigration of vOfLoe; which reaches its climax in the vOfLoe;-
.pvaLe; controversy. We find respect for vOfLoe; in his statement that
different men have different customs (frg. 346. 4), in the vOfLoe; of
the Greeks to honour athletes (frg. 282. 13), of the Aetolians to go
to war with only one foot shod (frg. 530. 9), of the Phoenicians to
bow down before a royal person (Phoen. 294), of the Erechtheids
to give their children as tokens gold-wrought snakes (Ion 20, 25),
and also in the vOfLoe; initiated by Danaus to call the Pelasgians
'Danaans' (frg. 228. 8). But when vOfLoe; denotes the custom of
heralds to exaggerate in giving their reports (Heracl. 292-3), the
impropriety of women looking at men (Hec. 974),3 or the habit
of throwing the remnants of a meal to the dogs (frg. 469), and
when Orestes facetiously justifies his murder of Clytaemnestra
with the argument that he had put an end to the vOfLoe; of wives
to kill their husbands (Or. 57I), we are no longer dealing with
customs which are expected to be taken seriously as social norms.
The same facetious use is found also in Aristophanes' Clouds
(142 1-6), where the VOfL0S' that fathers beat their sons isjocularly
I As stated by an Athenian herald sent to the Thebans. Immediately before this,
at 4.97. 2, the Boeotians had accused the Athenians of transgressing Tn VO/-,L/-,anvv
'EAA~VWV in occupying the sanctuary at Delium.
2 See Endnote, pp. 175-6 below.
3 For the role of vo/-,os in the Hecuba in general see above, p. 29 n. 5.
treated like a statutory enactment, although he, too, elsewhere
(Plut. 789, 795) treats VOftae; with respect; and when the sophist
Antiphon (frg. 44A. I. 23-3 I) rejects Tfl. TWV vOfLwv as an
arbitrary accretion and favours .pVULS', the final step in the rejec-
tion of customary practices has been taken.
The VOfLOt we have just dealt with are customary practices
unquestioningly accepted as valid and correct by most people of
the society in which they exist, even if later intellectuals could
frown upon them. The same development can be detected in
a closely related sense of vOfLoe;, where the term describes not a
practice but a belief, an opinion, a point of view, or an intellectual-
attitude, which starts out by being accepted without question
by all members of a given group, but is attacked by intellec-
tuals from the second half of the fifth century on as 'mere' con-
ventional belief, foolishly embraced by the ignorant multitude
but to be rejected in the light of truer values. Still, even here
the judgement about the truth or falsehood of VOfL0S' is always
secondary, and the term retains its old signification of something
regarded as valid by public opinion in general.
The earliest example of this meaning is found in Orestes'
exclamation in Aeschylus' ChoepllOroe that Aegisthus has received
what is commonly held (we; vOfLoe;) to be the proper punishment
for him who has brought dishonour to another person. 1 But the
best-known and most influential passage in which vOfLoe; bears this
sense is Pindar's poem which begins: vOfLoe; a mJ.vTwv (3uatAEve;.2
As was first pointed out by Wilamowitz, vOfL0S' is here that which
is accepted as right in the opinion and general belief of people, 3
and it was correctly understood in this sense by Herodotus
I g8g-go: Aly{aBov yap au A€YW /-LOpov' I EX€/" yap aLaxvvTfjpOs;, ws- vaIL0S", 3{wrw.
This passage has been taken by Rose, CSPA 2. 2 I7, as a reference to the Athenian
law which permitted an adulterer to be killed with impunity; and a similar view
seems to underlie Smyth's translation (Loeb) : 'for he hath suffered the adulterer's
punishment as the law allows.' But apart from the difficulty of equating alaxvvT~p,
of which no other example is cited in LSJ, with /-,OLXOS, the law is unlikely to enter
here, since Attic law permitted this as justifiable homicide only when the adulterer
was caught in the act; see Lipsius, ARR 430-1.
2 Frg. 169+PO-ry, No. 2450, frg. I. I have discussed this fragment at length in
'Pindar, NOMO};, and Heracles', HSCP 69 (1965) 109-38, text on pp. 111-12; for
its influence in antiquity see ibid., n. 3.
3 Platon: Beitagen und Textkritik, 3rd eeln. by R. Stark, 96: 'Daraus ist zu schlieBen,
daB der vO/-,os, d.h. wie es die Jvlenschen gel ten lassen, bei Gottern und Mensehen
liber die Qualitiit einer mensch lichen Handlung entscheidet ....
 (3·38. 4)·The point of the poem is that, although the theft of
Geryon's cattle and of the mares of Diomedes was accomplished by
yiokncc, we must not object to it, since they are generally held to
be glorious labours ofHcrac1cs; and what is generally bc1ieycdto
be right has royal, that is legitimate and not tyrannical, power,
and this power is rccognized by both gods and men.2
Further, the FOfl-OL by which Creon claims in Sophocles' Anti-
gone (r 78-91) to be enhancing the greatness of Thebes seem to
consist in conventional beliefs, since he uses the term to sum up
his convictions about the nature of a good citizen. In Thucydides,
A1cibiades uses FOfLa, to describe the high opinion among his
contemporaries which his Olympic victories had brought Athens
(6. r6. 2), and in Euripides, Hippolytus' attendant calls FOfLa,
the attitude of hatred which most people haye toward a haughty
and unpopular bearing (91, 93).3
Whereas in these passages the validity of conventional beliefs
remains unquestioned and uncha11enged, there emerges in the
second half of the fifth century a cha11enge,which begins with
doubt and ends in rejection. Heinimann has shown that Hecuba's
famous exclamation (Hec. 799-801): d,\,\' at 8w~ a8EFavm Xw
KE{VWV KpUTWV / vOfLa" vOfLCfJyap TaU, 8wu, ~YaVfLE8u / KU~' WfLW
({btKU KU~ b{KUt' WPWfLEFat looks at first glance like an expression of
simple accepting faith but contains at the same time the sugges-
tion that such a faith is not very firmly grounded.4 The reason
why we suspect this is that we find a distinction drawn between
vOfLa, and truth as early as Empedocles, who knows as a
philosopher that it is more correct to speak of 'mixture' and
I Laroche 174.
I have argued this point at greater length in my article cited above (p. 37
2
n. 2), esp. pp. 117~26.
3 Cf. frg. 52. 8, where time is said to make a noble bearing to be thought of
(= vOiL'!') as haughty.
4 Heinimann, NP 121-2. Cf. p. 29 n. 5 above.-Something similar mav be
implied in the enigmatic lines from Eur. Bellerophon, frg. 292. 4-6: voaaL O€/JV~TWV
at }LEV fda' avOa/pEToL, / at 3' €K 8EWV 1TapnaLv, ci,\;\a T~ VOJ.L4J / LWfU.B' at.hous. If vOJ-Lw is
correctly interpreted in this context as referring to some belief or conviction whi~h
whether right or wrong, is commonly accepted, the translation would run: 'but w~
try to cure them [sc. the diseases] in the conviction <that we are able to do so).'
~till, the questioa remains whether a,mL, refers to both self-inflicted and god-
InflIcted dIseases or only to the latter. The second seems to me to give a some-
what better scnse: 'although the presence of these diseases is due to the gods, we
nevertheless act In ;he conviction that we can cure them.' But the reading may
well be suspect; see r. Gomperz, Sher. d. kais. Ak. d. Wiss. Phi/os.-ms!. Ct. 116 (Wien,
1888) 29.
'separation' than of 'birth' and 'death', but accepts the common
usage when he speaksas an ordinary citizen. 1 Similarly, Democritus
(frgg. 9, 125) accepts the way in which people talk (FOfLCfJ) about
colour, sweetness, and bitterness, even though he knows that
I in truth (ETEfi) only atoms and the void exist. In medicine,
we find that the author of the treatise On the Sacred Disease uses
vOfLa, to discriminate between the ugly and beautiful, the bad and
the good, and the pleasant and the unpleasant (17),2 apparently
regarding this belief as valid and true; but a few chapters later
(20) he asserts that the popular belief (FofLCfJ) in the diaphragm
as the seat of understanding does not corrcspond to fact, al-
though he seems amenable to using eppEVE, in ordinary parlance.3
A final example of a conventional belief which is condoned
despite the fact that it is, strictly speaking, inaccurate, is Hero-
dotus' assertion (4. 39. 1) that a certain promontory ends FOfLCfJ
but not in fact at the Arabian Gulf.4
The next step toward the ultimate rejection of FOfLa, is taken in
a number of passages, in which conventional beliefs are no longer
condoned, because they do not represent truth. In a Euripidean
fragment (141), illegitimate children are only vOfLCfJ, but not in
fact, inferior to legitimate ones, and in the Hecuba (846-9) the
chorus complains of the vOfLat which compel us to look upon
former enemies as friends, and upon former friends as enemies.
The same attitude toward vOfLa, is seen again, but in a comic
context, in Aristophanes' Acharnians, when the Megarian assures
Dicaeopolis (773) that he is offering for sale what is a pig 'E'\-
,\avwv vOfLCfJ, that is what every straight-thinking Greek would
regard as a pig; but the audience (and probably Dicaeopolis, too)
know better. Similarly, when in the parabasis of the Birds the
chorus asserts (755-9) that the birds regard as good what men
' here below regard as uZaxpa Tip VOfLCfJKpUTaVfLEFU, what it stresses
is that general opinion gives only a very relative term. In other
words, conventional beliefs are contrasted with what is real, and
however widely FOfLa, is accepted, there arc criteria measured by
which it is proved wanting. From here it is only a sma11step to
the complete rejection of vOfLa, as conventional belief in favour of
I <au)
Frg. 9. 5: ~ /JEiL" KaMauat, VOiL'!' (j' ErrLf'liLL Kat aUTO,.
2 A similar point is made in a tragic fragment of unknown authorship, Nauck2,
Adespota, frg. 26.
3 Heinimann, NP 86 n. 71. 4 Ibid. 82.
epVat<;, which we find most clearly articulated by Callicles III
Plato's Gorgias. 1 vOfLo<; (Suppl. 241), it denotes the customary worship of Hermes
The difficulty of analysing a concept such as vOfLo<; into its
constituent elements becomes most manifest as we now turn to
its uses in religious contexts. For while it is true to say that the
term may denote a ritual ordinance, that is, an injunction that
something ought to be done, or a ritual practice, that is, a state-
ment that something is actually done as a custom, or a belief:
that is, a conviction that something exists or that it is right that
something be done, it is always difficult and often impossible to
determine in any given context which of these three notions its
author had in mind. The reason for this is not far to seek. As we
have seen time and again, the crucial point in vo,uo<; is that it is
something which a given society regards as a valid norm for
itself, usually ul1selfconsciouslyand without question, something
which, even when attacked and disparaged, is attacked and dis-
paraged just because it is a generally accepted norm. It is, there-
fore, immaterial to the Greek way of thinking whether in any
given context VOfLO<; is a rule, a customary practice, or a belief;
its characteristic is that it is something generally regarded and
accepted as correct for a given group.
The difficulty of which we have just spoken is already ap-
parent in the earliest passage in which VOfLO<; occurs in a religious
sense. The Hecate hymn in Hesiod's Theogony promises honour
and wealth to him who propitiates the goddess ¥powv LEpa.. KuAa..
KUTa.. vOfLoV (417).2 It is impossible to tell whether it is a rule or
a custom that the worshipper is to follow, and it is equally im-
possible to make this decision in the case of a fragment which
states that the apxu'io<; vOfLo<; is best for sacrifices offered by a city.3
Similarly, it is hard to know whether vOfLo<;, in the account given
by Pherecydes of Syros (frg. 2, co!' 2) about the origin of the
unveiling ceremony at weddings (avuKu'\v7TT~PLa), refers to a rule
or to a practice. In short, however interesting for us, the question
of differentiation between rule and practice was unimportant for
the Greek view of VOfL0<;'
I 482 e-484 c, including the re-interpretation of Pindar, frg. 169, to support his
VOfLOS TfjS epVGEWS.
2 That the 'Hymn' is genuine can no longer be doubted after the searching dis-
cussion ~f M. L. \Vest, Hesiod: Theogony 276-80, cr. also F. So[msen, HA 51 n. 169.
3 Hesrod, frg. 22 I : w, KE 7TOAI, pE~naI, VO!"O, 0' apxafo, apWTos.
In Aeschylus the deposition of a suppliant's bough follows
(Suppl. 220), the rule that wailings should accompany the paean
to the dead (Cho. 150- I), and that a murderer must not speak
until he has been ritually cleansed (Eum. 448-50). I Pindar uses
vOfLO<; (01. 8. 78) in connection with rites for the dead, and all
religious VOfLOL in Sophocles relate to the proper burial of the
dead (Aj. 1130, 1343; Ant. 24, 519), except that once it refers in
a larger sense to temple worship and ritual as such.2
Funeral practices are described as vOfLo<; also by Herodotus
(2.36. 1,3. 16.3-4,6.58.2), who uses the term for purification
rites (1. 35. I), for the order of worship and specific temple
regulations (1. 132.3, 144.3; 2. 39·4, 42.3), for regulations con-
cerning the granting of asylum (2. 113. 2-3), and for the rule
which prevented the Spartans, at the time of :Marathon, from
going to war when the moon was full (6. 106. 3). The term also
has a more general sense when, for example, we are told that the
use of cult images, temples, and altars is not EV vOfLcp for the
Persians (I. 131. I), when he speaks of the treatment of sacred
animals by the Egyptians (2.65.3), or when he tells us ofa king
of Scythia who worshipped the gods according to the VOfLOL of the
Greeks (4. 78. 4). In this context belong also the VOfLOL of the
Athenians in the formula by which Cleisthenes of Sicyon be-
trothed his daughter Agariste to Megacles of Athens (6. 130.2).3
The Babylonian vOfLo<; prescribing temple prostitution is perhaps
equally well taken as a religious or as a social practice (I.
199·1-5)·
In the public documents that have come down to us from the
fifth century we meet a religious vOfLo<; in the Athenian decree
concerning Colophon of 447/6 B.C., in which the oath demanded
I In this context belongs also Apollo's statement, Eum. 576, that Orestes is
VOJL4J [KE-r'rjl£.
2 Ant. 285-7: a!"<p'KLova, I vao", 7Tupwawv ~AOE KavaO~!"aTa I Ka, Y77v
oan,
€Kdvwv ]ebb puts a comma after EKE{VWV and takes VOj.LOVS as
KUI. VOJ-LOVS OtaUKEOWv;
referring to the laws of Thebes. It is difficult to accept this interpretation, since
(a) the whole passage 282-8 speaks only of the gods and not of the city; (b) it is
more logical to take Y77v EKELVWVto refer to the temple precincts rather than to the
territory of Thebes as a whole, because it provides thus a more natural continua-
tion to the temples and votive offerings to which Polyneices set fire; (e) its position
in the line suggests that EKELVWV is to be taken not only with Y77v but also with
vo!"ou" so that (d) the idea that Polyneices' action disrupted the performance of
ritual practices (vo!"ou, otaaKEowv) makes eminent sense.
3 Cf. P. S. Photiades, )lOT/vii 32 (1920) 116 n. I.

of the people of Colophon is to be sworn in accordance with their
VOfLOS',Iand two phrases in the one-year armistice agreement of
423 B.C. between Athens and Sparta permit the operations of the
Delphic shrine of Apollo to proceed KUTa TOUS' 7TUTp{OVS' vOfwVS"
(Thuc. 4. lI8. I, 3).2
The religious VOfLOL were never undermined or disparaged to
the same degree to which we noticed this being done to customs
and conventional beliefs. And yet it is not surprising that we hear
of deliberate infractions of religious VOfLOL for the first time in the
last third of the fifth century. In his account of the Plague,
Thucydides reports that VOfLOL concerning burial were abandoned
in Athens at this time (2. 52.4), and in connection with the story
of civil strife on Corcyra he states that alliances derived their
strength less from a divine vOfLos--referringprobably to the re-
ligious sanctions against breaking an oath--than from a common
desire to act in contravention oflaw (3. 82. 6).
In Euripides there is only one example of an antagonistic
attitude to religious VOfLOL, and that is in the complaint that the
gods permit unjust persons to be suppliants at their altars (Ion
1312-13). Still, even here the principle that vOfLoS" makes an
altar inviolate seems to be accepted.3 He describes as vOfL0S" the
rule to bury the dead,4 as well as certain specific funeral rites.s
As in other authors, it governs the purification ceremonies to
which a murderer has to submit (Or. 429, HF 136I) and other
kinds of purification (He!. 87 I); it plays a part in wedding
ceremonies (IA 734, Tro. 324), at the Choes feast of the Anthes-
teria (IT 958-60), and at the festival of Artemis at Halai (IT
1458). A religious vOfLoS" is also involved when Eurysthcus
I IG 12• 15. 30-1: Ka.,.~ [nU)E KoAoq,ovlo<; o/-,oaaL, Ka()' a KoAoq,]ovlov " "0/-,0<;
[KEA")" ... J, as emended by W. Kolbe, Hermes 73 (1938) 256-9; cf. also H. Bengt-
son, Die Staatsvertrage des Alterturns 2, No. 145. The reading in ATL 2. D 15 (= SEG
10, No. 17) 41-2 necessitates, without a cogent reason, the assumption of a ditto-
graphy.
2 There is also a fifth-century lex sacra from Gytheion, in which VO/IO<; occurs in
an uncertain context; see IG 5. I, I 155; Schwyzer, DGE, No. 51.
3 Cf. frg. 1049. 2, and Hel. 800, where Menelaus inquires whether it is a non-
Greek custom for a suppliant to take refuge at a tomb rather than at an altar.
4 Suppl. 526, 563, and 671. But at 540-1 the possibility of a vO/-,o<; not to bury
them is envisaged.
5 Hel. 1241-3, 1246 (when a person has been drowned, clothes are buried in his
place); 1258 (barbarians sacrifice a horse or a bull at funerals) ; cr. Tro. 266-7,
where Hecuba asks Talthybius which Greek vo/"o<; demands that Polyxcna be slain
over Achilles' tomb, . 3 For the problem of vO/-,o<; in Solon's po~ms see above, p. 3 n. 5.
NOMOI; 43
protests in the Heracleidae (roog- I I) that his death will he contrary
to the )}OVOL of the Greeks. Finally, there arc passages which
T
refer to gellcral religious VOfl.oL, such as the Taurian custom of
sacrificing strangers to Artemis (IT 465, c[ 35), or the order of
worship of Apollo's sanctuary at Delphi (Ion 229, 643).2
Aristophanes uses VOfL0S' in a religious sense only rarely and
always in a joyous context. Thus we hear that it is VOfLoS' for
women to have fun at the celehration of the orgies in honour of
Demeter and Kore (Thesm. 94,]) and to invite Athene to join
their dance (Thesm. 1137), and when sacrifice is offered it is vOfLoS'
that the gods get the entrails (Av. 5 I 8).
Of the vOf1.oL which constitute the mores of a particular people
we have now discussed those that express its social and religious
beliefs and practices. To them we must now add the political and
judicial VOfLOL, that is, those rules and regulations by which the
internal life of society as a state is ordered. It is here that we
encounter vOfLoS' in its sense of 'statute', although, as we shall see,
the term does not by itself imply in the fifth century what it
usually implies in the fourth-century orators, namely, written
legislation. But it does imply that the regulation which it de-
scribes is accepted as a valid and binding norm by society, and
that it is usually accepted as such, or expected to be accepted, by
the individual citizen.
The political meaning of vOfLoS' is not found before the fifth
century B.C.3 It occurs for the first time in Aeschylus' Supplices
(387-91), where Pelasgus twice mentions an Egyptian vOfLoS",
which the sons of Aegyptus, as next-of-kin, might invoke to win
power over the daughters of Danaus. In the Prometheus vOfLoS' ap-
pears in the plural in two passages (149-50,402-3) to describe
the political principles by which Zeus governs. This may seem
surprising in view of the fact that the theme of the Prometheus
hinges on the point that Zeus' government is tyrannical and has
not yet won universal acceptance. However, this use becomes less
surprising as we observe that both passages are given to the
chorus of Oceanids, who are resigned to living under the rule of
Zeus. Moreover, in both cases the dative plural of the noun is
1 That the VO/-,OL here appealed to are concerned with religion is indicated by the
phrase DUX dyvo~ €lJJ-L Tip KTUVOVTt KUT8avwv.
2 On 643 cf. Heinimann,}lF 167-9, who translates vO/-,o<; as 'Tempelordnung'.
 connected with the verb KpUTlJVW to indicate that Zeus has won
acceptance because of his superior power, and further, the addi-
tion of the adjectives VEoXfLoL<; and LOtOt<; introduces a sarcastic
tone into the use of vOfL0<;: what is regarded as valid and binding
under the dispensation of Zeus, the Oceanids seem to say, is in
fact something unprecedented and idiosyncratic, enacted without
the consent of the governed. I especially where property is at issue, in which the vOfLW (= VOfLtfLU)
While it is possible and even probable that the passage from
the Supplices presupposes a background of written law at Athens,z
it would be ludicrous even to raise the question of writing in the
case of Zeus' laws. This suggests that in the first half of the fifth
century vOfL0<; might or might not refer to written legislation; in
other words, the question of writing is immaterial to the defini-
tion of a political vOfL0<;' This is confirmed by three inscriptions
from outside Athens, which are approximately contemporary
with the Prometheus.
The first of these, dated between 460 and 455 B.C., comes from
Halicarnassus and concerns the settlement of disputes over real
~state.3 Since the inscription describes itself as a vOfL0S" (II. 32,
34-5), we are justified in assuming that the term here signifies
a written statute agreed to jointly by the Halicarnassians, the
Salmacitians, and Lygdamis. But this assumption is not warranted
in the stipulation, some lines earlier in the same inscription,
,
VOfLWt " ,
OE, '[
KUTU7T E] ~
P VUV, , ~ n- ,\
0PKWlt~U <"
U/t \" '(II • 19-20
TOU<; OtKUUTU<; ).
For not only does the context fail to make clear to whom the oath
is to be administered, but it also sheds no light on the question
whether such oath formulae were prescribed by a written law in
Halicarnassus (as many oaths in Athens were written) or whether
vOfLo<; refers here to an unwritten religious regulation or practice.
Evidently, the problem whether or not a given regulation existed
in writing was of less importance to those who regarded them-
selves bound by vOfL0<; than it is to us. vVriting or its absence did
not apparently make a vOfL0<; any less binding.
I For the revolutionary connotations of VEOX/-,OS, cf. Aesch. Pers. 693; Soph. Ant.
156; Eur. Hipp. 866, Tro. 23 I, IT I 162 ; and especially Hdt. 9. 99. 3 and 104; also
VEOX/-,OW in Hdt. 4. 201. 2, 5. [9.2, and in Tlmc. I. 12.-The adverb d8ETWS, to
which Bentley rig:'tly emended the d8Ea/-,ws of the manuscripts, points in the same
direction: Zeus wields his power with new laws without proper enactment.
2 See G. H. Macurdy, 'Had the Danaid Trilogy a Social Problem?' CP 39
(1944) 95-100, esp. 97, and below, pp. 58-9.
3 Tod, CHI 12, No. 25; Buck, CD, :\:0. 2. For a fuller discussion see below,
pp. 167--70.
The situation is similar in the second inscription, whose date is
perhaps a few years earlier than that of the Halicarnassian law.
It contains the instrument, already mentioned in a different
context before, by which Naupactus was settled as a colony of the
Hypoknemidian Locrians.1 Here the written law refers to itself
as a BEBfLtOV, but it contains several clauses stipulating cases,
of the Naupactians or ofthe various cities of the Hypoknemidian
Locrians shall apply (II. 26, 27, 28),2 and mention is made also of
an 0p90V TOV VOfLtOV (1. 45)' The question whether or not these
rules existed in writing cannot be settled on the basis of the text
as we have it, and we can hope for an answer only if new in-
scriptions containing some of the relevant laws should be found at
Naupactus or in Eastern Locris. The point is again that the
question of whether a VOfLtOV or vOfL0<; is written or not was i.r-
relevant for those for whom the BEBfLtOV was drafted; what dId
matter was that it was a practice or regulation regarded as bind-
ing within a given community.
The third inscription, dated about 450 B.C., consists in a decree
from Erythrae, which stipulates judicial procedures to be fol-
lowed, apparently in establishing the qualification of magistrates
or in punishing malfeasances committed by them.3 The inscrip-
tion speaks of itself as a !f;~epWfLu (B 1-2), but it refers three times
to VOfLOt in such a way that, although the presumption is that they
were written, the text itself offers no unequivocal clues to enable
us to determine whether or not they actually were written. In the
first of the three passages, the panel of judges is required to
swear the same oath as that taken by the Council, namely, that
they will pass judgement KUTU vOfL0<; KUL !f;YJeptUfLUTU (II. A 21-2).4
Since the inscription refers to itself as a !f;~epWfLU, we are justified
in assuming that the !f;YJeptUfLUm may have been published in
writing; and if we further assume that the distinction between
these two kinds of enactment was the same as in Athens, we sur-
mise that the ~'ofLOt here mentioned may also have been written.
The second passage stipulates that judgement be passed 7TAYJUtOV
I Tod, CHI 12, No. 24; ef. above, p. 16.
2 In I. 30 vo/-,os is used with the same meaning.
3 The most recent text is that of Meiggs and Andrewes B I 16. The best discus-
sion is still that of A. Wilhelm, Jahreshifte d. listen. arch. Inst. Wien 12 (1909) 126-41
(with revised date, ibid. 14 (191 I) 237)·
4 Note the same phrase in the written heliastic oath in Dem. 24·149·
46 eEEMOE AND NOMOE
n8EvT[u KJUTa T[OJV v6fJ-0v (11. A 25-7). This has been interpreted
by Wilhelm: 'das Gesetz soIl in del' Niihe aufgestellt werden,
so daB es den Richtern VOl'Augen steht und jederzeit befragt
werden kann.'1 If this is correct, it would follow that the v6/-w<; is
an inscribed document. However, this interpretation would make
more sense if the KUnt were not there, and we must reckon with
the possibility that another kind of v6fJ-0<; may be referred to
which mayor may not have been written. The third passage
(B 16-24) permits prosecution of a person ons d[aJ70s ~0EL fJ-~
I<UTa v6fJ-0v TpUrpE<; ~ EgEAw8EPO 7Tufs ~ gEVO, apparently referring
to the child of a freedman or a foreigner who poses as a citizen.2
vVhatever the precise meaning of the obscure phrase fJ-~KUTa
v6fJ-0v TpUrpE<; may be, it presupposes the existence of regulations
defining a citizen, perhaps legislation of the same kind, though
not necessarily establishing the same conditions, as Pericles'
citizenship law, which was passed about the same time03 If this
analogy is correct, it may well be that the Erythraean regulation
was contained in a written law. In short, although it is probable
that the three occurrences of v6fJ-0<; in this inscription all refer to
written legislation, this conclusion is based on inferences rather
than on direct and unequivocal statements in the inscription
itself.
The lack of differentiation between written and unwritten
political V6fJ-0L is perhaps most familiar from Herodotus. If we
were to depend on Herodotus alone, we should never know
whether Solon's legislation at Athens was written or not; he uses
v6fJ-0<; here (1. 29. 1-2) without any explanation, just as he does
in mentioning the-probably unwritten-v6fJ-0<; at the time of
Marathon which gave the Athenian polemarch the command of
the right wing of the army (6. 111. 1). Similarly, it is on the basis
of Plutarch (Lycurgus 13. 1) and not of Herodotus that we are led
to believe that some Spartan political V6fJ-0L mentioned by Hero-
dotus did not appear in writing.4 We cannot tell whether the law
lOp. cit. 12 (Igog) 134.
Z I prefer Wilhelm's reading (ibid. 136) d[ a]To> to the a¥Tos- read by Meiggs and
Andrewes.
3 For Pericles' citizenship law of 451/0 B.C. see Arist. Alh. Pol. 26. 4. and Pillt.
Per. 37. 3. who uses the verb £ypa.pf in connection with it. Cf. Hignett, HAC 343-7.
4 5.42.2 and G. 52. 3 (eldest son succeeds to the throne). So perhaps also the law
enacted after Demaratus' defection at Eleusis, 5. 75. 2, which prevented the kings
from going on a military expedition at the same time.
was written which prevented the Corinthians from giving away
ships without payment (6. 89), and the same is also true of some
political Persian I and Egyptian V6fJ-0Lo2
In Sophocles, v6fJ-0s occurs in a political sense most frequently
in the Antigone, to describe Creon's proclamation forbidding the
burial of Polyneices.3 Creon is of course the main proponent of
v6fJ-0S in the Antigone, and the theme of the play revolves around
Antigone's refusal to accept his V6fJ-0<;;4 still, the tragedy would
completely lose its point if Creon's v6fJ-0s had not been generally
accepted by the rest of the population of Thebes. A judicial
v6fJ-0<; is probably involved in Oedipus' plea before the elders of
Colonus (OC 548) that he was legally guiltless in slaying Laius,
the law which permits a person to kill his attacker in self-defence;
and when in the Ajax Agamemnon states (1247) that no v6fJ-0S
could ever be established, if like Ajax everyone were to refuse to
submit to the verdict of the judges, we have a very clear example
of the acceptance which the word implies. .
Euripides' use of v6fJ-0<; in its political or judicial sense strikingly
reflects the actual use of the term in the lawcourts and in the
Assembly. He is the first of the tragedians to speak explicitly of
written laws and to praise them as a bulwark against tyranny
(Suppl. 433)05 But at the same time the obligating force of v6fJ-o<;
seems to begin to wane. We saw this earlier in his treatment of
the V6fJ-OL which describe customary practices and beliefs in
social and religious life, but his negative attitude is even more in
evidence when he mentions political and judicial laws. He may
also treat written V6fJ-OL, which he praised in the Supplices, as
inhibiting human freedom of action (Hec. 864-7), and the very
fact of their existence indicates that there are people who do not
automatically accept what v6fJ-o<; demands, and this becomes
I 3. 31. 2-5 (Cambyses wants the royal judges to find out whethe~ there is
a V0fJ-0> permitting marriage with one's sister, and they find a .v~fJ-OS- whl~h states
that the king of Persia may do as he pleases); 118. I (law glvmg the SIX other
conspirators against the Magi free access to Darius) ; 7. 2. I (king has to appoint his
successor before departing on a military expedition).
2 2. 136.2 (law under Asychis permitting the taking ofloans on the security of
one's father's corpse and burial ground); 177. 2 (Amasis' law compelling every
Egyptian to show the source of his livelihood annually to the nomarch).
3 Ant. 382, 449, 481, 847; cr. Creon's admonition to Haemon at 663, where,
however the word may have the wider sense of 'law-and-order'.
4 See 'C. P. Segal, 'Sophocles' Praise of Man and the Conflicts of the Antigone',
Arion 3. 2 (1964) 46-66.
5 See the apt remarks of Stier, NB 244·
48 eEEMOE AND NOMOE
worst if those who wrote the laws themselves do violence to them
(Ion 442).1 Although these are the only Euripidean passages in
which vOj1-O£ are explicitly referred to as written, there are many
more occurrences of the word which show that Euripides wrote
against a background which took written legislation for granted.
We hear of voted decrees through which laws are applied,2 and
of the enactment of the vO/-Lo, that equal votes for and against the
accused before the Areopagus shall result in acquittal (El. 1268-
9), but we are also told that some of the Erinyes refused to ac-
cept it (IT 970). Euripides mentions the statutes against murder
(Or. 941, HF 1322, Hec. 291) and the law which commands the
Taurians to sacrifice any arriving Greek to Artemis (IT 38, 277,
586, 1189); but we find in the general treatment also the same
awareness of the inadequacy or restricting force of v0/-L0' that we
found in his attitude to written laws (Andr. 176, Heracl. 963):
people express a dislike for particular laws,3and for the lawgivers
who enact them (Cyclops 338); and elsewhere (frg. 597) the
value of a good character is said to be superior to that oflaw.4
A similar influence of written legislation is seen in the works
of Aristophanes. He explicitly refers to the Megarian decree as
vO/-L0V, YEypa/-L/-LEvov, (Ach. 532), and the 'old law' which the
birds have EV Tat, TWV TrEAapywv KVp{JWLV (Av. 1353-4) refers of
course to the tablets on which Solonian laws were inscribed.
Elsewhere he mentions the Solonian laws about inheritance (Av.
1650, 1655-6) and about the payment of debts on the first of the
month (Nub. 1183-7), and we have the written evidence of an
inscription (IG 12. 77) for the decree on public maintenance in
I The lawgivers in this instance are the gods, but the use of ypa..pavra, suggests
that we are dealing with imagery borrowed from human political praclice.
2 Ion 1250-6, where the Pythian .pfj,po, condemning Creusa is described as
a vO/-,o, (for the contrast here between IJE/-", and vO/-,os, see Laroche 179). See also
Herae!. 141, where the children of Heracles were by the vO/-,o, of Argos €.pTJ,pw/-,€VO'
to die.
3 Frg. 402, where the social vO/-,os of marrying one wife only is attacked and
treated as if it were an enacted political law.
4 Mention should be made here of the difficult frg. 172: our' ElK,)S apXHv our€
Xp~v EtVQc. VOJ-LOV I Tupavvov ([val: fl-wpla Of Kat OtAnI' I O~ TWV OJ-LOLWV {:3ovAETUt KpUTfLV
/-,ovos. Not much sense can be made of the first two lines as they stand: €(va, vO/-,ov
rvpawov €(va, is simply not Greek. The corruption is no doubt to be looked for in
€(va, vO/-,ov and a correction, such as Bothe's or Bedham's, to read av€V vO/-,wv or
av€V vO/-,ov would grcatly improve the sense. An alternative suggestion would be
that vO/-,ov is a corruption of /-,OVOV and that the second dva' is a corruption of
avopa, so that the first two lines mean: 'it is not proper and should not be that one
man alone is tyrant.'
NOMOE ~
the Prytaneion, which is parodied as a vO/-LO, in the Frogs (76 I -4).
A background of written legislation is assumed when the Ec-
clesiazusae establish the vO/-Lo, commanding intercourse with
an old woman before a young girl can be gratified, 1 when a
sycophant wants to come to the aid of the established laws (Plut.
914), when in the Birds V0/-LOL are offered for sale or offered to the
choice of the Parricide (1038-9, 1346), and when there is talk of
the laws which the city has enacted (Vesp. 467) or of people who
want to change decrees and the law (Thesm. 361-2).
It is surprising that we find in Thucydides not a single explicit
reference to written legislation, and even when he mentions
specific political VO/-LOL, it is not always certain whether they are
written or not. The vO/-Lo, prescribing the delivery of funeral
orations, for example, is evidently attributed by Pericles to a per-
son (2. 35. I),z but there is no indication whether he thought of it
as a written or unwritten enactment, or simply as a practice,
introduced by an individual, and then sanctioned by custom.
Similarly, we do not know whether the Corcyrean law prohibit-
ing the cutting of vine poles from the precinct of Zeus and
Alcinous (3. 70. 5-6) was written or not, and we are also ignorant
about the law which laid down the rules of succession to the
priesthood of Hera of Argos (4. 133. 3), the Olympic v0/-LO, which
imposed fines on anyone attacking Elis at the time of the Olympic
truce (5. 49. I), or the Syracusan law which barred young men
from holding office (6. 38. 5). In the case of several Spartan
VO/-LOL it is again Plutarch's statement (Lycurgus 13. I) that all
Spartan laws were unwritten that leads us to believe that the
laws mentioned by Thucydides did not appear in writing; but
Thucydides himself is silent on that point.3
In addition to these passages there are a number of occurrences
of vO/-Lo, in a general political context which suggest that written
as well as unwritten regulations and practices are referred to.
First and foremost here are the VO/-LOL for which Pericles praises
J Ece!. 944, 1022, 1041, 1049, 1056, 1077; cf. 759, 762.
2 According to the doubtful testimony of Anaximenes of Lampsacus, frg. 24, the
person was Solon; but see Gomme ad loc. W. Kierdorf, Erlebnis und Darstellung
der Perserkriege 84-95, dates it after the Persian Wars.
3 4.38. 1 (law defining order of succession to the command of the Spartan army) ;
5. 63·4 (law designed to prevent king Agis from leading an army without the
supervision of ten advisers); 5. 66. 2-3 (Spartan vO/-,os that kings give orders in
battle to the officers immediately below them in rank, these to the officers below
them, etc.).
50 BEEMOE AND NOMOE
Athens in the Funeral Oration: they are the laws written and
unwritten which the Athenians fear (2. 37. 3), the vOflm to which
all citizens have equal recourse in settling their private differences
(2. 37. 1), and from which they derive their courage less than
from their native character (2. 39. 4).1 Judicial vOflm in a general
sense are also referred to when the Athenians claim at Sparta
that they use the same laws for themselves and for their allies in
commercial suits (1. 77. 1), when Cleon upholds the superiority of
bad but unchangeable laws over such as are good and invalid (3.
37. 3), or when Nicias gives the contrary advice, namely, that to
break the laws by a vote is less bad than to let the city take bad
counsel (6. 14).
If so far Thucydides' use of vOfL0S' resembles that of Herodotus,
he rather resembles Euripides in some instances in which VOfL0S'
is envisaged as capable of inhibiting or restraining human action.
Neither fear of the gods nor law of men, he tells us (2. 53·4),
prevented people from indulging in excesses during the Plague,
and in his answer to Cleon, Diodotus states that no vOfL0S' can
prevent men from making mistakes (3. 45. 3, 7), and he warns the
Athenians that the best protection against revolts lies not in the
severity oflaws but in the effectivenessof precautionary measures
(3. 46. 4)·In the Diodotus passages in particular we feel the
atmosphere of a time approaching in which the positive law not
only influences all thought about vOfL0S', but in which also the
value of vOfL0S' begins to decline in the face of more powerful forces.
The inscriptions of the last quarter of the fifth century2 show
how vOfL0S' is well on its way to signifying primarily the positive
law.3 The re-publication of Draco's law on homicide of 409/8
I Both here and at 37. 3 specific political or judicial statutes seem to be indicated
rather than a way of life in general: at 37. 3 legislation to help the injured is
singled out for special mention, while here 7rOVWV WAET!! and fJ-'ryfJ-ETU VOfJ-WV clearly
refers to the Spartans, and particularly to laws such as to return either with their
shield or on it.
2 I exclude from discussion here the section of the coinage decree of 449/8 B.C.,
which comes from the Aphytis fragment. The text as printed in A TL D 14 III,
lines 14- 15, reads: ~ EVOXO[vs lva' KaTu TOV vOfJ-ov ••. ]. But this reading is so vague
that is is practically meaningless, and M. Segre, who first proposed it in Clara
Rhodos 9 (1938) 160 with n. I, remarks that it is 'dato soltanto a mo' d'esempio'.
3 This is also shown in the four uses of vOfJ-OS in [Xen.] Alh. Pol., which probably
belongs to the early 420S. At I. 9 the term is used of legislation enacted by the
cleverest people; I. 10 speaks of an imaginary vOfJ-OS requiring a freeborn person to
strike a slave; at 1. 18 VOfJ-O~ gives jurisdiction at Athens to the o;jfJ-OS; and at 3. 2
one of the functions of the Council is to deliberate 7rEpt vOfJ-wv IiEUEWS.
B.C., which we had occasion to mention earlier, is called a vOfL0S' in
the preamble which authorizes its publication, although it refers
to itself as a 8wfl-oS'/ and the task ofre-publication was entrusted
to a commission named uvayparPELS' TWV VOfLWV (ll. 5-6), leaving no
doubt that written legislation is involved. It is not quite as clear
whether there is a reference to an earlier written act in a coinage
law of the spring of 422 B.C., which seems to identify the earlier
law by the name of its proposer.2 In a decree of 418/17 B.C. con-
cerning funds for the sanctuary ofCodrus, Neleus, and Basile it is
likely that the V0fl-0S' on the basis of which the funds are allocated
to the Treasurers of the Other Gods and the vOfL0S' concerning the
sacred precincts were written.3 Finally, in a decree of 404/3 B.C.,
probably an act of enfranchisement, the phrase VOfLOtS' DE TOLS'
aUToLS' 7TEPL aUT(vv TUS' uPxuS' xp[7ja8at, 0[S' KaL 7TEPL TWV aAAwv
n81]vaLwv], speaking as it does of vOfL0S' to be applied by the
magistrates, almost certainly refers to written statutes.4
The meaning of v0fl-0S' as the positive law is also found in what
fragments oflate fifth-century philosophy have come down to us.
In his Palamedes Gorgias called written VOfLOt 'the guardians of
the juSt',5 and in his Funeral Oration (frg. 6) he balances correct-
ness in thought and speech (Aoywv Op80T1]Ta) against the fine
points of what must be in this context the written law (VOfLOV
UKpt{3ELaS') ; and Pericles and Hippias are represented as having
defined V0fl-0S' in the sense of written statutes.6 It is less certain
whether Antiphon had the written laws in mind, when giving
advice (frg. 44A. I. 17-23) to hold the v0fl-0t in high regard when
witnesses are present, but to follow rPvatS' when alone, or when
Callicles states in the Gorgias (483 b) that the VOfLOt are the work of
the weak and tnere majority. Finally, in the account of the origin
of VOfLOt given in the Sisyphus ofCritias (frg. 25·5, 9), the reference
is to positive, perhaps even to written, laws, when he attributes
I IC 12• I 15 (= Tod, CHI 12, ]\;0. 87) 5 and 20, and above, pp. 3 and 5.
2 B. D. Meritt, Hesperia 14 (1945) 119-22, No. 11. 7: [- - - - Kalia7rEp KeAni" 110]
VOfJ-OSh[o] K[apM ..... ]. But Meritt is diffident about the restoration and suggests
that the reading may be vOfJ-wfJ-[a].
3 IC 12• 94 (ef. SEC 10, No. 103) 17-18,23-5.
4 IC 22• 10. 6-7. For the date and purpose of this decree see D. Hereward,
BSA 47 (1952) 102-17·
5 Frg. I I a. 30: VOfJ-OVS TE ypa7rTOVS q,vAaK(lS [TE] TOU O'Ka{ov.
6 Pericles: Xen. Mem. I. 2. 40--6, esp. 42: 1Ta.VTES' yap OOTOL VOJ.LOI- ElaLv, OU'; TO
7r;";jlios UVVEAliov Kat OOK'fJ-aUaV EypaifiE ..• ; Hippias: ibid. 4. 4. 13 and PI. Hipp.
Ma. 284 d-e.
52 fJEl:MOl: AND NOMOI:
the purpose of their institution to the need of putting an end to
the primeval, brutish, and disorderly state of society. I the end of the play to commemorate his experience among the
There are two further usages of vOfLoS- which, though they are
closely related to one or another of the uses we have discussed so
far, are still sufficiently distinct to deserve a separate treatment.
The fact that the Greeks could think of vOfLoS- as having had
a beginning in time2 leads easily into its use in connection with an
act by which a precedent might be or actually is established,
although I can find no passage in which vOfLoS- occurs in this sense
before the fifth century. Twice in Sophocles VOfLoS- denotes the
precedent by which customary practices may be initiated. In the
Electra Clytaemnestra is warned by her daughter that her killing
of Agamemnon in retaliation for Iphigeneia's death may have
established a vOfLoS- of revenge, which could easily back-fire
against her,3 and in the Oedipus at Colonus (907-8) Theseus
threatens to apply to Creon the rules for which he has himself
set the precedent, when he tried to seize Oedipus by violence.
Herodotus calls vOfLoS- a custom begun by the Carian women who
had been forced to marry Athenians not to eat with their
husbands and not to call them by their names (1. 146. 3), and a
custom of the Aeginetans and Argives, established after some
difficulties with Athens, that women should wear brooch-pins
one-and-a-half times the normal size and that local rather than
Attic ware be used for certain temple rites (5. 88. 2). Similarly,
Thucydides reports that the Corinthians, in their speech against
the Corcyreans before the Athenian Assembly, warned the
Athenians not to set the precedent (VOfLoS-) of admitting as allies
those who revolt from others, since that might back-fire against
them (I. 40. 4, 6), and in the Melian Dialogue the Athenians dis-
claim any responsibility for having set the precedent that gods
and men rule wherever they are the stronger (5. 105. 2). In
Euripides vOfLoS- refers twice in the Iphigeneia among the Taurians to
religious practices initiated by Orestes: from his trial dates the
I The text, as preserved in Sextus Empiricus 9. 54, contains VO/-,Ol, also at line
40: T~V avo/-"av TE Tof, VO/-,OlS KaT€a~1]aEv. But since the point of the passage is that
a clever man (7TUKVOS ns Ka, aorpos yvw/-'1]v aV1)p) invented fear of the gods in order
to prevent transgression of the VO/-,Ol, the reading VO/-,OlS is hard to maintain, and it
is preferable to accept Schmidt's emendation rpO~Ol, or, less so, Diels's ~poTofs.
2 This is particularly striking in the earliest extant occurrence of the term in
Hes. Op. 276, where Zeus has ordered separate ways of life for beasts and men.
3 580-1: opa nOEfaa TOVOETOV vO/-,ov {3POTO"iSI/-'~ 7T~/-,a aauTfj Kat /-,ETayvolUv T'01]"
ritual celebrated at the Choes (959), and Athene bids him at
Taurians by establishing the vOfLoS- for the festival of Artemis at
Halai that a sword be put to a man's throat (1458). Precedents of
social customs are involved when in the Trojan vVomen (103I)
Hecuba urges Menelaus to kill Helen to set a vOfLoS- for all un-
faithful wives, in the Orestes (892) Talthybius is reported to have
criticized Orestes' murder of Clytaemnestra for not setting up
KaAovs- vOfLOVS- to regulate children's behaviour toward their
parents, and Danaus is said (frg. 228. 8) to have established the
vOfLoS- of changing the name of the Pelasgians to 'Danaans'.
A second sense of vOfLoS- derived from the fact that it may have
a beginning in time is that of a rule set up or a procedure to be
followed under certain closely-defined conditions, as, for example,
the rules to be followed in playing a game. This usage is first
I
found in Aeschylus' Agamemnon, where Clytaemnestra describes
the course she set up for the beacon signal as VOfLOt AafL7Tao1)-
,popwv (312).2 After that, it occurs in Sophocles to describe the
'rule' Antigone followed in honouring her brother above hus-
band, child, or parent (Ant. 908), and in Electra's statement to
Chrysothemis that she does not want to live by VOfLOt which
demand that a just action be avoided if it brings harm to oneself
(El. 1043). Herodotus describes as VOfLOt the terms agreed upon
by the twelve kings who ruled Egypt after the priest of Hephaes-
tus (2. 147. 3-4) and makes Hermotimus praise the gods for
having applied a just vOfLOS- in delivering into his hands the man
who made him a eunuch (8. 106. 3). In Euripides, Phaedra's
nurse urges her mistress to follow the rule that love must be
accepted (Hipp. 461), Theseus banishes his son on the basis of the
vOfLoS- proposed by Hippolytus himself that fathers ought to
punish sons who violate their wives (Hipp. 1046),3 and Orestes
describes his and Electra's relationship to Aegisthus as an enmity
'which knows not the rules of a truce'.4
I e.g. Ar. Eccl. 987-8: KaTa TOV EV 7TETTOf, vO/-,ov, and also the difficult fragment
of Cratinus (116), cited by Athenaeus 15. 667 f, where the VO/-,Ol of KOTTa~os
seem to be mentioned.
2 Fraenkel translates: 'the rules I arranged for my torch-bearers'.
3 Actually, Hippolytus had suggested (1043-4) that fathers kill such sons, but
Theseus is less extreme in his punishment at this point.
4 El. 905-6: aa7TovOowl yap I VO/-,OWlV .xOpav TipOE aUI-'~E~A'7Ka/-,EV.
 \Vc have now completed our investigation of the various pas-
sages in which vOf1-0S occurs from the beginnings of written Greek
to the end of the fifth century B.C. It remains to sum up what we
have found and to draw some general conclusions. We have
isolated altogether thirteen senses in which vOf1-0S is used in
Greek, and although the nature of a study of this kind makes it
impossible to be dogmatic either about the number of categories
established or about the assignment of particular passages to par-
ticular categories, it has been demonstrated that vOf1-0S had a con-
siderable range and variety of connotations before the end of the
fifth century. And yet the fact remains that the one word vOf1-0S
sufficed for the Greeks to express all the connotations which we
have attributed to it, and this, in turn, indicates that there
exists one underlying basic idea of vOf1-os, of which each meaning
and each occurrence constitutes, as it were, a manifestation. What
that basic concept was has been suggested at the beginning of
this section. NOf1-os, in all its senses, signifies an 'order' and im-
plies that this order is, or ought to be, generally regarded as valid
and binding by the members of the group in which it prevails.
This usually means that the members of a given group accept
vOf1-0S without question, and general if not universal acceptance
is especially in evidence in the most general senses of the term,
when it refers to a way of life, to the normal order of things, to
normal procedures, and to normal behaviour, or when it de-
scribes the authority on the basis of which or by which norms are
issued, or the condition of law-and-order, in which the vOf1-0t are
obeyed. Acceptance is also implied in the more specific senses,
when it designates the mores of a people and its various beliefs
and practices in society, religion, and politics. Even when the
later fifth century begins to disparage, devaluate, and reject
customary practices, conventional beliefs, religious beliefs and
practices, and the validity of statutes, it does so against the back-
ground of general acceptance by society, which these vOf1-0t enjoy
and against which the enlightened individual protests.
are now in a position to compare vOf-ws and BWf1-os with
W
E
one another. The basic idea of BWf1-oS is, as we saw, that
of something imposed by an external agency, conceived
as standing apart and on a higher plane than the ordinary, upon
those for whom it constitutes an obligation. The sense of obliga-
tion is also inherent in vOf1-os, but it is motivated less by the
authority of the agent who imposed it than by the fact that it is
regarded and accepted as valid by those who live under it. And
when we apply these basic concepts to the connotation of
'statute', which both BWf1-os and vOf1-os assumed at different
periods in Athenian history, we see that the two terms approach
the notion of a statute from opposite directions. eWf1-os envisages
it as being imposed upon a people by a lawgiver legislating for it,
while vOf1-os looks upon a statute as the expression of what the
people as a whole regard as a valid and binding norm.
This radical difference between the two terms suggests that
the change from BWf1-oS to vOf1-0S came about at a time when the
Athenians were disenchanted with living under laws imposed
upon them from above, and decided instead to consider as laws
only norms which they had themselves ratified and acknowledged
to be valid and binding. The most probable time at which this
happened would seem to be the establishment of the democracy
by Cleisthenes in the wake of the liberation from the Peisistratid
tyranny. Moreover, the fact that we have no evidence in Athens
of a gradual transition from BWf1-os to vOf1-0S, of a period, that is,
in which BWf1-oS and vOf1-os coexisted at Athens as interchangeable
terms for 'statute', points to an abrupt change, which is likely to
have been the result of a deliberate act.
Unfortunately, none of our sources for the history of Athens
reports such a deliberate act, and there is equal silence about the
reasons for the change from BWf1-os to vOf1-os. Still, there are a
number of indications which will enable us to determine with
some degree of plausibility under what circumstances and at
what point in Athenian history the change took effect. Once
56 eEl:MOl: AND NOMOl:

the date is established, it may be possible for us to discover

whether the change was the result of a deliberate act, and also
whether in effecting it the Athenians followed or were influenced
by similar changes that may have taken place elsewhere in the
Greek world. It is to these problems that we shall address our-
selves in the rest of the book.

Tis safe to infer from the law which we quoted at the begin-

I ning of the Introduction that after 403/2 B.C. any valid statute
was written and, conversely, that any reference to vOfLoS in
a political or judicial sense is a reference to a written law (Andoc.
I. 87). In other words, the definition of the political and judicial

VOfLO> included in the fourth century the notion that it is em-

bodied 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 inter-
ested in finding out at what time written documents analogous
to theirs were first called VOfLOt. For we can have absolute cer-
tainty 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 refer-
ence 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 im-
posed upon free action by vOfLWV JlpU4)uL (Ree. 866).1 These pas-
sages 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.
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<; (2. 37. 3)" The same kind of argument applies also to
Antigone's invocation of the uypa7TTa 8(JiJv VOfLLfLU (Soph. Ant.
454-5) some ten years earlier. Her appeal would have made no
impression on the Athenian audience in 442 B.C., if they did not
automatically associate vOfLo<; with written statutes without stop-
ping to think that historically Creon's VOfLOL2 were proclaimed in
an age that had no written statutes.
Accordingly, we can be absolutely certain that by 442 B.C. the
Athenians thought of VOfLOL as written. Can we go beyond that?
There is a method by which we can determine whether a given
political vOfLO<; was thought of as written, and although this
method cannot lead to absolute certainty, it can give us results
which are so probable as to be virtually certain. If we can find
vOfLoS in a context in which provisions are mentioned which we
know from other sources to have been the content of written VOfLOL
at a later period, it is safe to assume that the term refers to a
written statute, especially if the language of the passage is legal
in character. Now, by a lucky coincidence, the earliest passage
in which this is the case is at the same time the earliest passage of
all in which vOfLo<; is attested in a political sense. In Aeschylus'
Supplices (387-9 I), Pelasgus warns the Danaids:
Et TOL KpaTovUL 7TaLo" AlYV7TTOV aEBEV
vop.,cp 7ToAEW<;, rPaaKovTE<; lyyvTaTa yEVOV<;
dVaL, T:<; av TO Lao' aVTLWBijvaL BEAoL;
I I do not share the confidence of]. T. Kakridis, Der thukydideische Bpitaphios
(= Zetemata 26) 5-6, that the free composition of the Funeral Oration after 404
B.C. 'gehort ... zu den sichersten Ergebnissen der neueren Thukydidesanalyse'. See
ibid. 6 n. I, for a good bibliography to 1961 on this thorny problem. There is
a lot to be said for F. E. Adcock's view, Thucydides and his History 36-7, that the
Funeral Oration 'was written in 431 B.C., while the voice of Pericles still sounded
in the historian's ears'.
2 Cf. Ant. 382, 449, 481, 847,
OEL TO: aE rPn5ynv KaTd vop.,ov<; TOV<; OlKOBEV,
w<; aUK EXovaL KVpO<; ouoev ap.,rPL aov.!
, J ,J.,
, Id "
That expressions such as EyyvTuTa yEVOV<;, 'f'EVYHV, an EXovm
KfJpo<; are borrowed from the language of the law has been re-
marked by many commentators on this passage,2and the tenor of
the passage leaves no doubt that the king. is ~ryin? to make th~
women think of the legal aspects of their SituatIOn. Pelasgus
warning is clearly based on the fact, known from Athe~ian law ~f
the fourth century, that a father had 'absolute authonty.over hiS
daughters, whom he could give in marriage or leave by will to the
man whom he chose for them'.3 Although the text of no law con-
taining this stipulation has come down to us: texts of similar
laws have survived (e.g. [Dem.] 46. 18) and It would be very
surprising indeed if such a clause had not been part of Solon's
laws on inheritance (Arist. Ath. Pol. 9. 2, 35. 2; Pluto Solon 20. 2).
We may, therefore, conclude that the reference is to a vOfLoS
which existed in writing when the Supplices was first performed
in the archonship of Archedemides in 464/3 B.C.,4 and ~ince no
earlier use of vOfLoS in a political or judicial sense has surVived,.we
may take this as the terminus ante quem vOfLo<; assumed the techmcal
connotation of 'statute'.
We stated earlier that the last attested use of 8wfLo<; is to be
found in the prescript of the old Dracon~an statute ~g.ainst
tyranny re-enacted at the time of the expulsion of the Pelslst~a-
tids which describes Draco's law as 8EUfLw Kd miTpw (Anst.
Ath: Pol. 16. 10).5 This means that 511/10 B.C. constitutes the
terminus post quem for the adoption of vOfLo<; in the sen~eof 'statute'.
Accordingly, vOfLoS must have become the techmcal term for
'statute' at some point between 511/10 and 464/3 B.C. Our
I 'If the sons of Aegyptus get the power,over you by <appe.aling to) t?e law 0;
the state, saying that they are your nearest km, who would be wlllmg to resIst them.
Surely in accordance with the laws of your native land you must plead m your
defence that they have no authority over you.' .. . .
2 See T. G. Tucker, The Supplices of Aeschylus 85~6; ]. Vurthelm, Alschyl.os
Sclzut41ehende 186; Rose, CSP A I. 42. The expression EyyuTaTw yEVOUS occurs m
a legal context at least as early as about 435 B,C" IG 12. 77·6; f?r the fourth cen-
tury see especially the numerous passages m [Dem.] 43 and 44, cIted by S. Preuss,
Index Demosthenicus s.vv. EyyUTUTU and EyyuTaTw.
3 G. H. Macurdy, CP 39 (1944) 96-7, citing Dem. 27·5, 36. 8, and Isaeus 10. 13·
See also]. H. Lipsius, ARR 482-3 with nn. 42 and 43· '
• POxy, No. 2256, frg. 3, with Lesky, op. cit. 58-9'
5 Cf. Ostwald, TAPA 86 (1955) 106-9·

discussionofthe political andjudicial VOfLOt has shown that Pelasgus'
indifference to the question whether the law to which he wants
the Danaids to appeal is written or not reflects a general Greek
indifference to this same problem. I From at least the fourth
century B.C. on, the Greeks were aware of the importance of
written legislation and tried to discover when it began,2 and
Aristotle (Atlz. Pol. 41. 2) notes explicitly that Draco was the
first to issue written laws in Athens. But in the fifth century they
do not seem to have been inordinately interested whether or not
a given vOfLoS was written. The fact that a political vOfLoS was
valid and binding was all that mattered to them; they were less
concerned whether it was embodied in a written document.
Herodotus' language is no different when he speaks of the written
VOfLOt of Solon from the way in which he speaks of the (presum-
ably unwritten) VOfLOt of Sparta, or of a (presumably written)
law of the Corinthians;3 and Thucydides treats the (presumably
unwritten) VOfLOt of Sparta the same as a (presumably written)
VOfLo, in Corcyra.4
This circumstance suggests that any political or judicial VOfLOS
of which we hear was potentially written, or, differently ex-
pressed, that every valid political or judicial vOfLo, had the same
authority that a statute has in modern societies. Therefore, any
trace that we can find of the use of VOfLoS in a political sense before
464/3 B.C. may be taken as an indication that vOfLo, had assumed
the meaning of 'statute' by that time. Now we saw that VOfLO,
itself is not attested in the sense of 'statute' before Aeschylus'
Supplices. But there does exist a number of nouns, adjectives, and
verbs ending in a -VOfLO, suffix, which are at least as old as the
04Jssey. Since these obviously reflect one or the other of the mean-
ings of vOfLo, in Part I, an examination of those compounds which
are attested before 464/3 B.C. will enable uSto seenot only whether
any of them embody the 'statute' connotations of vOfLoS from their
first occurrence down to the end of the fifth century, but also, if
they do not, whether we can detect in any of them a change in
meaning which suggests that they were influenced by the adop-
tion of vOfLoS as the technical term for 'statute'. And if we succeed
I See pp. 43-52 abOve.
, See Arist. Pol. 2. 12,1274'22-31, and Ephorus, FGH 70. F 139 (= Strabo
6. I. 8).
3 I. 29. 1-2,5.42.2,6.52.3; 5. 75. 2; and 6. 89. Cf. pp. 46-7 above.
4 4. 38. 1,5· 63·4 and 66. 2-3; 3. 70. 5-6. Cf. p. 49 above.
THE PROBLEM DEFINED
in finding such connotations in passages written before .464/3
B.C., we may take that as an indication that vOfLoS, too, was IIIuse
as the term for 'statute' at that time.
The compounds attested before 464/3 B.C: a~e eUvofL{a, ova-
VOfL{a, dvofL{a, laovofL{a, and their cognate adjectIval and verbal
forms and to their examination we shall now turn.1 But before
we ca~ proceed to that task, we must reiterate what was ~tated at
the beginning of Part 1. Analyses ~ased upon etymologIcal con-
siderations have no more cogency III the case of the -VOfLOS com-
pounds than they do in the case of vOfLoS. I,know ?f ~o ~tten;pt to
derive the -VOfLOS suffixes from the verb VEfLW = dIstnbute that
does not have to strain the meaning of either the root ver~ or
the compound,z while those who regard the suffixesas formatIOns
from the noun VOfLOS3 rarely, if ever, face the much more releva~t
question in which of the many connotations of vOfLoS each suffix~s
to be taken.4 In other words, we again have to follow.the semantIc
method and base our conclusions on a close analysIs of the con-
texts in which each of them is found.
I We shall also consider KUKovoflo" which, though not attested b.efore 463 B.C.;.
enters into contexts in which €IJVofliu is also found. No account wIll be taken °d
dlvOflO, and aVOIW, in a musical sense-e.g. €;;VOflO,: Aleman, frg. 10. 10, a~
Pind. Pyth. 5. 67 (Andrewes, Eun., esp. 91 n. 6) ; UVOflO" Aesc~. Ag. 151 (L'
Llo.d-]ones CQ47 (= N.S. 3) (1953) 96, accepted by]. D. DennIston and D..
Pa;e, Aesch;lus: Agamemnon 82) and 1142 (E. Fraenkel, Aeschylus: Agamemnon 3·
519). But see also p. 86 below. 8 d'
2 Stier NB 23--6 with 235 n. 26, and]. L. Myres, CR 61 (1947) 0-2, ~nve
both €VV;fliu and:>iaovofliu from V€flw. H. J. Erasmus, 'Eunomi.a', Acta Classlca 3
(196o) ..53-64 esp. 54, accepts this derivation for €VVOfliu, and HIrzel, TDV 242-4,
' . r' '.
followed bv BS I. 418, accepts It ,or LGOVOflLU, so as
1 0 Laroche 186-7. The expres-
sion taov (~r tau) V€flnv (e.g. Hdt. 6. I I. 3; Soph. aT 579; Pl. Pr~t. 337 a, Rep. 8.
8 C' Arist. EN 5. 3, 113I '23) contributes little to an understandmg. . , ,
553 a~Ofliu is universally derived from vOfloS, even by those who denve €VVOfl'U
TD V 242-3 n. 4 ad fin. ; Ehrenberg, Ison., esp. 293, and
firom tlle ver b , see H,'rzel
. , , 1" f / 7
Vlastos, Ison., esp. 348-9, who also derives €VVOflLU and ~aovofl;u ~om VOIJ.O" 34.-
" 1] SE esp 82 n I and for LGOVOflLU }< raenkel, op. Clt.
50 For EVVOJ.LLa see a so aeger, , . ., / d ' , .
68~-2. For discussions which regard the evidence for €VVOfl'U an LGOV~flLU as I~-
k
conclusive, see Ehrenberg, Ison. 293; Heinimann, N~1~4 L~r~enk Cie~th. I-I ,
esp.5n.I3;LarocheI63,200-I,and255;andE.\yI, ~rIntIaa I.
4 Only Ehrenberg, Eun. 75, seems to have recognIzed thiS problem.

F!VVOj1-£a is the earliest of these concepts to be found in Greek
l~terature.1 Only the noun form is attested before the end of the
sIxth century B.C.;2 the adjective dJvop.,oc; is not found before
Aesch.ylus.and Pindar,3 and the verb EVvop.,Eop.,at occurs for the
first tIme In Herodotus (1. 97. 3). There seems to be general
~greement t~at before t?e end of the sixth century dwop.,{a has
lIttle or nothIng to do wIth vap.,oc; = 'statute', 4 but what has not
been clearly recognized is that down to the last third of the fifth
century Etwop.,{a and its cognates bear only two senses neither of
~hich is immediately related to vap.,oc; = 'statute'. describes it
eIther a quality of personal behaviour, in which sense it reflects
~he.v~p.,oc; whic~ connotes the normal and proper conduct of an
IndIVld.u~I,5or ~tre~ersto the condition of a well-ordered society,
a condItIOn whIch Implies not only the prevalence of good laws
~nd. good governronentwit~in the state, but also the good func-
tIOmng.~f th~ socIa.1orgamsm as a whole. It is, in other words,
~ Co~dItIOnIn whIch vap.,oc; means 'law-and-order'.6 The dis-
tInC~I~~between these two senses does not of course preclude the
possIbIlIty that they may affect one another: there are several
examples, especially of the adjective dJvop.,oc;, where the condition
of law-an?-ord.er is pred.ic~ted as a quality of a city. Still, this
does not ImpaIr the valIdIty of the distinction. Only with the
pseudo-Xenophontic Constitution of Athens does the meaning of
vap.,oc; = 'statute' seem to afTect the compound Etwop.,{a and its
cognates. I shall in the following speak of dwop.,{a as a 'quality'
I The most important full-length discussions of Evv0fl-{a are: ,"Vaser in RE 6
(1909) 1129-31; Andrewes, Eun. 89-102; Ehrenberg, Eun. 70-93' Myres loc
CIt.; and Erasmus, loco cit. ' ,.
2 1~hc onl.y exception is Eiiv0fl-0' in Aleman, frg. 10. [0 cited above where the
sense IS rnuSlcal, "
,3 Aesch. frg. 198, from the Prometheus Unbound' Pind. Oi. I. 37 Isth 5 22
}'vem. 9. 29. " ..
4 ~.g. Jaeger, SE 82, n. I; Andrcwcs, Eun. 8<)-90; Ehrenberg, Eun. 74-5; and
!I!yr(~, loco Clt., ,!he atte~pt ~f Erasmus, op. cit. 57, to show that from Solon on
Evvofl-L~lmc,a~tS~lglhtdIstributIOn by law' fails to convince, since v0fl-0' did not vet
mean aw lor "-0 OD. .
5 See pp. 24-26 above.
EYNOMIA, AYENOMIA, AND ANOMIA 63
when it describes personal conduct and as a 'condition' when it
refers to the state of a society. I
The only passage in Greek literature before the beginning of
the fifth century in which Evvop.,{a describes a quality is also the
earliest. In the 04Yssry (17. 487) Antinous is warned that the gods
visit cities in the guise of strangers, av()pw7TwV u{3ptV TE Kd EVVOp.,{y)V
EepOpWVTEC;. This warning, given in the context of Odysseus' rude
reception by the suitors, the antithetical pairing of EVvop.,{a with
u{3ptC;, and the genitive av()pw7TwV all indicate that a contrast
between proper and improper personal conduct is intended,2 and
that Evvop.,{a, accordingly, describes a personal quality. The other
occurrences of Evvop.,{a before 463 B.C. describe a condition.
With Hesiod it begins to assume a social significance which
never quite leaves it for the rest of its history. Hesiod is also the
first to make Evvop.,{y) into a personal cosmic force and to give her
a place in the divine genealogy. She is the daughter of Zeus,
begotten with Themis, the primeval goddess of order, after he had
consolidated his power over the universe, and her sisters are the
H6rai, the forces of order in nature, Dike (Justice) and Eirene
(Peace), the forces of order in human society, and the three
Moirai (Fates), the forces that represent the rhythm of the life of
the individual (Theog. 901-6).3 Andrewes aptly calls Eunomie
here 'one of the guardians of the social order, keeping the city
from violence and lawlessness';4 but it is not merely in the city
that she maintains order. Her pedigree makes her part of a larger
order which transcends the city, a universal order established by
Zeus. Hesiod is unique in making Eunomie into a cosmic power.
I Laroche 200-1 draws a similar distinction between -V0fl-0' compounds that
have a social and those which have a personal signification. But he goes astray
when he confines the former to derivatives from adverbs+vEfl-w and the latter to
derivatives from prepositions+v0fl-0"
2 So Andrewes, Eun. 89-90. W. Nestle, Hermes 77 (1942) 134, V. Ehrenberg,
Eun. 76, and G. Vlastos, Ison. 350, speak of the v0fl-0' of hospitality in this connec-
tion, but the meaning is surely wider and less specific than that. On the other
hand, to accept the view of Myres, op. cit. 81, approved by Erasmus, op. cit. 54,
that EVv0fl-lTJ refers here to the state of a society in which each man is given his due,
we should have to assume that ii/3p', describes the state of a society in which each
man is denied his due; but there is no indication that ii/3p" ever designates the
,
state of a society.
3 But note the inconsistency, typical of Hesiod, with Theog. 217-19, where the
Moirai appear among the children of Night.
4 Andrewes, Eun. 89. But there is no support in this passage for his further
comment that Evv0fl-la is here 'the social result of the conduct of the individual
citizens who make up the community'.
64 NOMOE BECOMES 'STATUTE' EYNOMIA, ,1YENOMIA, AND ANOMIA 65

When later poets follow Hesiod in personifYing her and in giving
her a genealogy, the H6rai and the Moirai do not appear as her
sisters, with the result that her sphere of operation is then con-
fined to the city-state. Pindar, for example, celebrates Eunomia
with her sisters Dika and Eirena, 'golden children of well-
counselling Themis', as denizens of Corinth,1 and in an anony-
mous lyric poem, perhaps to be attributed to Simonides, the
Moirai Aisa, Klotho, and Lachesis (here children of Night rather
than of Zeus) are implored to send to the city Eunomia together
with her sisters Dika and Eirena.2 A rather different genealogy of
Eunomia is found in a fragment of Aleman, in which Promatheia
(Forethought) is her mother, and Tycha (Good Fortune) and
Peith6 (Persuasion) her sisters.3 There is no context to help us
interpret this relationship, but Ehrenberg is no doubt right when
he relates these deities to the Spartan state,4 as implying that law-
and-order, success, and the acceptance of arguments in a de-
liberative body depend on planned policy. Again, it is in the city
that EVlJop.,La does her work, and that this work is larger than the
establishment of 'good laws' is obvious. Eunomia as a person
encompasses the whole social order, which may even be treated,
as it is in Hesiod, as part of a larger cosmic order.
While €UlJop.,La loses her cosmic connotations after Hesiod, her
association with the city-state is perfected by Solon so as to
transform and elaborate the statements of Homer and Hesiod
into a programme for political action. The definition of EVlJOp.,Ly)
as the condition of the society which he hopes to create by his re-
forms is couched in such lively and precise terms at the end of his
poem 'Our City' that some modern scholars have dubbed the
entire poem 'Eunomie', even though there is no ancient warrant
for this name.S Solon defines EVlJOp.,Ly) by contrasting it with the
negative effects produced by its opposite, LlValJop.,Ly), which 'offers
most evils to the city', whereas 'EVlJOp.,Ly) renders all things well-
ordered and harmonious'. 1 This positive statement on EVlJOp.,Ly) is
repeated with only slight variants and with the substitution of
'rational' for 'well-ordered' at the very end of the poem ;Z but the
main bulk of the definition proceeds by showing the ways in
which EVlJOp.,Ly) counteracts LlValJop.,Ly). It often puts fetters on the
unjust, it makes smooth what is rough (that is, it eliminates fric-
tion), puts an end to greed (K6pos), blinds insolence (v{3pts), and
makes wither the blossoms of fatuousness (aTY)) as soon as they
sprout; it straightens crooked judgements (otKat), mitigates the
works of arrogance, and puts an end to the works of faction and
to the wrath of painful strife.3
To interpret this passage we must begin by comparing it with
the statements of Homer and Hesiod on EVlJop.,La and OValJop.,La.
Solon follows Homer in presenting EVlJOp.,Ly) as opposed to v{3pts.4
But while Homer contrasts v{3pts alone with €UlJOp.,Ly), Solon's
antithesis involves not only the entire K6pos-v{3pts-aTy) chainS but
also a number of other unpleasant consequences, which, though
mentioned by Hesiod, are not brought by him into any relation
to EVlJOp.,Ly) or Llvavop.,tY).6 Thus, the EVlJOp.,Ly) which in Homer ap-
peared as a quality shown in the proper conduct of individuals
expresses in Solon the condition of which the blinding of v{3pts is
but one factor. For at the same time EVlJOp.,Ly) will also establish
law-and-order in the administration of justice by straightening
Ehrenberg, Eun. 81-6; G. Vlastos, 'Solonian Justice', CP 41 (1946) 65-83;
Solmsen, HA 112-17; A. Masaracchia, Salone 246-72; and H. J. Erasmus, op. cit.
56-7 .
•I Frg; 3; ~ 1-2 : ,ws KaKa 1TIIEiuora 1TolI€< i)vovofLlTJ 1TapEX€<, ! EVVOfLlTJ i)' d5KoofLa Kat
ap'TLu 7TaVT '"a1To~~t~€~. ''"' I ", " \ ,

2 38-9: EOn i) V1T avorTJs !1Tavora Kaor avOpw1ToVS apna Ka' 1TLvvora.
Ol. 13. 6-8: EV orEf yap EvvolJia
I val€< KauLyv~ora {3aOpov 1Tolllwv auq,aMs
7£, I 3 33-8: Kat OafLa orois aOLKo,o' afLq"orLOTJO' 1TEoas'
L1lKa Kat OfL6'Tpo¢JosElp~va, TclJ.LL' civ8paut 7TAOlhov, / XPVO'€UL 7TUrOES €Vf30VAoV e€fLLTOSo 7pax€a A€LalvEt, 7TUV€L KOPOV, VfJPLV nfl-aupar,
Cf. Ol. 9. 15-16, where Opus is described as the 'portion of Themis and of her avalvn S' Q.T7]S aV8En q,uofLEva,
saviour daughter, far-famed Eunomia' (tiv eEfL'S OVYUorTJP orE 0< uwor€<pa MlloYXEv I Ev8vVEL oE O{KUS O'KoAuls tJ7TEP~<pava ..,' Epya
ILEyalloi)o~os EVvofLla). 7TpaVVEL, 7TUtlEt 8' Epya O"XoO'Tau{7JS,
2 Page, PMG, frg. I018 (b). 6-7. Cf. Ehrenberg, Eun. 72. On the question of 1Tav€< i)' apyaMTJs ep,oos xOllov.
authorship, see C. M. Bowra, CQ52 (= N.S. 8) (1958) 231-40, reprinted in GLP
404-15. 4 Frg. 3. 34; Od. 17.487.
3 Aleman, frg. 64. S Cf. frgg. 3. 8-9 and 5. 9-IO. For the traditional nature of this sequence and its
4 Ehrenberg, Eun. 77-80. variations see D. H. Abel, TAPA 74 (1943) 92-101, esp. 94-6·
s Frg. 3, esp. 30-9. The most noteworthy discussions of this poem are: Wila- 6 With Solon, frg. 3. 36, EVOVVE' OE olKas oKolI,as, cf. Hes. Op. 219-24,25°,259-64;
mowitz, AA 2. 305-8; I. M. Linforth, Solon the Athenian 194-206 ; Jaeger, SE 6g-85; the epya o,xoooraolTJS and apyaMTJs ep,i)os XOllos of 3·37-8 recall the bad kind of
Stier, NB 233-6; H. Schaefer, Staatsform und Politik 146-51; Nestle, op. cit. 130-5; Strife in Op. 11-16.
814277 F

crooked judgements; as a social force, it will put an end to the
works of arrogance, and as a political force, it will quell the
works off action and strife. Its realm is the entire life of the city-
state.
Solon is indebted to Hesiod's treatment of both Eunomie and
Dysnomie, and it is in fact only in Hesiod and Solon that Dys-
nomie is found in classical literature. 1 But the differences are
more telling than the similarities. Hesiod does not juxtapose these
two and establishes no genealogical relation between them,2
whereas Solon's contrast is the result ofjuxtaposition. For Hesiod
both are divine persons and part of a cosmic order, which em-
braces not only political but also personal, natural, and theologi-
cal relationships. Their places and functions are determined in
a genealogical way: it is as daughters and sisters that they are
related to other cosmic forces which are, in their turn, treated
as divine persons. With Solon it is different. Although he treats
Eunomie and Dysnomie as persons in the sense that he attributes
actions to them,3 they seem to work without any divine impulse
and so naturally that they may more justly be regarded as per-
sonified abstract forces which Solon saw at work in the world
around him.4 They are 'poetic persons' which symbolize, respec-
tively, the orderly and the disorderly state of affairs in the city.
Dysnomie is presented by Hesiod (Theog. 226-32) as a daughter of
Strife ("Epts) and as sister ofToil, Forgetfulness,Famine, Afflictions,
Fights, Battles, Murders, Manslaughters, Quarrels, Lies, Disputes,
Fatuousness (.thY)), and Perjurious Oath. Of these only strife and
fatuousness appear under the same name, but not as persons, in
Solon's list of the forces to be annihilated or mitigated by EVVOflLY).
The rest have their counterpart only in such general expressions
as 'what is rough' (TpaXEa), 'crooked judgements' (OtKat GKOAwL),
'works of arrogance' (trTrEp~c/>ava Epya), and 'works of faction'
(Epya OtXOGTaaLy)S),which are more likely to owe their inclusion to
other parts ofHesiod's work than to the Dysnomie passage,Sand
I For Solon's debt to Hesiod in general see the excellent discussion by F. Solm-
sen, HA 107-23, to which the following remarks owe much.
2 Dysnomie is described in Theog. 226-32, Eunomie in Theog. 901-6.
3 Dysnomie 7TapEXE£, Eunomie aJ.t<pLTt87}Ut, AHaLvEL, 7TaVEL, afLavpoi, K.T.'\.
4 See Linforth, op. cit. 205 and Solmsen, HA 114-15. There is no evidence for
the assertion ofW. Jaeger, Paideia 1, 3rd EngI. edn. (Oxford, 1946) 141, that Solon
thought of them as divine persons.
5 See above, p. 65 n. 6, with Solmsen, HA 116.
EYNOMIA, JYl:NOMIA, AND ANOMIA 67
which are chosen to emphasize the civic and social effects of
ovavopI'I rather than the personal characteristics which dominate
in Hesiod's list. That Solon deliberately contrived these changes
to establish EtJVOpI'I and ovavoflLY) as concepts of political and civic
morality is shown by his exclusion from his list of any c.ounterp.art
to the Seasons C"Qpat) and the Fates (Mofpat), whIch HesIOd
names as sisters of Eunomie. Only her civic and political sisters,
Justice (LlLKY)) and Peace (Eip~vY)), a:e,. however in~irectly, r;cog-
nized by him. Moreover, the omISSIOnof Famme (AtflOS), a
brother of Dysnomie in Hesiod, indicates that Solon is 'less con-
cerned that Zeus should favour (the city) with goods-such as
fertility of the fields, food in plenty, rich wool from the sheep,
legitimate offspring-than that Eunomie should secure the
healthy equilibrium of the social structure'. 1 •
There is one striking similarity between the accounts ofHe~IOd
and Solon which may well be intentional. Hesiod descnbes
Dysnomie as a descendant of Strife and Night, that is, as p~.:t of
the old order which is eclipsed by the order of Zeus. EunomIe, on
the other hand, the child of Zeus and Themis, is born only aft:r
the establishment of the new order and belongs, therefore, to It.
Solon retains the same chronological sequence and makes the
order of Eunomie follow the order ofDysnomie, but in a startling
innovation he projects the displacement of one by the other into
the future, or, to be more precise, he thinks of the displacement
as having not yet taken place. In order to understand the reasons
for this projection into the future we must set the final passage of
the poem, to which alone we have devoted our attentIOn so far,
into the context of the poem as a whole.
Solon opens the poem with an invocation to Zeus and Athe~e,
who will not let Athens perish even though the corrupt and foolIsh
greed of the citizens, coupled with the unjust ~ind of its.rulers,
tends to drive the city to ruin (frg. 3. 1-10). JustIce, persomfied as
Dike bides her time as she silently watches the citizens' actions
past 'and present, and she notes how thei.r de~ravity res:rlts in
faction war and slavery (14-25), a publIc eVIlfrom whIch no
individual c~n hide (26--9). The language in which the descrip-
tion of the corrupt city is couched is echoed in the fin~l pas~age
of the poem in a way that leaves no doubt tha.t Solon Iden.tlfied
with LlvavofltY) the conditions which he found m Athens pnor to
I Solmsen, HA 116.
68 NOMOI: BECOMES 'STATUTE'
his reforms. Since Solon also tells us that Dike, though now
I
merely an observer, will certainly come in due course to exact the
penalty for this state of affairs,2 we can assume that her coming
will spell the victory of EVVO/LLYj, Dike's sister in Hesiod, over
fJVavO/LLYj. Surely, Solon is speaking of his impending reforms, by
means of which he hopes to aid Dike to restore to Athens that
EVVO/LLYj which will guarantee for the city permanence and the
continued protection of Zeus and Athene. Consequently, Evvo/L{Yj
does not describe any specific legislation which Solon intended to
enact but the state of affairs which he hoped to create by means
of his legislation.3
Modern scholars have remarked on the religious tone which
informs this poem and the hymnic quality of the praise of
EVVO/LLYj at its end.4 But it is important to realize that Solon him-
self regards his task as religious only in the sense that he is con-
scious of the approval with which Zeus and Athene will welcome
his work and of the service to Dike which he will perform in
accomplishing it. While Hesiod regarded Eunomie as an already
existing hall-mark of the new dispensation of Zeus, Solon knows
that it is not Zeus but he himself who will make Evvo/L{Yj a reality
and that it is in Athens that this realization will take place: mVTa
OLoa~aL eV/LOS }4eYjVaLOVS /L€ K€,\EJ€L.5 His EVVO/LLYj is to become the
characteristic of a specific situation in a specific place and at
a specific time, and it involves the amelioration of the bad condi-
tions prevailing in the present. Solon's EVVO/LLYj is not meant to be
I Cf. aq,paQ{1JwIV (5) with tnVV'ra (39); aO'Kos voos (7) and 7T>'ovrovolv 0' aOLKolS
~PYlwa< 7THllo/,Evol (I I) with rotS aQ{Kow' a/,q,LTLII1Jol 7T<oa<;(33) ; V{3pIOS EK /'Eya>'1JS
d>.ym 7TO>'>'a7TallEtv (8) with V{3pLV a/,avpot (34) and apyaM1J<; ~PIOOS xo>'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<; <PLOOSxo>'ov (37-8).
z 16: rWI OE XPOVWI 7Tavrws ~>'II a7TOTHOO/,EV1J.
3 Andrewes, Eun. 90, interprets the antithesis between OVOVO/'L1J and .liVO/'L1J in
this poem too narrowly as a 'contrast between lawlessness and the keeping of the
laws'. But more seems to be involved than abiding by a set of statutes. For the
same reason, I cannot agree, either, when he continues: 'But it is possible that
Solon had also in mind the contrast of his own laws with those of Draco.' Similarly,
C. Meier, 'Drei Bemerkungen zur Vor- und Fruhgeschichte des Begriffs Demo-
kratie' 4-18, esp. 6, is too narrow in his emphasis on legal and constitutional
aspects of d,volda in Solon and later. In trying to establish a relationship between
Solon's notion of diVO/'L1J and his actual legislation, Wilamowitz went as far as it
is possible to go when he said, AA 2. 307: 'natiirlich liegt darin der rat, fur gute
gesetze zu sorgen.' 4 e.g. Jaeger, SE 77-8 and 84, and Solmsen, HA 117.
5 30: 'My spirit bids me tell these things to the Athenians.' I owe this point to
Jaeger, SE 76-7.
EYNOMIA, .JY£NOMIA, AND ANOMIA 69
a transcendent and absolute ideal of universal validity to which
he hoped to attune his countrymen. The negative tone of his
I
definition is alone sufficient to reject an idealistic interpretation.
EVVO/LLYj is for Solon simply that condition of law-and-order in
Athens in which the Ovavo/LLYj of the present will be eliminated or
at least be suppressed, so that the unity and harmony of the city
will be re-established, which under the guidance of Zeus and
Athene safeguard its survival.z
There is one final passage in which €vvo/LLa occurs before 464/3
B.C., and it confirms our contention that before that date the
-voILa' suffix in dVO/LLa does not carry the narrow meaning of
'statute'. In his attack on the exaggerated honours heaped upon
the victors of the Olympic Games, Xenophanes (frg. 2) claims
that his wisdom is worthy of greater honours than the brawn of
men and horses.3 Athletic prowess, he asserts, is not likely to
enhance the EVVO/LLYj of the city.4 Since Xenophanes goes on to
state that an Olympic victory does not 'fatten the store-rooms of
the city',5 it has been argued that his chief interest lay in EVVO/LLYj
as a source of wealth and prosperity.6 But although it is true that
dvo/L{a is often associated with wealth in Greek literature,7 for
Xenophanes it is a concomitant of dVO/LLYj rather than an essential
attribute. He rather shares, as Bowra suggests, 'the notion of
I This is asserted by Jaeger, SE 82, followed by Stier, NB 236, and by Schaefer,
op. cit. 147, who even goes sO far as to include among the aims of Solon's .l,vo/,La
'bewuBte Verneinung der irdischen Guter, iiberhaupt Beseitigung allen Dbels
als der Wurzel der avo/,La'. Apart from the fact that avo/,La or related forms do
not occur in any of the surviving fragments of Solon, an asceticism such as that
described by Schaefer seems alien to the spirit and substance of Solon's reforms.
A modified idealism, similar to that predicated by Jaeger, is attributed to Solon's
EUVO/'L1J by Ehrenberg, Eun. 84-5, although Ehrenberg recognizes that its estab-
lishment was for Solon 'a goal of his personal policy, the sort of thing he had
promised to Athens beforehand for the time when he might be given full power'.
Z Cf. Masaracchia, op. cit. 267-8.
3 The dates of Xenophanes' life are now generally agreed to be c. 570 to c. 470
B.C., see Kirk and Raven 163-4, Guthrie, HGP I. 362-4, and the discussion by L.
Woodbury in Phoenix 15 (1961) 134-55. The chronological sequence of his poems
is hard, ifnot impossible, to determine. In the absence of more cogent evidence, the
date of 'before 520 B.c.',offered for frg. 2 by C.M. Bowra, Problems in Greek Poetry 16,
on the basis ofXenophanes' omission of the race in armour, introduced in 520 B.C.,
from his otherwise complete list of Olympic contests, seems perfectly reasonable.
4 Frg. 2. 19: TOVVEKEV av o~ p.ii>..>..ov €V €VvofLlTJL 7ToAtS' £1.1].
5 22: ou yap tnaLVEl Tavra /,vXOVS 7TO>'IO<;. 6 Ehrenberg, Eun. 86-7·
7 e.g. Horn. Hymns 30. 11-12; Pind. 01. 13.6-8; Timotheus, Persae (Page, PMG,
frg. 791) 237-40; and an inscription from Epidaurus of the fourth or third century
B.C. in Page, PMG, frg. 937. 11-15·

Hesiod that just government makes a land rich and is rewarded
by the prosperity of the people', and if he criticizes the rewards
given to athletes on the ground that they do not enrich the city,
it is because 'they have not the true sign of a just government in
making the country prosperous, and are in fact a8~Ka'. If this is I a(}a~ occur in the fifth century contain modifications of the themes
correct, Xenophanes' view of EvvofLtYJ is not far removed from
Solon's; that is, for him, too, dvofLtYJ is the condition of a city in
which law-and-order prevails.
We have now demonstrated that before the end of the sixth
century dvofl.ia was used in two senses. As a quality it describes
the behaviour of a normal and decent human being, and as a con-
dition it characterizes a state which is well governed and in
which justice, peace, and order prevail. As we shall show later,
avofLta is the opposite of dvofLta as a quality; that 8vavofLta is its
opposite as a condition has been shown in the preceding dis-
cussion. What is important for our central purpose, however, is
that, although both EvvofLta and 8vavofLta may be regarded as
describing a political condition, they are not associated with the
enactment of statutes before the end of the sixth century; in other
words, they do not reflect what we called the 'political and
judicial' sense of vOfL0C;= 'statute', but other wider senses of the
term.
What was the situation in the fifth century? Apart from its
frequent occurrence in the Anonymus Iamblichi, which will be
discussed in connection with avofLta later on, there are only two
other instances in which dvofLta is predicated of persons, in
which it is used, that is, as it was in the 04Jssf!Y, to describe a
quality of personal conduct. The earlier of these is Pindar's
description of Tantalus' feast as a dvofLwTaToc; Epavoc; (Ot. I.
37-8), where the adjective underscores Pindar's view of Tantalus'
character, stated in deliberate opposition to the traditional tale
which had Tantalus carve up his son to set before his guests.2
The second example comes from Sophocles' Ajax (713), where the
chorus rejoices at the dvofLta displayed by its master in the
sacrificeswhich he offers to the gods. Although the vOfL0C;involved
I Bowra, op. cit. 30, citing Hes. Op. 236-7.
2 Cf. Andrewes, Eun. 89. There may be a reference in deliberate opposition to
this passage in an epigram from the first century A.D., ascribed to Nicodemus of
Heracleia in Anthologia Graeca 6.316, where the feast of Thyestes is called J..,£.pava
O.£7TVWV ovavo/-,a. Note that ovavo!'-a is here used in the sense in which uvo/-,a would
have been used in the classical period.
EYNOMIA, .1Yl:NOMIA, AND ANOMIA 7'
here may be interpreted in a religious sense,' the context suggests
rather that the chorus believes the behaviour of Ajax to have
changed in a more general way.
All the other passages in which EiJVofLta, EiJvofLoc;, and EiJVofLEL-
first struck by Hesiod and Solon. As in Hesiod, dvofLta is re-
garded as a condition associated with 8twT), (}EfL~C;,and Elp~vT), and
Solon's influence is felt in that dvofLta remains closely linked to
the state. But there is also something new: both noun and ad-
jective frequently characterize a city which possesses law-an~-
order. In other words, the condition becomes a characteristIc
quality. A first hint of this development can be seen in the late
sixth century in Xenophanes' expression EV EvvofLtV Elva~ (frg. 2.
19), which, while describing the condition of the state, takes at
the same time a first step toward making this condition a charac-
teristic quality. This tendency is further developed by Pindar
who while following Hesiod in making Dike and Eirene sisters
of Eunomia, daughters of Themis, and antagonists of Hybris
and Koros, deprives them of the universality which Hesiod had
attributed to them and names Corinth as their home (ot. 13·
6-10),2 and who elsewhere describes Opus as 'the portion of
Themis and her saviour daughter, far-famed Eunomia' (Ot. 9·
15-16). No longer is EvvofLta the healthy condition as such. of
law-and-order in city-states, which itself transcends and eXIsts
independently of particular states. It has now become also an
attribute of particular states such as Corinth and Opus. Whi~e
the language of Pindar in these two poems suggests that he IS
sincere in regarding Eunomia as a divine person, as Hesiod had
done, he is also capable of suppressing the personal element
completely when he speaks of Aegina as a EvvofL0C; 7TOA~C; (lsth.
5. 22), when he invokes a EvvofL0C; fLoLpa for the sons of Aetna
(Nem. 9. 29-30),3 or when he calls down the blessing of EvvofLta
I Cf. above, pp. 40-3. For religious overtones in £uvo!'-£asee also the anonymous
poem from Epidaurus, probably from the third or second century B.C., in Page,
PMG, frg. 937. 13, and for similar c?nnotations of avo!,-£~ see below,.p. 91.. ,
2 On this passage see the suggestive but very sp~culatlve companson of Pllldar s
£uvo!'-£awith that of Solon by E. Will, Korinthiaka 620-4·
3 The wish, included in this prayer, that Zeus may keep war far away from them,
may be an echo of Hesiod's association of Eunomia ;Vi;h ~ireni'. Unlike I-~esiod,
however, Pindar does not personify here. The word €Lp7JV7J IS not even mentl?ned,
and if the !,-oLpa prayed for depends on Theog. 904, it must be noted that Pllldar
gives her a civic rather than a cosmic context.

upon Thebes. I A similar use of the adjective EiJvofLos is found in
Pindar's older contemporary Aeschylus, who is the earliest extant
author to characterize with it the law-and-order existing among
a non-Greek people, the Scythians.2
Bacchylides takes a further step away from personification. He
too seems to depend on Hesiod's genealogy when he calls Dika
the 'attendant' (aKoAov()OS) of Eunomia and Themis,3 but the
relation is no longer genealogical in that the three are not mem-
bers of the same family. At the same time, it becomes even more
evident than it did in the case of Solon that they are only 'poetic
persons', mere symbols of concepts. For while in Solon we had to
infer the abstract nature of Eunomie and Dysnomie from the fact
that they are given no genealogy and work without any divine
impulse, it becomes difficult to regard Dika as a divine person
when Bacchylides states that the sons of the prosperous choose her
as a 'fellow resident' (UVVOtKOS') and when she is described as
'accessible to all men' (EV fLEUlp KELTat KtXELV 7Tllmv av()pw7TOtS).
Her personification has become a literary conceit which does
little more than symbolize an abstract quality; and what is true
in this poem ofDika will be equally true ofEunomia and Themis.
The same trend reappears with a novel twist in Bacchylides'
poem in honour of Pytheas of Aegina. EvvofLla is again treated as
a 'poetic person'; but her opposition to iJ{jpts, which we encoun-
tered in Homer, Hesiod, and Solon, is now expressed positively
in that she is described as a 'force of restraint' (uaoeppwv) which
'guards the cities of reverent men in peace'. 4 In other words, the
poet is less interested in the condition of EVvofLfa in itself than in
the restraining effect it has. Thus he treats it as a characteristic
quality rather than as a condition. The connection between
EVvofLla and uweppouvvYJ, once established, is taken up also by
I Pind. Paeans I. 10. There is no reason to assume for this passage either a per-
sonification of £vvop,{a or a dependence on Hesiod, despite the fact that earlier in
the poem the' Qpal fihp{yovol are treated as persons.
2 Frg. Ig8, from the Prometheus Unbound. It seems more natural to interpret the
adjective here as referring to the orderly and good social organization of the
Scythians than to take it with Andrewes, Eun. 8g, as referring to their personal
conduct. 3 Bacchylides 15. 53-6.
4 Ibid. 13. 186-g : ticI'mJ. .r' £va£{Uwv dvopwv EV £lp~vq. q,v>.aaa[£]I. The impor-
tance 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 Sophro-
syne'. But his conclusions go beyond what the available texts justify. Cf. Helen
North, Sophrosyne 23-4.
EYNOMIA, JYI:NOMIA, AND ANOMIA 73
Pindar and Aristophanes. When Pindar prays in the First Paean
I
(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 adjec-
tive to a non-Greek people, Herodotus is the first to apply the
noun to foreign states in his description of the conditions pre-
vailing 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 neces-
sarily 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 pro-
posed: Ou yap o~ TP07Tl{J T<{J 7TapEOVTt XPEwfLEVOt ovvaTol EffLEV
, I , I ,/.., I t I ,,... Q \ I ,tl
OtKEEtV TYJV XWPYJV, 'f'EpE UTYJUWfLEV YJfLEWV aVTWV fJaatllEa' Kat OVTW
ISee further, Endnote, pp. 176-7 below.
2See Sandys's translation (Loeb edn., p. 519): 'with the flowers of sober love
of law'.
3 That no constitutional question is involved is rightly stressed by both Andrewes,
Eun. go with n. 3, and H.J. Erasmus, 'Eunomia', Acta Classica 3 (lg60) 58-g. But
Andrewes's argument that £vvop.{T)here refers to personal conduct because its loss
was due to the unexpected behaviour of Cheops does not hold water. For if the
KaK6TT)S of Cheops' conduct undermined £vvop.iT), that does not mean that <vvop.{T),
too, refers to conduct. Erasmus wavers between interpreting <vvop.{T) here as
(a) 'perfect distribution of rights and duties', (b) 'perfect distribution of Justice',
(c) 'good administration of the laws', and (d) 'good order by law'. The idea of
distribution inherent in (a) and (b) rests on too strained an insistence on the
etymological derivation of .vvop.ia from VEP.W (see above, p. 61), and although
<vvop.{a involves (c) and (d), this does not imply that the 'administration' or
'order' was created by means of statutes or ordinances.

YJ TE XWPYJ Euvop.YJUETat Kat aUTOt 7TpOS Epya TpE'f'OP.E 8a OUOE
" , " " \ ,,, ' ~\ U7T
~~
./, I
avop.iYJS avaUTaTOt €uop.E8a. I What is of special interest in this
passage is that, although avop.iYJ, which occurs in it three times,
refers, as we shall see below (pp. 89-90), to personal conduct,
the ElIVop.ia with which the verb contrasts it describes a condition.
This is indicated to some small extent by the fact that the idea is
expressed by a middle deponent verb,2 and, as the analogy with
such middle forms as 0YJp.oKpaTEop.m, oiKEop.at, 7ToAtTEVop.m, etc.,
indicates, the middle voice in verbs describing social or political
activities tends to express a general condition rather than a par-
ticular attribute of society.3That ElIVOP.~UETat describes a condi-
tion is shown in the present passage by the observation that the
country (xwPYJ) rather than the people inhabiting it is the subject
of the verb: it is not the quality of the land in which the friends of
Deioces claim to be interested but the condition to be created
within it, and, as the context shows, ElJVop.ia is here a state of
affairs from which the characteristics of the present state of
affairs-pillage and lawless conduct-are to be absent and in
which each person will be able to pursue his own work free from
the threat of disruption by the lawless behaviour of others.4
One final observation on this passage remains to be made. The
establishment of Evvop.iYJ here involves a constitutional change,
that is, it is to be achieved by instituting a kingship. Does this
mean that the -voP.OS suffix signifies the establishment of good
statutes either in the sense that the new constitution as such will
be good or in that the king will enact 'good laws'? The answer
to both alternatives must be negative. As far as the first one is
I 97. 2-3: 'Since we are not able to live in our country with our present way
I.
of life, come, let us appoint a king over ourselves. In this way, the country will
enjoy law-and-order and we shall turn to the pursuit of our own business and not
be unsettled by lawless conduct.'
2 EvvoJ1,E0fl-a, is only attested as a middle deponent, except, according to LSJ,
once in PI. Laws II. 927 b 6, <vv0fl-0vaa.
3 The special force of this use of the middle is hard to define. The least unsatis-
factory definition is that of R. Kuhner and B. Gerth, Auifiihrliche Grammatik der
griechischen Sprache 2. I. I 12: 'die Rolle dessen, weIch en das Stammwort bezeichnet,
spielen, sich als einen soIchen zeigen, das Streben oder die Gewohnheit haben, als
ein soIcher zu agieren.' Cf. similarly, but less felicitously, in E. Schwyzer and A.
Debrunner, Griechische Grammatik 2. 232, and J. Humbert, Syntaxe grecque3 106.
4 For these reasons I do not agree with Andrewes, Eun. 89, that <VV0fl-EOJkO' refers
to conduct. If it did, XWP71 could not be its subject here. Erasmus, loc. cit., goes too
far when he associates <vv0fl-io here with the material prosperity of the state; for
the fact that people will be able to work in peace does not in itself mean that the
state will grow rich.
EYNOMIA, .dYENOMIA, AND ANOMIA 75
concerned, the constitutional change here is merely an accidental
and not an essential clement in dvop.iYJ. The chief purpose
articulated by Deioces' fi-iendsis not the establishment of a king
but the creation of conditions in which people can pursue their
own work unmolested by the acts of criminals; their avowed end
is not a constitutional change. As for the second point, we can
only reiterate what we said in connection with Solon's Elwop.iYJ :
while the enactment of good laws is no doubt part of the process
of bringing about the condition oflaw-and-order, 'good statutes'
do not exhaust the content of dvop.iYJ, and, in addition, they
could not by themselves stamp out avofJ.iYJ and ensure the free
pursuit of business to the citizens.
This brings us to a complex of Evvop.ia passages which requires
separate treatment. In antiquity as well as in modern times
dvop.ia and its cognates have been related to the constitutional
changes in Sparta, which are attributed to Lycurgus, that is, to
the enactment ofvop.ot in the political senseof 'statutes' or 'regula-
tions'.I Although Andrewes has shown as long ago as 1938 that
Evvop.ia does not directly refer to the Spartan or any other consti-
tution,2 we shall have to examine the relevant passages once
again to determine in what sense or senses ElJVop.ia is predicated
of Sparta in Greek literature and in what relation, if any, these
senses stand to the narrow political meaning of vop.OS.3
The first passage to be considered occurs in the context of
Herodotus' narrative of the situation at Sparta at the time of
I Plut. Lycurgus 5. 4 paraphrases the oracle given to Lycurgus: <vv0fl-ias oE
XPrl~oV"n Otoovat Kat. KUTaLV€LV icP'rJ TOV 8€ov ~ 1ToAv Kpa'rfaTTj TWV ciAAwv (UTaL 7TOALTEtWV.
W. Norvin entitled his studies of the Spartan constitution, Classica et l>.fediaeualia 2
(1939) 247-93 and 3 (1940) 47-118, 'Zur Geschichte der spartanischen Eunomia',
and defined the Spartan eunornia, ibid. 3 (1940) 70, as 'eine Gesetzgebung, die das
Leben der Burgerschaft regeite und sie zu einem unuberwindlichen Herrn machte'.
Cf. the discussion of the crucial passage of Herodotus by W. den Boer, Laconian
Studies 26-7, esp. 26 n. 2 : ' •.. this justifies our employing the exp"'ession [sc. <vv0fl-io]
as a name for the Spartan constitution or for Lycurgus' laws.'
2 Andrewes, Eun. 91.
3 But we need not enter here, except incidentally, on the thorny questions of
Lycurgus' chronology, his and possible later reforms, and their relation to the
Second Messenian vVar. For a recent discussion of these problems see F. Kiechle,
Lakonien und Sparta (= Vestigia: Beitrage Zlir alten Geschichte 5) esp. IV. 4: 'Die
inneren Verhiiltnisse Spartas im 7. Jahrhundert', and 5: 'Die Oberlieferung uber
die Staseis im archaischen Sparta und die Einfuhrung der Lykurgischen Ordnung.'
For a sober evaluation of methodology in early Spartan history see C. G. Starr,
Historia 14 (1965) 257-72.
76 NOMOi: BECOMES 'STATUTE'
Croesus (I. 65--8). Herodotus begins by relating the news which
reached Croesus of Sparta's final victory over Tegea (65. I),
won, as we learn two chapters later, in the reign of Anaxandrides
and Ariston.1 He then proceeds in his rambling way, which has
been the despair of those who want to exploit the passage for the
establishment of a chronology of early Spartan history, to narrate
the developments leading up to the eventual victory over Tegea,
and he begins by stating that, although the Spartans in the reign
of Leon and Hegesicles succeeded in all their other military
enterprises, their campaign against Tegea failed (65. r). The next
step is to account for this mixture of general success and partial
failure. Herodotus attributes the success to the reforms of Lycur-
gus, to which he devotes a short digression (65. 2-66. I). As
a result of these reforms, Sparta flourished. But prosperity also
contained the seeds of failure. When the Spartans realized that
they were stronger than the neighbouring Arcadians, they grew
restive and wanted to attack them, but first sought the advice of
Delphi (66. 1-2). Relying on the oracle they received but which,
according to Herodotus, was false (xPTjafL0 KLfJO~Acp 7T{avvoL), they
concentrated their attack on Tegea and suffered a severe reverse
(66. 3-4). Here the digression ends, and Herodotus resumes the
narrative of the Spartan victory over Tegea, won in the time of
Croesus (67. 1-68.6).
Of interest to us is the account of the Lycurgan reforms and
the success which they produced (65. 2-66. I), because they are
presented as the establishment of EVvofL{a among a people who, at
some unspecified date prior to their failure at Tegea (ETL 7TPOTEPOV
TOJTWV), had been KaKOVOfLdJTaTOL aXEoov 7TtJ,VTWV 'EAA~vwV.2 The
phrase with which Herodotus introduces his account: fLET<EfJaAov
OEWOE es ElJVOfL{TjV (65. 2), and the phrase with which he sums it
up : OVTW fLEV fLETafJaAovTES EVVOfL~8Tjaav suggest that he uses both
the noun and the verb in the sense in which he uses them
elsewhere, namely to describe a condition.3 The adjectival
I On this passage I am in general agreement with N. G. L. Hammond, JHS 70
(1950) 53-4·
2 The <n seems to me clearly to place the period of KaKovo/"{a not only before the
failure at Tegea but rather before the reforms of Lycurgus in the reign of Leobotes;
so Hammond, lac. cit. For a different view, see Andrewes, Eun. 92-3, and Gomme,
Hey I. 128-9, who believe in a change from KaKovo/"{a to <lJVo/"{a effected c. 600
B.C., just before the reigns of Leon and Hegesicles,
3 See above, pp. 73-4.
EYNOMIA, JYl:NOMIA, AND ANOMIA 77
KaKovofLwTaToL, found only in this passage in Herodotus, suggests,
on the other hand, that a quality is described which lost its force
with the establishment of new conditions. This is confirmed by the
explanation added to the adjective: the Spartans were KaKoL'op.W-
TaTOL in their relations among themselves (KaTu TEaePEas mJToJs)
and, as a result, they isolated themselves from the rest of the
world (Kat gE{VOLaL IlTTpoafLELKToL). This seems to mean that one of
the consequences of their original KaKovofL{a was the absence of
any foreign relations, including, therefore, paradoxically enough,
the absence of foreign wars.1 What is involved in their internal
KaKovofL{a is more difficult to determine. We can be confident
only that Herodotus did not attribute the KaKovofL{a of the
Spartans to a complete lack of VOfLOL in the way in which Homer's
Cyclopes completely lacked 8EfLLS (Od. g. 106, I r2-I5). For we
are told specifically that LyCurg{lS 'changed' (fLETEaTTjaE) all
Spartan vOfLLfLa; Herodotus does not say that he 'instituted'
(KaTEaTTjaE) them. This presupposes the existence of vOfLLfLa in
Sparta before Lycurgus; only the vOfLLfLa were 'bad' (KaKu) and
a reform was, therefore, needed. Further insights into the nature
ofpre-Lycurgan KaKovofL{a can be gained by examining Herodo-
tus' account of Lycurgus' reforms by which ElJVOfL{Tj was brought
about.
Although Herodotus does not decide in favour of one or the
other of the two traditional sources for Lycurgus' measures, one
unnamed source attributing them to Delphi and the Spartans
attributing them to Crete, he leaves no doubt of his conviction
that the entire social and political order (KOafLos) prevailing in the
Sparta of his own time is due to the Lycurgan reforms.2 That this
is Herodotus' belief is also confirmed by his description of the
reforms themselves. Lycurgus changed all Spartan vOfLLfLa-and
this must include laws, customs, usages, practices, and beliefs-
which had previously been regarded as valid and binding by the
people as a whole; and not only did he change the old, his re-
forms also included sanctions against transgressions of the new.3
I We have here, incidentally, an additional reason for referring En rrpoTfpov
TOVTWV to the time before Lycurgus; for Herodotus knew about the Messenian
Wars and treats them as a foreign entanglement, see 3. 47. 1 and 5. 49. 8.
2 I. 65. 4: TOV VVV KaTWTfWTa KOU/"OV l:rrapT'~TTlU', although verbally associated
only with the non-Spartan tradition, is certainly also included in the Spartan
version by the TaVTa at the end of the sentence.
3 I. 65. 5: Kat <,pv>'agE TaVTa /"~ rrapaf3a{VELv.
 EYNOMIA, JYl:NOMIA, AND ANOMIA 79

The specific military and constitutional innovations which, ac- been established and which, for that reason, does not yet know
cording to Herodotus, Lycurgus 'instituted' rather than 'changed' law-and-order. I

(EaTY)(JE) after his earlier measures (fkETU DE) are next enumerated,
In the only other fifth-century passage in which El)vo/.da, in the
including the 'sworn brotherhoods', the 'bands of thirty', the verb form, is associated with Sparta it is more closelyrelated to the
'common meals', the ephorate, and the gerousia. In other I Spartan constitution than it was in Herodotus. But even here it is
words, both the changes and the new institutions are, in the eyes the stability and permanence of the Spartan order that is empha-
of Herodotus, part of the reforms of Lycurgus, and, as he pro- sized, and there is no indication that EVvofkla was regarded as
ceeds to state specifically in the next sentence, the reforms as a a name for the Spartan constitution as such. The passage takes
whole created ElJVofkla in Sparta.2 We may conclude, then, that the form of a long parenthesis, inserted in Thucydides' sketchy
El)vofkly) in this passage denotes the condition in which Sparta account of the tyrannies in the Greek world, and its purpose is to
found herself as a result of the Lycurgan reforms. It does not refer explain-it is introduced by yap-why the Lacedaemonians
specifically to the legislation by which the reforms were enacted, played so prominent a part in eliminating them:
although that may well be included; for Herodotus says nothing ~ yap AaKESa{f-Lwv f-LETa T~V KT{ULV TWV VVV ~VOLKOVVTWV aVT~V LlWpLWV
of the manner in which Lycurgus proceeded in enacting his re- €7rt 7TAELUTOV (fjv LUf-LEV Xp6vov uTamauaua of-LWC; ~K 7TallaLTaTov Kat
forms. Accordingly, there is no relation between ElH'ofklY) here and T)vvOf-L~8T) Kat aid aTvpavvEVToc; 7)v' ETT) yap ~UTL f-LaAwTa TETpaK6uLa Kat
VOfk0C; = 'statute'. True enough, the reforms themselves did in- oA{yCiJ 7TAdw ~C; T~V T<iAEVT~V TOVSE TOV 7ToMf-Lov d</>' oD AaKESaLf-L6vLOL

volve military and constitutional innovations, but they were not Tfj aVTfj 7ToALTE{q. xpWVTaL, Kat SL' aVTO oVVaf-LEVOL Kat TO. .EV TaLC; allAaL<;

confined to them:3 EVVOfkly) also includes the condition of the 7T6AEUL Ka8{uTauav.2

Spartan social and political order as a whole (Koafk0C;), brought
about by a change of all vOfkLfka and the perpetuation of the new
order. It is, therefore, not a name for the Spartan constitution but
a description of the whole Spartan way oflife created by it.4
These conclusions enable us to draw some inferences about the
meaning of KaKovo,uwTaToL. Obviously, it characterizes the Spar-
tans before they had EVvofkly), that is, before the reforms of
Lycurgus. Even at that time they possessed, as we saw, vOfkLfka.
But these were 'bad' in that they were not conducive to social
stability, to effective military organization, to good government,
and, probably because of that, to foreign relations. Moreover,
since Lycurgus' order stood for Herodotus at the beginning of the
history of civilized Sparta,S the fact that the pre-Lycurgan Spar-
tans are described as KaKOVofkwTaTOL indicates that they exhibited
the qualities of a society in which a civilized order has not yet
I 1.65. 5: J.Lerd O€ Tn ES 7TOAEIWV ExoVTa, EVwp,oTLas Kat
T€ TOVTOLUL Taus ;r/>opovs Kat y€pov-ras €U'T7]UE AVKofJpyos.
66. I : oiJ-rw /-,'V /-,E-ra~aA6v-rE, EVVo/-,~IJ'YJoav.
2 denn die seit alters bestehende Ordnung erfuhr dadurch keinen Bruch; auch
This point is neglected by den Boer, loc. cit.
3 filhrten diese Unruhen in Sparta zu keiner Tyrannis.' If Thucydides had meant to
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.
Thucydides is more specific than Herodotus in characterizing the
period preceding the establishment of ElJVofkla as one of civil
strife.3 But the characteristic of the condition described here as
it is in Herodotus by the aorist of the deponent verb EiJVOfkEL-
aeaL is not merely its exclusion of aTaaLC;;4 its positive side, as
Thucydides goes on to explain-again we find yap-involves the
I The adjective, again in the superlative form, occurs only once more in extant
Greek literature, Philo, De sacrijiciis Abelis et Caini 5, II p. 268 M. The noun
KaKovo/-,{a is found only once, in [Xen.] Ath. Pol. 1.8 (discussed below, pp. 82-5).
2 1. 18. I: 'For although civil strife prevailed for a longer time in Lacedaemon
after its foundation by the Dorians who now inhabit it than among any other
people known, none the less, from the earliest time on, it both enjoyed an orderly
kind of government and has always been free from tyrants. For it is about four
hundred years and a little more from the time that the Lacedaemonians have been
living under the same constitution to the end of this war; for this reason they grew
powerful and also settled affairs in other states.'
3 Kiechle's interpretation of this passage, op. cit. 197-8, is untenable: 'Was
TpL7JKu3as Kat uvaatTw, rrpos Thukydides darlegen will, ist offensichtlich : Sparta wurde zwar auBerst lange von
Unruhen erschilttert, doch hatten diese keine Schwachung des Staates zur Folge,
say that the period of Evvo/-,{a lasted into the period of o-ro.o", he would more
probably have used the present participle o-rao,o.{ovoa. That Evvo/-,{a put an end to
o-ro.o" is correctly assumed by Andrewes, Eun. 94; Gomme, HCY I. I go; and
Hammond, loc. cit.
4 Erasmus, loco cit., sees only this aspect of EVvo/-,{a.
80 NoMoE BECOMES 'STATUTE'
durability of the Spartan constitution over a period of more than
four hundred years. And just as in Herodotus' account the €V-
VO!J-LYJ created by Lycurgus' reforms led to a spurt of prosperity,
so Thucydides, without, however, mentioning Lycurgus' name,
attributes to it the Spartans' power, never sapped by the ex-
perience of tyranny, to put down tyrannies in other Greek states.2
The aspect of durability, which Herodotus had described as the
seal placed by Lycurgus himself on his reform of all Spartan
VO!J-L!J-U, is confined by Thucydides to the constitution. He does
not, like Herodotus, give details of the constitution and the
institutions it affected, except to say that it was never disrupted
by tyranny. Accordingly, YJvv0!J-~BYJuuv describes for him the con-
dition of stability and durability achieved by the Spartan consti-
tution. There is neither an indication that he would not use the
same verb of any other constitution which had stood the test of
time equally well, nor that a constitution deserving to be de-
scribed by the verb t:Vvo!J-€LuBuL would have to have the same
institutions as Sparta. Accordingly, the EVVO!J-LU described by the
verb in this passage is not the name of a specific constitution but
the condition created by a constitution, and it comes no closer
than any of the other uses of €VVO!J-LU so far encountered to express-
ing the narrow political sense of vO!J-os = 'statute'.
We may then summarize the results of our inquiry into Hero-
dotus' and Thucydides' use of €VVO!J-LU in relation to Sparta by
saying that they use the noun and the verb to describe the lasting
social and political conditions brought about by the reforms of
Lycurgus, but that the same terms could also be applied, as
Herodotus' discussion of Cheops and Deioces shows, to condi-
tions prevalent elsewhere. This sufficesto prove that the Greeks of
the fifth century would associate €VVO!J-LU no more closely with
Sparta or with the Spartan constitution after Lycurgus than
with any other state.
[ I. 66. I : avcl T€ €OpafLOV av,dKU Kai Ev(J€v7}81]uav.
2 I agree with Hammond, op. cit. 54 n. 59, against Andrewes, Eun. 94, that
'the explanatory sentence ... states not that Sparta's power was due to the
lack of tyranny but that it was due to the continuity of her constitution over four
hundred years'. Cf. Gomme, HCT I. 130-1, and den Boer, op. cit. 83 n. I.
Thucydides' KaL aiEL aTvpawWToS' O)Vserves a double function. In the first place, it
helps explain that the development of Sparta's power was never inhibited by those
who 7'0 €¢' EUVTWV p.ovov 1TpOOpWjJ.€VOL €S T€ TO Gwp.a Kat, ES oT() 'TOV rs,ov O[KOV avg€LV
Ot' auq,aAdaS' OUOV €OVVaVTO f'aAWTa niS' 7TaAEtS'<pKOVV (I. 17): and secondly, it ex-
plains what gave the Spartans the will to depose tyrants elsewhere.
EYNoMIA, JYENoMIA, AND ANOMIA 81
An indirect piece of testimony concerning early Sparta points
in the same direction. In his discussion of the causes of revolution
I in aristocracies, Aristotle refers to a poem of Tyrtaeus entitled
EVVO!J-LU to support his contention that a widening gulf between
rich and poor is one such cause (Pol. 5. 7, Ig06bg6-Ig07"2).
\Ve do not learn much about the content of the poem beyond the
fact that it was written 'at the time of the Messenian War'l
against the background of people oppressed by war demanding
a redistribution of land.2 The same poem is mentioned under
the same name by Strabo, who assignsit more specifically to the
Second Messenian War, states Tyrtaeus' claim to have been a
general in it,3 and quotes two couplets of the poem to prove that
Tyrtaeus was a Lacedaemonian.4 Modern scholars have attri-
buted several other fragments of Tyrtaeus to this poem,s but
since the name EVVO!J-LU, which is our chief interest here, only
occurs in Aristotle and Strabo, we can use as evidence only what
they tell us. Although both are late authors in relation to Tyr-
taeus, there is no reason to doubt their word (a) that Tyrtaeus
wrote an elegiac poem entitled, either by Tyrtaeus himself or by
a tradition which is likely to go back to a time well before
Aristotle, EVVO!J-LU; and (b) that he wrote it in the Second Mes-
senian War, in which he himself played a responsible part. At
the first glance, Aristotle's description of the background of the
poem might be taken to suggest that its title is to be derived from
VE!J-W = 'distribute' and refers to a 'good distribution' of the land.6
I I 306b38: 1mo TOV MW1]vtaKOV 7TaAEf'Ov. For the meaning of v7Ta see Andrewes,
Eun. 96 n. I.
2 Igo7aI-2: 8AL{36/LEVOL yap TLVES Ou:t 'TOV 1TOA€jJ.QV ~g{ovv avaOaUTOV 7TOL€LV 7'~V
xwpav.
3 8. 4. 10, C 362 : ~v{Ka q,1]ULVaUTOS' UTpaT1]yfjuat TOV 7TaAEf'OV TOlS' AaKEOatf'OV{OtS'·
Kat yap Eivai epTJaLv EK€r8EV EV T71 EA€YELq. ..,jv €1TLypatPoUGLV EuvofLLav ... E1TL }-LEV oov
TOU Tvpra{ov " oEvnpoS' 1mfjpgE 7TaAEf'OS'.
4 Ibid. = frg. 2: aUToS' yap Kpov{wv, KaAAwnq,avov 7TaatS'·Hp1]S', I ZEUS' 'HpaKAE{.
oatS' 7'~VO€ OE3wKE 7TOALV' I o[aLV nfl-a 1TPOAL1TOV'TfS 'EpLVEOV ~V€J.L(;€VTa / €Vp€laV []tA07TO~
vijUOV aq"K6p.€lJa.('For the son ofCronus himself, husband of beautifully-wreathed
Hera, Zcus has given this city to the sons of Herac1es. Together with them we for-
sook windy Erineos and arrived in the broad island of Pelops.')
5 Diehl' conservatively adds only the fragments in Diodorus 7. 12 and in Pluto
Lycurgu5 6.10 to the Strabo fragment as frgg. 3 a and 3 b. His predecessor, Bergk4,
had added three further fragments to it. G. Huxley, Early Sparta 54, apparently
also assigns Diehl" frg. 6, to the Eunomia. For a full discussion see Andrewes, Eun.
95-100.
6 The most influential recent exponent of this derivation of EUVOf'{a, J. L. Myres,
CR 61 (1947) 80-2, does not use this passage in his argument.
814~77 G
But since Tyrtaeus' known attitude toward a redistribution yap
,
uu
'y , ,
VOfLL.,Et<; OUK EUVOfLEtU aL,
'" 8 ' \ " ,
aUTO<; a7TO TOUTOU tUXUEt
, / t
0
~,...
o7JfLo<; K L
a'
r.... ,..., '''./. ,~c Vl""
of the land 1 makes nonsense of this assumption, and since, I
EIo.EU8EpO<; Eunv.
" ,~"
Et 0
I
EUVOfLLaV "7JTEt<;, 7TpWTU fLEV o'f'Et TOU<; OEsLwTaTo
I
,
" 8' ., \ I ~ \ \ ,
moreover, neither the noun nor the adjective nor the verb bears aUTOr<; TOU<; VOfLOU<; n EVTa<;' E7TEtTa KOl\aUoUUtv OL XP7JUTOt TOU<; 7TOV7JPOU<;
\ I t \ \.... 1\ "" I

this sense in any of the passages we have discussed, we must look
for a different explanation. The only help we get comes from the
Strabo fragment. If there is any point at all in the statement that
Zeus himself is responsible for having established the Heracleidae
as kings of Sparta and that the rest of the Spartans have followed
them ever since the Dorians came to the Peloponnese, it must
surely be an appeal to the 'malcontents to abandon their agita-
tion and return to their obedience'.2 In other words, the title
signifies that Tyrtaeus' poem called for discipline and order and
has, therefore, no immediate or exclusive bearing on the institu-
tions of Sparta or on her constitution.3
It is not until the second half of the fifth century B.C. that the
effect of the new meaning of vOfL0<; as 'statute' is unambiguously
reflected in d))J0fL{a in the Constitution if Athens which has come
down to us under the name ofXenophon. Neither the exact date
nor the authorship of the treatise is known, and although a date
between the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War and the Thracian
expedition of Brasidas in the summer of 424 B.C. seems to me
the most plausible, the questions of date and authorship will not
help us settle the meaning of E1JvofL{a in the tract.4 The relevant
passage is introduced after a discussion of freedom of speech,
especially in the Council, which the democracy grants to every
citizen, rascally though he may be. This practice, the author con-
tinues, may not be conducive to the best kind of state (7TO'\t<;), but it
isconducive to the preservation ofthe democracy. He then explains:
6 yap bijfLO<; (3oVIo.ETat OUK eVvofLoufLEV7J<; Tij<; 7TOIo.EW<;aUTo<; bOUIo.EVEtv,
dlo.lo.' EIo.EV8EpO<; Elvut Kat apxEtv, Tij<; bE KUKOVOfL£U<; UUT/i) olo.£yov fLEIo.Et·0
I Schol. PI. Laws I. 629 a, with Huxley, op. cit. 55, and Kiechle, op. cit. 184-5
with 185 n. 5. 2 Andrewes, Eun. 96.
3 Two late associations of Evvoj1-{a with Sparta deserve a brief mention. Diodorus
7.12.1 adds two lines to the oracle cited by Hdt. I. 65. 3, in which the god promises
to give Lycurgus the EVVOj1-{a he had asked for. Since the 'couplet is wholly un-
suitable to the original oracle' (Andrewes, Eun. 90 n. 6) and seems to assume the
very late meaning of a 'set of good laws' for EVVOj1-{a, it has rightly been rejected as
spurious. However, Plut. Lycurgus 5. 4 seems to have known the spurious lines and
on their basis initiated the practice of applying the name Evvoj1-{a to the Spartan
constitution as a whole; see Andrewes, Eun. 9 I.
4 See G. W. Bowersock, 'Pseudo-Xenophon', HSCP 71 (1967) 33-55, esp. 33-8,
for a critical discussion of the dates proposed. Bowersock's own date, 443 B.C.,
seems to me to be too early.
Kat f30UIo.EUUOUUtV ot XP17UTOt 7TEpt T17<;7TOI\EW<; Kat OUK EUUOUUL fLUtVOfLEVOU<;
I (:) \ I ,~, \ I ,~\, \ 'y , \ I ,
dv8pW7TOU<; fJOUI\EUEtV OUOE I\EyEtV OUOE EKKI\17UtU.,Etv. a7TO rOUTWV TOLVUV
TWV dya8wv TilXLur' av 6 bijfLO<; El<; boulo.e£uv KaTa7TEUOL 1
In order to ascertain as precisely as possible what the author of
this treatise2 means by E1JvofL{a and its verb forms and by KaKO-
vOfL{a, we have to start with the last part of the passage, since it is
here that EuvofL{a is most closely defined. That E1JVofL{a denotes
a condition, in this case the condition of a city in which the
7TOVYJpO{, the common people, are kept in subjection, is .obviou~.
Three elements are identified as constituent parts of thIS condI-
tion. In the first place, legislative power is to be vested in the
'most capable' men only. Secondly, the 'good' are to exercise
judicial power over the 'bad', 3 and third, the 'good' alone are to
be members of the Council and in their administration will pre-
vent 'madmen' from serving as Councillors, making public
speeches, and even from attending the meetings of the Ass~mb.ly,
including, we may presume, meetings called both for legIslatlve
and for electoral purposes.
What is of special interest in this discussion is that E1JVofL{a is
first and foremost described in terms of the administration of the
city in its various branches. This is not to say that what the
author wants to see established in the city is something other than
law-and-order. But when we compare his conception of it with
the kind of EuvofL{a associated with Sparta, to say nothing of
I [Xen.] Ath. Pol. I. 8-9: 'For the common people wish not to be the,mse!ves
enslaved while the city is governed by good laws but to be free and exercIse con-
trol; that the system of laws is bad is of little importance to them, For from
what you regard as lack of government by good law~ the common people derive
their strength and their freedom. But if you are lookmg for government by good
laws, you will first of all see that the most capable en~ct laws for t~em; then th:
good men will straighten out the bad, the good men wlll dehber~te m the Councll
about the city, and will not let madmen be members of the Counol, make speeches,
or be members of the Assembly. Surely, good measures such as these would very
quickly reduce the common people to slavery.'
2 I am not convinced by the arguments ofE. Hohl, CP 45 (1950) 26-35, that we
are dealing with a letter. .
3 This is probably the meaning of KOAaoovotv in this. context, see. E .. Kalmka,
Die pseudoxenophontische A6!HNAIQN,IIOAI~EIA 12,0;Vl.th.n.. I. ~~t It mlg~t,have
the wider sense of 'administer correctlve pumshment, dlsoplme, reprove, keep
in check', as in Soph. Aj. 1108, 1160.
 Solon's EVvop,[a, which, among other things, 17aVEt Epya ?hxoUTa-
ULYJ<;,we must conclude that the realm of Eiwo/lLa has shrunk to
encompass only the constitutional workings of the state, con-
ceived primarily as the enactment and enforcement of statutes.
Not only is the enactment of statutes the first item that comes to
the author's mind-for no other vO/lOt can be meant in this con-
text by TOU<; vO/lov<; TtBEVTa<;-but the judicial process involves
the application of statutes, and participation in Council and
Assembly implies the right to formulate them. In short, although
the word may still retain its old notion of law-and-order, it has
now become an issue in party politics and embodies, in this
instance, the constitutional programme claimed by one political
orientation as its exclusive prerogative. I
This conclusion is confirmed by the use of the verb EVVO/lEfuBat
in this passage. In stating that the common people are more
interested in their own freedom and power to rule than in the
good government of the city (dJVO/lOV/lEVYJ 170"\t<;) the author at-
tributes self-interest and partisanship to his political opponents,
while claiming for those of his own political persuasion the main-
tenance of what is really good for the state. Moreover, he
emphatically states twice that the freedom of the common people
cannot be reconciled with the dJVO/lOV/lEVYJ 17(;"\t<;or with EVVO/lEf-
aBat as such, and goes even as far as naming the absence of EV-
vopLa (OUK EVl'o/lEfuBat) as the cause of the strength and freedom
of the people. If this proves the same partisan spirit in the use
of the verb as we found in the use of the noun, the fact that at
the beginning of the passage it is the verb and at the end of the
passage the noun which is associated with the 'slavery' of the
common people suggests that the content of verb and noun are
identical in that both regard law-and-order in terms of political
institutions and legislation. The pseudo-Xenophontic Constitution
oj Athens is thus the earliest surviving document in which law-and-
order is seen specifically as the condition of a state whose statutes
are good and which, consequently, enjoys a good constitution.2
I I see no evidence for Hohl's contention, op. cit. 34, that Sparta is here in-
tended as the model of d,vofLla.
2 For a similar use of d,vOfLELalJat in the fourth century see Aeschines 3. I.'J'1 and
Dem. 24. 139·Aeschines [. 5, where the verb is used of a democratic constitution,
proves that not only oligarchs could lay a claim to it. Note especiallv the definition
of EVIJop.{a in A.rist. Pol. 4. 8, 129433-7: aUK Eun 3£Evv0/l-La T() eD KE'ia8uL TO V'; vop.ovs,
p.ry 1T€Uha8aL o£. 8/.0 pia)) fl-€V EvvofLlav tJ1ToATj1TTEOV fdpUL TO 1TE{8eaBaL TOLS KHfLEVOLS
This enables us to draw some conclusions concerning the nature
of KaKOI'O/lLa, a noun which is fi-JUndonly here in extant Greek
literature. The context makes it clear that the noun describes the
condition antithetical to EVvopLa. It is the consequence of the
common people's desire for freedom and power; a condition
which, to be sure, is not in itself desired by the people, but which
is of less importance to them than the prevention of that en-
slavement which EiJVo/lLa would entail for them. Like EVVO/l[a, the
noun seems, therefore, to refer to the political institutions and
legislation which make up the constitution of the state, only that
in this case the constitution is bad. Like the adjective KaKovo/lW-
TaTOt in Herodotus' discussion of Sparta (I. 65. 2), the noun as-
sumes the existence of vO/lOt, which are, however, bad and not
conducive to law-and-order. But while Herodotus understood the
-VO/l0<; suffix in a wide sense as including everything regarded as
valid and binding, it seems here confined to statutes and political
institutions, that is, it is used in a narrow political sense. I
~With this we turn now to dVO/lLa, which, as we stated above, is
the opposite of EuvO/lLa as a quality primarily of an individual. It
is, therefore, best rendered as 'lawlessness', if by that term we
understand not the 'absence of law' but the asocial behaviour of
an individual who defies law-and-order and who acts in contra-
vention of any or all of the canons regarded as valid and binding
by the society in which he lives. It describes neither the trans-
gression of a particular vO/los--the proper term for that is 17apa-
l'o/lLa-nor the kind of unconventional behaviour which most
people frown upon yet tolerate. In all its forms, noun, adjective,
and verb, its signification is more general than that: it denotes
a violent and unruly kind of conduct which infringes vO/lo<; both
in its sense of 'law-and-order' and 'proper behaviour'.
VOP.OLS, ET€paV OE TO KaAws KELa8aL TOUS V0ll-0VS O[S €/-L/1-EVOVaLV (Ean yap 1Tfd8eo(}al. Kat
KaKW, KHfLEVOL<;). Both parts of the definition are framed with reference primarily
to the statutes: .vvofLla is 'obedience to the enacted laws' and the 'enactment of
good laws'.
I It is strange that there is no juxtaposition of KaKovofLla and 8vavofLla anywhere
in Greek literature, and this lack, when added to the fact that 8vavofLla is found
only twice in Greek literature (Hesiod and Solon) and KaKovofLla only once as
a noun ([Xen.] Alh. Pol.) and twice as an adjective (Herodotus and Philo), makes it
difficult to determine the difference between them. On the basis of the little we
know, we might guess that KaKovofLla is the condition of a society which has bad
VOfLOt, while 8vavofLla is a condition in which forces disruptive of good VOfLO' pre-
vail, forces such as those enumerated by Solon, frg. 3. 34-8. But we cannot be sure.
 Contrary to EVvov[a, of which the noun form is the earlier, the
adjective avovos is found before aV0Il-[a makes an appearance. In
the only pre-fifth-century passage-the only passage, therefore,
which justifies our inclusion of aV0Il-[a in our discussion here-
Hesiod describes Typhaon as DHvav B' VfJPWT~V T' aV0Il-0v B',
terrible, overbearing, and lawless (Theog. 307). The juxtaposition
of these three attributes shows that aV0Il-0v refers to his conduct in
the same general way as the other two expressions do. Just as
DHva, does not describe the impression he makes in a specific
context, or vfJpLaT~S his attitude in one particular kind of situa-
tion, so aV0Il-0' refers not to his infraction of a specific vall-os but
to his defiance of the social order as such.
The next occurrence of the adjective in extant Greek literature
is after 464/3 B.C., in Aeschylus' Agamemnon, where it is found
twice (151, r 142) in a musical sense.1 But the richness of Aeschy-
lus' language and his fondness for iridescent epithets extends the
meaning in both passages beyond the musical. When Calchas at
Aulis invokes Paian to prevent Artemis from bringing on Bva[av
ETEpav aV0ll-av TLV' aDaLTOV, he anticipates the sacrifice of Iphi-
geneia not merely as a sacrifice 'unaccompanied by music', as
sacrifices to the chthonian deities were,2 but also as the turning-
point in Agamemnon's conduct, expressed a few lines further by
T() 1TavTaToAIl-0v epPOVEtVIl-ETE'YVW (22 r ). The sacrifice is thus de-
scribed as one which will defy all norms of proper human con-
duct. Similarly, although in the later passage the chorus may
reproach Cassandra with no more than shouting a 'tuneless
tune', it would be difficult for the audience not to associate with
vall-0v aV0Il-0v also the 'lawless' conduct which has become the
'rule' for the house of Atreus (I 142).
Among the other tragedians aV0Il-0S is attested in two Sopho-
clean and seven Euripidean passages.3 Heracles in Sophocles'
Trachiniae applies the adjective to the Centaurs in exactly the
same sense in which Hesiod had used it of Typhaon, when he
calls them 'an overbearing, lawless host, exceeding in violence'.4
In the Oedipus at Colonus, Oedipus' entreaty to the chorus, Il-~ Il-',
I Cf. above, p. 61 n. I.
2 So H. Lloyd-] ones, CQ 47 (= N .s. 31 (1953) 96.
3 I omit the obviously corrupt o.vo/-,o' of the Laurentianus at Eur. Suppl. 45, and
prefer the correction o.va /-,0' accepted by Parmentier (Eude, 1950).
-+ 1°95-6: u-rpa-rov ... uf3pLaT~v, avo/-,ov, lJ1T€POXQV f3tav.
iKETEVW, 1Tpoa[D7)T' aV0Il-0v, is best interpreted as a request not to
I
infer from his having trespassed on sacred ground, of which the
chorus has just accused him (125-37), that he is a person who
habitually defies general norms of behaviour, especially in re-
ligious matters.2 J1v0Il-0S may have a religious significance also in
a Euripidean passage concerning Oedipus. For when Jocasta
speaks in the Phoenissae of Oedipus' birth as aV0ll-a Il-EV TEKEtV EIl-E
(380), she is evidently thinking of the violation of Apollo's oracle
which the birth of her son meant: we remember that it was
Jocasta herself who reported at the beginning of the play (r8-20)
that the Oracle warned Laius that begetting a child would
constitute defiance of the gods and that this would involve his
own death and ruin for his house. Religious overtones may, but
need not, be present in two passagesin which aV0Il-0' isjuxtaposed
with aBw,. Both adjectives are found together in Euripides'
Andromache (49 r) to describe the murder plotted by Hermione
against Andromache and her son; but it is hard to determine
whether the planned murder is 'lawless and godless' because
Menelaus had lured Andromache away from her suppliant pos-
ture at the altar or whether it refers to the conduct of Menelaus
and his daughter in more general terms. Similarly, one cannot be
certain whether or not religious vall-0L are involved in the chorus'
prayer for the death of Pentheus in the Bacchae : on the one hand,
Pentheus' attitude toward Dionysus justifies his being named as
TOV aBwv aV0Il-0v aDLKOV 'EX[ovo, 'Yavov [or: TaKov] 'Y7)'YEVfj;3 but on
the other hand, Pentheus' 'lawless senselessness' (aV0Il-0' deppo-
avv7)), which the chorus had criticized earlier in the play (387),
and the addition of l.tDLKO, to the other two epithets here extend
the force of aV0Il-0S beyond the sphere of religion . .I1v0Il-0S is again
found coupled with unjust behaviour in Agamemnon's refusal
in the Iphigeneia at Aulis to commit 'lawless acts which are not
just' against his own children merely for the sake ofHelen.4 Else-
where aV0Il-0' has a passive sense in that it describes the nature
of an act perpetrated rather than the morality of the person who
perpetrated it. The Phrygian slave in the Orestes, for example, is
I 142: 'Do not, I beseech you, look at me (as if I were) a lawless person.'
2 Cf. possible religious overtones in Evvo/-,{a in Soph. Aj. 713 (above, p. 70). On
religious connotations of vo/-,o, see above, pp. 40-3.
3 995-6 (= 1015-16): 'the godless, lawless, and unjust earth-born scion of
Echion'.
4 399: o.vo/-,a opwvTa KOV 8{Ka,a 1Taroa, ou, <YEtvu/-,'1v,

upset by the 'bloody afflictions and lawless ills' that he has seen,!
and, if Aristophanes' parody of the Andromeda can be trusted,
Andromeda bemoaned the aJ10fLa 7TfLBm inflicted upon her by her
father (frg. 122. I I = Ar. Thesm. 1039).
Similar uses of the adjective are found in fifth-century prose.
According to Herodotus, Astyages treated Harpagus to a lawless
feast (avofLO/ Tpa7TE~TI EoawE) when he served him the flesh of his
son (1. 162. I), and Gyges called Candaules' request to look upon
the naked queen an 'unsound speech' (!loYOJ1 OUK uyda) and the
act itself 'lawless' (oEwBat aJ1OfLWJ1), clearly because it offended his
notions of proper conduct (1. 8. 3-4).
The combination of aJ10fLOS with aBEDS and aOtKOS, which we
noticed in the Bacchae, is paralleled in the peroration of Gorgias'
Palamedes, in which the speaker tries to turn the table on his
accusers by arguing that they would commit a 'terrible, godless,
unjust, and lawless act' against themselves if they killed their ally,
benefactor, and fellow Greek (frg. Ila. 36), and again in the
Anonymus Iamblichi (3. I), where aOtKa and aJ10fLa are combined
to describe the kind of acts for which a person ought not to use
his talents.2 The most illuminating passage on the precise meaning
of aJ1OfLOS comes from the speech of the Thebans to the Spartans
concerning the treatment of Plataea, as reported by Thucydides.
All the specific charges of transgression are described by the ad-
verb 7TapavofLws or the verb 7TapaJ1OfLEw: the Theban attack during
the truce and during the celebration of a religious festival (3. 65.
I, 2) ; the killing of prisoners who surrendered voluntarily and
about whose lives the Plataeans had given assurances (3. 66. 2,
3); and the attack launched by the Plataeans on the Thebans
without provocation (3. 67. 5).3 But when the Thebans sum up
their grievances in their peroration, they use ~fLtJ1 aJ10fLa 7TaBovatI J cal but a social disorder which he sets out to remedy, a disorder
(3. 67·6) to describe themselves as victims of Plataean 'lawless-
ness' as such, that is, to characterize in general terms the be-
haviour of the Plataeans toward them.4
I 1455: q,OVtWV 1Ta8€wv avoflwv TE KQKWV.
2 Below, p. 92 n. 3. Cf. Eur. IA 399 (above, p. 87 n. 4).
3 In the only general statement in this speech containing a form of 1Tapavo/-,Ew,
01 yap ayovn, 1Tapavo/-,ovat /-,u'\''\'ov TWV E1TO/-,EVWV(65' 2), the reference is clearly to
the commission of a specific illegal act.
4 Note that for the specific charge repeated here, that the Plataeans transgressed
the law of the Hellenes to honour assurances given for the lives of prisoners. the
verb 1Tapa~a{vw is used.
EYNOMIA, JYl:NOMIA, AND ANOMIA 89
There are three examples of the adverb avofLws, whose logical
counterpart EVvofLws, curiously enough, is not found. It may have
religious overtones in Thucydides' report of Pagondas' speech to
the Boeotians before the battle of Dclium, in which he bases
trust in divine aid on the fact that the Athenians have 'lawlessly'
fortified the temple (4. 92. 7). The chorus in Euripides' Medea
uses aVofL(tJs to characterize the brutal manner in which Jason
forsook Medea for a new wife (1000), and Gorgias joins it with
aOLKws and with the verbs E{3uLaB7) and u{3pLaB7) to describe Helen
as more sinned against than sinning in his version of her rape
(frg. I 1. 7). I
While the adjective and the adverb show no trace whatever of
having been influenced by the meaning of 'statute' which VOfLoS
came to assume, there are some hints of such influence in the case
of the noun avofLLa and the verb avofLEw. The earliest preserved
occurrences of the noun avofLLa are in prose. Herodotus uses it
three times in the Deioces story (1. 96. 2-97. 3), which we had
occasion to mention in connection with our analysis of El)VOfLLa
(above, pp. 73-4). According to Herodotus it was against the
background of much avofLL7) among the Medes that Deioces first
embarked upon his scheme of gaining power by cultivating a repu-
tation for justice. When Deioces refused to sit asjudge any longer,
ap7Tay~ and aVOfLL7) became rife again, and when a meeting was
convoked to deliberate about the situation, the friends of Deio-
ces advocated the establishment of kingship, so that if TE XWp7)
"
EvvofL7)aETat Kat """aVTOt 7TpOSEpya TpE'f'OfLE
./;' B a OVOE
,<;;-,
V7T aVOfLt7)S avaaTa-
t " I "
TOt EaofLEBa. While it would seem at first glance that the aVOfLL7) on
which Deioces and his friends capitalize describes a condition
rather than a quality, closer scrutiny shows that it is not a politi-
which is brought about by the asocial conduct of individuals.
This is most clearly seen in the second occurrence of aVOfLL7) in this
passage, where its combination with pillage (ap7Tay~) shows that
the prevalence of crime rather than anarchy is the problem at
issue. The final passage, quoted above, provides the corrobora-
tion: if the presence of avofLL7) 'unsettles' the Medes and its
absence enables them to 'turn to the pursuit of business', aJ10fLL7)
I For the combination of avo/-,w, and aUKw, cf. Gorgias, frg. lla. 36 (above,
p. 88), and Eur. Bacch. 995-6, IA 399 (above, p. 87). For the association of avo/-,{a
with vf3pt, cf. Hes. Theogony 307 and Soph. Trach. 1096 (above, p. 86).

can only be a social malady which consistsin the lawless behaviour
of hoodlums who cannot be controlled; it does not refer to
a political condition of the kind branded as ovavofLtYJ by Solon.1
Thucydides' only use of dvofLtu points in the same direction.
When he introduces his account of the effect of the Plague upon
the conduct of the Athenians with the words: 7TpWTOV TE ~pgE KUL
€S Ta'\'\U Tn 7TO'\Et €7TL 7TA.EOVdvofLtus TO vOUYJfLU,2 he is obviously
thinking less of a political condition than of the demoralizing
effect on individual conduct, which he then proceeds to describe
in detail.
Euripides is the only tragedian in whose surviving works the
noun dvofLtu is found, and he is also the earliest author to mention
it in a context in which written VOfLOt also occur. Still, the vOfLoS
negated by the prefix remains throughout the norm of proper
conduct. Twice dvofLta is directed against the gods. The chorus of
the Heracles brands with the words BEauS dvofLtq, xputvwv (757) the
defiant behaviour of Lycus, who had declared (723) his disdain
of divine retribution for having violated the sanctity of the hearth
at which Megara and her children had taken refuge.3 Similarly,
the simple god-fearing cowherd, who, in the Iphigeneia among the
Taurians, reports to Iphigeneia the landing of two strangers,
characterizes as dvofLtq, Bpuuvs (275) one of his colleagues who
had derided the superstitious fears which the landing had aroused
in some of his comrades. In three passages dvofLtu is contrasted
with vOfLo" and as might be expected, vOfLoS describes the proper
behaviour of an individual in two of these. The chorus of the
Heracles illustrates the !heme of prosperity leading to madness by
singing of a man who, 'abandoning the norms of conduct and
gratifYing his lawlessness, shatters the gloomy chariot of wealth', 4
and when the chorus in the Iphigeneia at Aulis (1095) laments the
rule of dvofLtu over the VOfLOt, it means that lawless conduct has
eclipsed the order of a society from which respect, goodness, and
reverence are gone. The third passage, however, contrasts dvofLtu
I This refutes the assertion of Jaeger, SE 82 n. I, that OUaV0f'L'l in Solon's poem
is merely 'ein metrischer Ersatz fur aV0f'LU'.
2 2. 53. I: 'In other respects, too, did the plague initiate in the city a larger
degree of lawlessness.'
3 Wilamowitz, Euripides Herakles 22• I71, thinks that aV0f'LU here refers to Lycus'
'unglauben'. But the context shows that it is rather the act of proclaiming his dis-
belief (a1>povu '\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.
EYNOMIA, LJYENOMIA, A.l\;D ANOMIA 91
with statutes. Ion complains of the injustice of the gods who enact
(ypat/JuvTaS) laws for men, while their own conduct lays them
open to the charge of dvofLtu.1 The fact that the gods do not enact
the kind of statutes by which a city orders its life is irrelevant
here; the interesting point is that their rules are treated as if they
were no more than human political vOflm, subject to change and
annulment, and that, through the use of dvofliu, vOfLOS is brought
in in a different sense to deny the gods the moral right to legislate.
A closer approach to vOfLo, = 'statute' is also evident in the
verb dvofLEW, which appears only twice in Greek literature before
the end of the fifth century B.C. Herodotus reports that the
members of the Dorian Pentapolis in Asia Minor excluded from
their association, whose centre was the sanctuary of Triopian
Apollo, TOU, 7TEpL TO LPOV dVOfL0UUVTaS (1. 144. I). That the par-
ticiple describes lawless conduct in a religious matter is not re-
markable, since we have encountered both noun and adjective in
similar contexts before (pp. 86-7, 89, 90 above). But it is curious
that, while dvofLtu is usually associated with infractions of the
general norm of proper conduct, it constitutes here the violation
of a specific vOfLoS, which enjoined the dedication in the temple of
tripods won in the games of Triopian Apollo; disregard for this
law by a Halicarnassian led to the exclusion of Halicarnassus
from the organization. In other words, dvofLEW is used here in
reference to a specific transgression, which is more commonly
expressed by the verb 7TupuvofLEW.2 We must, then, regard this
usage either as exceptional or as emphasizing the asocial charac-
ter of an offence which was directed not only at the god, but also
at the association which had entrusted its welfare to his divine
protection.
There is no reason to assume that the application of dVOfLEW to
the infraction of a specific law had anything to do with any
change in the use of vOfLoS. But the second passage in which the
verb is found, again in a participial form but without reference to
I Ion 442--3: TrW~ o~v 8£KUWV TOUS VOfLOUS VJLOS ~POTO;S I ypaljJavTus, aUTovs
avo/-dav 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 sanc-
tion against desecration of the body of a fallen enemy; cf. 9. 78-9 and Thuc. 4.
97-101.
92 NOMOl; BECOMES' 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 ex-
hortation to virtue, incorporated into the Protrepticus of Iam-
blichus 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 rejec-
tion of general norms of behaviour than as obedience and dis-
obedience 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 state-
ment that dvofLtu (disregard for the laws) is incompatible with
living in society4and that the EvvofLtu (obedience to the laws) in-
herent 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
I There has been a tendency to identify the author as Democritus; see especially
Q. Cataudella, Studi italiani difilologia classica 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 sug-
gested, 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,
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'<tJ; at 6. 1 "
v0fl-0~ KaL TO 8[Kawv are said to be king among men; at 6. 3 a strong man can retain
powcr only by allying himself Toi~ v0fl-o'~ KaL T0 O'Ka'<tJ.
4 6. I: Kav avop.{q. SLaLnia(JUL.
5 6. 4: SOKELV yap uv TO US' U7TaVTUS' civ8pcf.J1T'ovS' Tip TOLOl.1Tc.p ¢>VVTL 7ToAEj..dovs KUTU-
GTu8€VTUS oLa T~V euvTwv €tJJJ0iJ-{av.
the blessings of EvvofLtu are matched one by one against the
deleterious effects of dvofLta. EvvofLta is a source of trust which
helps increase the public treasure (7. I), while dvofLta causes lack
of trust and of sociability, so that people will hoard their money
and thus cause economic shortages (7. 8). EvvofLtu helps us steer
the best course in good fortune and bad, both financial and per-
sonal, in that it enables the fortunate to enjoy their prosperity in
security and without fear of plots against them, whereas the un-
fortunate are helped by the sociability and trust of the fortunate
(7. 2); but where dvofLta reigns, prosperity is not secure, since
people conspire against it, while lack of trust and of sociability
compound misfortune (7.9). EvvofL{u frees people from annoying
tasks (7TpayfLaTa) and gives them time to devote themselves to
their proper life's work (Epya TijS 'wijs) and, as a result, releases
their thoughts from the most unpleasant concerns and turns them
to the most pleasant (7. 3-4); dvofLtu, on the other hand, deprives
men of the leisurely pursuit of their own work and plunges
them into the most unpleasant of annoying tasks (7. 8). And
finally, EvvofLta gives men sleep free from nightmares and pain
and thus prepares them to face the next day with confidence
and good hope (7. 5), whereas dvofLta will bring no pleasant
thoughts to people, neither in wakefulness nor in sleep, and they
wake up fearing the memory of those whom they have wronged
(7. II).
This rather dull and lengthy list leaves no doubt that both
dvofLtu and dvofLta are conceived of as qualities of personal con-
duct. It is also clear that the vOfLOS to which they are related
cannot be limited to the sense of 'statute', for the qualities
enumerated range so wide over aspects that cannot easily be re-
lated to legislation (for example trust, sociability, etc.) that it is
more natural to take the -VOfLOSsuffixin a wider sense as referring
to behavioural norms. This is especially true of two points made
for
about dvofLta which have no counterpart in the section on dvofLtU.
For although the author states at first (7. 6) that 'war leading to
subjugation and enslavement' is more likely to happen to people
who flout the law (dvofLoiJm) than to those who obey it (dvOfLOV-
fLEVOLS), it is dvofLtu alone which invites war from abroad and
makes for friction at home through plots and counterplots (7. IO).
Obviously, more than disregard of the statutes is involved here,
and the same is true when dVOfLta is cited as the one and only
94 NOMOI: BECOMES 'STATUTE' EYNOMIA, jjYI:NOMIA, AND ANOMIA 95

cause of tyranny. It is not tyranny which creates a condition of

I
EVvofLtu and KaKovofLta in [Xenopholl]'S Constitution if Athens,
lawlessness, but it is the lawless conduct of the citizens, not which belongs probably in the early 420S, and in the case of
merely their disregard for the statutes, that creates tyranny; the avofLta not until the Anonymus Iamblichi in the late fifth cen-

avofLta is predicated not of the tyrant but of the people as a whole tury. Accordingly, since vOfL0<; is attested as 'statute' as early as
who 'have turned to wickedness' and have abandoned VOfL0<;and 464/3 B.C., we conclude that it assumed this sense before the four
8tKY).2 Still, even here the sense of 'statute' rings through and even compounds discussed so far showed a trace of it, and that EiJvofLta,
more in those passages which reveal the author's preoccupation 8V(TV0fLta, and avofLta do not enable us to push the date of vOfL0<; =

with economic matters and with plots, where the VOfLOt observed 'statute' back beyond 464/3 B.C.
and flouted are obviously statutes concerning the payment of
debts and those against treason and conspiratorial activities. We
are at the very least well on the way to Aristotle's definition of
EiJvofLta as including both the enactment of good laws and
obedience to the established laws.3
This part of our discussionhas yielded the following conclusions.
Before 464/3 B.C. the suffix of EiJvofLta, 8v(TV0fLta, avofLta, and
their related forms does not reflect the political or judicial
sense of vOfL0<;, of which we found the earliest example in Aeschy-
lus' Supplices. The suffix of dvofLta before that date reflects VOfL0<;
as (a) the norm of proper conduct (pp. 24-6 above), and (b) the
condition oflaw-and-order (pp. 30-3 above), connotations which
have moral rather than political overtones. The opposite of
EiJVofLta in the first sense (a) is avofLta, attested in the early period
only in the adjectival form avofL0<;, which signifies conduct defy-
ing law-and-order, while its opposite in the second sense (b) is
8vavofLta, which describes a condition in the state which is almost
tantamount to anarchy. These findings tally well with the uses of
vOfL0<; attested for the period before 464/3 B.C. 'Ve observed that
it means 'law-and-order' as early as Theognis (p. 30 above),
and while there is no passage before the fifth century in which it
refers to individual conduct, it does appear from Hesiod onwards
in the closely related sense in which it describes the normal way
in which things are done, that is, the norm which avofLta trans-
gresses (pp. 23-4 above).
The earliest indications that vOfL0<; in the sense of 'statute'
affected the meaning of the compounds comes in the case of
I ,. 12: ytV£TUL Sf: Kat ~ 'Tvpavvts, KUKOV ToaOVTOV T€ Kat TOWVTOV, OtJJ< E~ aAAou
'TLVOS ~ dVOfl,{as. OLOVrQt O€ TLV€S' TWV op8wS' aup.f3cf""OVTUt, Tvpavvov
o..v8pOnTWV, QaaL i.L~
ig ci""ov TLVOS Ka8{aTua8uL ... aUK dpewS' Tavru "OYL~OJL€VOL.
2 ,_ 12-16, esp. 13: E7Tftodv yap UrrUVT€S {7TL KUK{av Tpa7TWVrUt .• " and 14: 0rav
oov ravru TO. Svo €K TOV 7T,,~eOUS €KA{1TT/, 0 T€ VOj1.0S Kat. ~ 8lK1].
3 Pol. 4. 8, 1294a3-7 (above, p. 84 n. 2).

ESU L TSmore conducive to determining the point at which
R
assumed the meaning of 'statute' in Athens are ob-
v6p,oc;
tained by an examination of laovop,la, the last remaining
-vop,oc; compound found before 464/3 B.C. Its connotations, as we
shall see, are from its first appearance until at least the end of the
fourth century B.C. purely political, and the context in which it is
first attested associates it closely with the reforms of Cleisthenes. I
In other words, the appearance of laovop,la seems to be linked
with the beginnings of the Athenian democracy, and this, in turn,
suggests that the adoption of v6p,oc; as the technical term for
'statute' to replace ewp,6c; forms part of the same picture. vVe
are faced, therefore, with two tasks: in the first place, we have to
demonstrate what precisely the meaning of laovop,la in its various
contexts is, and secondly we have to determine as accurately as
we can what the date and the circumstances of the first appear-
ance are.2
It is generally agreed that the earliest occurrence of the con-
cept, in the adjectival form la6vop,oc;, is to be found in two stanzas
of a song celebrating the tyrannicides Harmodius and Aristo-
geiton, which Athenaeus includes in his collection of some
twenty-five Attic skolia or drinking songs.3However, since we can
glean little information from them about the meaning of laovop,la,
1 Our discussion will be confined to the political kind of luovoJ1-la and will not
embrace that Epicurean luovoJ1-la which Cic. De nat. deorum I. 50 has Velleius trans-
late as 'aequabilem tributionem' and Cotta, ibid. I. 109, as 'aequilibritas'.
Some scholars want to attribute the authorship of the Epicurean luovoJ1-la to
Democritus, e.g. C. Mugler, 'L'isonomie des atomistes,' RPh 3e seL 30 (1956)
231-50, and S. Luria, 'Zwei Demokrit-Studien', in J. Mau and E. G. Schmidt
(edd.), Isonomia: Studien zur Gleichheitsvorstellung im griechischen Denken 37-54, esp.
45-6. That even the Epicurean luovofLla 'fait, en elfet, partie de toute une suite de
metaphoresjuridiques appliquees it la cosmo logie' is shown by Mugler, op. cit. 232.
2 I should like here to pay tribute to the work of three scholars to which, despite
some disagreements, the following discussion owes whatever value it possesses: V.
Ehrenberg (Ison.; OD, esp. 530-7), G. Vlastos (Ison.; IP), and J. A. O. Larsen
(Cleisth.) .
3 Athenaeus 15. 694 c-695 f, esp. 695 a-b. The most recent text is that of Page,
PitfG, Nos. 893 and 896, esp. line 4.
IEONOMI A AND ATHENS 97
beyond the observation that in the relevant two lines the la~-
VOf.da which Harmodius and Aristogeiton brought to Athens IS
contrasted with tyranny (TOV Tvpavvov KTaVE-rYJv / laov6p,ovc; T'
)1e~vac; E7ToLYJaaTYJv),and since their main interest for us is chrono-
logical, we shall defer a discussion of them until we ~ave esta?-
lished the meaning of the term through a full analYSISof all ItS
occurrences in the fifth century, to use them then to date the
emergence of the concept of laovop,la in Athens.
Most treatments of laovop,la regard it as the name of that
constitutional form which later came to be called DYJp,oKpaTla.I
But, as we shall see, laovop,la is not a name for a form of govern-
ment but for the principle of political equality, which, though it
is of course more closely associated with a democratic constitu-
tion than with any other, is not necessarily confined to it.
Chronological problems, less crucial for us than those besetting
the Harmodius skolia, also plague the second passage relevant to
our inquiry. Alcmaeon of Croton is said by Aristotle to have been
a contemporary of the old age ofPythagoras,2 Diogenes Laertius
and Iamblichus called him a pupil ofPythagoras,3 and other late
authors called him a Pythagorean.4 A number ofmodern scholars,
accordingly, date Alcmaeon's fioruit as about 500 B.C., roughly
contemporary with the reforms of Cleisthenes,5 or shortly there-
I e.g. vVilamowitz, AA 2. 319, Larsen, Cleisth. 6, and Vlastos, IP I, who, how-
ever draws a distinction between luovOJ1-ia and DTJJ1-0KpaTia (pp. 7-10); cr. also
C. Meier, 'Drei Bemerkungen .. .' 4-18. That it is not a constitution is recognized
by Ehrenberg, Ison. 297, and OD 535·
2 Met. A, 986a29-30 (Ross): KaL yap [EY<VETO TryV ~'\LKiav] }1,\KJ1-aiwv [E7TL Y~POVTL
IIv8ayopq.J The bracketed words arc omitted in Ab .and are ther:fore beheved
by Ross to be a later addition. But, as Ross also recognIzes, the questIOn whether or
not they belong in the text of Met. docs not alfect the truth or falseness of the state-
ment itself. For the same reason Alexander of Aphrodisias' failure to take cog-
nizance of these words is of no significance; cr.
J. Wachtler, De Alcmaeone Crotoniata
5~· .
3 Diog. Laert. 8. 83; Iamblichus, De vita Pythagorica 104, where Alcmaeon I.Sals.o
enumerated among the young men who were contemporanes of Pythagoras III h,S
old age; cf. also 267.
4 Philoponus on Arist. De an. 405'29 (Hayduck, p. 88. II); scho!' P!. Ale. I
121 e. Simplicius on Arist. De an. 405'29 (Hayd.uck, p. 32. 3-6) reports t~at he
was traditionally called a Pythagorean, but POllltS out correctly that Anstotle
dissociates him from the Pythagoreans.
5 M. Wellmann, Archeion II (1929) 156 and Archivfiir Geschichte der Medizin 22
(1929) 302-3, calls him a younger contemporary of Dem?cede~, who practised
medicine first at the court of Polycrates of Samos and after hIS fall III 522 B.C. at the
court of Darius; W. H. S.Jones, Bulletin of the History of Medicine, supp!. 8 (1946)
3, dates him c. 500 B.C., but admits, n. 5, the possibility of a date as late as 450
814277 H
 98 NOMOI: BECOMES 'STATUTE'

after,! and regard him as a member of the Pythagorean schoo!'z Empedocles and Anaxagoras.! This would give us a date about
Now, it would of course be very strange indeed if a physician 450 B.C. for Alcmaeon's activity, and this date tallies well with
and scientist born in Croton at any point in the late sixth or in the statement that his life coincided with the end of Pythagoras'
the fifth century B.C. were to remain unaffected by the teachings life. For if we follow Guthrie in assuming that Pythagoras died
of Pythagoras or his disciples, and the combination of Alcmaeon's about 490 B.C. and that Alcmaeon may have written his book at
provenance with some more or less superficial similarities in doc- any time between the ages of thirty and seventy, we may conclude
trine was probably responsible for his classification as a Pytha- that he was born about 510 and was active between 480 and 440
gorean and as a pupil of the master.3 Still, to admit influence is B.C.2 The lower limit of this range becomes more likely if we ac-
a different matter from asserting membership in the sect. Aris- cept with K. von Fritz3 480 B.C. as the date of Pythagoras' death,
totle recognized this when he noted the similarity of Alcmaeon's for this date would enable us to assume 500 B.C. as the approxi-
penchant for pairs of opposites with the table of the Pythagoreans, mate year of Alcmaeon's birth.4
but, by leaving open the question 'whether he took this doctrine This brings us to the fragment which is preserved by Aetius :
from them or they from him', dissociated Alcmaeon from the
)1I\KfWLWV Tij, [LEV vyLELa, ElvaL UVVEKTLKr;V T~V lUOVo[LLaV TOW ovvapEWV,
Pythagoreans.4 More recently, Vlastos has proved after a close
vypoD, triPoD, .pvXpoD, 8EP[LoD, 7rLKpoD, yAvKEO' Ka1 TlJW 1\0L7TWV, T~V 0'
scrutiny of Alcmaeon's teachings that he was not a Pythagorean.s
EV aVTOr, fLOvapxtav vouov 7TOL1]TLK~V' </>80p07TOLOVyap EKaTEpov fLOvapXLav'
This still leaves us with the question of his dates. The only way in Ka1 VOUOV UV[L1TL7TTELVW, [LEV v</>' OU V7TEp{3ol\f; 8EP[LOT1]TO, ~ If;vXPOT1]TO',
which the statement that he was a contemporary of old Pytha- (V, OE E~ ou OLa 7TM"j80, Tpo</>Yje; ~ EVOELaV, W, 0' EV 0[, ~ (1TEp1 Diels)
goras can be checked is by comparing his doctrines with those of a[fw ~ [LvEAov ~ EyKE</>al\ov. EyyLvw8aL OE 7TOTE
TOl)TOL<; KaK TWV E~W(JEV
other physical thinkers, especially those with whom he shows the alTLwv, vOaTwv 7TOLWV ~ xwpa, ~ K07TWV ~ avaYK1], ~ TWV TOVTOL, 7Tapa-
closest affinity. Such comparisons have shown that Alcmaeon's 7T1\1]ULWV. T~V OE vyELav T~V UV[L[LETpOV TWV 7TOLWV KpiiuLV.5
work preceded the Hippocratic tract On ancient medicine and cer-
tainly the work of Democritus, but that he lived later than vVe have before us a paraphrase in indirect speech and not a
Heraclitus and was, perhaps in his later years, a contemporary of direct quotation, a paraphrase, moreover, which, as Diels already
remarked, shows traces of Peripatetic and Stoic contamination.6
B.C.; Larsen, Cleisth. 8, and Ehrenberg, OD 535, make him belong to the same Caution is, therefore, required in an attempt to extract Alc-
period as the Harmodius skolia. M. Pohlenz, Hippokrates und die Begriindung der maeon's views from Aetius' statement of them. \Ve can, however,
wissenschaftlichen Medizin 82, goes beyond anything the ancient evidence suggests
be confident that the words laovofl,{a and fwvapXLa formed a part
when he asserts that Hippocrates was born in (sic) 460 B.C., a generation after
Alcmaeon's death, thus placing Alcmaeon's death in c. 500 B.C. of Alcmaeon's original statement. For not only is the image
I W. Schmid and O. Stiihlin, Geschichte der griechischen Literatur 1. 1. 766, date created by their contrast so striking that it is not likely to have
him a little before Euryphon (mid-fifth century B.C.); Kirk and Raven 232 put his been introduced by a doxographer, but it is also very much in
floruit in the early fifth century B.C.
2 Schmid-Stiihlin, op. cit. 739; Ehrenberg, Ison. 296, Eun. 89, and OD 535; line with the practice of Presocratic thinkers to explain physical
Jones, op. cit. 3-4; J. L. Myres, CR 61 (1947) 82; Larsen, Cleisth. 9; and L. Edel-
stein, AJP 63 (1942) 371-2, who, however, wants to push his date down to [ The most recent full discussion is that of Guthrie, HGP I. 341-59, esp. 357-9.
'Socrates' time or even later'. Cf. also W. A. Heidel, Hippocratic Medicine 43 and 47. Jones, op. cit. 3 n. 5, believes
3 How little reliance can be placed on the Pythagorean label is shown by the that he preceded Empedocles and Anaxagoras.
inclusion in lamblichus' list (De Vita Pythagorica 104) of Philolaus, Archytas, and 2 Guthrie, HGP I. 357-8.
Leucippus as Pythagorean contemporaries of Pythagoras; see Kirk and Raven 233. 3 'Pythagoras', RE 47. Halbb. (1963) 184.
4 Met. A, 986'27-9: OV7T€P TprJ7TOV EO'K€ Kat 14AKJLalwv " KpOTWV'UT1JS tmOAa{3€LV, 4 I would not wish, however, to lower the date of Alcmaeon's activity as far as
Kat ifTOL OVTOS nap' EK€{VWV ~ EKELVOI, 7Tupa TOVTOU 1TapiAa{30V TOV AOyOV TOVTOV. 430 B.C.
5 Vlastos, Ison. 344-7, accepted now by Ehrenberg, HL 67 n. 23. The same 5 For this text and its translation see Endnote, pp. 177-8 below.
conviction was already expressed by \Vachtler, op. cit. 88, and by W. A. Heidel, 6 H. Diels, Doxographi Graeci 223-4: 'miserrime invrrsum est Alcmaeonis de
AJP 61 (1940) 3-6 and Hippocratic Medicine 43; and it is stated again by Guthrie, sanitate placitum V 30 1 ubi Peripatetic a de quattuor causis c10ctrina Stoicorum
HGP I. 341. 7TOWLS mire copulata est.'
 phenomena in political or social images.! It is safe, therefore, to
assume that Alcmaeon used luovoflia and fLovapx{a not as medical
but as political concepts intended merely to help him expound
certain facts about the (human) body by analogy with certain
features in the state.Z This means that it is immaterial for an
understanding of the fragment to speculate whether Alcmaeon
preferred one form of government to another or whether his ex-
periences in Croton mayor may not be reflected in his choice of
this contrast.3 In the first place, we know too little about the his-
tory of Croton at this time and the part Alcmaeon mayor may
not have played in the attempt to make the government of the
'Thousand' more democratic4 to use it to elucidate the possible
meaning of luovofL{a in this fragment, and secondly, the contrast
between luovofL{a and fLovapx{a must have been sufficiently familiar
to Alcmaeon's contemporaries in a general way to make its
metaphorical use here intelligible to them without previous in-
quiry into his personal convictions.s Accordingly, the only method
by which we can hope to gain an insight into Alcmaeon's mean-
ing is to assume that Aetius' epitome, though couched in the
language of Hellenistic eclecticism, correctly reflects Alcmaeon's
ideas, and to reverse Alcmaeon's analogy by drawing conclusions
from the physical to the political connotations of luovofL{a and
fLovapx{a. This procedure is hazardous in that it does violence to
Alcmaeon's emphasis. For him, as we saw, the political image was
an aid to the exposition of medical phenomena, and this does not
I e.g. Anaximander's doctrine of Q{Wf} and TLau, (frg. !), which is taken by Vlas-
tos, Ison. 362, as embodying a doctrine similar to that of laoFop.La here. See also
Heraclitus' doctrines of 1TO)..EP.OS (frgg. 53 and 80) ; of the Erinyes as helpers of Dike
keeping the sun in check (frg. 94) ; and the relation between FOILOS and the tWOF
(frg. ! 14). Empedocles' doctrine of Love and Strife is also relevant here, especially
frg. 30, where NElKOS is said to come €S TLp.as.
2 L. Mac Kinney, 'The Concept of Isonomia in Greek ~1edicine' in Mau and
Schmidt, op. cit. 79-88, fails to recognize that laoFop.La is fundamentally
political concept, the application of which to medical matters can only be meta-
phorical.
3 This point is well made by Vlastos, Ison. 363-5 with nn. 83-7.
4 Iamblichus, De vita Pythagorica 257.
5 General considerations make it likely, however, that Alcmaeon favoured
laOJ'op.La over p.oFapxLa. Since pre-Aristotelian and particularly pre-Socratic
thinkers tend to regard human and natural phenomena as part of one Koap.os,
Alcmaeon would not have wished to define laoFop.La as good for the body but bad
for the state. For the persistence of this notion we have to think only of Plato's
Timaeus and, especially for our purposes here, of the qualitative identity of in-
dividual and state in Rep. 2. 369 c-4. 445 c.
automatically mean that every feature of the image must corre-
spond to every aspect of the thing which it is called in to explain.
And yet, since the fragment contains no clue which would lend
itself to a different method and since, as we shall see, its results
will be internally consistent, we must take either this precarious
route or none at all.
The mere fact that luovofL{a is here opposed to one-man rule,
as it is in the Harmodius skolia, has led some scholars to believe
that opposition to tyranny is the primary factor inherent in
luovofL{a, and the conviction that luovofL{a began as an aristocratic
notion, which was only later appropriated by the Cleisthenean
democracy, almost made this beliefnecessary.! But the refutation
of that view by Vlastos enables us to see the tenor of the Alcmaeon
fragment in a different light.z We must begin with fLovapx{a,
which is defined more precisely than is luovofL{a. In attributing
destructiveness to the fLovapx{a EKaTEpov and in citing the excess
of heat or cold as one of the causes of disease, the fragment defines
fLovapx{a as the preponderance or supremacy of one in a pair of
opposite powers over the other, making, as it were, the hot abso-
lute ruler over the cold, or the dry over the wet, or the sweet
over the bitter. In other words, fLovapx{a is not envisaged in
terms of the dominance of one quality or power over all the other
five (or more), but simply as the preponderance of one member of
a pair of opposites over the other.3 Since such a preponderance is,
according to the fragment, alone sufficient to cause disease, there
was no need for Alcmaeon to consider the possibility, articulated
by later medical men,4 that the same body might simultaneously
exhibit a supremacy of both the hot over the cold and of the dry
over the wet, an eventuality which, if Alcmaeon had wished to
apply the political metaphor consistently and exhaustively, he
would presumably have characterized as an oligarchy. This point
a deserves to be made in order to show that the contrast between
fLovapx{a and luovofL{a is not necessarily exhaustive, and that it
does not necessarily imply that oligarchy was unknown to Alc-
maeon. If he did not need it for his purposes in this fragment,
I Ehrenberg, Ison. 296, and OD 535; Larsen, Cleisth. 8.
2 Ison. 339-44, and IP 10-12.
3 This point is missed completely by MacKinncy, op. cit. 79 with n. I, who
arbitrarily changes the correct translation of €KUTEPOV, which he found in Kirk and
Raven, to 'any'.
4 Cited and discussed in Galen, De temperamentis 1. 2 (510-18 Kuhn I).
 that does not mean that under diftlTcnt circumstances la()vojJ~tu
might not be opposed to oligarchy as well as to monarchy.l
'!aovop.,[u is defined only as 'that which holds health together'
(Tij<; vyudu<; aVVEKTLK~V). But the definition of health which ap-
pears at the end of [Plutarch],s part of the fragment enables us
to go beyond this and to infer from the description of j1.ovuPXtu
what precisely this 'bond of health' is. According to his para-
phrase health is ~ aUj1.j1.ETpO<; TWV 7TOLWV Kpom<;, 'the well-
proportioned mixture of the qualities'. The Stoic terminology
used here makes it unlikely that these words are an exact quota-
tion from Alcmaeon, but the idea of health as a mixture is so
common in Hippocratic and later Greek medicine,2 and of the
cosmos as a mixture so current in Presocratic philosophy,3 that it
would be surprising if Alcmaeon, with his penchant for opposites,4
had not defined it in a similar way.5 We may assume, therefore,
that [Plutarch]'s words correctly reflect the essence of Alcmaeon's
original statement.
What is of greater interest for our purposes, however, is that
the mixture which is health is described as aUj1.j1.ETpO<;. The con-
cept of a aUj1.j1.ETpO<; Kpom<; is not uncommon in the Greek medical
writers as well as in the doxographers, and it describes the com-
mensurability of two and only two qualities, powers, humours,
conditions, or other factors.6 This commensurability is seen as
I The formation oA,yapx- is, as far as can be judged, no older than the formation
S'7!"oKpaT-, which is first attested in the treaty with Colophon of 447/6 B.C., see IG
12• 15.37 = ATL 2. D 15.48. Herodotus is the earliest literary source for both
oA,yapx- and S'7!"OKpaT-; see A. Debrunner, "LJ'7!"oKpaTia", Festschrift fiir Edouard
Tieche I 1-24, esp. 15-16. Even if the noun oA,yapxia was not available to Alcmaeon,
he might have used a periphrasis to describe it. My point here is merely that the
fragment cannot be used to prove that Alcmaeon knew only two forms of govern-
ment.
2 See the passages cited by A.-J. Festugiere, Hippocrate: L'Ancienne Mldecine
(= Etudes et Gommentaires 4) 37-8. Cf. G. Vlastos, 'Equality and Justice in Early
Greek Cosmologies', GP 42 (1947) 156-78, esp. 156-8, and G. E. R. Lloyd,
Polarity and Analogy 20-1.
3 e.g. Parmenides, frgg. 9, l2, and 16, cr. 8. 55-61; Empedoc1es, frgg. 8,17.4-8
and 16-20,21, esp.line 14,22, and 26; Anaxagoras, frgg. 4, 6,10,12, and 17.
4 Cf. Arist. Met. A, 986a31-4; Diog. Laert. 8. 83.
5 W. Jaeger, The Theology of the Early Greek Philosophers 1 57 and 226 n. 48, is
probably right in asserting that the concept of mixture played a central part in
Greek medicine before Parmenides introduced it into philosophy. On Parmenides'
role in making mixture a central concept in Greek natural science see O. Gigon,
Del' Ursprung del' griechischen Philosophie 273-4.
6 Only the absence of complete concordances to the Greek medical writers
prevents me from saying that this is invariably the case. I must emphasize that my
a one-to-one qualitative correspondence; quantitative considera-
tions, which play a more crucial part in modern science, are
almost totally lacking or only at an inchoate stage of develop-
menU While the notion of a well-proportioned mixture occurs
frequently in the Hippocratic corpus, I have found no example of
a verbal combination of aVj1.j1.ETptU or its cognates with Kpiim<;,
or their cognates.2 They rather tend to conjoin Kpiim<; with
j1.ErgL<;,
j1.ETpW<; or its adverb to express a balanced mixture of two
elements,3 although similar conjunctions also describe a balance
involving more than two factors.4 But with Aristotle and his
successors, among whom are to be numbered the doxographers
to whom we owe the preservation of Alcmaeon's fragment, the
combination of aVj1.j1.ETptU and Kpom<; begins to appear consis-
tently as an expression for a mixture involving the balance of two
elements only. Aristotle's definition of health, for example, is in
the Physics couched in terms very similar to the Alcmaeon frag-
ment: vytELUV KUL E!JEgtUV EVKpaaEL KUL aVj1.j1.ETptq. 8Epj1.WV KUL
if;vxpwv Tt8Ej1.EV;5 and in the De partibus animalium he speaks of
remarks on aV!"!"€TpOS are confined to its meaning in the expression aV!"!"€TpOS
Kpaa's. There are passages, especially in Galen, which suggest that aV!"!"€Tp{a may
in other contexts refer to the commensurability of more than two entities; see, for
example, Galen's account of the Ganon of Polyclitus in DK6 I. 391. 24 and 29-36.
I Cf. Vlastos, op. cit. 157. Festugiere, op. cit. 41-3 gives reasons for believing
that Hippocratic medicine was groping toward exact quantitative measurement.
2 The question whether or not the Hippocratic writers differentiate between
KpaaLS and !,,€,t,s (and their respective cognates) still awaits treatment. I am reluc-
tant to assume with Jaeger, op. cit. 240 n. 13, that there is no sharp distinction
between them in the fifth century B.C. Aristotle differentiates between the two in
Top. 4. 2, 122b26-31 and 123"4, as does Alexander of Aphrodisias, De mixtione 3
(Bruns 216. 28-217. 2), paraphrasing Chrysippus.
3 e.g. On Ancient Medicine 5 (ad fin.) : patients should be given drink commen-
surate with their bodily condition: Tiiai T€ Kp~a€(J' Kat TiP 1TA..jOELStar/JVM.aaovTES ,os
!"€Tp{WS EXO'; or On regimen 3. 69: disease results if exertion and food do not
J.L€Tp{W~ EXEL 71'POS aAA1]Au ... a7To of: TOU larl~€Lv -rrpos crAATJAa vy€LTJ 7TpOUEGTLV. Further
passages with discussion in Festugiere, loco cit. The notion of mixture in Hippo-
cratic medicine is ably discussed by C. W. Muller, Gleiches zu Gleichem: Ein Prinzip
friihgriechischen Denkens (= Klassisch-philologische Studien 31) 142-5.-Cf. Thuc. 8.
97.2 (on the government of the Five Thousand) : !,,€Tpia yap ~ T€ ES TOUS o'\{YOVS Kat
TOUS 1TOA'\OUS tVyKpaa,s, terminology which may well have been borrowed from
Greek medicine.
4 e.g. the four humours in On the Nature of Man 4.-0n the idea of symmetry
and proportion in the Hippocratic writers in general see W. Jaeger, Paideia 3
(Engl. trans.) 27.
5 7.3, 246b4-6: '\Ve ascribe health and well-being to a mixture and proportion
of hot and cold elements.' Cf. Top. 6. 2, 139b21 and 6.6, 145b8, where health is
defined as a aV!"I-'€Tp{a of hot and cold elements. Alexander of Aphrodisias,
fluxes beginning in the head when 'the elements about the brain
are colder than the well-proportioned mixture'. I In the doxo-
graphy the expression appears in Empedocles' attribution of the
origin of trees to the aVfLfLETp{a TijS" KpaaEwS" in them, which en-
compasses the formula ("-0Y0S") for male and female,2 in Theo-
phrastus' criticism of Anaxagoras' theory of sensation, where he
asserts that the relation of perceived object and perception stands
EV aVfLfLETp{q. TLV~Ka~ KpaaEt,3 in his account of Diogenes' theory of
smell as coming about when the air about the brain is TV KpaaEt
aVfLfLETpOS with the odour perceived,4 and in his description of
Democritus' view that thinking presupposes a well-proportioned
mixture of the elements of the soul, but that the mind wanders
when it gets too hot or too cold.S Among the medical writers it is
Galen's De temperamentis (Greek: 7TEP~KpaaEwv) which shows best
that a aVfLfLETpOS"Kpoms involves only two terms, and the terms in
this treatise are always the paired opposites of the powers dry-
wet and hot-cold.6
These medical and doxographic parallels leave no doubt what-
ever that in Aetius' opinion Alcmaeon, too, conceived of health
as a mixture of the two powers or qualities that belong to the
same pair of opposites.7 Since the condition characterized as the
Quaestiones I. 9 (Bruns 19. 30-2) is probably dependent on Aristotle: EV floEV yap TV
T<VV OvvafloEwv TOVTWV [sc. 8EPflo0T'l' .pVXpOT'l' VypOT'l' ~'lPOT'l'] 1TpO, uAA'lAa avflo-
floETpiC[ ~ vyEia. Cf. the Stoic definition in Chrysippus, frg. 471 (v. Arnim 3. 121):
A€YETat DE ElvaL (JwJLaTO~ voaoS' ~ aaVJLfL€Tpla TWV Ell U1.JT0, OEpp..OU KUf. ljivxPov, ~YJPofj
Kat vypofJ •..• ~ 8' EV 7ip aWfLun vy{na EUKpaa[a TLS' Kat aUJLp,erp{a TWV OtTlPYJILe-I-'WV
<0' Elp'lflo<vWV),
I 2. 7, 652b36: (laOl<; av n TO. 1TEp' TOV EyK<q,aAov .pVXPOTEpa aVfloflo<TpOV KpaaEW"
2 Aetius 5. 26.4 (=Doxographi Graeci 438. 21-439. 4=DK6 31. A 70). Cf.
Theophrastus' criticism of Empedocles' doctrine of sensation, De sensibus 12-15
(= Dox. 502. 25-503. 29 = DK6 3 I. A 86), beginning: (lAw, yap 1TOld TryV flo'~tV
TV aVflofloETpiC[ TWV 1TOpWV. 3 De sensibus 32 (= Dox. 508.18-21).
4 Ibid. 39 and 41 (= Dox. 510.15-18 and 51 I. 2-4 = DK6 64. A 19). See also
Theophrastus' criticism of this doctrine, ibid. 46 (= Dox. 512.11-14).
5 Ibid. 58 (= Dox. 5 I 5. 22-5 = DK6 68. A 135) : 1TEp' oE TOV q,pOVE'V E1Tt ToaovTOV
ELp1]KEV, o'n Y{VETUt aUfLJLETpWS EXOVU1]S TfjS ¢JvxiJs Kuru T~V Kpaaw· Jav Sf 7TEpl8EP/-L()S'
7<, ~ 1TEpi.pvXpo, y<V'lTal, floETaAAaTTHI' q,'laL. For some excellent remarks on the
meaning of aVflofloETpia in Theophrastus see H. Frankel, H'ege und Formenfruhgriechi-
schen Denkens2 175-6.
6 De temperamentis (Helmreich) I. 6 (K. I 542, 544, 547-8, and 550), 8 (K. I
557); 2. 2 (K. I 595), 4 (K. I 606-7 and 610) ; and 3. 4 (K. I 678).
7 Cf. Eryximachus in PI. Symp. 186 d, who regards it as the function of the
physician to engender 'love' in each of the same pairs of opposites as those
enumerated in Alcmaeon's fragment: oEf yap Ory 7(' Ex8taTa ana EV T0 aWfloa7( q,iAa
OlDV ..,' ElvaL 1TOtEiv Kat, Epiiv dAA~"WV. EGn oJ EX8LUTU Ta EvavnWTUTU, tf;vxpov 8EpfL<P,
1TLKpOV 'YAUKEr, t'YJPov uypcp, 7TQVTU Tel TO"UtJTU 1
aVfLfLETpOS" KpaaLS TWV 7TOtWV is thus the precise opposite of the
fLovapx{a EKaTEpov, and since, moreover, the bond of health is de-
fined as the laovofL{a TWV OvvafLEwv, we may conclude that in this
fragment both aVfLfLETpOS KpaatS" and laovofL{a describe a balance
between the two opposites in a given pair in which neither one
dominates the other.I It is not stated explicitly, nor need it be,
any more than it needed to be stated in the case of fLovapx{a, that
health requires balance within all pairs of opposite powers, that is,
that it requires as many laovofL{at as there are pairs of opposites.
For, since the imbalance of anyone pair is sufficient to destroy
the fabric of health as a whole, there is no reason to discussin this
context what would happen if more than one pair were to be out
of balance. Nor does the fragment explicitly state that health
requires also some kind of balance between powers that are not
formally opposites of one another, for example between the hot
and the wet or between the cold and the dry, any more than it en-
visaged in the case of fLovapx{a that one power might dominate
all the rest. A balance of this kind would probably have had to
be expressed by the term laOfLotp{a rather than by laovofLLa. For
the doxographers as well as the medical writers use laofLotp{a
whenever they want to describe the balance of all elements in a
mixture,2 and in the language of law and politics laofLOtp{a is the
regular word for describing the balanced sharing of-usually--
more than two parties in the same thing.3 It should, however, be
noted that the difference between these two ideas resides less in
the number of parties involved than in the fact that laofLotp{a is
always treated as a general concept, applicable wherever there is
something to be 'equally shared', whereas laovofL{a remains basi-
cally a social and political concept.4
I So also Festugiere, op. cit. XXIII.
2 For the doxographers, see, for example, Empedocles in Aetius 5. 19. 5 (= Dox.
430-1 = DK6 31. A 72); the Pythagoreans in Theophrastus, Metaphysica 33
(= DK6 58. B 14) ; and Pythagoras in Diog. Laert. 8. 26. For the medical writers
see, for example, the Hippocratic On Airs, Waters, and Places 12. 18-19 (Jones) and
Galen, De temperamentis I. 4 (K. I 526-7 and 533-4), 9 (K. I 564), and 2. I (K. I
573). Cf. [Arist.] De mundo 5, 396b35. In this context belongs also Soph. El. 87: yill"
la0flo0Lp' d~p, although only two commensurables are involved. The fact that lao-
flo0lpia usually refers to more than two elements does not, of course, mean that it
can never be used to describe a balance involving only two.
3 See Endnote, p. 178 below.
4 \Vhenever it occurs in other contexts, it is as a metaphor or symbol borrowed
from the life of society, as here in Alcmaeon's fragment. It is, therefore, not
a 'medical formula' (Vlastos, op. cit. 156), since, despite its usefulness in describing
 For Alcmaeon, then, laovoflia is a balance in the body politic,
seen as the equilibrium of two 'powers'. What Alcmaeon thought
these two powers were is harder to ascertain. While it is tempting
to identify them with the terms in which Thucydides praised the
government of the Five Thousand (8. 97. 2) as a flETp{a gVyKpam,
of the few and the many, there is no suggestion whatever in the
fragment that Alcmaeon may have had the same elements in
mind, and it is extremely unlikely that quantities such as 'the
many' and 'the few' would have found a place in his doctrines. 1
We depend, therefore, entirely on inferences drawn from Aetius'
paraphrase, and this does not provide us with a very solid founda-
tion. Yet it is perhaps not entirely unwarranted to see a clue
again in the treatment of flovapx{a. For if flovapx{a denotes the
supremacy of one power over only one other power, it is hard
to see what these powers might be, except ruler and ruled. If
Alcmaeon's meaning, then, is that monarchy consists in an excess
of power on one side and a deficiency of it on the other, we may
infer that under laovofl{a the power of those who govern is
balanced by the power of those who are governed. Further than
this we cannot go, nor can we determine in what terms Alcmaeon
may have thought of these two powers in balance with each
other. The concept of rotation in office, for example, through
which the Athenian democracy achieved its balance, was as
familiar to the physicians of the fifth century as it was to its
political practitioners,2 but there is no indication that we have
here in Alcmaeon an anticipation of the later definition of
democracy as the form of government whose citizens rule and are
ruled in turn.3 That the term laovofl{a as used by Alcmaeon has
closer affinities with democracy than with any other form of
government cannot be doubted. But it is noteworthy that he uses
as the opposite of flovapx{a not DYJfloKpaT{a, which nakedly denotes
the 'rule of the people', but a term which in some way expresses
the principle of equality-the equality of vOflO, for ruler as well
as for ruled-which a democracy embodies.
a medical phenomenon, its true sphere of application remains political. See also E.
Will, Korinthiaka 618-19; P. Leveque and P. Vidal-Naquet, Clisthhze l'athinien 31;
and above, p. 96 n. 1 ad fin.
I On the absence of quantitative considerations see Vlastos, op. cit. 157, and
Festugiere, op. cit. 41-3. 2 See Vlastos, op. cit. 158.
3 The earliest extant definition along these lines is in Eur. Suppl. 406-8. Cf.
Arist. Pol. 6.2, 1317a4o-b3, 1317bI8-20.
The nature of laOVOf{{a is further elucidated by three passages in
Herodotus. 1 All three resemble the Harmodius skolia and the
Alcmaeon fragment in that iaovofl{a is opposed to tyranny, yet
there are clear indications that opposition to tyranny is not the
essential meaning of the term.2 This emerges most decisively from
the most famous of these passages (3. 80. 2-82), the Debate of the
three Persian nobles, which followed the overthrow of the false
Smerdis,3 where laovofl{a is opposed not only to one-man-rule-
called, without any difference in meaning, Tvpavv{, or flovvapX{YJ
-but also to oligarchy. That Otanes, the champion of laovofl{YJ in
the Debate, proposes in effect the establishment of a democratic
form of government in Persia is explicitly stated by Herodotus
later in his work.4 \Vhile this is sufficient to prove the close con-
nection between laovofl{YJ and DYJfloKpaT{YJ in Herodotus, it still
leaves open the problem to which we must now address our-
selves: is laovofl{YJ here merely a synonym of DYJfloKpaT{YJ, as
some scholars have maintained,s or, if not, what is the distinction
between the two?
To answer this question intelligently, we first have to examine
the other two passages in which Herodotus uses the noun. The
earlier of these (3. 142-3), dated in the same year as the Debate
(522 B.C.), appears in the story of Maeandrius' attempt to re-
nounce the tyranny over Samos, which he had inherited from
Polycrates. The motive for the renunciation which Herodotus
puts into his mouth is his adherence to an equalitarian principle,
his dislike that anyone man, including Polycrates, should lord
it over men like unto himself.6 How seriously Maeandrius takes
his equalitarianism is shown by the words in which he casts his
decision: EYW DE E, flEaov T0v aPx0v TLBEt, laovofl{YJV UflrV npo-
ayopEVw. Two points in this phraseology are revealing. The con-
stitutional innovation which Maeandrius offers the Samians is
expressed in words almost identical with those in which Herodotus
had summed up the essence of Otanes' position in the Debate :7
I Herodotus uses only the noun, and not iaovoiJ-os or iaovoiJ-€w.
2 See the criticisms of Ehrenberg and Larsen made by Vlastos, IP 5 n. 2. The
opposition of the two is also over-emphasized by Leveque and Vidal-Naquet,
op. cit. 28-9.
3 See Endnote, pp. 178~9 below.
4 G. 43. 3: WS xP€OV ,,') o1JiJ-oKpaT€wIJa, n':paus.
5 e.g. Larsen, Clcisth. 6-7, and Ehrenberg, OD 526.
6 142. 3: O€O'1TO'WlJ dvSpwv OfLOLWV €WVT4J.
7 3. 80. 2: ES iJ-€aov IUpa'[)a' KUTUIJ"VU' 7<, 7TP>7YiJ-UTU.
by 'placing the rule in the middle' he offers any citizen the right
to hold high office. That any and every citizen is meant is shown
by the fact that the speech is made before an assembly of all
Samians, convoked by Maeandrius himself. I There can, ac-
cordingly, be no doubt but that the new constitution offered by
l\1aeandrius in place of tyranny is a democratic form of govern-
ment. More revealing still is the second point, the choice of the
phrase luovop-L-'lv vp-tv 7TpoayopEvw. The verb usually employed by
Herodotus as well as by other Greek prose authors for the estab-
lishment of a new form of government is Ka(){uTYJIUz or, when the
change from one constitution to another is stressed, fJE8{UTYJlu.3
Nowhere in classical Greek texts, as far as I know, is a verb
meaning 'to declare' or 'to proclaim' found to express either of
these ideas. Accordingly, the luovofJ{YJ proclaimed by Maean-
drius, however closely related to democracy, is not identical with
it. The only alternative is that it is the principle of political
equality, and that this is the case here is indicated by a number of
circumstantial features in the story, especially by Maeandrius'
equalitarian motives and his offer to make high office accessible
to all. The expression T~V EAEV8Ep{YJV VfJLV 7TEptT{8YJfJt, with which
he sums up his offer at the end of his speech, as well as his founda-
tion ofa cult of Zeus Eleutherios (3. 142.2,4), points in the same
direction.4 For although later Greek political thought saw a close
relation between EAw8Ep{a and democracy,S Herodotus, in the
only other two passages in which he links EAw8Ep{a to a form of
government, neither confines the connection to democracy nor
speaks of it as inherent in a form of government as such. He makes
I 142.2: EKKX1u'T}V uuvaydpas mlvTwv TWV aUTwv. On the importance of this see
Vlastos, IP 6 with n. 3.
2 Hdt. 5. 92T}. 5,6.43.3, 131. I; Tlmc. 1. 115. 3,4. 74·3, 8.72; Andoc. 1. 97, 2.
27; Lysias 2.18,12.42,13.12; Arist. Ath. Pol. 29. I and 3, Pol. 2.12, 1273b38, etc.
3 Thuc. 4. 76. 2, 8. 75. 2; Arist. Pol. 2. 12, 1274'7, etc. When it is emphasized
that the change comes from within, /-'ETafJaXXw is used, e.g. PI. Rep. 8. 555 b, 562 a.
Arist. Ath. Pol. 41. 2 uses the nouns /LETafJoX~ and /-,fTauTau<s to describe the
constitutional changes in Athens.
4 The fact that Maeandrius wants to retain the priesthood of the new cult for
himself and his descendants does not affect the argument.-On the relation of
luovo/-,'T} and EXEVefp'T} in this passage ef. Herodotus' caustic remark, after the dis-
belief of the Samians in Maeandrius' sincerity had prevented them from getting the
laovOflIfJ offered to theIn, au yap 3~, W~ oi'KUat, Ef30VAOVTO E:[VUL tA.€VB€POL (3. 143.2).
5 See, for example, Arist. Pol. 4. 4., 1291b34-5 (where EAEVefpia and luoTT}s are
the main characteristics of democracy), 5. 9, 1310'28-32, and especially 6. 2,
13 Q'4o-bl 7·
Demaratus attribute the freedom of the Spartans not to their
institutions but to the principle of the rule of vOfJ0<; which pre-
vails among them (7. I04. 4-5),' and he attributes to the principle
of luYJYop{YJ, won by the Athenians after their liberation from
tyranny, the victories of the young democracy over the Boeotians
and Chalcidians in 506 B.C. (5. 78).2 Although these parallels do
not constitute proof that luovofJ{YJ in Maeandrius' speech refers to
a political principle rather than to a form of government in which
EAEV8Ep{YJ is embodied, they tend at least to support this view.
The second passage which will help us understand the meaning
of luovofJ{YJ in the Debate of the Persian nobles is the description
of the measures taken by Aristagoras to prepare for the Ionian
Revolt: KU~ 7TpWTU fJEv AOYlti fJETE~<; T~V Tvpaw{oa luovofJ{YJv E7TO{EE
Tfj MtA~Tlti, w<; av EKOVTE<; UI}T{:jJ OL MtA~UW£ uvvu7T£ura{aTo, fJETU OE
KU~ EV Tfj aAAn ' !wv{17 (5·37. 2). Aristagoras'
TWVTO ToflTO E7TO{EE
grant of luovofJ{YJ is part and parcel of the same democratic senti-
ments current in Asia Minor about this time of which Herodotus
speaks in connection with his narrative of the events of 5 I 2 and
again of 492 B.C. This sentiment is used in 512 B.C. by Histiaeus,
fearful of the tyrants' fate without Darius' support, as an argu-
ment against the revolt of Ionia from Persian rule,3 and Mar-
donius took cognizance of it in 492 B.C., when he deposed the
tyrants and established democracies in the Ionian cities in
order to protect the rear of his projected expedition to the north
coast of the Aegean.4 So also here Aristagoras tries to capitalize
on democratic sentiments, when he grants the Milesians luovofJ{YJ
to enlist their support for his planned rebellion. What precisely
does this luovofJ{YJ entail? According to Herodotus' narrative,
I On the relation between <Awe,pia and vO/-,os in Herodotus see the stimulating
essay by K. von Fritz, 'Die griechische <AWefp,a bei Herodot', H!iener Studien 78
(1965) 5-3 I, csp. 5-25.
2 That lUT}yopiT} refers to a democratic principle here is generally recognized.
\Vhat is more difficult to understand is its use here (as also at Dem. 15. 18) as the
cardinal principle to describe democracy as such, since there seems to be no
logical connection between free speech and the defeat of the Boeotians and Chal-
cidians. Still, that lUT}yopia is characteristic only of a democratic form of govern-
ment is well shown by G. T. Griffith, 'lsegoria in the Assembly at Athens',
Ancient Society and Institutions:. Studies Presented to Victor Ehrenberg on his 75th Birthday
115-38, and A. G. \Voodhead, "'IuT}yopia and the Council of 500", Historia 16
(1967) 129-40.
3 4. 137. 2: OT}/WKpaTfWea< /-,8:A'\OV ~ TUpaVVnJWea<.
4 6. 43. 3: 'TOUr; yap TUprivvou~ TWV ' ]wvwv KUTu1Tuvaus 7TuvTas 0 Map3oVLG~
0TJ/LOKPUTLUS KUTLUTU ES Tas 7TO.\LUS.
110 NOMOI: BECOMES 'STATUTE'
Aristagoras did nothing about setting up a democracy in Miletus
and little, if anything, about establishing democracies in the
other Ionian cities whose tyrants he deposed. The connotations of
,\oYo/ leave no doubt but that, in Herodotus' view, Aristagoras'
abdication was a sham, and that it was is corroborated in the
sequel in that the effective control of the state remained firmly in
his hands. In the case of the other cities, we only learn that he
ordered the citizens to appoint generals;1 there is no talk about
laovofl-{YJ here, nothing is said about the method of appointing the
generals, and nothing about their functions. There is, in other
words, no indication at all whether the deposition of the tyrants
led to the establishment of a new form of government or whether
the generals merely assumed the powers previously exercised by
the tyrants.2 At any rate, Herodotus states clearly that the final
end of tyranny in Ionia and its replacement by democracies had
to wait until Mardonius needed Ionian support in 492 B.C. What,
then, is the meaning of laovofl-{YJv E7TO{EE Tfj Mt'\~To/, if it does not
signify the establishment of a democratic form of government?
That the grant of laovofl,{YJ was, unlike the abdication, not a sham
is shown verbally by the position of '\0Yo/, which refers only to
fJ-ETEiS T~V Tvpavv{oa, not to laovofl-{YJv E7TO{EE, and historically by
the fact that it achieved the result intended in that the Milesians
remained loyal to Aristagoras during his absence in Sparta and
Athens, and continued their struggle against Darius even after
the Athenians withdrew their support (5. 38. 2, 103. I). In view
of this, Herodotus can only mean that Aristagoras succeeded in
granting the Milesians rights similar to those which Maeandrius
had not succeeded in granting the Samians. Knowing that with-
out his leadership and organization the revolt would make no
headway, he could not possibly have gone all the way in giving
the Milesians the 0YJfJ-0KpaT{YJwhich they desired and in entrusting
the management of affairs to the people as a whole. But he could
give them a greater degree of political equality than they had
enjoyed before, even while reserving for himself an 'unequal'
status, which would be meaningless, anyway, during his absence
abroad. 'Ve are not told what concrete form these rights took, but
I 5. 38. 2: a'TpaTYjYov~ fV €KauTT/ TWV 71'oA.{wv K€A€vaas- €KaUTOV$" KaTaaT~aat.
2 If Aristagoras' own procedure in Milctus can be taken as a guide, the two
generals to whom the leadership of the revolt was entrusted were not democrati-
cally elected but appointed by Aristagoras himself, see 5. 99. 2.
they must have included not only the right of all citizens to par-
ticipate in the election of the officialswho were to rule in Arista-
goras' absence, but also, if we are justified in drawing inferences
from Maeandrius' use of the word in his offer to the Samians, the
right of all citizens to be candidates for election to high office.
Moreover, these rights must have been sufficient to maintain
orderly government in Miletus during Aristagoras' journey to
mainland Greece, and the response of the Milesians shows that
Aristagoras had gone some way in satisfying their desire for
democracy.
We can now return to our point of departure and examine
what light these two passages throw on the most elaborate dis-
cussion of laovofJ-{YJ in Herodotus, the Debate of the three Persian
nobles. We noted before that Otanes' proposal, summed up by
Herodotus as II EpaVat laovofJ-{YJv a7TEUowv 7TOtfjaat (3. 83. I), is later
paraphrased as elis XPEOV ELYJ 0YJfJ-oKpaTEW8at IIEpaas (6. 43·3),
thus establishing a close link between laovofJ-{YJ and democracy.
On the other hand, the Maeandrius and Aristagoras passages
have taught us that laovofJ-{YJ is not a form of government but
a political principle. Does the use of laovofJ-{YJ in the Debate sup-
port our findings and, if so, can we learn more from it about the
nature of laovofJ-{YJ ?
It is peculiar that despite Otanes' espousal of the democratic
cause the word 0YJfJ-0KpaT{a or its cognates do not occur in any
part of the Debate.l Megabyzus and Darius refer to the form of
government proposed by him variously as ES TlJ 7T,\fj80s • • •
epEPELVTO KpaTos (3. 81. I), O~fJ-o/ .•• xpaa8wv (3·81. 3), and
o~fJ-ov •.. apxovTo, (3.82.4), and Otanes himself speaks of 7T'\fj-
80, apxov (3. 80. 6). These expressions are the closest approxima-
tions to the concept of 'popular rule' and therefore the closest
[ The explanation given by Larsen, Cleisth. 6, and accepted by Vlastos, IP 3
n. 5, that the word 0TJll.OKPU·rLU was not yet available when this passage was written,
is unsatisfactory. For it assumes either that a considerable time elapsed between
the composition of 3. 80. 2-82 and that of 6.43. 3 and 13I. I, where 0TJJ1-0KpUT{U is
used, or that Herodotus took the Debate from an earlier source which did not yet
know the term 0TJJ1-0KpUT{U. The first assumption is highly dubious, because a gap
wide enough for this development in political terminology cannot be posited for
the composition of Herodotus' work, even if we do not accept R. Lattimore's view
('The Composition of the "History" of Herodotus', CP 53 [1958] 9-21, esp. 9)
that it is 'a continuous piece of writing which Herodotus set down from beginning
to end in the order in which we now have it'. For the improbability of the second
assumption, see Endnote to p. 107 below, pp. 178-9.
equivalent to 8YI/.LOKpaTLa in this passage. It is, in fact, 7rAfj80s
apxov which Otanes sets out to define in the passage which most
concerns us here: 7rAfj80s oE apxov 7rpWTa fJ-Evovv0fJ-a mlvTwv KaA-
AWTOV EXEt, tUOV0fJ-LYJV,8EVTEpa 8E T01)TWV TWV a
fJ-0vvapxos 7rodEt
,~,
OVOEV' '\
7ral\i.p ' , apxas
fJ-EVyap , '" apxEt, V7rEV
"8 ~"'"apxYJv EXEt, ~OVI\EV-
vvov OE P \ '
fJ-aTa 8E 7ravTa ES TO KOLVOVaVa,pEpEt (3. 80. 6). I
It is important to bear in mind that the statement is made
about the 7rAfj80s apxov, not about tUOV0fJ-LYJ,which is merely the
first and positive part of the two things said about the 7rAfj8os
apxov. ' Iuov0fJ-LYJ, 'the fairest name of all', graces the 7rAfj8os
apxov, while, negatively, it does none of the things a monarch
does. The arbitrariness and violence of a monarch had been
characterized by Otanes earlier in his speech (3.80.3-5), and the
institutions with which he now proceeds to characterize the
7rAfj8os apxov are precisely those which at once differentiate it
from a monarchy and embody its salient principle, which gives it
'the fairest name', tUOV0fJ-LYJ.The sortition of magistrates prevents
the envy, the willingness to listen to slander, and the suscepti-
bility to flattery which had been predicated of the monarch (3.
80. 4-5) ; the accountability of the magistrates (Ev8vva) stands in
contrast to the monarch's unaccountability (avEv8vvi.p, 3·80. 3),
and public deliberation of all matters of public policy is denied by
the very fact of one-man rule.
Now, while these three institutions express the principle of
political equality, they are embodied in but not identical with
democracy. It is a fact, and Herodotus was no doubt aware of it,
that these three institutions could, in a different measure, also be
found in non-democratic forms of government. We hear of sorti-
tion being used in some 0ligarchies,2and in Sparta, which was not
regarded as a democratic state in antiquity, some form of Ev8vva
is known to have existed3 and, as two recent studies have shown,
many matters of public policy were decided not only in the
Gerousia but also in the Assembly.4 In short, tUOV0fJ-La and the
1 I prefer the Bude text, which retains the yap after fJ-EV(d P), to Hude's Oxford
text, which drops the yap (a Stob.).
2 Arist. Pol. 4. 15, I 300b I~3 (cf. Ath. Pol. 4. 3 and 30. 2) and Anaximenes in
L. Spengel, Rhetores Graeci I. 2 (ed. by C. Hammer) 22.
3 Arist. Pol. 2. 9, 1271a6, Rhet. 3. 18, 1419a31. For sortition and euthyna in other
oligarchies, see BS 313, 315, 361-4, and 366-7.
4 A. Andrewes, 'The Government of Classical Sparta', in Ancient Society and
Institutions 1-20; and W. G. Forrest, 'Legislation in Sparta', Phoenix 21 (1967)
11-19·
institutions which manifest it in the Debate are perhaps found
most consistently in democratic forms of government but they
are not confined to democracies. This shows again that tUOv0fJ-La
is the principle of political equality; it is not a constitutional
form, and it ensures for all citizens an equal chance to be elected
for office, an equality in holding magistrates accountable for
their official acts, and an equal opportunity to participate in the
shaping of policies.1
The four passages in which tUOv0fJ-La, its adjective, or its verb
occur in Thucydides confirm essentiallythe results of our investiga-
tion into Herodotus' use of the term. As in Herodotus, it is closely
related to democracy but not identical with it; it is a political
principle rather than a form of government, and it implies not
only an equality of political rights but also the potential exercise
of political power. But there are some slight shifts in emphasis
which add a new dimension to the concept. The first of these
shifts reflects the difference between the times in which Thucy-
dides lived from those of Herodotus and his predecessors. For the
latter, the problem of tyranny versus popular government was
a burning issue, whereas the constitutional question which divided
the various states during the Peloponnesian War was whether
a democratic or an oligarchical form of government was more
desirable, Sparta generally tending to support oligarchies and
Athens democracies. Accordingly, oligarchy tends to take over in
Thucydides the place which tyranny had occupied as the oppo-
site of tUOV0fJ-La in the Harmodius skolia, in Alcmaeon, and in
Herodotus, especially that narrow form ofoligarchy which Thucy-
dides calls 8vvauTELa. Thus, for example, the Thebans try to
justify their pro-Persian policy in 480/79 B.C. by blaming it on
a '8vvauTELa of a few men', which they contrast with both a
democracy and an oALyapXLa taOv0fJ-0S (3. 62. 3) ;2Brasidas would
not have been able to march through Thessaly in 424 B.C., 'if
local Thessalian tradition had not sanctioned a 8vvauTELa rather
than taOV0fJ-La' (4. 78. 3); in party warfare the democrats use
1 It is noteworthy that laovofJ-la comes closer than any other Greek word to
expressing the modern notion of 'rights' in the sense in which we speak of the
'rights of man', 'rights of a citizen', 'Bill of Rights', etc.
2 It is true that this ovvaaT£la ot.lywv dvopwv is called <yyvTaTw Tvpavvov; but
since this is the closest Thucydides ever comes to opposing tyranny to laovofJ-la,
there is no justification for emphasizing this contrast. For a full discussion of
this passage, see below, pp. 116-19.
814277
laovoflZa rrOAtTtK1] as a slogan to counter oligarchical claims of
'rule of the best' (3. 82. 8) ; and Athenagoras intimates that the
young oligarchical hot-heads in Syracuse do not want 'to be on
a footing of political equality with many others'. The association I over, there is a very slight but perceptible difference in what
of laovofLZa with democracy in three of the four passages shows
again its close affinity with this form of government; but its
association with a moderate form of oligarchy in the fourth pas-
sage shows that democracy and laovofLZa are not identical.
That the nature of this difference is for Thucydides the same as
it had been for Herodotus is illustrated by two points. Herodotus
had already recognized the emotive appeal of laovofLZYJ when he
had Otanes refer to it as ovvofLa mLvTwv KaAAtaTOv (3. 80. 6). But
while he had shown its operation in specific democratic institu-
tions, Thucydides uses the term almost exclusivelyin propaganda
contexts, or, to borrow Vlastos' felicitous phrase, as 'more of a
banner than a label'.2 It is, for example, conspicuously absent
from Pericles' comparatively sober appraisal of the Athenian
democracy in the Funeral Oration,3 while in Athenagoras' parti-
san praise of democracy over against oligarchy it seems to be
equated with the propagandistic ideas of 'equal rights for equal
men' and with the participation of every social group in the
management of state affairs in a democracy.4 In times of party
warfare the democrats use 'political equality for the masses' as
a slogan against the oligarchs (3. 82. 8), and the Thebans speak
of their own OAtyapxZa laovofLo, when they want to impress the
Spartans (3. 62. 3).5 As in Herodotus' account of the Debate,
Thucydides uses laovofLZa as a propaganda tool without, however,
confining the applicability of this principle to democracy.
The second point is seen in the association of laovofLZa with
rrA7j(}o,. Herodotus had Otanes in the Debate speak of laovof-dYJ as
I 6. 38. 5: p.~ p.era 7roAAwv laovop.fra9at.
2 IP 8.-The only exception is laovop.La in the account of Brasidas' passage
through Thessaly (4. 78. 3)·
3 Gomme, HeT 2 and 3. 109-10,347, and 542, comments on 2.37. I (p.E.,..aT'
8£Kurd. fL€V TOUS Vop,ovs 7TPOS 'TU rOta ouJ.¢opa 7TaUL TO Laov) that it expresses 'demo-
cratic laovop.La', cr. also J. T. Kakridis, Der thukydideische Epitaphios (= Zetemata 26)
25-6. This is plainly wrong, since the taov here applies to private differences,
whereas laovop.{a is invariably concerned with public, i.e. political and constitu-
tional, rights and powers; so also Vlastos, IP IS.
4 6. 38. 5: Kat 1TWS 8tKaLOV TOllS aVTOVS p.~ TWV aVTWV dtwva8aL,' and 39. I: Ofj/-,DV
tvp.7rav wvop.aa9a" oA,yapx{av OE P.EpO<;K.T.A.
5 Cf. Ehrenberg, OD 536.
the most beautiful name of rrMi(}o, apxov. Thucydides extends this
relation in that he associates laovofLZa with rrMi(}o, or related con-
cepts in everyone of the four passages in which it occurs. More-
each author means by rrMi(}o, in its political sense. While Hero-
dotus tends to use it almost exclusively as a descriptive term for
the 'people as a whole', encompassing all social strata, Thucy- I
dides, in all the laovofL{a passages, confines its meaning to a seg-
ment of the population, namely, to the 'common people', the
'broad masses', as distinguished from an upper oligarchical or
aristocratic class, usually with the connotation that they consti-
tute a majority which, if given the opportunity, can make the
weight of its numerical superiority felt.2 Thus, 'political equality
for the masses' is the democratic war-cry (3. 82. 8) ; if the majority
ofThessalians had had laovofL{a with those in power, they would
have expressed their sympathy for Athens by preventing Brasidas'
passage through their country (4. 78.2-3) ; the rroAAo{ with whom
the Syracusan oligarchs refuse to share political equality are the
common people (6. 38. 5); and it was the majority of Thebans
who were muted by an oligarchical clique during the Persian
Wars but enjoy political rights under an oAtyapx{a laovofLo, (3.
62. 3-4).3 For Thucydides, therefore, laovofL{a constitutes the
political equality of the majority-presumably equality with the
members of the upper classes-which, where it exists, makes the
will of the majority determine the policy to be pursued by the
state. Moreover, as the case of the Thessalian rrMj(}o, (4·78.2-3)
indicates most unequivocally, laovofL{a includes political power
as well as political rights: without the possibility of exercising
political power, the Thessalians could not possibly have been
I e.g. 3. 80. 6 (TO 7TAij9o<;dEtfLV), 81. 1,82. 1 and 2, 83·2; 4.200. I; 5. 76; 8. 34.
Only at I. 158. 2 and 5. 92. 1 do there seem to be overtones suggesting that
a 'majority' is meant.
2 The idea of majority rule seems to inhere in all political uses of 7TAij9o<; in
Thucydides. In addition to 'common people', he uses 7TAij9o<; (a) for the masses as
a political force (3.47. 2; 4.66. I; 6. 8g. 4; 8. 9. 3; 8. 92. 9 [codd.]); (b) as an
equivalent of EKKA'Ja{a as the sovereign decision-making body in a democracy (2.
65.8, 72. 2, 73. I; 3·37·5, 70.6; 4. 22. 2 and 3, 84·2 [bis] ; 5·41. 3, 60. 1 and 5;
6. 38. 2,60. 4), in which the vote of the majority determines all issues (3.42. 6,
43.2; 4·105. I, 106.2; 5. 27. 2,45.1; 8. 81. I); (c) to describe a political assembly
in a non-democratic state in which all or a majority of citizens may participate (I.
72. 2; 5. 84. 3 and 85. I); or (d) in inter-state relations, to indicate the majority
of member-states in a political league (I. 125. I ; 5. 30. I).
3 For 7TAij9o<; = 'common people' see also I. 9. 2; 2. 3. 2; 4. 21. 3; and 8.48.3.
116 NOMOE BECOMES 'STATUTE'
political rights, that is, with their oligarchical rulers their
thought of as able to bar Brasidas' path. However, these dif- I

majority would have ensured that no pro-Persian policy' would

ferences in emphasis are rather minor in character, and in all
essential points the two authors are in agreement with each other.
For both laovof-L{a is a political principle and not a form of
government, and for both it involves not only the political
equality of all citizens but also the potential power they possess;
but while Herodotus views it as the political equality of the
people as a whole, Thucydides thinks of it as the equality of the
power of the majority with that of the upper classes.
These points are summed up most clearly in the one Thucy-
didean passage which has caused most trouble to scholars, namely,
in the response of the Thebans to charges of medism during the
Persian Wars which had been levelled against them by the
Plataeans before a Spartan commission ofjudges in 427 B.C. The
text reads:
Ka{ToL md.jJaaeE EV Orl{-' EL8EL EKO.TEpoL ~fLWV TO£JTO E1Tpagav.
yap ~ 1T()ALS'T<JTE ETlJYXavEv OUTE KaT' oALyapx{av laovop,ov
OUTE KaTa 8TJfLOKpaT{av. 01TEp 8E Ean VOfLOLS'fLEV KaL T<{1 aW<ppOVEaTCiTl{-'
EvavnWTaTOV, eYYVTCLTW 8E rvpavvov, 8vvaaTE{a oMywv dv8pwv
1TpayfLaTa. Kat OUTOL l8{aS' 8VVafLELS' eA1T{aavTES' En fLiiAAOV ax~aELv
rou M~80v KpaT~aELE, KaTEXOVTES' laXVL TO 1TMjeoS' e1TT/yaYOVTO aUTOIJ.
KUL ~ gDfL1Taaa 1TOALS'OUK aUTOKpaTWp ouaa EavTfjS' TOUT' E1TpagEV, ouo'
CigLOV aUTfj oVEL8{aaL J)v fL~ fLETa vOfLWV iffLapTEV.2
The implication here is that, if the common people of Thebes
had had any say in the matter at all, if they had enjoyed equal
[ In view of this, Gomme's interpretation of Luol'ofJ-la as 'constitutional, law-
abiding government, in which all citizens have equal civil rights, though not equal
political power' (HCT 2 and 3. 347), is untenable, since Luol'ofJ-la is not a form of
government but does involve equal political power. This interpretation is all the
more surprising since Gomme recognizes, ibid. 379, that Luol'ofJ-la and apwToKpaTla
'describe certain conditions which ideally should accompany the two forms of
government'. For a full criticism of Gomme's views on Luol'ofJ-la see Vlastos IP
who takes them as his point of departure. ' ,
2 3.62.3-4: 'And yet consider under what conditions each of us acted as we did.
Th: consti~ution of our city at that time happened to be neither an oligarchy in
whIch all CItizens enjoy equal political rights nor a democracy. An institution most
opposed to lawful and orderly administration and to the soundest procedures, and
clo~est to ~ tyrant, a clique of a few men, controlled our affairs. These, in the hope
of mcreasmg their own power, if the cause of the !'.fede were to prevail, forcibly
suppressed the common people and brought him in. The city as a whole had no
power over herself when this policy was adopted, and she does not deserve to be
reproa:hed .for, ~istakes she committed when there was no lawful and orderly
admIllistratIOn. For the meaning of vop.os in this passage see above, pp. 32-3.
have b:cn pursued at the time. They would have had these rights
and thISpower, the Thebans claim, if a democracy or an oALyap-
x{a laov~fLos had been the constitutional form of Thebes during
the PerSIan ·Wars.That a democracy would have vouchsafed the
Theban commons this equality is self-evident. But that they
would have enjoyed the same equality under an oligarchy re-
quired some explanation, and that is the reason why the adjec-
tive laovof-Los had to be added to oALyapx{a.
The specific reference of Karu oYjfLoKpar{av is presumably to the
constitution of Plataea, which enabled the Plataeans in the past
to opt for an anti-Persian policy. It is more difficult to be sure
what state preciscly is mcant by oALyapx{a laovof-Los. Are the
Thebans speaking of the constitution under which they lived at
the time of their speech, in 427 B.C., or of the constitution which
~fLZV fLEV enabled the Spartans, whom they are here addressing, to take up
1TOALTEDovau arms against the Persians in 480/79 B.C. ? Either interpretation has
found supporters,! and both can be defended, although it seems
ElXE TO. more probable that the Thebans are thinking of their own present
El TO.
constitution, since their speech is devised to establish their re-
spectability in the eyes of the Spartans.2
!n order to show that oALyapx{a laovofLos is not an inappro-
pnate name for the Spartan constitution, it is sufficient to recall
that Aristotle cites Sparta as the prime example of a mixture of
democracy and oligarchy, enumerating as democratic features
the equalitarian education of children and youths, the equality of
men promoted by the syssitia and the likeness of dress, and the
participation of all citizens in the election of the Gerousia and in
eligibility for the ephorate, while he calls oligarchical the absence
I Theban constitution: P. Cloche, Thebes de BIotie 73 with n. 2; Vlastos, Ison.
360 and IP 14; L. Moretti, Ricerche sulie leghe greche 136; I. A. F. Bruce, An Histori-
cal Commentary on the Helienica Oxyrhynchia 160 with n. 2. Spartan Constitution: C. F.
Smith, L?eb Thucydi?es, vol. 2 (1953) lIOn. I; K. von Fritz, Wiener Studien 78
(1965) 26. BS 1413 WIth n. I occupy an intermediate position, assuming that the
moderate oligarchy was instituted in Thebes under Spartan influence after the
battle of Plataea.
2 This assumption would be strengthened if we could take KaTel OTJp.oKpaTlav as
a reference to the democratic regime in Thebes which, according to Arist. Pol. 5·3,
.1302b29, was overthrown after the battle ofOenophyta. Since, however, this regime
ISsaid to have fallen because of its bad administration (cf. [Xen.], Ath. Pol. 3. I I),
the Thebans may not have wished to remember it here.
of the lot from the election to any office and the concentration of
the judicial power to inflict death and exile in the hands of a few
men (Pol. 4. 9, 1294bI4-34).1 Similarly, under the Theban con-
stitution, which lasted without substantial change from 447 to
386 B.C.,2 the full citizens enjoyed rights and powers which would
well justify the appellation laovoj.Lo<;. According to the Hellenica
Oxyrhynchia each member-state of the Boeotian League had four
councils, of which each acted in turn as the executive branch of
government and prepared all matters to be discussed by the
other three councils; only measures approved by all four councils
could authoritatively be acted upon. Any full citizen was eligible
for membership in one of the councils.3 These two features, the
eligibility to the councils of all full citizens and the rotating ad-
ministration by each of the four councils, gave Thebes that
equality of political rights and of political power which is ap-
propriately reflected in the epithet laovoj.Lo<;. But this did not
mean that Thebes was a democracy. For full citizenship was
limited to those who owned a minimum amount of capital,
probably fixed at the requirement for the hoplite census.4 Since
only a minority of Thebans can have ranked as hoplites and
higher,Sthis means that the majority was barred from membership
in the councils and thus from the active exercise of power,
I Cf. also the Spartan 0fLoW', Pol. 5. 7, 1306b30, with Xen. Lac. Resp. 10. 7,
Anab. 4. 6. 14.
2 See BS 1414-15; Cloche, op. cit. 71 ;]. A. O. Larsen, Representative Government
in Greek and Roman History 31; Moretti, op. cit. 133; and Bruce, op. cit. 157.
3 Hellenica Oxyrhynchia (Bartoletti) 16. 2, with the discussions in BS 1417 with
n. I, Larsen, op. cit. 31-2, and Bruce, op. cit. 157-64. We know less about the
functioning of these local councils than is generally recognized. We do not know
(a) of how many members each of the four councils was composed; (b) whether
every full citizen was actually a member of one of the councils or whether he was
merely eligible (.tiiv fLETEXELV suggests the latter alternative); (c) in what manner
the councillors were appointed and (d) assigned to serve on one council rather than
on another; and (e) whether those citizens who, because of their low census, were
not themselves eligible to council membership were entitled to vote in the elections
to the councils. 4 See Endnote, p. 180 below.
; The proportion of full citizens to those below the hoplite census is hard to
ascertain even approximately. Of the Boeotians mentioned as participants in the
battle of Delium by Thuc. 4. 93. 3, 8,500 seem to have belonged to the hoplite
census (this includes 500 peltasts) and 10,000 light-armed troops were certainly
below that census. Although these figures apply to the Boeotians as a whole and not
even to their full complement, it is probable that the ratio of hoplites to the lower
classes was the same for Thebes, cf. Moretti, op. cit. 134 and 150-1. [Herodes],
Peri politeias 30- [, suggests that in the oligarchies set up by Sparta after the
Peloponnesian "Var only one third of the citizens enjoyed full citizenship, and if
even though they may possibly have had the right to participate
in the election of their councillors. From this point of view, then,
I
the Theban constitution was an oligarchy and was called such by
Thucydides (S. 3 I. 6; cf. 4·76. 2). In short, if this was the con-
stitution of Thebes in 427 B.C., the Thebans were right not only
in contrasting it with government by an oligarchical clique, but
also in calling it an oligarchy because of its restriction of active
citizenship, but an OAtyuPX{u laoJloj.Lo<;, because all full citizens
enjoyed equal political rights and equal political power.2
There is no need to pursue our analysis of laoJloj.L{u into the
fourth century. While it is true that there is some evidence that
the concept came to be coloured by the 'statute' meaning of
VOj.Lo<;, that merely meant that political equality was predicated
upon the enactment of equitable laws and adds nothing essentially
new to what we have ascertained about laoJloj.L{u in the fifth
century.3 Before proceeding now to a discussion of the problem of
chronology, that is, of the question when and under what circum-
stances laovoj.L{u first appeared in Athens, it will be useful to ask in
the light of the results we have obtained which sense or senses of
VOj.Lo<;laoJloj.L{u is likely to reflect. That it must be a political vOj.Lo<;
is evinced by the very fact that, unlike UJloj.L{u, laovoj.L{u is never
used of individuals but always of the state.4 Moreover, whereas
ElJVo,u{u, OvaJloj.L{u, UJloj.L{u, and KUKOVOj.L{U carry moral overtones,
laovoj.L{u always retains a purely political character. Alcmaeon
sees in it the balance of a political community in which ruler and
ruled do not exceed one another in power; for Herodotus laovoj.L{YJ
embodies the principle that every citizen shall have an equal
this proportion reflects a general pattern, it may well have applied to Thebes
between 447 and 386 B.C. At any rate, I know of no other statement that might
form the basis for]. A. O. Larsen's assertion, TAPA 86 (1955) 41, that the active
citizens of the Boeotian Confederacy constituted 'less than one-half of the adult
males of the citizen body'.
I See above, p. 118 n. 3.
2 E. Will, Korinthiaka 619, aptly paraphrases o'\,yapxia laovofLos as 'democratie
limitee it la base'. For the moderate character of Theban oligarchy, see also BS
1416; Larsen, Representative Government 32; Moretti, op. cit. 135-6; and Bruce, op.
ci t. 157-64.
3 The most important fourth-century passages, i.e. those in Isocrates and Plato,
are discussed in detail by Vlastos, IP 18-35. For a criticism of his views see End-
note, pp. 180~2 below.
4 The exception, o.vryp laovofL'KoS in PI. Rep. 8. 561 e, is only apparent and not
real, since the adjective obviously does not describe a man who 'has equal rights
and powers', but one who 'adheres to equalitarian principles'.
opportunity to occupy a position of authority, to check authority,
and to participate in framing those regulations which will affect
the welfare of the state; and the element stressed by Thucydides
is that under laovofL{a the common people, as constituting the
majority of the citizen body, have equal rights and equal powers
with those who rule the state. This suggests that laovofL{a has its
closest affinity with two of the senses of vOfLoS isolated in Part I
above. Since it distributes power in the state on a basis of
equality, it seems to reflect the vOfLoS which describes the
authority to issue norms and of which we found the first indica-
tion in Heraclitus and the first clear expression in Aeschylus'
Supplices (above, pp. 26-9). In this sense, then, laovofL{a confers
equal authority to govern upon both ruler and ruled. But from
a different point of view the term reflects the political norms and
regulations by which both ruler and ruled are equally bound, the
statutes which are valid and binding equally on both, which we
encounter first also in Aeschylus' Supplices (above, pp. 43-52). It
is no accident that, contrary to the vOfLoS embodied in the other
compounds we have discussed, neither of these senses is attested
before the fifth century B.C.
There is one point to add. By its very nature the principle
Our next task is to fit the results obtained from our discussion
of laovofLla into a historical context. For since laovofL{a has been
shown to be a purely political concept, related to the political
senses of vOfLos, we may be able to infer from the circumstances
surrounding the earliest evidence for laovofLla at what point vOfLOS
first assumed its sense of 'statute'. There is, as far as I know,
general agreement that the Harmodius skolia constitute our
earliest surviving evidence for laovofLla in the form of the adjec-
tive laovofLos. But since some controversy surrounds the date at
which they were composed, and much controversy the historical
circumstances of their composition, we shall have to address
ourselves to these problems now.
The Harmodius skolia consist of four stanzas, celebrating the
achievements of the tyrannicides Harmodius and Aristogeiton,
which are included in Athenaeus' collection of some twenty-five
Attic drinking songs (15. 695 a-b). Only two of these stanzas,
Nos. 10 and 13, contain the wordlaovo{wvS, but since all four are
relevant to the problem of determining the date and the historical
background of these two, I shall quote them in full:1
10 EV fLVPTOV KAaDL T6 g{</Jos </Jop~uw

expressed by laovovla has its closest affinity with democracy, al- WU7TEP :4pfLODLOs KaL i1pWToyE{TWV
~, " I
aTE TOV Tvpavvov KTaVETTJV
though, as we have tried to show, it is not identical with oYjfLO-
lUOVOfLOVS T' i18~vas E7TotTJuaTTJV.
Kpa,r(a, since it does not designate a form of government. But
since the terminology for all constitutional forms, except the II </J{Am8' :4pfLODt', ou n TTW TE8vTJKas,
monarchical, I developed much more slowly than the constitu- V~UOtS D' EV fLaKapwv UE </Jautv ECVat,
tional forms themselves,zthe authors who wrote before oY)fLoKparla [va 7TEp 7ToDwKTJS i1XtAEDs
and oY]rLOKparEfa8at were coined used the principle most charac- TVDEtDTJV TE t</Jam T6V Eu8A6vt L1tofL~DEa.
teristic of a democracy to describe the democratic form of govern-
ment, and there can, consequently, be no doubt that Alcmaeon 12 EV fLVpTOV KAaDL T6 g{</JOS </Jop~uw
WU7TEP :4pfLoDLOS KaL i1pwToydTwV
and Herodotus are thinking only of democracy when they speak
OT' i18TJva{TJs EV 8vu{ats
of laovof-Lla.
aVDpa Tvpavvov "I7T7Tapxov EKatVETTJV.
I While the Linear B tablets speak of wanax and ltiwtigettis (see M. Ventris and
J. Chadwick, Documents in Mvcenaean Greek 119--25, and L. R. Palmer, The Inter- 13 aiEL u</Jwtv KAEOS EUUETat KaT' acav,
pretation of Mycenaean Greek Texts 83-95), they do not yet know abstracts to describe </J{Am8' :4pfLODtE KaL i1pWTOyEt TOV,
the institution of monarchy. The earliest uses I can find of an abstract term for ~ \'
on TOV Tvpavvov KTaVETTJV
,
a form of government are TVpUVV{, in Archilochus, frg. 22. 3, and /l-ovuPX{u in
Alcaeus, frg. 6. 27, in E. Lobel and D. <L.) Page, Poetarum Lesbiorumjragmenta. lUOVOfLOVS T' )1e~vas E7TotTJuaTTJV.
, Both o:l,yuPX{u and 0'1/l-0KpUT{U are first found in Herodotus, see A. Debrunner
"LJ'1/l-0KpUT{U" 11-24, esp. 13-18, although 0'1/l-0KpUT{U may be older, if it is correctly I The text is Page's, PMG, Nos. 893-6. The most valuable recent discussions of
restored in the Athenian treaty with Colophon of 447/6 B.C., IG'. 15. 37 = A TL 2. the date of these stanzas are: Brunnsaker; Ehrenberg, HL; and Bowra, GLP
D 15·48. 373-97, esp. 391-6; see also Podlecki.
 ( 10) In a myrtle bough I will wear the sword like Harmodius and
Aristogeitonwhen they killed the tyrant and made Athens isonomous.
(1 1) Dearest Harmodius, you are no longer dead, but people say that
you are in the Islands of the Blest,where is swift-footedAchillesand,
they say, the son of Tydeus, noble Diomedes. (12) In a myrtle bough
I wiII wear the sword like Harmodius and Aristogeiton,when at the
sacrificeto Athena they slewa tyrant-man, Hipparchus. (13) For ever
will you both have fame on earth, dearest Harmodius and Aristo-
geiton-because they slew the tyrant and made Athens isonomous.
The internal evidence for the date presents a few problems,
but more problematic are the circumstances of composition. The
mention of the murder of Hip parch us in three of the four stanzas
and of the death of Harmodius in the fourth gives us 514 B.C. as
a firm terminus post quem for the Harmodius skolia as a whole.
More problematic is the reference in the last two lines of stanzas
ro and 13 to the creation of an laov6fJ-ovS' .f18~vaS'. Our analysis of
all the fifth-century passages in which laovofJ-la occurs has shown
that it embodies the concept of political equality and is usually
associated with a democratic form of government. This suggests
that these lines refer to the democratic constitution ushered in by
the reforms of Cleisthenes, so that we could adopt 507 B.C. as the
terminus post quem for the two stanzas (ro and 13) in which they
appear. But can we be sure? The result of adopting this view
would be that the skolia contain not merely one historical mis-
take but two. For if the Athenians sang this song soon after the
events celebrated in them they would have-or ought to have-
known even better than we that Harmodius and Aristogeiton
neither slew the tyrant nor established a democratic form of
government.
There is no way of getting round the first of these mistakes,
and the only way of avoiding the second is to posit for laov6fJ-ovS'
a reference to something other than the reforms of Cleisthenes.
This path was actually taken by Ehrenberg, who advocated the
view that, before being embraced by Cleisthenes and his ad-
herents, laovofJ-la denoted an equality of the members of the
Athenian nobility in the face of the 'inequality' of tyranny, and
that it became the slogan of the nobles who were exiled after the
murder of Hipparchus.1 But this view creates more problems
I Ehrenberg, Ison. 294--6; Eun. 89; and OD 530-4. His views were accepted by
Larsen, Cleisth, 8. However, Vlastos, Ison. 339-44, has shown that it is easier to
than it solves. Ehrenberg himself regards it as 'something of a
puzzle' how this slogan of the nobility could so quickly have
become 'the watchword of the democracy'.1 Moreover, in none of
the other laovofJ-la passages which we have examined is the term
restricted to only one class of society, but it always refers to the
people as a whole, and further, Vlastos, after canvassing all the
possible historical references of laov6fJ-ovS' in the Harmodius skolia
has shown that it can have been used neither as 'a neutral term
which simply means liberation from tyrannic rule, without any
positive specification of the sort of government that followed', nor
as 'a term which does describe the ensuing regime, but thinks of it
only as the reinstatement of the pre-Peisistratid constitution'.2 In
view of this, Ehrenberg, with his characteristic forthrightness, has
conceded that his belief in an aristocratic laovofJ-la was erroneous.3
This means that the laov6fJ-ovS' .f18~vaS' of stanzas 10 and 13 can
refer only to the constitution established by Cleisthenes, and the
aorists E11'OLY)aaTY)v, with which each of these stanzas ends, show
that the constitution was an accomplished fact by the time
these stanzas were composed, so that 507 B.C. can be taken as
a firm terminus post quem for their origin. But it also means that we
shall have to account for two distortions of historical facts in the
Harmodius skolia. Before we can discuss those, however, some
further problems of dating remain to be clarified.
If we could assume that the four stanzas quoted by Athenaeus
constitute one song, we should be able to leave matters at that
and try now to establish a terminus ante for the song as a whole.
But there are indications that this was not the case. The earliest
extant reference to 'the Harmodius' is found in Aristophanes'
Acharnians (g80), and the scholion on that passage cites as the
beginning of that song what appears as the second stanza (I I) in
Athenaeus' collection.4 To the two different beginnings given by
assume two historical mistakes than to posit an otherwise unattested and a priori
unlikely aristocratic laovofLia..
[ OD 531.
2 Ison. 339-44.
3 HL 67 with n. 23, where he expresses reserve, however, about Vlastos' treat-
ment of the skolion as a whole.
4- EV 'Tar~ TWV 7T(hwv UVV600LS' noov p..tAOS' 'TL, :4pf-LOOLOV Kai\oVfl-€vOV, 00 ~ apx~·
¢{ATUT€ :4.PfLoou oun 7TOU TfOv'Y/Kas (= Suda, s.v. OVO€1TOT' eyw TOUTOV v1Tooi;OfLat
K.T.A. Cf. also ibid. S.V. 7TC5.POtVO~). That the scholiast's identification of this stanza
as 'the Harmodius' may be right is suggested by Ach. 1093, where dancing-girls
are called Ta #ATa.O' :4PfLooiov, no doubt as a parody on this same stanza. Hesychius,
124 NOMOI.: BECOMES 'STATUTE'
Athenaeus and the scholiast on the Acharnians respectively, Aristo-
phanes' Wasps (1222-6) adds a third in a passage which, in
giving us the earliest information we have on the traditions of
singing skolia, provides us with an explanation for these dif-
ferent beginnings. The setting is Bdelycleon's attempt to teach
his father Philocleon how to behave at a banquet. Among other
things, he wants him to learn 'how to cap drinking songs properly'
(Tel aKo/t!' 07TWS oEgE! KU/tWS), and to this end he starts 'the
Harmodius' with a line which he asks his father to cap (4ow oE
7TpWTOS :4pfLootov' oEgat oE au), and this line is not only different
from those cited as the beginning by Athenaeus and the scholiast
on the Acharnians, but it is nowhere else attested for the Harmodius
song at all : OVOELS7TW7TOT' dv~p EyEvT' )1B~vu!s- 'no man was ever
born in Athens .. .'.1 The fact that we have thus three beginnings
attested for the song proves that the stanzas did not follow one
upon the other in any set sequence-or in any sequence at all,
for that matter, since we do not know whether or not a single
stanza could stand by itself, and whether or not other stanzas
customarily followed upon the first one sung on a given occasion.
For if the 'capping' procedure in the Wasps is any guide, the
first singer needed apparently to sing no more than one or two
lines,2 to which the second would add another one or two lines.
If this was the procedure, it would explain why the first two lines
of stanzas 10 and 12 of Athenaeus' collection are identical and the
last two lines of stanzas 10 and 13 almost identical each with the
other. They may, therefore, be 'movable' lines belonging tradi-
tionally to the Harmodius song as beginning and capping lines,
respectively, capable of being combined with one another accord-
ing to the pleasure of those whose turn it was to start or to cap
s.v. l1p/"OO{OV /"<)\0<:;, attributes TO €71t IIp/"o8{tp 710('l70.v aKdAwv to one Callistratus.
But since (a) it is uncertain whether he refers to this stanza, a different stanza on
Harmodius now lost, or to the whole group ofskolia on the tyrannicides, and since
(b) we do not know who this Callistratus was or when he lived, Hesychius' entry is
not of much use to us.
I I see no need to assume with Ehrenberg, HL 60-1, that it is merely a variant
beginning of what is the first stanza (10) in Athenaeus. It seems much more likely
that we have here the beginning of a different stanza now lost to us, in which only
one of the tyrannic ides was celebrated, presumably Harmodius, because (a) his
name and not Aristogeiton's is mentioned at line 1225; (b) the song is usually re-
ferred to by his name alone, see, for example, Adz. 980, 1093; Ar. frg. 430; Anti-
ph ant's, frg. 85; Aelius Aristides 11.80; etc.; and (c) his youth made him the more
popular of the tyrannicides.
2 Two, if Philocleon's 'capping' at 1227 is a premature interruption.
II.: 0 NOMI A AND ATHENS 125
the song. Moreover, the fact that one of the three beginnings is
otherwise unknown to us points to the possible existence in
antiquity of additional stanzas, which may now be lost to us, and
the practice of capping, as shown in the scene in the ~l1asps,
makes it probable that new stanzas were constantly added as
long as the practice of singing skolia at banquets remained a
living tradition. 1 This in turn makes it likely that the four
stanzas which Athenaeus has transmitted to us were composed at
different times.2
In view of this, the terminus post quem of 507 B.C. is valid only for
the first and fourth stanzas of Athenaeus' collection (10 and 13)'
For the second and third stanzas (I I and 12) our only guide is the
negative fact that neither of them as much as mentions the libera-
tion from the tyranny and the positive fact that the praise of
Harmodius in the second stanza (I I) and the statement that they
killed Hipparchus in the third (12) give 5 I 4 B.C. as the terminus
post quem. How soon or how late after that date they were com-
posed we cannot tell. But, as Ehrenberg has pointed out, the
third stanza (12) differs from the first (10) and the fourth (13) in
that it is free from distortion of historical fact: Hipparchus is men-
tioned by name and he is called a tyrant, not the tyrant, and the
Panathenaic festival is correctly identified as the occasion of the
murder.3 This and the militant tone of the stanza, more ap-
propriate to a time of struggle than to the years after the expul-
sion of the tyrants, suggest that it may have originated among the
opponents of the tyranny soon after Hippias exiled and killed
many of them as a sequel to Hipparchus' murder.4 Once we
recognize these as valid grounds for dating the third stanza (12)
soon after 514 B.C. but before 51 I/ro B.C., we may also aClmit the
I For our knowledge of the tradition, we depend mainly on Dicaearchus and
Aristoxenus, as reported by the scholiast on PI. G9rg. 451 e, cf. also on Ar. Nub.
1364, and Pluto Quaest. conDo1. 1,615 b-c. The basic modern treatment is that of
R. Reitzenstein, Epigramm und Skolion 3-13; the most important recent discussion
is that of A. E. Harvey, 'The classification of Greek lyric poetry', CQN.S. 5 (1955)
157-75, esp. 162-3 and 174"-5·
2 The significance of this was first recognized by Reitzenstein, op. cit., esp. 22-3·
His results were improved upon by F. Koepp, Neue Jahrbiicher fiir das klassische
Altertum 9 (1902) 614-34, esp. 615, accepted by Aly, RE S.V. 'Skolion' 562, and
by Ehrenberg, HL 58 n. 5. Cf. also Bowra, GLP 393·
3 HL 66.
4 Hdl. 5. 62. 2; Arist. Ath. Pol. 19. I, with Ehrenberg, HL 66, and Brunnsaker
23-4·
 second stanza (II) as earlier than the first (IO) and the fourth
(13), since it simply praises Harmodius without specifying his
achievements. If we interpret it as saying, 'Harmodius, you have
not died in vain', as well we might, its tone would suit the op-
ponents of Hippias as well as does the tone of the third stanza
(12). Consequently, Brunnsaker is probably right in assigning it,
too, to the period between 514 and SIO B.C.I
If the rather tenuous evidence makes a date soon after the
event celebrated plausible in the case of the second (I I) and
third (12) stanza, can we assume that the first (10) and fourth
(13) stanzas were also composed soon after the event which they
celebrate, that is, soon after a democratic form of government was
instituted in Athens in 507 B.C.? To attain certainty in this matter
is impossible and we must be satisfied if we can marshal suffi-
ciently impressive circumstantial evidence to give us any plausi-
ble answer at all to this question. The safest way to approach
the problem is by trying to find a terminus ante quem for the two
stanzas which celebrate the establishment of laovoj-tLa.
The direct evidence is not of much help, for the earliest refer-
e~ce to the beginning of the first stanza (10), which is identical
WIth the beginning of the third (12), is not found until 4II B.C.,
when the chorus of old men in Aristophanes' Lysistrata sing of
the sword the~ will wear in a myrtle bough to fight against the
Spartan conspIracy to set up a tyranny in Athens, which they
suspect behind the revolt of Lysistrata's women (631-3). This
leaves us wit~ a gap of ninety-six years between the two termini,
a gap too wIde to be useful, and we must, therefore, try to
narrow it by a more indirect route.
We are helped in this endeavour by the conclusion arrived at
independently by Reitzenstein and Wilamowitz in' I893, that
the collection of twenty-five skolia, of which the four stanzas of
the Harmodius form a part, constitutes a unified whole, which
Athenaeus took from a single source.2 Therefore, if we can date
the songs in this collection other than the Harmodius skolia and
find that all belong to a more or less well defined period, we may
presume that the Harmodius skolia, too, belong to the same
I Brunnsaker 23-4. Ehrenberg, HL 60-1, is uncertain on this point. He dates II
ear her .than 13.but suggests only a date 'not very early' for the latter.
2 Reltzenstem, op. cit. 13-14; Wilamowitz, AA 2. 316-22. Accepted by Bowra,
GLP 375-6.
period. 1 Since Athenaeus called his collection }tTTLKa ad'\ta (IS'
693 f.), and since the same term is used, apparently for the same
collection, by Dio Chrysostom (2. 63), it is safe to conclude that
all twenty-five songs originated in Attica. Of the twenty-one
songs which remain if we leave the four Harmodius stanzas out
of consideration for the present, seven are impossible to date with
any verisimilitude, since they contain moralizing maxims and
witticisms which could have been composed at any time and for
any kind of society.2 Of the remaining fourteen, only four are
datable with any degree of certainty, two by their author and two
by the events which they celebrate. The ascription of No. 7 with
some (though not complete) confidence to Simonides (about
556-468 B.C.) 3 and of No.8, on the basis of papyrus finds, to
Alcaeus (born about 620 B.C.)4 suggests that other songs in this
collection may also belong to the sixth century or the early
decades of the fifth. A more precise date is given by Nos. 23 and
24, also preserved in Aristotle's Constitution of Athens (19, 3, 20. 5),
which commemorate two thwarted attempts undertaken after
514 B.C. to overthrow the tyranny of Hippias, the attempt of
Kedon, and the defeat at Leipsydrium. Now, since Kedon left no
other mark on Athenian history, and since the Leipsydrium song
says nothing of the success which eventually came to the op-
ponents of the tyranny, it is generally and, I think, correctly
assumed that both were composed shortly after the events, that is
within the period SI4-SIO B.C.S
I Reitzenstein, who did the pioneer work on dating the collection, reached the
conclusion that it was completed by the middle of the fifth century, on the ground
that Pindar influenced and Praxilla was influenced by songs contained in it (op.
cit. 13-24, esp. 14-15). More recent work on the collection has shown that
Reitzenstein's reasons are not compelling, and the date has been pushed back
much closer to the time of Marathon and Salamis by Bowra, GLP 375-97, to
whose arguments much of the following discussion is indebted.
2 No.6 praises true friendship, NO.9 honesty, No. 19 companionship in love and
drink, No. 25 loyalty, while Nos. 20, 21, and 22 contain proverbial wisdom in vary-
ing degrees of coarseness. Bowra, GLP 381-3 and 390-1, seems to me to be going too
far in trying to link these songs with an aristocratic society, and especially with the
world of the Peisistratids. 3 For the testimonia see Page, PMG frg. 651.
4 Alcaeus, frg. 249 with D. L. Page, Sappho and Alcaeus 196-7, and Bowra, GLP
374-5·
5 See Bowra, GLP 383-4. The date of Leipsydrium is confirmed by Hdt. 5. 62. 2.
Bowra dates Kedon's attempt before 514 B.C., presumably because Aristotle dates
it before Leipsydrium. But it seems much more probable that both Kedon's at-
tempt and the defeat at Leipsydrium are measures taken by Hippias' opponents
after their exile from Athens as a consequence of Hipparchus' murder.
 A considerable amount of circumstantial evidence has enabled
C. M. Bowra to assign five of the remaining ten songs to the
times of Marathon and Salamis, and the other five to the period
of Peisistratus and his sons. Among the first four songs, all of
which are addressed to deities closely associated with Athens, the
fourth stands out as the only one devoted to a non-Olympian
god, Pan. Moreover, Pan is-strangely for an Attic song-ad-
dressed as 'lord of famed Arcadia'-J4pKaoLas JLEOEWV KAEEVVrlS.
This can most reasonably be explained as a reference to the
establishment of the Pan cult in Athens after the battle of
Marathon as a result of Philippides' vision in the Parthenion
mountains in Arcadia on his way to Sparta. I Once this is ac-
cepted, a number of other songs fall into place. Bowra has
shown that the appellation of Artemis as dypoTEpa in NO.3 may
well be related to the sacrifice of five hundred goats to her,
vowed by Miltiades and offered by the polemarch on the sixth
day of Boedromion, the anniversary of the battle of Marathon.2
That at the beginning of the whole collection should stand songs
to Athene and the Eleusinian goddesses is natural enough at any
time; but the title TpLTOyEVEta applied to Athena in No. I asso-
ciates this song with a time of special emergency, such as that
in which Athens found herself at the time of Marathon and again
of Salamis,3 and the invocation of Demeter and Persephone in
NO.2 may well be related to the vision of Dicaeus, son of Theo-
cydes, and Demaratus on the Thriasian Plain just before the
battle of Salamis, when they saw the dust of an army of 30,000
men 'arise from Eleusis to bring aid to the Athenians and their
allies' and heard their mystic shout.4 If, then, the four introduc-
tory songs can be associated with Marathon or Salamis, the vic-
tory in NO.5 may well refer to one of these battles. The mutilated
state of the last line leaves uncertain the role played by Pandrosus
in the victory. Bowra has interpreted her presence as an indica-
tion that the song was composed in honour of Marathon, when
her shrine was still intact.5 But her name may equally well be
taken as an allusion to the sacred olive tree which stood in the
1 Hdt. 6. 105, with Bowra, GLP 385-6.
2 GLP 387-9, citing Aelian, VH 2. 25; Pollux 8. gl ; Pluto De malignitate Herodoti
26, 862 b-c. Bowra accepts Aelian's 300 goats and 6th ThargeIion; but see L.
Deubner, Attische Feste 20g with n. 6. 3 GLP 388-g.
4 Hdt. 8. 65. Bowra, GLP 389-go, sees only social but no political implications
in this song. 5 GLP 386-7.
precinct of her shrine (Philochorus, frg. 67) and which was
burned down by the Persians at the time of Salamis and had
miraculously sprouted forth a new shoot by the next day (Hdt.
8. 55; Paus. 1. 27. 2).
The first five songs may then plausibly be regarded as a group
that celebrates events connected with the Persian Wars, and the
very specific nature of the incidents to which they seem to be
related suggests that, like the Kedon and Leipsydrium songs,
they were composed very soon after the events to which they are
devoted. The same may be said of a second block of five songs
(Nos. 14-18) which may reflect events associated with Peisistra-
tus and his sons. Bowra has adduced cogent reasons for relating
No. 14, the Admetus song, to the help rendered Hippias by the
Thessalian cavalry under Cine as at the time when the Spartans
under Anchimolius landed in Attica in an attempt to expel
Hippias.1 If this is correct, 'the Admetus' was composed in
Peisistratid circles, that is, it comes from the opposite side of the
political fence to that which produced the Kedon and Leipsyd-
rium songs. Furthermore, it creates the probability that the next
two songs in the collection, Nos. 15 and 16 on Ajax and Telamon,
are derived from Peisistratus' interest in Salamis and in the
Troad. For it was in the campaigns for the possession of Salamis
that Peisistratus won his first renown, and it was to Sigeum in the
Troad, conquered by his father, that Hippias fled after his expul-
sion.2 More doubtful, but still within the realm of the possible,
is Bowra's association of the two couplets which follow, Nos.
17 and 18, with one or both of the Dionysiac and Panathenaic
festivals, which were reorganized by Peisistratus.3 If Bowra's as-
signment of these songs is correct, we may again assume that all
or most of them were composed soon after the events which they
celebrate. For while their survival may be explained by the ab-
sence of any reference to the tyrants and by the general tenor of
their references to gods and heroes, they are not likely to have
been composed in honour of Peisistratus' exploits and those of
his allies after the expulsion of tyrants.
Bowra's conclusions are speculative and the basis which they
provide for our inquiry into the terminus ante quem of the first (10)
1 Hdt. 5.63.2-4 and Arist. Ath. Pol. Ig. 5, with Bowra, GLP 376-9.
2 cr.
Arist. Ath. Pol. 17. 2; 14. 1 ; Hdt. 5. 94. I, with Bowra, GLP 379-80.
3 GLP 380-1.
and fourth (13) stanzas of the Harmodius skolia cannot be said to
be firm. Yet their cumulative effect is sufficiently impressive to
draw some plausible inferences. Three periods of Athenian his-
tory seem to be represented in Athenaeus' collection of Attic
skolia : the time of Peisistratus and his sons, the opposition to the
tyranny, and the time of the Persian Wars, particularly the vic-
tories of Marathon and Salamis. Since, moreover, none of the
twenty-five skolia seems to have been composed later, we may re-
gard the time shortly after Salamis as the terminus ante for the
origin of the poems contained in the collection, though perhaps
not for the collection in its present form. Within these three
groups the four Harmodius skolia may well join the Kedon and
Leipsydrium songs as members of the group representing the
opposition to the tyranny, and since, as we have seen, the datable
songs in the collection were presumably composed soon after the
events which they celebrate, it is a reasonable assumption that
the first (10) and fourth (13) stanzas of the Harmodius were
written not long after the establishment of the Athenian de-
mocracy in 507 B.C., the only event to which, in the light of our
analysis of luovofL{a, the lines luovofLoVS T' }48~vas E7TOL7]UUT7]V can
refer.
This brings us to a consideration of the historical circumstances
in which stanzas 10 and 13 were composed. How are we to ac-
count for the two falsifications of historical fact which these
stanzas contain? For while these stanzas credit Harmodius and
Aristogeiton with having slain the tyrant (and thus having
liberated Athens) as well as with having made Athens luovofLoVS,
every adult living in Athens in the last decade of the sixth century
must have known (a) that Harmodius and Aristogeiton did not
kill Hippias and that the liberation was effected by the Spartans
under Cleomenes acting under the prodding of Delphi and the
Alcmaeonids, and (b) that it was Cleisthenes who established
a democratic form of government. Among the solutions pro-
I cratic slant which it was later to bear', and to assign the present
posed for this problem, two deserve particular attention. F.
Jacoby tried to resolve it by assuming that the falsification was the
deliberate work of forces hostile to Cleisthenes who wanted to
deprive the Alcmaeonids of the credit for having liberated Athens
by attributing it to the Gephyraei, the genos to which Harmodius
I (0) Hdt. 5. 62-5; Arist. Ath. Pol. 19.2-6. (b) Hdt. 5. 66.2,69.2,6.131.
Arist. Ath. Pol. 21.
and Aristogeiton belonged.! This hypothesis might conceivably
provide a reasonable explanation, if the two stanzas merely
credited Harmodius and Aristogeiton with slaying the tyrant,
that is, with liberating Athens. But since they are also praised for
having made Athens luovofLoVS, it is difficult to see, as Ehrenberg
has pointed out, who the anti-Alcmaeonids would have been who
would have paid this tribute to the tyrannicides.2 If they had
been supporters of Isagoras, as Jacoby seems to believe,3 they
would hardly have wished to celebrate the establishment of
luovofL{a at all. If, on the other hand, they were anti-Alcmaeonids
who supported the democratic reforms but opposed Cleisthenes,
the complete silence of all our sources about them makes them
too hypothetical an entity to be taken seriously. Moreover, the
implied contention that the Gephyraei were 'one of the great
clans ... with whom Kleisthenes fell out immediately after the
expulsion of Hippias, perhaps as early as 511/10 B.C.' is not sup-
ported by any evidence at all.4
This weakness in Jacoby's argument was recognized also by
one of the most ardent admirers of his theories of the anti-
Alcmaeonid origin of the tyrannicide cult, A. J. Podlecki.5 The
solution he proposed in its place is very radical indeed. He re-
gards it as axiomatic that the Alcmaeonids 'would have opposed
vehemently anyone who put forward the claims of Harmodius
and Aristogeiton' and that 'the supporters of the claims of
Harmodius and Aristogeiton must have been the political op-
ponents of the Alcmaeonids, at least in the early stages of the
fiction before it became established as the "official version" '.6
Not being able to find these anti-Alcmaeonids in the period
immediately following the reforms of Cleisthenes, he proceeds
not only to attribute the institution of the tyrannicide cult to
Themistocles in 477 B.C., but also to speculate that 'it was
Themistocles who gave the term luovofL{a the particular demo-
I Jacoby, cr.
Atthis 16o; 339 n. 53; also 340 n. 54.-For Harmodius and Aristo-
geiton as Gephyraei, Hdt. 5. 55 and 57. 1.
2 See Ehrenberg, OD 531-2, for a full demonstration of the historical improba-
bilities to which Jacoby's position would lead.
3 Jacoby, Atthis 340 n. 53 ad fin.
4 Vlastos, Ison. 342 with n. 17. The quotation is from Jacoby, Atthis 339,
!; n·53·
5 Podlecki 131. 6 Podlecki 130.

version of the Harmodius song to the period in which the statues
of the tyrannicides by Critius and Nesiotes were set up, that is
477/6 B.C. Now, since our ancient sources give us considerably
I mately correct. The clue is provided by Pausanias' ascription of
more information about Themistocles than they do about Cleis-
thenes, it is harder to explain in the case of Themistocles than in
the case of Cleisthenes why we get from them no hint whatever
that Themistocles either coined or ever appealed to the principle
of political equality. If he had done so, we should rather have
expected it about the time of his election to the archonship in
493/2 B.C., when he may have faced a stiff opposition especially
from those whom Aristotle calls 'friends of the tyrants' (Ath. Pol.
22. 4), than in 477 B.C. Moreover, in view of the fact that we
know of no constitutional innovation attributed to Themistocles,
his authorship of laovolJ-{a is rather unlikely. And with this the
necessity of associating the Harmodius song with the dedication
of the new tyrannicide group of Critius and Nesiotes vanishes.
In attributing to Themistocles the institution of the tyrannicide
cult, Podleckiz has to brush aside the importance of a tyrannicide
group of statues by Antenor which, we are told by Pausanias,
existed in Athens before 480 B.C. and was removed to Persia by
Xerxes to be later returned to Athens either by Alexander the
Great or one of his successors,3 and which, according to the
Parian Marble, was replaced in 477/6 B.C. by the new group by
Critius and Nesiotes.4 According to Pliny (NH 34. 17) these
statues were set up in Athens 'eodem anno quo et Romae reges
pulsi', that is, in 509 B.C. It is true, as Brunnsaker has demon-
strated, that this date, with its synchronism of the Athenian with
I Podlecki 138, 139-40. He avoids committing himself on the problem of what
parts of the Harmodius skolia were composed at what time (139): 'Some version
or part of the song may have been sung earlier, but what better time for a revival
of an "old favorite" and even an expansion of it, than the occasion of the new
"tyrannicide" dedication?' We do not learn here when the earlier version origin-
ated and what it contained. On Podlecki's assumptions, any part of it must have
originated among anti-Alcmaeonids, and since he admits that it must have
originated after 510, it is as hard to see in his case as it is in Jacoby's who its anti-
Alcmaeonid authors may have been.
2 Podlecki 135 and 137 contents himself with the assertion that Antenor's group
cannot 'have made much of an impact'. But the very fact that it was erected, pre-
sumably at public expense, is sufficient proof that the action of Harmodius and
Aristogeiton had made an impact earlier than 477 B.C.
3 Paus. I. 8. 5, who attributes their return to Antiochus; Val. Max. 2. 10, ext.
I, attributes it to Seleucus; and Pliny, NH 34. 70, and Arrian, Anab. 3. 16. 7-8 and
7. 19·2, to Alexander.
4 Marmor Parium, ep. 54 (Jacoby), with Paus. I. 8. 5.
Il:ONOMIA AND ATHENS 133
the Roman liberation from tyranny, does not inspire confidence. I
But there is an indication that Pliny's date is at least approxi-
the group to Antenor (I. 8. 5), no doubt the same Antenor
whose signature appears on the base of Kore No. 681 in the
Acropolis Museum,z·and who is believed to have contributed to
the pedimental sculpture of the reconstructed Temple of Apollo
at Delphi.3 Since the inscription on the Kore base can be dated on
epigraphical grounds shortly before or after 525 B.C.,4 and since
his work at Delphi is dated soon after 5IO B.C.,s Antenor's
activity belongs in the last quarter of the sixth ccntury.6 This
makes Pliny's date approximately acceptable, and we may, there-
fore, assume that Antenor's statues were in fact erected in honour
of Harmodius and Aristogeiton soon after the expulsion of Hip-
pias.7 A more precise date is impossible to attain, and we do not
know whether the statues were set up before or after conflict
broke out between Isagoras and Cleisthenes. The years of con-
solidation in internal politics which followed the Cleisthenean
reforms would favour a date soon after 507 B.C. rather than the
turbulent period offriction between 510 and 507 B.C.S
If, then, Harmodius and Aristogeiton could be honoured in
bronze so soon after the liberation from tyranny, there is no
reason why the liberation may not at the same time have been
attributed to them in song. In other words, the presence of
Antenor's statues soon after 510 B.C. supports a date soon after
507 B.C. rather than Podlecki's date of 477 B.C. for the composi-
tion of the first (10) and fourth (13) Harmodius skolion, and, like
I Brunnsaker 40-1 and 43.
2 IG 12• 485. The question whether or not base and statue belong together does
not affect our argument.
3 See G. Lippold in Handbuch der Archiiologie, ed. W. Otto and R. Herbig, 3. I.
81 with n. 3.
4 Jeffery, LSAG 75. 5 Lippold loco cit. with n. 2.
6 On Antenor's date see P. Orlandini in Enciclopedia del!'arte antica I. 408-9, s.v.
'Antenor' (with bibliography); on the date of Antenor's group of tyrannicides see
Brunnsaker 41, 43, and 97-8; and G. Becatti, Archeologia classica 9 (1957) 97-107.
7 Cf. Jacoby, Atthis 339 n. 52. But I do not agree that Cleisthenes' exile is
a terminus post quem for the statues.-The suggestion, first made by P. Corssen,
Berliner philologische Wochenschrift 23 (1903) 350-1 and Archiiologischer Anzeiger
(1903) 41, and elaborated by A. E. Raubitschek, AJA 44 (1940) 58 n. 2, JHS 60
(1940) 54, and Dedicationsfrom the Athenian Acropolis 116,482, and 514, that the
Antenor group does not antedate 488 B.C., has effectively been laid to rest by the
arguments of Brunnsaker 90-5.
8 Cf. Becatti, op. cit. 100.

the two stanzas of the Harmodius skolia, shows that the tyran-
nicides were in fact honoured as such very soon after the libera-
tion.1 \Vhat made the Athenians accept this misrepresentation of
fact so soon after the liberation must remain a matter for
speculation; still, a probable explanation is not hard to find. If
the Kedon and Leipsyclrium songs were composed, as it is sug-
gested they were (above, p. 127), by the exiled opponents of
Hippias soon after the events which they celebrate, and if the
same people sang the second (I I) and third (12) stanzas of the
Harmodius soon after the murder of Hipparchus, as Ehrenberg
has suggested,2 these exiles might after the expulsion of Hippias
have credited with the actual achievement those heroes whose
martyrdom had sustained them in exile, and who had inspired
them to persist in their efforts until Hippias was finally ousted.
Moreover, since the role of Delphi and of the Alcmaeonids in the
expulsion had been confined to prompting the Spartans, whereas
the actual success was due to Spartan arms (Hdt. 5. 62-5; Arist.
Atlz. Pol. I g. 2-6), the Athenians may have wished to suppress the
fact by making the liberation an Athenian affair.3
This, it seems to me, is the most plausible reconstruction, on
the basis of the few facts we do know, of the atmosphere and the
spirit in which the first (IO) and fourth (13) stanzas of the
Harmodius were created. There is, accordingly, no need to read
a slight to Cleisthenes, motivated by party spirit, into the fact
that this simple patriotic song ignores the Alcmaeonid contribu-
tion to Hippias' ouster. For when patriotic songs name heroes,
they name thc dead and not the living, and the courageous attempt
of Harmodius and Aristogeiton, their failure notwithstanding,
was more likely to capture the popular imagination than either
the army of Cleomenes or the machinations of'Delphi and
~ Ehrenber?, HL 68:-9, accepts a date after 507 B.C. for the first stanza (10). The
objectIOns raIsed agamst this by P. Leveque and P. Vidal-Kaquet,
l'~tM~ie~ 30 n. 2, namely, 'on a peine it croire que Ie meurtre prive d'Hipparque
solt Slvlte devenu un acte politique', loses its force in that it fails to take anv note of
Antenor's tyrannicide group.
Z See above, p. 125 with n. 3.
3 Th~s has be~n suggested by Ehrenberg, OD 530 and 532-3, accepted by
B.runnsaker 25 with n: 94 .. Cf. Bowra, GLP 394.-A good modern parallel is pro-
VIded by the ceremomes stIlI held every 20 July in Germany to commemorate the
generals who on that day in 1944 were no more successful than Harmodius and
Aristogeiton had been in putting an end to a tyranny which was put down a year
later only through the outside intervention of the allied forces.
II:ONOMIA AND ATHENS 135
Cleisthenes. The same reason may also explain the second dis-
tortion of historical fact, the attribution of the establishment of
the democracy to Harmodius and Aristogeiton. \Ve have tried to
show above that the opponents of Cleisthenes, to whom Jacoby
wants to assign the skolia, cannot be identified. But is it really
necessary to assume that only opponents of Cleisthenes could
attribute the establishment of Zuovop.,{a to the tyrannicides? Can-
not the Harmodius have been sung without malice? If Herodo-
tus (5. 78) could credit the defeat by the young democracy of
Spartans, Boeotians, and Chalcidians in rapid succession to its
ZU7]yopl7], it is not hard to believe that the Athenians would them-
selves celebrate the establishment of ZuovofLla in a song. In fact, if
we were to look for a specific date for the first (10) and fourth
(13) skolion, the enthusiasm reflected in Herodotus' statement
about the source of the victories would make 506 B.C. a vcry
likely occasion. To have included Cleisthenes' name in the praise
of ZuovofLla would have been in bad taste; but to attribute it to
the same hero-martyrs to whom the liberation had been attributed
could hardly have given offence to Cleisthenes. On the contrary,
it would not be surprising if a man of Cleisthenes' political
acumen had found considerable propaganda value in attributing
to Harmodius and Aristogeiton the sum total of his political
achievement, not only his part in the liberation from tyranny but
also the establishment of ZaovofLla in Athens. In this manner, far
from minimizing his own merit, as some have asserted, 1 he would
have counteracted any odium that may have attached to him for
having accepted the archonship of 525/4 B.C. from Hippias,2 and
at the same time would have enlisted popular support for his
programme by presenting it as the continuation and completion
of what Harmodius and Aristogeiton had set out to accomplish.
These considerations do not, of course, constitute proof that the
first (IO) and/or fourth (13) stanza of the Harmodius song
Clisthine originated in Cleisthenes' circle, but they do show that the
' I K. Schefold, Museum Helveticum 3 (1946) 67-70. For an effective criticism ofllis
view see Ehrenberg, OD 533-4·
z See the fragment of an archon list of c. 425 B.C., published by B. D. Meritt,
Hesperia 8 (1939) 59-65 (= SEG 10, No. 352). That the inscription is an archon-
list and that Cleisthenes' name appeared on it as the archon for 525/4 B.C. can be
regarded as settled, W. E. Thompson, C] 55 (1959-60) 217-20, C. W. J. Eliot and
M. F. McGregor, Phoenix 14 (1960) 27-35. Additional fragments of the list are
published by D. W. Bradeen, Hesperia 32 (1963) 187-208.
glorification of the tyrannicides is not incompatible with the role
the Alcmaeonids played in making Athens laov6;wvc;, and they
support the date shortly after 507 B.C. for which we have been
arguing.!

NOMOS AND THE BEGINNINGS OF

THE ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY

HE fact that the laovop.,{a of Athens was celebrated in song

T and attributed to the national heroes shortly after 507 B.C.

permits the inference that the term was not invented by the
author or authors of stanzas IO and 13 of the skolia, but was
borrowed from the actualities which he or they set out to cele-
brate. In other words, these stanzas indicate that the concept of
laovop.,{a played a part in the events leading up to and culminat-
ing in the establishment of the Athenian democracy by Cleis-
thenes. Weare not told by any of our sources what this part was,
and for that reason certainty about it is impossible to attain.
Still, we do know enough about the reforms themselves and the
political activities preceding and following them to enable us to
reconstruct a sequence of events in which the principle of lao-
vop.,{a can be assigned a place.
Thanks to the work of H. T. Wade-Gery! it is now possible to
form a reasonably accurate chronology of the events leading up
to the reforms and of Cleisthenes' role in them. After an initial
period of accommodation between Hippias and the heads of
some of the noble 'political' families of Athens, in which Cleis-
thenes accepted the archonship for 525/4 B.C. and Miltiades that
for the following year,2 relations between the tyrant and the
noble gene again became strained. Few details are known about
this development for the period between the end of Miltiades'
I Essays ! 35-54.
Z See above, p. !35 with n. 3.
138 NOMOI; AND BEGIKNINGS OF .\ TIIE:\L\N DEMOCRACY
archonship and the murder of Hipparchus at the Panathenaic
festival of 514 B.C. At some time before 511/10 B.C. and probably
I of the Spartans from the Peisistratids,I it was doubtless a suf-
within the period 524/3 to 514 B.C., the Alcmaeonidae, the genos
whose head was Cleisthenes, went into exile; Miltiades of the
Cimonid family2 was sent off by the Peisistratids to the Thracian
Chersonese, probably about 5 I 6 B.C., which indicates perhaps
that the archonship had failed to reconcile him to the Peisistra-
tids, who were suspected of having had his father Cimon mur-
dered;3 and, if any trust can be placed in Andocides (2. 26), his
great-grandfather Leogoras went into voluntary exile. Relations
deteriorated further after the murder of Hip parch us : the tyranny
grew harsher and many members of noble families were exiled
or killed.4 As a result, the opposition to the tyranny stiffened.
Several attempts by the exiles to force their way into Athens and
oust Hippias were thwarted, among them the attempt by Kedon,
a nobleman,s and the more ambitious effort, spearheaded by the
Alcmaeonidae, to fortify Leipsydrium, which we have already
mentioned (above, p. 127). After Leipsydrium, the Alcmaeonids
used a different method to secure their aim. Through their
friendly connections with Delphi, established early in the sixth
century when Alcmaeon commanded the Athenian troops in the
First Sacred \Var,6 they obtained the contract to rebuild the
Temple of Apollo, which had been destroyed by fire in 548/7
B.C. (Hdt. 2. 180; Paus. 10. 5. 13), and with the contract came
the administration of large sums of money and influence at
Delphi.? By a judicious deployment of both they persuaded the
Pythia to instigate the Spartans to liberate Athens, and the
Spartans complied despite the friendly relations which bound
them to the Peisistratids. Although the prompting of t~e Oracle is
I Except where otherwise stated, the account in this paragraph is based on
Hdt. 5. 62-5 and Arist. Ath. Pol. 19.
2 The reasons for calling the descendants of Cimon Coal emus 'Cimonids'
rather than 'Philaids' are stated by vVade-Gery, Essays 164 n. 3.
3 For Miltiades' dispatch see Hell. 6. 39. I, with \Vade-Gery, Essays 161-3; for
Cimon's death, Hdl. 6. 103.3, with Wade-Gery, Essays 155-8, and A. Andrewes,
The Greek Tyrants 110.
4 Cf. also Hdl. 5. 55, Thuc. 6. 59. 2.
5 That he was a nobleman is suggested by the aya8oi, al'8paatl' in the second
line of the couplet cited by Aristotle, Ath. Pol. 20. 5.
6 Plut. Solon II, with <W.) G. Forrest, BCH 80 (1956) 41-'2 and 49-51.
7 For an excellent summary of the nature and sources of this influence see
Leveque and Vidal-Kaquet, op. cit. 40 n. 3.
IEONOMIA, CLEISTHENES, AND NOMOE 139
unlikely to have been the only factor in alienating the affections
ficiently weighty factor for later tradition to ascribe the eventual
liberation of Athens from tyranny to the Alcmaeonids as well as
to the Spartans (Hdt. 6. 123. 2; Thuc. 6. 59. 4). A Spartan at-
tempt under Anchimolius to invade the city from the sea was
frustrated soon after the landing by Cine as and his 1,000 Thes-
salian cavalry, who came to Hippias' aid. To discourage similar
attempts in the future and to protect himself in the face of a
deteriorating situation in Athens, Hippias immediately began to
fortify Munichia in the Piraeus, but before this enterprise was
completed, a second and larger Spartan force, led by king
Cleomenes, invaded Attica and routed the Thessalian cavalry
sent against them. Athens was now open to Cleomenes and,
together with 'those Athenians who wanted to be free', consisting
presumably mainly of the exiles, he besieged the acropolis, where
the Peisistratids had taken refuge behind the Pelargic Wall.
According to Herodotus, the siege would not have resulted in
capitulation, had not the children of the Peisistratids been cap-
tured as they were being smuggled out of the country. To obtain
their safe return, the Peisistratids surrendered and agreed to
leave Attica within five days, which promise they fulfilled by
settling at Peisistratus' old stronghold in Sigeum on the Scaman-
der in the Troad.
Of these events only the fortification of Munichia, interrupted
by Cleomenes' incursion, and the surrender of the acropolis are
given a precise date by Aristotle. The former is placed 'in the
fourth year after the death of Hipparchus' and the latter 'in the
archonship of Harpactides' (Ath. Pol. 19. 2, 6),2 and both dates
converge on our 511/10 B.C. The sequence of events in the next
three years can be established only in barest outline, and we
lack much essential information even on the events themselves,
I Arist. Ath. Pol. 19. 4 (cf. 17. 3-4) suggests that the friendship between the
Peisistratids and Argos was a source of annoyance to the Spartans. In addition, the
Spartans will certainly not have liked Bippias' overtures to Persia after 514 B.C.
through the marriage of his daughter to the son of the tyrant of Lampsacus
(Thue. 6. 59. 2-3). And, in general, the tradition on Sparta's enmity to tyranny
and on her overthrow of the tyrannies in Greek cities is so strong that, although we
know few details, it may have motivated her to liberate Athens; see Thuc. I. 18.
I, Arist. Pol. 5. 10, I312b7-8.
2 The expulsion of the tyrant is dated in the fourth year after the murder of
Hipparchus also by Hdl. 5. 55 and Thuc. 6. 59·4·
140 NOMOI: AND BEGINNINGS OF ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY
although they are among the most crucial for the development of
Athens over the next hundred years. Harpactides had no doubt
held his archonship with the approval of the tyrant or, at least,
not without it (Thuc. 6. 54. 6). Since nothing else is known about
him, we may assume that he was not an important 'friend of the
tyrants' and was permitted to serve out what remained of his
term of office. The machinery of government probably did not
cease to function, because, as Thucydides tells us (6. 54. 6), the
tyrants had left the old Solonian constitution intact, merely filling
the important offices with their own men, and the fact that the
archons were chosen directly and not by lot made this very easy
(Arist. Ath. Pol. 22. 5). Immediately after the fall of the tyranny,
Athens returned to 'aristocratic politics as usual'. A struggle for
political power erupted among the noble families who had played
a part in the overthrow, very like the rivalries that had sur-
rounded the rise of Peisistratus earlier in the century (Hdt. I.
59-6 I ). Cleisthenes, the Alcmaeonid, opposed Isagoras, son of
Teisander, a member of an old noble family who sacrificed to
Zeus Karios.1 It is probable that their rivalry did not burst into
the open at once. For the measures, which can plausibly be dated
to a time very soon after the expulsion of Hippias, aim at the
punishment of the Peisistratids and the amelioration of condi-
tions created by them, and they are unlikely to have divided
those whom opposition to the tyranny had just united. The first
of these was the revival as BEGfLta Kat 7TCLTPWof an old Draconian
law, under which anyone attempting or abetting the establish-
ment of a tyranny at Athens was declared an outlaw, and the
publication of the names of the Peisistratids-and presumably
also of the ban pronounced against them--on a stele erected
on the acropolis.2 The second was the enactment of a decree
prohibiting the torture of Athenian citizens (Andoc. 1. 43),3
evidently in order to prevent recurrences of the kind of treat-
ment meted out to Aristogeiton after the murder of Hippar-
chus.4 Andocides, our source for this measure, assigns it to the
I Hdt. 5. 66. I, Arist. Ath. Pol. 20. I, with D. M. Lewis, 'Cleisthenes and Attica',
Historia 12 (1963) 25-6.
2 Arist. Ath. Pol. 16. 10, Thuc. 6. 55. 1-2, with M. Ostwald, TAPA 86 (1955)
108-9'
3 It is not clear from the context whether this prohibition was confined to judicial
proceedings or whether it was more general in character.
4 Thuc. 6. 57. 4, Arist. Ath. Pol. 18. 4, Diodorus 10. 17. 2, Polyaenus I. 22.
II:ONOMI A, CLEISTHENES, AND NOMOI: 141
archonship of Scamandrius, and there are good reasons for as-
suming this to have been in 510/09 B.C.I
There is one further measure which may belong in the archon-
ship of Scamandrius and which was later to be affected by the
reforms of Cleisthenes. We learn from Aristotle that after the
overthrow of the tyrants a revision of the roll of citizens (owifiTJrpt-
GfLDS) was undertaken, 'since it was alleged that many were
enjoying citizenship, although they had no right to it' (Ath. Pol.
13.5).2 We have no information on the procedure followed in the
OWifiTJrptGfLDS and little about the identity of its victims. But since
proof of citizenship can only have been membership in a phratry
before Cleisthenes' reforms, we may surmise that the owifiTJrpt-
GfLDS obliged the phratries (a) to determine who was and who was
not a proper member, and (b) to exclude from exercising the
rights of citizenship anyone who could not prove his membership
in a phratry. This raises the question as to whom the owifiYJrptGfLDS
deprived of citizenship. Aristotle suggests that 'people of impure
descent' (ot T0 yEVEt fL~ KaBapo{) were affected by it, who-or
rather, whose parents-feeling insecure in their possession of
citizenship, had joined Peisistratus' diakrioi through fear (Ath. Pol.
13.4-5). Greek tyrants often rewarded their supporters by grant-
ing them the rights of citizenship,3 and Peisistratus or his sons
may have so rewarded the Thracian and Argive mercenaries who
had helped win the battle of Pallene, his bodyguard,4 and per-
haps other immigrants whom Peisistratus' development of indus-
try had attracted to Attica.5 Regardless of whether or not such
I T. J. Cadoux, ]HS 68 (1948) 113, accepted by MacDowell, Andokides: On the
Mysteries 92-3.
2 That there was a 'iita.pTJ</>wp.6safter the fall of the tyranny is disbelieved by
some scholars on the ground that it is thought to be in conflict with Aristotle's
statement, Pol. 3. 2, 1275b34-7, that Cleisthenes 7TO.\,\O,}s... E</>vAETEvaft'vovs Kat
80VAoVS p.ero{KovS; see F. Jacoby in FGH 3b, supp!. I. 158-60. However, since
Aristotle attributes only the enfranchisement to Cleisthenes, the difficulty can be
resolved by assuming that the 8ta.pTJ</>wp.6stook place before the reforms of Cleis-
thenes, very probably soon after the expulsion of Hippias; cf. Hignett, HAC 132-3.
On the enfranchisement see below, pp. 151-2. 3 See Hignett, HAC 112.
4 Hdt. 61. 4, 64. I; Thuc. 6. 55. 3, 57. 1,58.2; Arist. Ath. Pol. 15. 2, 18. 4. It
is noteworthy that the 80pv</>6po. seem to be of foreign origin, whereas the fifty
KopuvTJ</>6po.,whom the people gave to Peisistratus at the beginning of his tyranny,
are explicitly described as citizens by Hdt. I. 59. 5 and differentiated from the
80pv</>6po.; cf. Pluto Solon 30. 3.
5 Immigration of skilled craftsmen into Attica and grant of citizenship to them
is attested only for Solon (Plut. Solon 24)' But it is very likely that Peisistratus con-
tinued Solon's policy in this respect.
142 NOMOI: AND BEGINNINGS OF ATHENIAN
persons had ever been formally admitted into the phratries, they
may well have exercised in practice such citizen prerogatives as
attending meetings of the Assembly and of the Heliaia with the
explicit or tacit approval of the tyrant, whom they had helped
and to whom they looked for protection. The descendants of such
people were no doubt regarded by many Athenians as Tip yEVEL
fL~ KaBapot and, even though by 510/09 B.C. they knew no home
other than Athens, they were deprived by the tnafYJeptafLoS of
rights which they may have exercised defacto without possessing
them de iure, because they owed their position to the support they
had given the tyrants. I
About the events of the year following the archonship of Sca-
mandrius (509/8 B.C.) we have only the information of the Mar-
mor Parium that Lysagoras-otherwise unknown-was archon
eponymus, and that contests of men's choruses were introduced
for the first time,2 presumably at the Panathenaic festival. If, in
addition, we can trust Pliny's date (above, pp. 132-3), it was in
this year or the year preceding it that Antenor's statues of the
tyrannicides were erected. Of far greater importance, however,
is the rivalry between Isagoras and Cleisthenes, which must have
come to a head in this year. What precisely happened we do not
know. All we are told is that Cleisthenes lost the struggle (Hdt.
5. 66. 2; Arist. Ath. Pol. 20. 1) and that Isagoras was elected as
archon for the following year, that is for 508/7 B.C. (Dion. Hal. 1.
74.6, 5. 1. 1). But we may draw one conclusion from Aristotle's
assertion that Cleisthenes' defeat took place Tafs ETatpEtatS. Since
ETatpEfat are known in Athenian history primarily as political
clubs of young aristocrats of oligarchical sympathies, who played
a prominent part in the events of 415, 411, and 404 B.C.,3 Aris-
totle's statement has been interpreted as 'a mere inference' from
the narrative of Herodotus, who uses the verb 7TpoaETatpt~ETat to
describe Cleisthenes' step of 'taking the people into partnership'
after his defeat by Isagoras. \Vhile I agree that the passage can-
not be regarded as 'independent testimony of the existence of
I e.g. the oopvrpopo' are alleged to have killed Harmodius (Thuc. 6. 57·4, Arist.
Ath. Pol. 18. 4). Cf. Ar. Eq. 447-3, where the Sausage-seller accuses the Paphla-
gonian of being descended from the oopvrpopo' of 'Byrsine', wife of Hippias.
2 Marmor Parium, ep. 46 (Jacoby), with Cadoux, loco cit.
3 For a full discussion see F. Sartori, Le eterie nella vita politica ateniese del VI e V
seeolo a. C. 99-143. For their activities in 415 B.C. see also MacDowell, op. cit.
190-3.
DEMOCRACY II:ONOMI A, CLEISTHENES, AND NOMOI: 143
Hetaireiai as early as 506',1 at least not in the sense in which they
existed toward the end of the fifth century, Aristotle's choice of
words may indicate that the part of the conflict which Isagoras
won was a dynastic struggle for power in which each protagonist
had the support of his aristocratic following (ETafpOt), 2 and the
point of Herodotus' 7TpoaETatpt~ETat may be that after his defeat
Cleisthenes made the people that which his aristocratic ETafpot
had been before, namely, the main source of his political support.
In any event, the victory ofIsagoras over Cleisthenes of which our
sources speak must have consisted in Isagoras' election to the
archonship, and it was probably after the election had taken
place that Cleisthenes began to seek the political support of the
masses.
The chief difficulty in the chronology of the events in 508/7
and 507/6 B.C. is that Aristotle dates the reforms of Cleisthenes in
the archonship of Isagoras (Ath. Pol. 21. 1), whereas Pollux tells
us that it was under Alcmaeon that the Athenian tribes 'became
ten' (8. 110). But the difficulty can be resolved with the help of
Herodotus' narrative of events (5. 66-73. 1), which Aristotle
(Ath. Pol. 20. 1-3, 2 I) followsvery closely, except that he separates
his account of the content of the reforms from his account of the
events leading up to the reforms, while Herodotus incorporates
his more succinct account of the reforms into the general narra-
tive.3 Following, then, the sequence of Herodotus, we may as-
sume that Cleisthenes proposed and gained acceptance of his
reforms after he had 'taken the people into partnership' after the
election of Isagoras to the archons hip (5. 66. 2). We shall come
back to the significance of this later. For the moment it will
sufficeto say that the result of his cultivating popular support and
of the reforms was, according to Aristotle, to 'turn the state over
to the common people'.4 The success of Cleisthenes' policy is
indicated by the fact that he not only managed to get his reforms
accepted as a private citizen in the teeth of the archon in power,s
but also to get Alcmaeon, to judge by the name his kinsman and
I Wade-Gery, Essays 138, referring to Hdt. 5.66.2.
2 Note the adjective 7rpoowa€Ta'pov used to describe Leipsydrium in the skolion
quoted by Arist. Ath. Pol. 19·3.
3 See Wade-Gery, Essays 136-9, also Cadoux, op. cit. 114-16 n. 249.
4 Ath. Pol. 20. 1 : a7rOO,OOV, .,.0 7rAT/IiH "'~v 7roA,nLav.
S Wade-Gery, Essays 136, 142-3. For a more detailed argument which, in my
opinion, effectively disposes of all earlier views see Cadoux, loco cit.
144 NOMOI: AND BEGINNINGS OF ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY
supporter, elected as archon for the following year, S07/6 B.C. 1 It is
also shown by the consternation revealed in Isagoras' reaction,
who knew no other recourse than to call in Cleomenes, with whom
he had established friendly relations during the operations against
the Peisistratids in 511/10 B.C.2 Before intervening personally,
Cleomenes, on instructions from Isagoras, sent a herald to Athens
to demand that Cleisthenes and other Athenian families who were
under the curse incurred by the Alemaeonid archon Megacles at
the time of the Cylonian conspiracy should leave Athens at once
(5. 70. 2-71; Ath. Pol. 20. 2).3 Cleisthenes complied, but the
others whose banishment Isagoras had instigated Cleomenes to
demand departed only after Cleomenes entered Athens with
a small force (5. 72. I; Ath. Pol. 20. 3).4 Cleomenes next tried to
disband the Council, which was still the old Solonian Council of
Four Hundred and which must have played a key role in getting
Cleisthenes' reforms adopted, and to entrust the government to an
oligarchy consisting of three hundred ofIsagoras' partisans.5 How-
ever, the Council refused to be intimidated and, with the support
of the common people, besieged the acropolis, where Cleomenes
and Isagoras had taken refuge. On the third day Cleomenes and
Isagoras capitulated, and Cleomenes and his men were given safe-
conduct out of Attica.6 Some ofIsagoras' partisans were arrested
and executed, but Isagoras himself and probably also others of
his supporters escaped punishment,7 probably by fleeing from
I Pollux 8. 110, with Cadoux, op. cit. 114 with n. 248, who suggests that Ale-
maeon may have been a cousin of Cleisthenes and the father of Leobotes, who,
according to Pluto Them. 23. I, became the accuser of Themistocles in 471 B.C.
2 Hdt. 5. 70. I, where the friendly relations extend also to Isagoras' wife; Ath.
Pol. 20. 2.
3 Cf. Thuc. I. 126. 12. For a similar demand, directed at Pericles and made by
the Spartans before the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War, see Thuc. I. 126. 2
and 127. I.
4 See Endnote, p. 185 below.
S That it was an attempt to establish an oligarchy and not merely to reduce the
number of Councillors is indicated by Herodotus' Tlh· apXa.<; EVEXdp'~E and by
Aristotle's KVp{OVS KaOu'Tava, TfjS 1TO'\EWS.
6 Wade-Gery, Essays 136, interprets Aristotle as including Isagoras and the
Athenians in the safe-conduct. However, while it is true that Isagoras and some of
his supporters must have escaped the death penalty inflicted on the rest of the
Athenians, since Cleomenes soon tried to reinstate him (Hdt. 5. 74. I), Aristotle's
TOV'; /-LET' athoil 7TclvTas, like Herodotus' DaoL 7}aav aUTwv AaKEOUL/L6vWL, refers only
to the followers of Cleomenes.
7 The fact that Hdt. 5. 72.4-73. 1 mentions Timesitheos of Delphi as one of the
executed guarantees the accuracy of that part of his story. On Isagoras' fate see
the preceding note.
IEONOMI A, CLEISTHENES. AND NOMOI: 145
Attica. Immediately thereafter, Cleisthenes and the seven hundred
families exiled with him were recalled (5. 73. I ; Ath. Pol. 20. 3)·
The reforms of Cleisthenes were, as we saw, passed in the
archonship of Isagoras, and the fact that the curse on the Ale-
maeonids was used as the pretext for the expulsion of Cleisthenes
and his adherents suggests that Alcmaeon had already been
elected as archon for 507/6 B.C., but had not yet assumed office,
for it is more likely that Isagoras would have called in Cleomenes
against an archon-elect than against an archon in power. We
may, therefore, place the intervention of Cleomenes in the late
spring or early summer of 507 B.C., after Alcmaeon's election but
before he actually began to serve. We may further assume that
Alcmaeon assumed office immediately after the return of the
Alemaeonid exiles and that the business of implementing Cleis-
thenes' reforms was begun at once. But in addition to laying the
foundations for the internal stability of the state, the Athenians
also had to protect themselves against external threats. Realizing
that Cleomenes would wish to avenge his defeat, they sent an
embassy to Sardis to ask for an alliance with Persia, the tradi-
tional enemy of Sparta (S. 73. 1).1 Artaphernes, the Persian
satrap, agreed to the alliance on condition that the Athenians
give earth and water as a sign of submission to Darius. The
ambassadors accepted the condition but were disowned upon
their return to Athens (5·73·2-3)·
When the attack came, presumably in the spring of 506 B.C.,
the Athenians had to face it alone. Cleomenes had not only
gathered a force from the whole of the Peloponnese, in order, as
Herodotus says, to punish the Athenian people and to instal
Isagoras as tyrant in Athens, but he also arranged with Boeotia
and Chalcis to make a concerted attack on Attica from west,
north, and east at the same time. Accordingly, while he occupied
Eleusis, the Boeotians captured Oinoe and Hysiae and the Chal-
cidians raided the north-eastern coast of Attica (5·74. 1-2).
The Athenians decided to face their opponents in turn, one at a
time, beginning with the Peloponnesians. They were helped by
I The Spartans had concluded an alliance with Croesus against Persia (Hdt. I.
69. 3), and after the conquest of Lydia had sent an ambassador to Cyrus to warn
him not to destroy any Greek city (I. 152. 3)' It is also worth noting in this connec-
tion that Demaratus fled to Persia after he was deprived of his kingship (6. 67· I,
70).- That the question of medism is irrelevant to this Athenian embassy is rightly
stressed by A. W. Gomme, AJP 65 (1944) 321-2.
814277 L
146 NOMOE AND BEGINNINGS OF ATHENIA:'\ DEMOCRACY
dissension, which split not only the Peloponnesian alliance but the
Spartans as well: the Corinthians, immediately before battle,
expressed disagreement with Cleomenes' purpose and went home,
followed in rapid succession by Cleomenes' royal colleague,
Demaratus, and by the rest of the allies (5. 75. I, 3). The
Athenians were now free to turn against their other enemies,
internal and external. We learn that the houses of those Athen-
ians who had joined Cleomenes at Eleusis were destroyed, their
property confiscated, and they themselves condemned to death.
Of their external enemies, Herodotus informs us, the intention
was to handle the Chalcidians first, but when the Athenians
heard that the Boeotians were marching toward the Euripus to
help Chalcis, they changed their plan in order to intercept
Boeotian help before it could become effective. The battle which
ensued was a decisive Athenian victory, which claimed many
Boeotian lives and the loss of seven hundred prisoners. On the
very day of victory the Athenians crossed over into Euboea and
defeated the Chalcidians. Four thousand Athenian cleruchs were
settled on lands taken from the wealthiest Chalcidians, the
prisoners taken from both Chalcidians and Boeotians were later
ransomed at two mnai per person, and their fetters dedicated on
the Athenian acropolis (5. 77. 1-2).2
The words which Herodotus chooses to indicate that the vic-
tories of 506 B.C. constituted the baptism of fire of the Athenian
democracy bring us back to the question which prompted us to
digress into an account of the factual framework of the end of
tyranny and the beginning of democracy in Athens.3 Herodotus
regards the victories as showing that ZfI7]YOPL7] is a 'good thing'
(XP'TJP,a fITrOVOatov), because it enabled the Athenians to surpass
their neighbours in warfare to a degree to which they had never
surpassed them under the tyranny, and he attributes this develop-
ment in Athens to the enthusiasm of a free person to accomplish
something for himself as contrasted with the deliberately bad
performance of a suppressed person working for a master (5. 78).4
I Schol. Ar. Lys. 273. It is a reasonable assumption that Isagoras was among
them; see Wade-Gery, Essays 136-7.
2 These cIeruchs were sent to the aid of Eretria against the Persians in 490 B.C. ;
see Hdt. 6. 100. I.
3 That Herodotus regarded Cleisthenes' achievement as consisting in the
establishment of the Athenian democracy is evident from 6. 13 I. I.
• On iUT]yop{T] cf. above, p. 109 n. 2, and below, p. 157 n. 2.
IEONOMI A, CLEISTHENES, AND NOMOE 147
Since ZfI7]YOPL7] is not attested earlier than this passage, we do not
know whether it played any part in the events we have just
described. But we do know that ZfIovop,La, the adjective of which
is attested in the Harmodius skolia, is contemporary with these
events, and we may be able to assign it a place by briefly
examining the role played by the people, the oijp,o~ or TrA.ijeo~, in
this period.
Both politically and economically the common people seem to
I have fared reasonably well under the tyranny. Our knowledge
of details is agonizingly sketchy, but it seems certain that Peisis-
tratus based his power originally on the formal approval of the
Assembly. At any rate, it was the oijp,o~ which in 561/0 B.C. on the
motion of Aristion voted him his first bodyguard (Ath. Pol. 14. I),
and it is not insignificant that the first bodyguard consisted of
citizens (Hdt. 1. 59. 4-5). Although this is the only specific ex-
ample of a popular Assembly meeting that has come down to
us from this time, the fact that Herodotus (I. 59. 6), Thucydides
(6.54.5-6), and Aristotle (Ath. Pol. 14.3, 16.8) agree that public
officesand the laws were left intact and that he ruled like a states-
man and not like a tyrant suggests that the organs of government
as constituted by Solon continued to function, that is, that there
were meetings of the Assembly and of the lawcourts, and that the
people had at least a formal voice in the election of the magis-
trates. Moreover, there are several other indications of his popu-
larity. Aristotle explicitly remarks several times on his geniality
toward humble folk (Ath. Pol. 13. 4, 14. I, 16. 8)1 as well as
toward the nobles (16. 9). It is further shown in that the common
people seem to have had no part in the two exiles of Peisistratus
but, on the contrary, welcomed him when 'Athene' returned him
to Athens after his first exile (Hdt. 1. 60. 5; Ath. Pol. 14·4).
Economically, the farmers do not appear to have grumbled
about the five-per-cent tax he imposed on their produce (Thuc.
6. 54. 5),2 and when one of them did, on the occasion of one of
Peisistratus' inspection tours, Peisistratus granted him exemption
(Ath. Pol. 16. 6). In short, the peace and tranquillity which he
brought to Attica earned his regime later the reputation of the
I In these passages, if anywhere, do we have proof that 01)!"OTLKOS does not
simply mean 'democratic'.
2 This figure seems more likely than the ten pe,. cent reported by Arist. A/h. Pol.
16.4 and 6.
'48 NOMOI: AND BEGINNINGS OF ATHENIAN
'life of the age of Cronus' (Ath. Pol. 16. 7). The more shadowy
sides of the tyranny do not seem to have bothered the common
people too much. And if the Solonian laws which, according to
Aristotle (Ath. Pol. 22. I), were eclipsed under the tyranny were
laws concerned with the election of magistrates, 1 it is improbable
that the lower classes,who were not themselves eligible for election
to high offices,anyway, would get exercised over this curtailment
of their rights.
The friendly attitude of the common people toward the tyrants
and their political approval or indifference is corroborated by the
complete silence of our sources about popular participation in
the various attempts to overthrow the tyranny. Harmodius and
Aristogeiton belonged to the nobility, and the repressive measures
which followed their attempt must have been directed primarily
-if not exclusively-at the nobility.2 Moreover, the epigrams on
Kedon and on the dead of Leipsydrium make a special point of
the fact that they were nobles,3 and 'those Athenians who wanted
to be free', who joined Cleomenes in 511/10 B.C. in besieging the
tyrants within the Pelargic Wall (Hdt. 5. 64. 2), were doubtless
also predominantly members of the nobility.4 The struggle be-
tween Cleisthenes and Isagoras, whose beginnings may date to
the period immediately after Hippias' ouster, seems to have been
initially no more than a dynastic struggle between two factions of
noblemen, one of whom had been exiled from Athens during the
last years of the tyranny, while the other had been able to stay in
the city.s
The first time that the common people enter into the picture in
this period is after Cleisthenes' defeat by Isagoras, that is, after
Isagoras' election, in the spring of 508 B.C., to be archon for
I This is suggested by Thuc. 6. 54. 6: Tn OE "AAa aVT~ ~ lTOALS TOrS lTplv KELfl-€VOLS
v6JLOCS EXpfjTO, 1T)..~V Ka8' aaav aiEl TLva E7TEP..€ADV'TO ac/Jwv aVTwv
For a different interpretation see Hignett, HAC 115-16.
2 Hdt. 5. 55 and 62. 2; Thuc. 6. 59. 2; Arist. Ath. Pol. 19. I.
3 The Kedon epigram, Arist. Ath. Pol. 20. 5, speaks of ayaBors avopacuv,
~,eipsydr!um sko~ion, ~bid. 19. 3, of "vopas .•. / ayaBovs TE Kal EVlTaTploas,
e:ongav OtWv 7TQ'TEPWV (Gay.
4 These may have included Leogoras and Charias, ancestors of Andocides, if
this is the battle ElTl IIaAA1Jvlep of which he speaks at I. 106, c)'. 2. 26; see Mac-
Dowell, Andokides: On the Mysteries 140 and 212-13.
5 That Isagoras had stayed in Athens during the tyranny is inferred by G. Busolt,
GG 22• 401 n. 2, and Wade-Gery, Essays 138-9 with 139 n. I, from a combination
of Arist. Ath. Pol. 20. I, "'lAOS cOv TWV Tvpavvwv, with Hdt. 5. 70 and I. 64 respec-
tively. For their struggle as a dynastic affair see above, pp. 142-3, on the haLpEraL.
DEMOCRACY II:ONOMI A, CLEISTHENES, AND NOMOI: '49
508/7 B.C. Herodotus describes Cleisthenes' appeal to the people
as a radically new departure in policy by saying that up to that
point the Athenian oijfLos had been spurned, presumably by
Cleisthenes as well as by the rest of the nobility.' Our purpose
here is not to speculate about Cleisthenes' motives when he took
this revolutionary step. Suffice it to say that the durability of
his reforms and the success he had in getting them adopted show
that he combined the vision of a statesman with the ingenuity
of a politician to use the political machinery available to him
toward the realization of his goals. Herodotus' statement ?]V TE
TOV OijfLov 17poaBEfLEvoS 170'\'\0 KUTV7TEpBETWV dvnaTumwTEwv,2 indi-
cates what common sense demands, anyway, namely, that the
people were won over before the reforms were passed, and his
strength over against that of his opponents surely refers to the
passing of the reforms, to the election of AIcmaeon, and to
Isagoras' inability to control the situation without the help of
Cleomenes. Perhaps the most amazing aspect of Cleisthenes'
success is that within a year, that is between the elections of 508
and those of 507 B.C., he gained not merely the fleeting popularity
of the masses, but a loyalty deep enough to make the people join
the Council in resisting Isagoras and Cleomenes-and that at
a time when Cleisthenes was himself in exile, unable to provide
leadership-and instilled in them a morale high enough to cope
with an invasion on three fronts in 506 B.C.
The crucial question for our purpose is one which, to the best
of my knowledge, has only recently been seriously raised for the
first time by D. M. Lewis:3 what was the secret of Cleisthenes'
success? How did he go about wooing the favour of a people
which had prospered under the tyranny, whose disposition to-
ward the tyrants was friendly, and which had presumably not
€V Tai~ apxais flvat. cared very much about politics? What promises did he make to
enlist their support?
and the
Aristotle explains the trust of the people in Cleisthenes as due
/ at TOT' I 5. 69. 2: <Cleisthenes) TaV l1B1Jvalwv ofifl-OV lTPOTEPOV alTW0fl-€VOV TOTE lTaVTWS
7TpaS T~V €WVTOV fl-orpav lTpooEB~KaTO. It is not entirely clear whether the participle
a7Tw0fl-€VOV is to be interpreted as a rejection of the people by Cleisthenes or by the
ruling classes as a whole. The latter was true as a historical fact but, although either
interpretation is grammatically possible, it is easier to take the subject of the
sentence, Cleisthenes, as the agent who had formerly spurned the people.
2 5. 69. 2: 'After he had won over the people he was much stronger than his
political opponents.'
3 'Cleisthenes and Attica', HistoTia 12 (1963) 22-40, esp. 38.
150 NOMOI: AND BEGINNINGS OF ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY
to (a) his opening the political life in the city to the people as
a whole, I (b) Isagoras' mistake in calling in Cleomenes and in
trying to establish an oligarchy, and (c) the role the Alcmaeonids
had played in the overthrow of the tyranny.2 The last of these
factors, (c), is of doubtful validity, unless we assume that the
common people had changed from indifferent supporters of the
tyranny in 511110 B.C. to its bitter opponents by 508/7 B.C.
Isagoras' mistakes, (b), can chronologically only have exacerbated
a populace already won over by Cleisthenes or, at least, alienated
by an oligarchical policy pursued by Isagoras. The only factor
which remains, (a), the extension of participation in political life
to the people as a whole, shows the effect of Cleisthenes' political
activity3 and only hints at the general character of the propa-
ganda he may have used to win the people over and at the general
tenor of his reforms. But the question of the devices used to rouse
popular support remains unanswered, and we have to find more
indirect ways of finding an answer to it. To do this we first have
to turn to the reforms to examine not only what the common
people stood to gain from them, but particularly what features in
them will have fired the popular imagination sufficiently to
explain the enthusiastic support which the people gave Cleis-
thenes.
The institutional innovations which the reforms brought to
Athens do not in themselves provide a satisfying answer. Hero-
dotus regarded the increase in the number of tribes from four to
ten as tantamount to the establishment of democracy (5. 66. 2,
69. 2; 6. 131. I); but it is hard to see why the mere fact of an
increased number of tribes should have evoked such a spirited
response. The same is true of the aims which Aristotle attri-
butes to Cleisthenes' tribal reforms, namely the desire to mix up
the population so as to have a wider participation in political
life4 and to have represented in each tribe all the different regions
I This, I believe with Wade-Gery, Essays 147-8, is the sense of Ath. Pol. 20.
Q.7TOOtOOVs T~ 1TA.:rjfJ€t, 'T~V TTO).,,"'T'€Lav.
2 Ath. Pol. 20, with the opening of 2 I. I: o,,1 /-,€V ovv 7'au7'a, 7'11,aiT{a, <1T{U7'£U£V
" ofj/-,o, 7'0 KA«uO,v«, where the /-,€V ovv refers to the main points of the preceding
chapter; see E. Kapp and K. von Fritz, Aristotle's Constitution of Athens and Related
Texts 180-1 n. 117.
3 Note particularly the force of the present participle a1TooLooUS with the aorist
main verb 1TpouTJyay£7'o, which implies that the extension of political participation
stretched over a period of time, sc. at least from ~pring 508 to spring 507 B.C.
• Ath. Pol. 2 I. 2 : ava/-,£r~aL !3ovAO/-,£VOS, 01TWS /-,£7'aUXWUL 1TA£{OVS 7'fjs 1TOAL7'das.
II:ONOMIA, CLEISTHENES, AND NOMOI: 151
of Attica. I While this may be the programme of a great statesman
who had recognized the weakness of the Solonian system, would
it have had a strong appeal to people who had been indifferent to
politics and who would find little in common with their fellow
tribesmen from a different region?
It is probable that certain aspects of the deme system, which
provided the substructure of the tribal reforms and presumably
preceded it, had a better chance of engendering popular en-
thusiasm. The most immediate result of making the deme rather
than the phratry the smallest political unit (Hdt. 5. 69. 2; Arist.
Ath. Pol. 2 I. 4) was that residence in a given locality rather than
membership in a kinship group now became the criterion of
citizenship. One of the consequences of this must have been to
offset the effects of the OLUI/l'YJepLafLOS of 51019 B.C. There is no
indication that the descendants of those foreigners whom the
tyrants had admitted to Attica were told to leave the country
when they were deprived of their civic status after the overthrow
of the tyranny. Accordingly, the presumption is that they still
resided in the demes in which they or their parents had settled
and that they were admitted as demesmen and thus as citizens in
the same way in which all other deme residents were admitted.
These are probably the people of whom Aristotle speaks as
VWTrOALTUL (Ath. Pol. 2 I. 4), and to whom he refers in the Politics
(3·2, 1275b36-7), when he says that Cleisthenes 'admitted into
the tribes many foreigners and slaves resident <in Attica)'.2 While
this enfranchisement looms large in Aristotle's account of Cleis-
thenes' reforms, it is improbable that large numbers were in-
volved and that the measure was anything but incidental to
his reforms.3 That these people would become his loyal and
devoted followers is obvious. But they alone could not have
carried the reforms in the Assembly, and if, as has been sug-
gested,4 they had tried to intimidate those assembled on the Pnyx
I: [ Ibid. 2 I. 4: ihrws EKaaTTj J1;€TEXTJ 1TavTlLIv TWL' T07TWV.
2 J. H. Oliver, Historia 9 (1960) 503-7, followed by F. R. Wiist, Historia '3
(1964) 370-3, denies the enfranchisement of aliens by Cleisthenes by giving
<</>VAfT£VU£in this passage the sense of 'formed into a separate class'-impossibly,
since there is no example of a loose use of </>vA1in any of Aristotle's works, and since
he does not use </>OAOVat all. Oliver's arguments have been effectively answered by
D. Kagan, Historia 12 (1963) 41-6; cf. also D. M. Lewis, ibid. 37 n. 135.-The
'slaves' mentioned here are probably the descendants of manumitted slaves who,
by the time of the reforms, would have attained metic status; see Hignett, HAC 133.
3 Wade-Gery, Essays 148-5°; Hignett, HAC 133. • See Lewis, op. cit. 38.
 152 NOMOI: AND BEGINNINGS OF ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY
into voting for the reforms, the effect would have been the very
opposite of that which they had intended, and they would have
lost rather than gained support for Cleisthenes.
A further consequence of making the demes the basic political
unit was to undermine the hold which the noble families had had
on the political life of Athens. The noble gene had exercised their
political influence through the phratries,I which, though left in-
tact as religious units, were now eclipsed in political importance
by the demes,2 and membership in the deme was made heredi-
tary.3 If the names of the newly-created demes indicate Cleis-
thenes' desire to undercut the influence of the nobility,4 and if the
demes were grouped into trittyes in such a way as to constitute
'an attack on organisations which held a locality by religious ties,
some of them in areas attached to political opponents of Cleis-
thenes',5 the purpose was not to weaken the noble families as
such or to deprive them of their religious centres, but to dissociate
political influence from religious institutions. Can Cleisthenes'
popularity be accounted for by assuming a desire on the part of
the commons pour epater I' aristocrate? If this played a part at all, it
must have been a very small one, for if it had been a wholesale
attack, Cleisthenes could not have made the people stop at de-
priving the foci of aristocratic power of only their political role,
and if he wanted to use popular support merely to indulge in
a personal vendetta against his political opponents, he will have
had to endear himself to the people in some other way first before
using them for his personal ends.
There is a further aspect of the deme reform, however, which,
I believe, gets us closer toward an explanation of the popular
enthusiasm which Cleisthenes evoked. We know that in the late
fifth century and in the fourth the demes enjoyed a certain
amount of local self-government of a kind which the naukraries,
which they are said to have replaced (Arist. Ath. Pol. 21. 5),6 do
I See the excellent article of A. Andrewes, 'Phi!ochoros on Phratries', JHS 81
(1961) 1-15·
2 Arist. Ath. Pol. 21. 4 and 6. This did not mean, apparently, that the phratries
were deprived of all their importance: in a citizenship grant of 409 B.C. the person
honoured is invited to choose his phratry as well as tribe and deme; see IG 12• 110
(= Tod, GHI 12, No. 86) 15-17.
3 BS 2. 875 with n. 2. 4 See Lewis, op. cit. 26-7.
5 Ibid., esp. 27~36 and 37.
6 This does not necessarily mean that the naukraries were abolished, for Cleide-
mus, frg. 8, states that as a by-product of Cleisthenes' tribal reforms the naukraries
IEONOMIA, CLEISTHENES, AND NOMOI: 153
not seem to have enjoyed. The demes had their own chiefs, the
demarchs (ibid.),! who held office for one year and were subject
to an audit; they had shrines and cults of their own, kept an
official register of their members (A1)ttaPXtKOV ypafLfLaTEtOv), had
special advocates and financial assessors of their own, supervised
the education and training of their own youth, and, above all,
met locally rather than in the city for their de me assemblies.
Moreover, there was a direct link between the demes and the
central government in that the demes rather than the trittyes or
the tribes chose the candidates for the Council (Ath. Pol. 62. r).
While it is hard to believe that all the de me institutions attested
for the fourth century owe their inception to Cleisthenes, it
would be very strange indeed if the most basic of them, such as
the office of demarch and the deme assembly, did not go back to
him. This means that, by guaranteeing a substantial amount of
local autonomy, Cleisthenes gave the demesmen a local pride
which they had not previously had, especially if, as we must
assume, they had in the past looked for political leadership to the
noble gene, under whose influence the various localities as well as
the phratries must have stood. But it is hard to believe that the
promise of a measure of local self-government would in itself
have won Cleisthenes the support he needed, unless the promise
was made in the name of a principle larger than anyone par-
ticular institution, which would hold out hope for a new political
way of life.
The circumstance that we have in the Harmodius skolia a con-
temporary document which contains in adjectival form a political
principle which is 'more of a banner than a label'2 suggests that
laovofLla may well have been the slogan by means of which Cleis-
thenes rallied the people to the support of his reforms. I know no
other word-not even 81)fLOKpaTla-which would have served
equally well to describe the salient features of Cleisthenes' pro-
gramme and at the same time to differentiate that programme
from those of his opponents. Practically every trait of the reforms
shows that Cleisthenes was less interested in establishing a 'rule
were increased to fifty. Their function after the reforms remains, however, uncer-
tain. See Hignett, HAC 142.
I For the following see R. J. Hopper, The Basis of the Athenian Democracy 14-15
with nn. 88-126. Cf. also BS 2. 966-72 and Hignett, HAC 136-7.
2 Vlastos, IP 8.
154 NOMOI: AND BEGINNINGS OF ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY
of the people' (oYJ/-LOKpaTta) than in creating a balanced form of
government by giving all citizens equally the right to participate
in the political life of the state and by eliminating the political
monopoly which birth and wealth had enjoyed so far. If, in
doing so, he laid the groundwork for the Athenian democracy of
the fifth and fourth centuries, this was an organic development
from Cleisthenes' achievement, it was not the achievement itself.
The achievement was to give the common people 'equality of
rights and power' with birth and wealth by organizing them in
the demes, in the tribes, and in the state as a whole in a way to
provide an effective check on those who, in accordance with the
census classification of the Solonian constitution, were alone
eligible to the archonship and other high offices.We have already
noted that the use of the deme as the smallest political unit and the
way in which a number of demes are arranged in a trittys tended
to undercut what political influence religious and kinship organi-
zations may have had. But at the same time, the religious functions
of the kinship groups were left intact (Arist. Ath. Pol. 2 I. 6). This
is shown by the facts that Probalinthus and Hecale were politically
separated from the cult organizations to which they continued to
belong long after the reforms of Cleisthenes, by the splitting up
of the Tetrakomoi among three trittyes, and by the division of
Pallene among at least three demes, all contrived, according to
D. M. Lewis, 'to create units which would be sufficiently distinct
from existing local units to compete with them and to destroy the
influence which they gained from possessing a common cult in a
common locality'. Thus the influence of the nobility was frag-
I The second point emerges from a consideration of the pro-
mented over a number of demes and trittyes, where it had as its
counterweight the votes of the common demesmen, and in this
way laovo/-Lta was created within the demes. On a larger scale, it
was established in the tribes in that the membership of each tribe
was balanced among one trittys from each of the three regions,2
and the 'mixing' process of which Aristotle speaks three times
I Lewis, op. cit. 30-4, quotation from 34-5. In the case of Probalinthus an
alternative interpretation of its detachment from the Tetrapolis is that with it the
Tetrapolis would have become too large a trittys; see C. W.]. Eliot, Coastal Dernes
of Attika (= Phoenix, suppl. 5) 144-5; but this is rather superficial and fails to take
account of the political factors involved in its attachment to the coast-trittys of
Pandionis, which are stressed by Lewis, op. cit. 31.
2 Arist. Ath. Pol. 21. 4, where Cleisthenes is said to have used the lot in assigning
one trittys from each region to each of the ten tribes. The use of the lot for this
purpose is doubted by Eliot, op. cit. 141-5, on the ground that it might have
II:ONOMI A, CLEISTHENES, AND NOMOI: 155
in connection with Cleisthenes' reforms (Ath. Pol. 2 I. 2 and 3;
Pol. 6.4, 1319b2S-6) is in fact nothing but an aspect of the laovo/-Lla
established when city, coast, and inland were, through the trittyes,
given equal weight in each tribe. I
This is sufficient to show that laovo/-Lla would have been an
appropriate slogan for Cleisthenes to use in trying to win the
common people over to his programme. There are two points
which suggest that an appeal to laovo/-Lta would and could have
had the effect of enlisting the immediate and fervent support
of the people for Cleisthenes' cause. In the first place, no prin-
ciple and no slogan could have served to differentiate Cleisthenes
more strikingly and more correctly from his political opponents
than laovo/-Lta. Certainly the tyrants, popular though they may
have been, never practised iaovo/-Lla. On the contrary, they had
arrogated unto themselves rights which no other citizen enjoyed,
not even the nobles. And if the attempted establishment of an
oligarchy of three hundred is any indication of the kind of
political aims espoused by Isagoras, these, too, would hardly
qualify as bringing political equality to the citizens of Athens. In
other words, no other term would have served Cleisthenes better
than iaovo/-Lla to suppress any sympathy for the tyrants that may
still have lingered and at the same time win the people over to
his side in his struggle against Isagoras. That the citizenry would
have responded favourably to this prospect of greater political
freedom in the face oflsagoras' desire to limit their participation
in public life requires no explanation.
cedure followed by Cleisthenes in his attempt to get the reforms
adopted. Wade-Gery tried to show more than three decades ago
that 'Kleisthenes found in the Ekklesia the authority with which
to defeat the reigning Archon', 2 and although the grounds of his
resulted in numerically unequal tribes. It remains, however, questionable whether
the lot would really have created any instances of considerable inequality: on the
basis of Eliot's chart on p. 143 there is only one chance in one thousand that
a tribe would consist of three small trittyes and no chance at all that three large
trittyes would form one tribe. On this point see also the cogent arguments of
'V. E. Thompson, Historia 13 (1964) 400-13, esp. 402-8, who concludes on p. 408
that there is 'no secure evidence for rejecting Aristotle's statement that <Cleis-
thenes) did assign the trittyes to the phylai by lot'. Eliot modifies but does not
essentially alter his position in his reply to Thompson in Phoenix 22 (1968) 3-17·
I Cf. Arist. Ath. Pol. 21. 4: 01rW, EKauT1J ,.,.<TEXTI 1raVTWV TWV T,l1rWV.
2 Essays 139-48, esp. 142.
156 NOMOE AND BEGINNINGS OF ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY
conclusion may be questioned, the conclusion itself hardly admits
doubt. Cleisthenes' motive for wishing to establish laovofl,{a can
most satisfactorily be explained as a desire to eliminate from
Athenian politics the dynastic feuds which had in the past helped
to bring Peisistratus to power I and which had erupted again after
the overthrow of the tyranny. This accounts not only for the
new regional tribes, but also for the institution of ostracism, which
Aristotle (Ath. Pol. 22. I) attributes to him, and the primary aim
of which seems to have been the prevention of aTom, before it
should become rife. For through the institution of ostracism the
collective judgement of the people, acting on the principle of
laovo}-tla, could be invoked to judge any political disputes between
two opposed dynasts before they came to harm the state. It is
possible and, in fact, probable that Cleisthenes first tried to get
his programme adopted through a forum other than the As-
sembly. This, at any rate, seems to be the best interpretation of
Herodotus' assertion (5. 69. 2) that Cleisthenes, like the other
nobles, initially 'spurned the Ofj}-t0,',2 hoping that he could per-
suade the rest of the political nobility of the merits of his plan.
Only when he saw that the interests of birth and wealth were too
firmly and too narrowly entrenched to adopt a programme which
alone, in his opinion, would be a permanent safeguard against
aTom" did he take the revolutionary step of submitting his plans
to the Assembly, appealing to the Sij}-to, in the name of laovo}-tla.
The institution of a popular assembly is in the Greek world as old
as Homer. That an Assembly functioned under the constitution
of Solon is indicated by the fact that the thetes were included
among its members (Arist. Ath. Pol. 7. 3; Pluto Solon 18. 2), and by
the report that Peisistratus' first bodyguard was voted by the
SijJLO, on the motion of Aristion (Ath. Pol. 14. I; c£ Hdt. I. 59.
4-5)·But we know nothing about the powers of the Assembly
before Cleisthenes. It is worth noting that it is not one of the
three Solonian institutions which Aristotle (Ath. Pol. 9. I) singles
out as 'favouring the common people', and in the case ofPeisis-
tratus' bodyguard, the impression created by Herodotus and
Aristotle is that the Assembly gave its assent in much the same
way as the Spartan assembly did: it listened and approved,
but probably did not discuss. Moreover, the issue on which the
J Hdt. I. 59. 3, 60. 1-3,61. 2,62. I; Arist. Ath. Pol. 13.4, 14.3-4, 15.
2 Cf. above, p. 149 n. I.
IEONOMIA, CLEISTHENES, AND NOMOE 157
Assembly was consulted on this occasion was the comparatively
minor one of giving special protection to a distinguished citizen;
the people did not know that they were in fact voting for the
establishment of tyranny. This means that Cleisthenes was taking
a very extraordinary step indeed when, after his defeat by Isa-
goras, TOV SijJLOV1TpOa€TaLpl'€TaL, I which may be translated 'made
the people into his political partners' and which may well refer to
the procedure Cleisthenes adopted in choosing the Assembly as
the forum in which the fate of his proposals was to be deter-
mined. If this reconstruction of Cleisthenes' procedure and of the
motives for it is correct, it would be the first application in prac-
tice in Athens of the principle of laovoJLla. For in submitting his
programme to the Assembly he gave the common people 'equal
political rights' with the noble and wealthy to decide the way in
which Athens should be governed. That he submitted his entire
programme to the Assembly at once is unlikely, and it is equally
unlikely that he won over the people by proposing to make the
deme the smallest political unit in Attica. For the number of
those who would have grasped the significance of the deme re-
form immediately would have been too small to explain the
impressive support implied by the words 'made the people his
political partners'. But the prospect of laovoJLla must have ap-
peared as something very attractive to the common people, and
if we assume, as we have good reason to do, that it was the
principle of laovo}-tla which Cleisthenes used from the very begin-
ning as the slogan or as one of the slogans in submitting his pro-
posals to the Assembly, we can explain the enthusiastic reception
which he received.2
We may take a further step. Our analysis of the various
-VO}-to, compounds that are attested before 464/3 B.C. has shown
I Hdt. 5. 66. 2; cr. 69. 2: 'TOV J40"lvaLWV o~fLov ••• 'TO'TE71'1lV'TWS7TPOS'T~V EWV'TOV
fLolpav 7TpoUEO~Ka'TO; and Arist. Ath. Pol. 20. I : 7TPOU"Iy6.YE'TO 'TOV o~fLOV.
2 lU"IyoPLa may have been another slogan used in Cleisthenes' propaganda,
although, unlike luovofLLa, this expression is not attested before Herodotus. We
have no evidence for the powers of the Assembly before Cleisthenes, but it is
probable that only members of the upper classes could address it; on the other
hand, we know that in the late fifth and in the fourth century every citizen had the
right to do so, see Aeschines 1.23; Ar. Ach. 45, Thesm. 379, and Eeei. 130. It is not
impossible that this right goes back to Cleisthenes; if it does, it would explain the
peculiar use of the term in Hdt. 5. 78, cf. above, pp. 109 n. 2, and 146 n. 4·
G. T. Griffith, 'Isegoria in the Assembly at Athens', Ancient Society and Institutions:
I. Studies Presented to Victor Ehrenberg ... I 15-38, wants to assign it to Ephialtes in
462 B.C.
158 NOMOI: AND BEGINNINGS OF ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY
that laovop,ta is the only one which has itself exclusively political
connotations and reflects the political senses of vop,o, as the
authority to issue norms and as the political norms and regula-
tions which a people accepts as valid and binding for itself.1 It is
rather unlikely that the suffix should have assumed a political
sense without a prior or concomitant assumption of a political
meaning on the part of vop,o,. The last use of BEap,tov for 'statute' is
attested for the period immediately following 511/IO B.C.2 If
Cleisthenes used laovop,ta both as the principle of his constitution
and as the propaganda catchword through which he enlisted
popular support for his programme, is it not probable that he
was the first Athenian to substitute vop,o, for BEap,o, as the tech-
nical term for 'statute'? Two considerations lend weight to this
assumption, one expressing the conversative and one the revolu-
tionary aspect of Cleisthenes' measures.
All indications suggest that Cleisthenes scrupulously avoided
creating an impression that he was trying to nullify the work of
Solon. He abolished none of the institutions of the Solonian
constitution, such as Council, Assembly, the archonships, and the
Council of the Areopagus.3 He retained the Heliaia and kept the
names epVA~ and TptTTV, for his own political units even while
changing their structure, and he left the four Ionian epvAat as well
as gene, phratries, and priesthoods the religious functions they had
before and under Solon. He left intact the Solonian property
qualifications for office, and, above all, he did not abolish the
Solonian statutes, published on the axones, and constantly re-
ferred to as Solon's by the fourth-century orators. Since Cleis-
thenes did not impose his measures as Solon did, but, as is most
probable, proposed and had them ratified by Council and As-
sembly,4 it seems to me extremely likely that he offered them as
VOp,Ot to the Assembly to differentiate them at once from the
BEap,ot of Solon and to indicate that he wanted to offer nothing as
a statute that had not first been ratified by the people as some-
thing that they would promise to regard as valid and binding for
I See above, pp. 119-20. 2 See above, pp. 4 and 59.
3 These and the following facts are too well known to require detailed documen-
tation. For a convenient summary see Hignett, HAC 129-58, esp. 156-7. My only
major disagreement with Hignett is that I do not believe that the Council was an
innovation of Cleisthenes (pp. 148-53).
4 I see no reasonable alternative in this respect to the view of Wade-Gery,
Essays 135-54, esp. 139-48.
II:ONOMI A, CLEISTHENES, AND NOMOI: 159
themselves. We may have a small measure of confirmation for
this view in Aristotle's statement (Ath. Pol. 22. I) that Cleisthenes
enacted new VOp,Ot, aTOxa~Op,€voV TOU 7TA~Bov,. What these VOp,Ot
were Aristotle does not say except that he mentions the vop,o, on
ostracism. References to Cleisthenean VOp,Ot are conspicuously
absent from the fourth-century orators,! and Hignett has drawn
from that fact the conclusion that none existed.2 But the fact that
Aristotle mentions their existence must give us pause, and it is
by no means unlikely that the tjrryeptap,aTa by which, according to
\Vade-Gery, Cleisthenes created his 7TOAtnta were called VOp,Ot
by Cleisthenes himself.
The second consideration favouring the adoption of vop,o, by
Cleisthenes is of a more general nature. If laovop,ta literally means
'equality of vop,o,', that is if the term signifies that what is re-
garded as valid and binding is so regarded by and for all classes
of society, no moment in Athenian history seems to be more
appropriate for the substitution of vop,o, for BEap,o, than the
period immediately preceding and immediately following the
reforms of Cleisthenes. The overthrow of the tyranny and the
reforms which followed four years later filled the people with
a self-confidence which they had never experienced before. One
reflection of that is the glorification of Harmodius and Aristo-
geiton in sculpture and song in order to make the liberation and
its consequences an Athenian achievement and gloss over the part
played by Sparta,3 and, as we saw, it is not impossible that Cleis-
thenes may have used the glory of the tyrannicides to promote
his reforms by presenting them as the continuation of their work.4
A further example, remarked on by Herodotus (5. 78), is the
success with which the young democracy defended itself on three
fronts against external enemies in 506 B.C. Much of the credit for
this surge in morale goes to Cleisthenes, for by taking the people
as his political partners he recognized as vop,o, for the people
what had previously been vop,o, for the nobility only, namely, the
making of important political decisions. At the same time, by
proposing his reforms in the Assembly, he made it clear that he
was not acting as a lawgiver in the sense in which Lycurgus
or Solon had imposed their legislation on Sparta and Athens,
respectively, but that the people were themselves to take the
[ V. Ehrenberg, Neugriinder des Staates 60-1. 2 Hignett, HAC 129-30.
3 See above, p. 134. 4 See above, p. 135.
lOa NOMO;; AND BEGINNINGS OF ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY
responsibility of accepting and implementing the measures pro-
posed by him. I If Cleisthenes himself did not make that point, the
subsequent presence in Athens of Cleomenes and his Spartan
troops on the side ofIsagoras will have driven it home; for that it
was driven home is proved by the resistance which the Council
and the people offered to Isagoras and the Spartans even when
Cleisthenes was not present to provide leadership. Is it not
probable that the experience of tyranny and of arams among the
noble families, on the one hand, and the function of acting as
their own lawgivers, assumed by the people under the guidance of
Cleisthenes, on the other, brought with them a deliberate rejection
of 8wfLoS as being something imposed by a third party, in favour
of vOfLoS as the ratification of what they wished to regard as valid
and binding? No proof is possible that the reforms of Cleisthenes
are responsible for this change in terminology, but the indications
are that, since the change did take place at some point between
5II/1a and 464/3 B.C., it took place at this time and against this
background. And if the Cleisthenean reforms do indeed provide
the background for the change from 8WfLOS to vOfLoS, it explains
also why, in preference to the other possible terms for 'statute',
the Athenians adopted vOfLoS, the most democratic word for
'law' in any language.
~.,leisthenes' greatness as a statesman as well as a
W
HI~~
pohtlclan can be regarded as assured, it still remains to
I
raise the question of his originality in using laovofLLa
both to help him promote his political programme and as a
description of its content, and in using vOfLoS to describe his
measures. Both terms, as we saw, are found in Athens before we
hear of them in other states: no form of laovofLLa is attested before
the Harmodius skolia and the earliest occurrence of vOfLoS as
'statute' is in Aeschylus' Supplices.2 But it does not necessarily fol-
low from this that the concept of laovofLLa was invented in Athens,
or that there were no other Greek states which called their
statutes VOfLOL before the term took root in Athens. The survival
of more literature and more inscriptions from Athens than from
any other part of the Greek world often makes us oblivious of our
ignorance of the history of the rest of Greece, and the silence of
our sources for other states is not a sufficient argument for the
originality of Athens. In short, we lack the information which
would enable us to affirm or deny with any confidence that the
ideas of laovofLLa, or of vOfLoS as 'statute', or of both originated in
Athens in connection with Cleisthenes' reforms.
Still, there are some considerations which may help us to clarify
the problem of originality, even if they cannot solve it. Although
Cleisthenes' was the first successful attempt of which we know to
establish a democratic system of government in the Western
World, we know of democratic features in at least three other
Greek states before him. Is there any hint that laovofLLa and/or
vOfLoS may have played a sufficiently important part in any of
these to suggest that Cleisthenes borrowed either the terms or the
ideas inherent in them from one or more of these states?
The earliest piece of evidence that has come down to us is
a constitutional document from Chios, which reveals the exis-
tence of a number of democratic institutions on that island as
, This estimate is not shared by K.J. Beloch, Griechische Geschichte ,2. 2 318~33,
and by U. Kahrstedt, RE s.v. 'Kleisthen,.s'. .
2 S,.e above, pp. 43, 58--9, and 121-30.
K1 j :277 "I
 162 NOMa}; AND BEGI"'~INGS OF ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY
early as about 575-550 B.C.lHowever, the institutions mentioned
in this document do not seem to go beyond those attested for
Athens under the Solonian constitution. Just as Solon made pro-
vision for appeals against magisterial decisions to be lodged before
the Assembly sitting as a court oflaw, the Heliaia,2 so the Chian
inscription provides for meetings of the popular assembly in some
judicial capacity, perhaps to hear the report of an auditor,3 or to
hear the appeal of a dissatisfied litigant;4 and in addition has
a popular council (f3ovA~ DYj/-wa{YJ) consisting of fifty members
from each tribe, which meets once every month to hear appeals.
The epithet DYJJ-watYjwhich this council bears is generally taken as
an indication that there existed in Chios also a second council,
which was dominated by the nobility. If this is so, we have here
a further parallel to Solonian Athens, which had both the Areo-
pagus and, most probably, a popular council of four hundred
members elected on a tribal basis (Arist. Ath. Pol. 8. 4; Pluto
Solon 19. 1).5
Although the inscription gives us information about the judicial
system only, we may conclude that any 'democracy' Chios may
have enjoyed in the second quarter of the sixth century B.C.went
no further than the institutions of the Solonian constitution in
Athens, which it is more likely to have imitated than to have
prefigured as a pattern. The Chian constitution of the sixth cen-
tury does not, therefore, seem to have embodied the principle of
laovofLta. Its statutes were not v6fLoL in the sense in which we have
interpreted that term, but, as the second line of the inscription
I First published by P. Jacobsthal and U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff,
'Nordionische Steine', Abh. d. kgl. preuss. Ak. d. Wiss. Philos.-hist. Cl. (Berlin, 1909)
64-71. The fundamental modern publication is L. H. Jeffery, 'The Courts of
Justice in Archaic Chios', BSA 51 (1956) 157~67, with full bibliography of earlier
work on p. 157 and date on epigraphical grounds on p. 160. Cf. id. LSAG 336~7.
See also J. H. Oliver, 'Text of the So-called Constitution of Chios from the First
Half of the Sixth Century B.C.', AJP 80 (1959) 296-,\01, and W. G. Forrest, 'The
Tribal Organization of Chios', BSA 55 (1960) 172-89, esp. 180- 1.
Z Arist. Ath. Pol. 9. I; Lysias 10. 16; and Dem. 24. 105, as cited by Hignett,
HAC 97-8. E. Ruschenbuscl{ has recently tried to show, Historia 14 (1965) 381-4,
that the Solonian Heliaia was not instituted to hear appeals but to conduct trials
de novo.
3 So Oliver, op. cit. 299.
4 H. T. Wade-Gery apud L. H. Jeffery, BSA 51 (1956) 163-4.
5 The existence of a popular council under Solon is disbelieved by Hignett,
HAC 92-6, but his arguments are far from conclusive. A. Andrewes, Probouleusis:
Sparta's Contribution to the Technique of Government 22, thinks that the Solonian council
served as a model for Chi os.
THE ORIGINALITY OF CLEISTHENES 163
shows, FJ'ijTpat. Moreover, since these beginnings of democracy do
not seem to have led very far in Chios, it is improbable that
I
Cleisthenes took his cue from them when he proposed his reforms
in Athens.
The Cleisthenean reforms have been related by several scholars
to the reforms which Demonax of Mantinea is said to have
enacted at Cyrene about the middle of the sixth century B.C.2
Demonax was called in, according to Herodotus, to settle a num-
ber of problems, which began with the immigration of people
from the Peloponnese, Crete, and the Greek islands. These immi-
grants had come at the invitation of Battus II Eudaimon. But
their arrival had led to difficulties with the neighbouring Libyans,
who allied themselves with the Egyptians and, after an initial
reverse in the battle of Irasa, inflicted a crushing defeat upon the
Cyrenaeans at Leucon in the reign of Arcesilaus II. This defeat
had been caused largely by intrigues of Arcesilaus' brothers, who
after quarrelling with the king, fomented revolt among the
Libyans. Arcesilaus met a violent end and, to add further to
Cyrene's troubles, his son and successor, Battus III, was a cripple.3
It was to solve these problems that Demonax came to Cyrene.
After a survey of the situation, he organized the population into
three tribes, one fLoLpa consisting of the descendants of the original
settlers from Thera,4 one of the descendants of the Peloponnesian
and Cretan immigrants, and one of the descendants of those who
had come from the islands. The powers previously wielded by the
king were turned over to the people,5 except that the king was
permitted to retain his domains and his priesthoods. The language
used by Herodotus to describe Demonax' grant of popular
power, ES fLEaov Tip 8~fLqJ EBYjKE, is close enough to the language
which Otanes uses to propose the establishment of laovofLtYj in
I Sce \V. G. Forrest, loco cit.
2 The chief source is Hdt. 4. 161 ; see also Diodorus 8. 30. 2. The establishment of
this relation may be due to Arist. Pol. 6. 4, 1319bI9-27, if the tribal reforms at
Cyrene to which he refers are indeed those of Demonax.-For the date of Demonax'
reforms see F. Chamoux, Cyrene sous la monarchie des Battiades 138-42 and 151 n. 2.
3 Hdl. 4. 159-61, with Chamoux, op. cit. 134-9.
4 That 7TEp{OLKO' at Hdt. 4. 161. 3 refers to the descendants of those who were
7TEp{OLKOL in Thera at the time when the expedition for Cyrene was organized has
been convincingly argued by L. H. Jeffery, 'The Pact of the First Settlers at
Cyrene', Historia 10 (1961) 139-47, esp. 142-4.
5 Helt. 4. 161. 3: 7'd a,\,\a 7TCIVTa 7'd 7TPOUPOV dxov ot {3aaLME, ., /LEaov 7'0 (j~/Ltp
'0'1KE•
164 NOMO}; AND BEGINNINGS OF ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY
Persia and in which Maeandrius couches his offer of laollofl,{YJ to
the Samians' to justify Chamoux's description of the constitu-
tion of Demonax as 'un regime d'isonomie ou plut6t d'isocratie',2
and to explain why Aristotle may have been thinking of Demon ax
when he bracketed 7Tf'P~ KVP~llYJll Ot TOll MifLOll KuetaTUllT(<; with
Clcisthenes (Pol. 6. 4, Iglgb22-g).3
Unfortunately, we lack the information we need for a detailed
comparison of the reforms of Demonax with those ofCleisthenes,
and we cannot tell from the little we know whether the latter may
have borrowed from the former. But what we do know suggests
that borrowing is unlikely to have taken place and that, their
democratic features notwithstanding, the purpose of Demonax'
reforms differed radically from that of Cleisthenes'. For while
Demonax was faced with the problem of integrating into the
citizen body recent immigrants who had not been absorbed into
the three Doric tribes, in which the first settlers were presumably
organized, Cleisthenes' problem was to bring together different
regional and economic interests in the same tribe by means of his
trittyes so as to eliminate rivalries which might lead to aTCI.aL<;.4
Demonax' solution was to perpetuate the heterogeneity of the
state by the creation of three new ethnic tribes (to replace the old
Doric tribes), which received apparently each an equal voice in
the management of affairs; Cleisthenes' aim, on the other hand,
was to create homogeneous tribes.s In other words, if it is just to
attribute laovofLtu to the reforms of Demonax at all, it will have
to be in the sense that each new tribe received the same rights
and the same power. But since he did not go so far as to abolish
the kingship, he cannot be said to have established laollofLtu
throughout the state as Cleisthenes did. Moreover, the fact that
Demonax came to Cyrene as a lawgiver imported from abroad, as
I Hdt. 3. 80. 2 and 142. 3, with pp. 107-9 and Iii -12 above; cf. also 7 164. I,
where Cadmus gives up his tyranny in Cos and goes to Sicily tJ1TO O'Katoavv"1~ .~
p.€aov Kc/>OLUt Ka'Ta8£~s 'T~V apx~v.
2 Op. cit. '4I. Unfortunately, Chamoux does not provide an interpretation of
the meaning of isocratie.
3 But it is uncertain whether the passage refers to Demonax; sec ,,y. W. How and
J. Wells, A Commentary on Herodotus 12• 355. Aristotle's reference may equally well
be to a settlement following a'Tcfa,~ in 40' B.C., mentioned by Diodorus '4. 34. 6.
4 See B. M. Mitchell, 'Cyrene and Persia', ]HS 86 (1966) 99-' 13, esp. 99.
5 Cf. D. M. Lewis, 'Cleisthenes and Attica', Historia 12 (1963) 39 with n. '46,
where I concur with Lewis's criticism of the mixed tribes suggested by Miss
Jeffery, Historia 10 (1961) '43-4.
THE ORIGINALITY OF CLEISTHENES 165
indeed many other lawgivers of that period were, 1 constitutes the
most profound difference between him and Cleisthenes2 and
makes it impossible to believe that he called his enactments
llOfLOt; they were impositions of an outsider, not ratifications of
the popular will.
Finally, the attempt of Maeandrius to establish an equalitarian
system of government in Samos after the death of Polycrates in
522 B.C. might have been a possible source of Cleisthenes' lao-
llofLtu.3 The incident itself sounds credible enough, especially
since Herodotus mentions the name of an otherwise unknown
Telesarchus as that of the man most vocal in frustrating Maean-
drius' plans (g. 142. 5-14g. 1) and states that Maeandrius dedi-
cated the valuables from Polycrates' apartments at the Heraeum,
where, we may assume, Herodotus himself had seen them
(g. 12g. r). The possibility of Maeandrius' influence on Athens
receives some support from numismatic evidence which suggests
that the 'reign of Maeandrius marked a return to the friendship
with Athens which his predecessor had abandoned.'4 However,
two considerations argue against an influence on Cleisthenes. In
the first place, Maeandrius' flirtation with laollofLtYJ can only have
lasted a very short time, so that any influence he might have had
on Athens is likely to have come after he had given up his initial
plan and assumed the tyranny (Hdt. g. 14g. r-148. I). And
secondly, during his reign, Athens was still under the rule of
Hippias who would not have taken enthusiastically to the cause of
laollofL{u, and we know of no opposition to Hippias in Athens
in 522 B.C. that may have wished to use Maeandrius' principle
of political equality against the tyrant. For, as far as we know,
I Scillus, Miletus, Thebes, and the Chalcidice are cited by Chamoux, op. cit.
139 n. I, as having called in foreign lawgivers about the middle of the sixth century.
2 On the significance of this see also Leveque and Vidal-Naquet, op. cit. 68.
3 Hdt. 3. 142, discussed above, pp. 107-9.-]. P. Barron, 'The Sixth-Century
Tyranny at Samos', CQ N.S. 14 (1964) 210-29, esp. 211-12, does not carry convic-
tion with his argument that Samos enjoyed a democratic form of government also
earlier in the sixth century, viz. after the overthrow of the oligarchy of the geomoroi
and before the revolution of Syloson 1. Our only authority for that event, Plut.
Quaest. Gr. 57 (= Mar. 303 e-304 c), says nothing about the establishment of
a democracy or of any other kind of government following the overthrow, a~ is
pointed out correctly by M. E. White, 'The Duration of the Samian Tyranny',
]HS 74 (1954) 36-43, esp. 38. Moreover, the adjective 0WLO'TLKO" as applied to
Syloson by Polyaenus 6. 45, means no more 'democratic' than it does when used of
Peisistratus by Arist. A/h. Pol. 13.4, '4. I, and 16.8.
4 ]. P. Barron, The Silver Coins of Samos 35-6 n. 56.

166 NOMOI: AND BEGINNINGS OF ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY
Hippias was still firmly entrenched in power in 522 B.C., on good
terms with the other nobles, and supported by the people.
As far as a specific programme is concerned, we know even less
about Maeandrius than we do about the reform proposed by
Demonax. Maeandrius' proposal resembles Cleisthenes' pro-
gramme in that it involves political equality for all citizens. But
it differs from it in two important respects. Unlike Cleisthenes,
Maeandrius requested for himself and his descendants a pre-
rogative that went beyond even that reserved by Demonax for the
kings of Cyrene. For while Cleisthenes asked nothing for himself
and left the traditional priesthoods intact, and while Demonax
reserved for the kings only their traditional domains and priest-
hoods, Maeandrius claimed in perpetuity the priesthood of a cult
which he had himself established and a payment of six talents in
addition. 1 Still, despite the privilege claimed, Herodotus feels
justified in applying the name of laovoiLty) to the proposal, because
politically Maeandrius would remain on the same footing as
the other Samians. The second difference is more striking. The
reason Herodotus gives for Maeandrius' failure is that the Samians
were not ready for political equality: ou yap 8~, we; oLKum,
Ef30DAOVTO ElvUL EAED8EpOL (3. 143. 2). Cleisthenes' Athenians, on
the contrary, were ready, and we may interpret the difference
as meaning that while Cleisthenes' laovoiLtu was supported by
vOiLoe; and succeeded, Maeandrius failed because the vOiLoe; of the
Samians was not on his side.
Still, this does not rule out the possibility that Cleisthenes
learned from Maeandrius' mistakes, because he was a better
politician than the Samian had been; and even if he did not
learn specifically from Maeandrius, it is possible that he was
influenced by events and currents pervading Ionia in the last
quarter of the sixth century. Although the {'vidence that Maean-
drius preached laovoiLty) is no earlier than Herodotus, the use of
the same word also by Otanes in the Debate of the conspirators
(which is assigned to the same year as Maeandrius' proposal and
which Herodotus probably owes either to Persians whose Hel-
lenism was derived from eastern Greeks or from eastern Greeks
who were familiar with Persian affairs)Zsuggests that the concept
I Cf. Hdt. 3. 142. 2 and 4 with 4. 161. 3 and with Arist. Ath. Pol. 21. 6.
2 Hdt. 3. 80. 6 and 83. I, discussed above, pp. 107 and III, with Endnote
pp. 178-9.
THE ORIGINALITY OF CLEISTHENES 167
was current in Ionia before it came to Athens. This view is
corroborated by the only other laovoiLty) passage in Herodotus,
Aristagoras' grant of laovoiLty) to Miletus (5. 37. 2), which,
although its historical context is later than the Cleisthenean
reforms, still reflects the currency of democratic aspirations, sub-
sumed under the name of laovoiLty), in Ionia about the same time.
As we saw earlier (above, p. 109), a similar democratic under-
current in Ionia was also recognized by Histiaeus in 512 B.C. and
again by Mardonius in 492 B.C. (Hdt.4. 137. 2; 6. 43·3).
The cumulative effect of this evidence makes it likely that
Athens, whose ties with Ionia were always strong KUTa TO gvy-
yEvEe;, came under the influence of this Zeitgeist even before the
reforms of Cleisthenes. But we must not forget that we know of
the relation of this spirit to laovoiLtu only through Herodotus. We
do not know whether in attributing it to the sixth-cenTury Ionians
he was not applying to the past a concept of his own time, per-
haps even a concept he had encountered in Athens. The question
whether laovoiLtu travelled from Ionia to Athens or whether it was
first coined in Athens and then applied to pre-Cleisthenic Ionia
must, therefore, remain open.
The situation is similar with regard to vOiLoe;. One of its earliest
uses in a legal text is to be found in an inscription from Herodotus'
native Halicarnassus, written in the Ionic dialect and usually
dated about 460-455 B.C.I It embodies the outcome of delibera-
tions by a meeting of the Halicarnassians, the Salmacitae, and
Lygdamis, almost certainly the same Lygdamis who, according
to the Suda, was the tyrant ofHalicarnassus second in succession
to Artemisia and because of whom Herodotus left his native city
for Samos.2 It is concerned with the disposition of real estate in
lands and houses-whose possessions arc involved we are not
told-and with the procedure of preferring claims for it. As we
noted above, the fact that the text twice refers to itself as vOiLoe;
(lines 32 and 34-5) shows that the term designates a written
statute.3 But this is not the only way of self-reference. In line 19
I Tod, CHI 12, No. 25; Buck, CD, No.2. 2 Suda, s.v. 'HpoooTo<;.
3 See p. 44 above, where we pointed out that it is doubtful whether the oath,
which, according to lines 19-20, the judges are to administer "o/-,'!', was laic! down in
some written legislation other than the present law. Most probably the expression
is no more than the Halicarnassian equivalent of "0/-,'/-,0<; 0PKO<;, a customary oath
formula, which in some cases at Athens was and in others was not specified ver-
on
batim in the written statutes.
168 NOMa}; AND BEGINNINGS OF ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY
the term aDos is apparently used of the same inscription. What is
the relation between the two terms? The tone of the last section
of the inscription (lines 32-41) leaves little doubt that voj.to, en-
joys a higher status than aDo, and comes, therefore, closer to
describing the kind of 'statute' this is. Since aDo, is derived from
avOuvw = 'please', it may, like t//~1Jwfla at Athens, denote the
form of the enactment, namely, the fact that 'it has pleased the
aVAAoyoS" to make this decision, or else it may refer to some
formality in the enactment, such as its ratification by some plenary
assemblies of the Halicarnassians and the Salmacitae. I in the League was initially contingent on internal ideological con-
While it is not surprising to see in the course of the fifth century
the spread ofl1oj.toS' over many points of the Athenian Empire,2 it
is remarkable to find it in the early 450S as the description of
a document to which a tyrant is a party. Still, it is not without
significance that we are here faced not with a decree enacted by
a tyrant, but with a statute which has resulted from the delibera-
tions of a aVAAoyoS' of three parties, of which the tyrant is merely
one. There is nothing here to contradict our contention that voj.toS'
is the ratification of something agreed upon as valid and binding.
Moreover, Lygdamis cannot here be acting in the name of his
subjects, for the Halicarnassians and the Salmacitae are separate
signatories to the law, and both are obviously included in the
expression .:4ALKapvaaaEwv DE TWS' aVj.t7TUVTLOV in lines 41-2 of the
inscription.3 Since it is based on a negotiated agreement, it cer-
tainly is a voj.toS' rather than a (Jwj.toS'. However, we cannot infer
from this that voj.to, was the exclusive technical term for 'statute'
in Halicarnassus: it is possible that the Halicarnassians had two
different words for 'statute', one to denote the enactments of the
tyrant alone and voj.toS' to describe regulations such as the present,
enacted after deliberation by a aVAAoyoS'. Moreover, we do not
know whether the Halicarnassians began to use voj.toS' before or
after the reforms of Cleisthenes.
However, there is one consideration which suggests that voj.toS'
I Cf. a similar use of 0:80, (but without VOiLO,) in an inscription from Thasos of
412/1 I B.C., IG 12.8, 263. 7. For the use of the verb in a similar sense see BS I.
455 with n. 3.
2 e.g. in Erythrae c. 450 B.C. in Meiggs and Andrewes B 116. A 2 I, 27, and B 19-
20; in regulations for Colophon of 447/6 B.C. in IG 12• 15.30-1, with above, p. 42
n. I; and in the assessment of 425 B.C. in Meiggs and Andrewes B 87. 15 (restored).
3 For the relation of Salmacis to Halicarnassus see F. Gschnitzer, 'Zur Ge-
schichte der griechischen Staatenverbindungen : Halikarnassos und Salmakis (SylJ3.
45)', RhM 104 (1961) 237-41.
was not transplanted to Halicarnassus from Athens, as it was
probably transplanted later to other parts of the Athenian Em-
pire. The reason is not the one usually given in dating this law.
Most scholars date it before 454 B.C.,because we know from the
tribute lists that Halicarnassus was by that time and remained
henceforth one of the most reliable Athenian allies, and it is
assumed that Athens would not have accepted into the Delian
League a city governed by a tyrant.I This assumption, however,
is unwarranted, since we have no evidence that membership
siderations; and since, moreover, the Athenians could tolerate an
oligarchical regime in Miletus even after her revolt had been
crushed in 450/449 B.C.,2could it not have tolerated a tyranny in
Halicarnassus, provided that the tyrant would not medize?3 The
later loyalty of Halicarnassus suggests that she may have joined
the League a considerable time before the fall of Lygdamis, per-
haps soon after its foundation. If this made her amenable to
Athenian influence in, inter alia, legal terminology, one might
suspect that she adopted the Athenian term voj.to, for her own
statutes and take perhaps the peculiarity of the use of the Ionic
dialect in a Doric community as corroborative evidence for that.
However, the use of aDoS' in the same inscription speaks against
that. If voj.toS' had really been an Athenian importation, we
should also expect to find the Athenian f~1Jwj.ta in place of aDoS',
which is not Attic. The fact that Erythrae, after her revolt had
been crushed, used both voj.toS' and f~1Jwfla in the same law in the
same sense as these terms bore at Athens4 shows the nature of an
Athenian influence that does not appear in this Halicarnassian
measure. While this suggests that voj.toS' = 'statute arrived at by
common agreement' was as indigenous to Halicarnassus as was
aDoS', we have no indication whether the term started in Hali-
carnassus early enough to assume an influence on the Cleis-
thenean reforms and whether it described the only kind of
'statute' known in Halicarnassus. Yet we can be confident that, as
I See Tod, GHI 12, p. 38, and I. M.]. Valeton, Mnemosyne N.S. 36 (1908) 289.
Z Meiggs and Andrewes B 30 and [Xen.] Ath. Pol. 3. I I, with ATL 3. 150, 151
with n. 10, 153, 154, and 255-6.
3 As did, apparently, the tyrants of Erythrae; see Meiggs and Andrewes B 26. 27
and 33.
4 Meiggs and Andrewes B 116. A 21, 27, and B 19-20 for ,-ofLo,; B 1-2 for
f~"'LaiLa. Cf. above, pp. 45-6.
 170 NOMO}; AND BEGINNINGS OF ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY
long as Halicarnassus was ruled by tyrants, vO/-l-OS was not as-
sociated with the idea of iaOVO/-l-Lu.
In the case of the Halicarnassian law we have to reckon at
least with the possibility that v0/-l-0S had been transplanted from
Athens. Athenian influence is very unlikely in the final inscrip-
tion we shall have to consider. It contains the foundation instru-
ment of an Eastern Locrian colony at Naupactus, which can be
dated on epigraphical grounds in the first quarter of the fifth
century 1 and which on historical grounds must antedate the
expulsion of the Locrians and subsequent settlement of the Mes-
senians by Athens about 460 B.C.2 The peculiarity of this law,
too, is that it uses two different terms in self-reference. That the
term TO 8E8/-1-LOV (line 46) indicates the fundamental character of
this law as a constitution has already been mentioned (above,
p. 16). But it is interesting to note that 8w/-I-os is not used in
a similar regulation which Athens issued for the foundation of
a colony at Brea about 445 B.C.3 In addition, just as the Halicar-
nassian inscription used 0 noos of itself to describe the form of its
enactment, so we find TO. F€FuOYJ9oTa (line 38) at Naupactus,
evidently in the same sense.
What is, however, of greater interest for our purposes is that
there is in addition one mention of vO/-l-os and six uses of different
forms of the adjective V0/-l-LOS. The difference between these two
forms is hard to see. The vO/-l-OS mentioned is the law concerning
inheritance in the various East Locrian cities which is to be in-
voked in cases in which a settler's brother falls heir to his property
in Locris (line 30). We have no way of knowing whether matters
of inheritance were regulated by written statutes in Eastern
Locris, but the fact that they were at Athens would suggest an
affirmative answer. That they were written is also suggested by
one of the uses of VO/-l-LOS in this inscription, which refers back to an
earlier clause in this law: special provisions are laid down for
members of the Percothariae and :Mysacheis4 who return to East
I Tod, GHI IZ, No. 24; Buck, GD, No. 57. The epigraphical dating is in
Jeffery, LSAG 106. For a discussion of the historical context see L. Lerat, Les
locriens de ['ouest (= Bibliotheque des Ecoles franfaises d'Athenes et de Rome, fasc. 176)
2. 29-33, and A. J. Graham, Colony and Mother City in Ancient Greece 45-60 with
translation on pp. 226-8.
2 Thuc. I. 103. 3; Diod. II. 84. 7-8; Paus. 4. 24. 7, with Tod, GHI 12, p. 33.
3 Tod, GHI 12, No. 44. The beginning of the inscription is lost, but the end,
where OWfLo, is most likely to have occurred, is very well preserved.
• For these see ibid. p. 34.
THE ORIGINALITY OF CLEISTHENES 171
Locris (mo TWV VO/-l-LWV TWV E-TTtFOLr;>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 prac-
tices? 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 re-
mains 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 ex-
pressed 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 un-
written) 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 accep-
tance (or rejection) of measures that were to be valid and binding
for them. The indications are that such institutions existed. Aris-
totle'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). Old-
father 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 Ort-
schaft 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 descrip-
tion 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 im-
probable.
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, BWfLo<; and vOfLOS. But while the two terms have dif-
ferent connotations in Naupactus, there seems to be no difference
between them in Athens; for if there ever had been a difference ,
I RE s.v. 'Lokris (Staat unci KuItur)' 1248.
THE ORIGINALITY OF CLEISTHENES 173
Draco's law would surely have been called a BWfLo<; and not
a vOfLo<; in the decree authorizing its publication in 409/8 B.C. I
Nor do we know of any period in which BWfLoS and vOfLoS existed
side by side as contemporary technical terms for 'statute' as they
did in Naupactus. If these considerations suggest anything, it is
that the change from BWfLoS to vOfLO<; was not a gradual affair but
took place at a specific point in time, since vOfLo<; is not attested
in the sense of 'statute' before 511/10 B.C. and BWfLoS no longer
has that meaning after that date. That the reforms of Cleisthenes
constituted this point in time is not susceptible of proof, but
I think the probability that they were is made cogent by the
circumstantial evidence we have accumulated.
What conclusions can we draw from these considerations about
the originality of Cleisthenes? Although both laovofLLu and vOfLoS
= 'statute' are first attested in Athens, we have seen that Hero-
dotus relates the democratic currents in Ionia frequently enough
to laovofLLY) to make possible an Ionian influence on Cleisthenes'
choice of this catchword as an accurate description of his pro-
gramme. Similarly, we have seen that vOfLOS may conceivably have
been a current term for 'statute' in Halicarnassus or in Eastern
Locris before it came to Athens. Proof is impossible in these
matters, and the position is equally defensible that it was from
Athens that vOfLO<; began to spread over the Greek world as early
as the late sixth or early fifth century. It cannot be proved, either,
that it was Cleisthenes who effected the substitution of vOfLo<; for
BWfLoS in Athens. But since our comparison with Naupactus tends
to show that its adoption in Athens was the result of a deliberate
policy, Cleisthenes is the most likely candidate for having pro-
posed and implemented that policy. And even if Cleisthenes
borrowed both vOfLo<; and laovofLLu from other parts of the Greek
world, he was original in that he was the first to combine them in
a way in which no other state is likely to have combined them
before, and to express through them the principle and the in-
strument of the Athenian democracy.

Page 12
My interpretation of Pind. Ol. 13. 29 is at variance with the tradi-
tional interpretations based upon the scholia, which want BWfL6, here
to mean either 'the institution of celebrating Olympic victors in song'
( TE B•fLOV TOV
" VOfLOV' VOfLO,
, yup" Eanv aUTO"
,. , 0'I\UfL1TWVLKU,
, UfLVEW
, - B UL) or
'the song of the Olympic victors' (TO V EyKwfLLuanKOV A6yov, 0, Eanv
VfLVO, TWV VLKr;<p6pWV). Gildersleeve wants to accept the second of
these explanations, Sandys translates 'triumph-band', Puech 'pompe
solennelle', Hirzel, TDV 326 n. I, speaks of 'Sangesweise', Lattimore
translates rather obscurely 'festival measure', while C. M. Bowra,
Pindar 196, interprets it as 'the fit rite of garlands in the revel'. The
difficulty with all these interpretations is that they do not take sufficient
account of the relative clause which follows: TOV ayEL 1TEStWV €K IItau,
can refer grammatically only to TEBfL6v. That Xenophon should have
brought the institution of celebrating Olympic victors in song from
the plains of Pisa is no more likely than that he imported the song
itself or led the triumph-band in a fit rite all the way from Olympia to
Corinth. Tf:BfL6v is, accordingly, best taken closely with aTE<pavwv to
refer to the wreath which was placed on his brow at Olympia, and
which he brought home with him from the plains of Pisa.
Page 16
Arist. Ath. Pol. 3·4 describes the early function of the thesmothetai as
01TW, avuypa!jJUVTE, TO. Biaf-LLu <puAaTTwaL 1TpO, T~V TWV afL<PLa(Jr;TOOVTWV
KptaLv. The precise character of these B€afLLU is hard to ascertain. That
the activity of the thesmothetai described here antedates Draco's legis-
lation is indicated by the facts (a) that Aristotle, lac. cit., dates the
office after the introduction of the annual archonship, sc. after 682/1
B.C., and (b) that Thucydides 1. 126. 8 speaks of the nine archons in
connection with the Cylonian affair. Moreover, since Arist. Ath. Pol.
41. 2 attributes to Draco the earliest publication oflaws, he must have
envisaged the original function of the thesmothetai as differing in kind
from Draco's legislative activity. The most decisive difference between
them is indicated by the use of the verb <pUAanwaL in connection with
the thesmothetai: evidently Aristotle thought of them as keeping in their
care the B€afLLU which they had written down, whereas Draco's
statutes, as is clearly implied at Ath. Pol. 4. 4, were publicly displayed
for all to see. It is further noteworthy that Aristotle, while using the
noun TaU, BWfLOO, in connection with Draco's activity at Ath. Pol. 4. I,
employs the adjectival TO. B€afLLU in his description of the function of
the thesmothetai, suggesting thereby that their work dealt with particu-
lar cases and was, therefore, of lesser moment than Draco's work. The
purpose alleged for the writing and preservation of the B€afLLU, sc. their
use in settling future disputes, provides a possible clue to Aristotle's
notion of their nature. He seems to have thought of them as records of
judicial proceedings, embodying either the decisions rendered in each
case or the principles underlying particular decisions. That records of
this kind were actually kept as early as the seventh century is not
improbable. But since they were kept only for the guidance o~ the
magistrates, they would not have satisfied the demands for codIfica-
tion of the existing laws, which culminated in the appointment of
Draco. The thesmothetai may thus have paved the way for the more
systematic and comprehensive legislation of Draco. For a fuller di~-
cussi,m of the problems involved see A. Ledl, Studien ::;uriilteren athenz-
schen Veifassungsgeschichte 268-7 I, and Hignett, HAC 76-7.
Page 36
On Thuc. 2. 34. I see F. Jacoby's brilliant article 'Patrios Nomos:
State Burial in Athens and the Public Cemetery in the Kerameikos',
JHS 64 (1944) 37-66, with the criticism of Gomme, HCT 2. 94- 10 1.
The main issue between Jacoby and Gomme, viz., when in fact
public burial of the war-dead started in Athens, need not concern us
here. What does concern us is Thucydides' use of 1TaTpw, v6fLo, to
describe it. In calling the institution a 1TaTpLo, v6fLo" Thucydides is not
interested in the date of its origin at all, beyond saying that it has
become a traditional practice (so rightly Jacoby 39-40 and 58;
Gomme 94 takes Thucydides as dating this law [sic] 'as early as
Solon if not earlier') by the end of the first year of the Peloponnesian
War. 'Even if, as Jacoby 52 suggests, the custom began in fact with
a law enacted for the burial of the dead ofDrabeskos in 465/4 B.C., it is
not such a law that Thucydides means by 1TaTpw, V6fLo, here, since
he explicitly mentions those fallen at Marathon in 490 B.C. as an
exception (34.5). This brings us to another point. Sin~e we know. of
several other instances besides Marathon where Atheman casualtIes
were buried on the battlefield, both Jacoby (42-7) and Gomme (98)
accuse Thucydides of blundering. But the yE in the expression 1TA'ljv yE
'TaU, €V MupuBwVL is in itself sufficient proof that Thucydides had no
intention of giving a complete list of exceptions: there was no need for
him to do so, and to limit himself to the most outstanding exception
sufficed to show his awareness that the 1TaTpw, v6fLO, was not always
observed. In fact, the expression mJ.Tpw, v6fLo" which Jacoby himself
176 ENDl'\OTES
in a different context calls 'an entirely vague expression which only
means "an old law", "a law from the time of our fathers'" (Atthis
244-5), does not imply that the custom was observed regularly, and
the atd in Thucydides' statement: Kat atEt EV aVT0 [sc. T0 Ka'\'\LaTqJ
, ] 8'a7TTovaL TOVS'
7TpOaaTELqJ
" EK TWV
~ 7TOI\E/l-WV
\, can carry only the sense
of 'on each occasion' when public funerals of the war-dead take
place.
Page 73
A loose association of aw4,pocn5vYj with EVvO/l-La as a condition appears
also in the Vatican manuscript (B) of Thuc. 8. 64. 5. The context is
the abolition of the democracy in Thasos by Dieitrephes in the sum-
mer of 41 I B.C. and the subsequent revolt of Thasos from Athens
fomented by oligarchical exiles. In Thasos, as elsewhere among th~
subject allies, Thucydides continues, the Athenian oligarchs achieved
the opposite effect from what they had intended: awcj>poavvYjv yap
'\af3ovaaL at 7T6'\ELS' Kat a8Ewv TWV 7TpaaaO/l-EVwv
" '\ 8
aVTLKpvS' EI\EV EpLav
I ...., \ ,..,
TYjS' a7TO TWV /1
'A8 YjvaLWV
/ f 1\
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 out-
right 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 par-
tICIple 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, a7To-
Td"J!.LaLS' (op. cit. 5) for 7TEpLTELXLaLS' (Thuc. 3. 95. 2), where the con-
fUSIOnalso 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 adjec-
tIve 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'
E'\w8EpLav than V7TOV'\OV Eiwo/l-LaS', which falls rather flat. Moreover,
v7T6would serve better than a7T6 to under.score the irony in aVTovo/l-La.
Translate: 'self-determination imposed by the Athenians'.
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 ex-
ternal causes, such as certain kinds of water, or a region, or fatigue,
or violence, or similar factors. Health, on the other hand, is the well-
proportioned mixture of the qualities.'-I accept this text, which is
ExwpYjaav E7Tt T~l' based on [Plut.] De placitis plzilosoplzorum 5. 30, 91 I a, despite the fact
, "
I
that the corresponding text in Stob. Flor. 4.37.2+36.29 (Wachsmuth-
Hense 5) omits cj>80P07TOLOV yap EKaTEpov /l-0vapXLav and the last sen-
tence, 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 neglegen-
tior 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 Em-
pedocles, 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 ofHalicar-
nassus 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 some-
one 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 con-
spirators 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
.
conspIrators (8 ' ,,-
3. I. 3: avopwv - aptaTWV
TWV , I , \ 'i: '\ I
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 frame-
work 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 pre-
suppose a specific elaborate Sophistic discussion by someone like
Protagoras, as envisaged by K. F. Strohecker, Historia 2 (1953-4) 381-
412. 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.
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 mini-
mum 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 characteris-
tics in the fourth century. In Panathenaicus 178 the laovofLia and
87JfLoKparia which the Spartans are said to have adopted for them-
selves 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 enact-
ment 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 sur-
renders 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 solu-
tion 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 Hip-
parchus. 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 Pan-
athcnaic 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 partici-
pants 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 Ganszy-
niec, 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 invita-
tion 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
H
Craecorum fragmenta I. 42-3). The most recent supporter of this inter-
pretation 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 Ehren-
berg 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 inter-
pretation assumes, though perhaps rightly, that the Harmodius song
 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 representa-
tions 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, Develop-
ment, 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 refer-
ring 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 with-
the 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 paint-
ings, 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 ab-
sence? Or did he give up his reforms as a lost cause, only to be sur-
prised 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 de-
manded 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 Com-
mentaires 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
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 (= Hypo-
mnemata 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. <L.). Poetarum Lesbiorumjragmenta. Oxford,
1955·
1,IAcDoWELL, D. Andokides: On the lvf.ysteries. Oxford, 1962
l\IASARACCHIA,A. Solone. Florence, 1958.
MEIGGS, R., and ANDREWESA., (edd.). Sources jor Greek history
between the Persian and Peloponnesian wars, collated and arranged
by G. F. Hill. Oxford, 1951.
MERITT, B. D., \'\TADE-GERY, H. T., and MCGREGOR, M. F. The
Athenian tribute lists. 3 vols. Cambridge (Mass.), 1939-5°·
MERKELBACH,R. Untersuchungen zur Odyssee (= Zetemata 2). l'vlunich,
1951.
26). MORETTI, L. Ricerche sulle leghe greche. Rome, 1962.
MORPURGO,A. Mycenaeae Graecitatis lexicon. Rome, 1963. . .
MULLER, C. \'\T. Gleiches ::;u Gleichem: Ein Prinzip jriihgrzechlschen
Denkens (=Klassisch-philologische Studien 3 I). Wiesbaden, 1965.
NESTLE, W. Vom Mythos zum Logos2. Stuttgart, 1942.
NILSSON,M. P. Geschichte der griechischen Religion, 12• Munich, 1955·
NORTH, H. Sophrosyne: Self-knowledge and self-restraint in Greek litera-
ture. Ithaca, N.Y., 1966.
OLIVER, J. H. Demokratia, the gods, and thejree world. Baltimor~, 1960.
OTTO, W., and HERBIG, R. (edd.). Handbuch der Archiiologze, 3· 1.
Munich, 1950.
PAGE, D. L. Greek literary pap)'ri, 1. London and Cambridge (Mass.),
1942.
-- The Homeric Odyssey. Oxford, 1955·
-- Sappho and Alcaeus. Oxford, 1955·
-- Poetae melici Graeci. Oxford, 1962.
PALMER, L. R. The interpretation oj Mycenaean Greek texts. Oxford,
1963.
POHLENZ, M. Hippokrates und die Begriindung der wissenschaftlicllen
Medi::;in. Berlin, 1938.
PREUSS S. Index Demosthenicus. Leipzig, 1892.
RAUBI;SCHEK,A. E. Dedicationsjrom the Athenian Acropolis. Cambridge
(Mass.), 1949.
REINHARDT,K. Parmenides2. Frankfurt/Main, 1959·
REITZENSTEIN,R. Epigramm und Skolion. Giessen, 1893.
ROSE, H. J. A commentary on the surviving plays oj Aeschylus. 2 vols.
Amsterdam, 1957-8.
SARTORI, F. Le eterie nella vita politica ateniese del VI e V secolo a. C.
Rome, 1957.
SCHAEFER,H. Staatsform und Politik. Leipzig, ~93~· .
SCHMID,W., and STAHLIN,O. Geschichte der grzechlschen Llteratur, I. I.
Munich, 1929.
SCHREINER,J. De corpore iuris Atheniensium. Diss. Bo~n, 19.13. .
SCHWYZER, E. Dialectorum Graecarum exempla eplgraphlca potLOra.
Leipzig, 1923.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY IgI

BECATTIG. 'I tirannicidi di Antenore', Archeologia Classica 9 (1957)

SCHWYZER,E., and DEBRUNNER,A. Griechische Grammatik. 3 vols.
Munich, 1939-53. 97-I07·
BOWERSOCK,G. W. 'Pseudo-Xenophon', HSCP 71 (1967) 33-55·
SNELL, B. The discovery of the mind. English translation by T. G.
BOWRA, C. M. 'A prayer to the Fates', CeL 52 (= N.S. 8) (1958)
Rosenmeyer. Oxford, 1953.
231-40•
SOLMSEN,F. Hesiod and Aeschylus. Ithaca (N.Y.), 1949.
BRADEEN,D. W. 'The fifth-century archon list', Hesperia 32 (1963)
SPENGEL,L. (ed.) Rhetores Graeci, I. 2. Ed. by C. Hammer. Leipzig,
1894. 187-208. . . ,
CADOUX,T.]. 'The Athenian archons from Kreon to HypslChldes ,
STANFORD,W. B. (ed.) The Odyss~ of Homer. 2 vols. London, 1947-8.
JHS 68 (1948) 70-119. .
TaD, M. N. A selection of Greek historical inscriptions. 2 vols. Oxford
CATAUDELLA, Q. 'L'Anonymus Iamblichi e Democnto', Studi
19462 and 1948.
italiani di filologia classica N.s. 10 (1932) 5-22.
TUCKER, T. G. (ed.). The Supplices of Aeschylus. London and New
-- 'Nuove ricerche sull'Anonimo di Giamblico e sulla com-
York, 1889.
posizione del Protreptico', Rend d. R. Accad. Na::;. d. Lincei. Ser. 6,
VENTRIS, M., and CHADWICK,]. Documents in Mycenaean Greek.
Vol. 13 (1937) 182-210.
Cambridge, 1956.
-- 'Chi e l'Anonimo di Giamblico?' REG 63 (1950) 74-I06.
VURTHEIM,]. (ed.). Aischylos Schut::jlehende. Amsterdam, 1928.
COLE, A. T., Jr. 'The Anonymus Iamblichi and his place in Greek
\VACHTLER,]. De Alcmaeone Crotoniata. Leipzig, 1896.
political theory', HSCP 65 (1961) 127-63.
WADE-GERY, H. T. Essays in Greek history. Oxford, 1958.
COMPARETTI,D. 'On two inscriptions from Olympia', JHS 2(1881)
\VEISS, E. Griechisches Privatrecht, I. Leipzig, 1923.
WEST, M. L. (ed.). Hesiod: Theogony. Oxford, 1966. 365-79.
CONACHER,D.]. 'Euripides' Hecuba', AJP 82 (1961) 1-26.
WILAMOWITz-MoELLENDORFF,U. VaN. Aristoteles und Athen. 2 vols.
CORSSEN,P., in Archiiologischer An::;eiger (1903) 41. .
Berlin, 1893.
-- 'Nachrichten tiber Versammlungen: Archaologlsche Gesell-
-- Euripides Herakles2• 2 vols. Berlin, 1895.
schaft zu Berlin 1903', Berliner philologische Wochenschrift 23 (1903)
-- Pindaros. Berlin, 1922.
-- Platon: Beilagen und Textkritik. 3rd eO. by R. Stark. Berlin, 35°-1. .
DEBRUNNER,A. "L17Jfl.0KpaT{a", Festschrift fur Edouard Tzeche (Bern,
1962.
WILL, E. Korinthiaka. Paris, 1955. 1947) 11-24· .
EDELSTEIN,L. Review of L. A. Stella, Importan::;a dz Alcmeone nella
WUST, K. Politisches Denken bei Herodot. Diss. Munich, 1935.
storia del pensiero greco, in AJP 63 (1942) 371-2.
EHRENBERG,V. 'Isonomia', RE Suppl. 7 (1940) 293-301.
-- 'Origins of democracy', Historia I (1950) 5 I 5-48.
B. ARTICLES
--~ 'Das Harmodioslied', Wiener Studien 69 (1956) 57-69.
ABEL, D. H. 'Genealogies of ethical concepts from Hesiod to ELIOT, C. W. J. 'Kleisthenes and the creation of the ten phylai',
Bacchylides', TAPA 74 (1943) 92-101. Phoenix 22 (1968) 3-17.
ALLEN, T. W. 'Adversaria IV', RPh II (1937) 280-6. -- and MCGREGOR, M. F. 'Kleisthenes: Eponymous archon
ALY, W. 'Skolion', RE 2. Reihe, 5. Halbb. (1927) 558-66. 525/4 B.C.', Phoenix 14 (1960) 27-35·
--- 'Solon', RE 2. Reihe, 5. Halbb. (1927) 946-78. ERASMUS,H.]. 'Eunomia', Acta Classica 3 (1960) 53-64.
ANDREWES,A. 'Eunomia', CQ,32 (1938) 89-102. ERBSE, H. 'Anmerkungen zu Herodot', Glotta 39 (1961) 215-3°.
-- 'Philochoros on phratries', JHS 81 (1961) 1-15. EVANS,]. A. S. 'Despotes Nomos', Athenaeum N.S. 43 (1965)142-53.
-- 'The government of classical Sparta', Ancient society and institu- FORREST,<W.) G. 'The First Sacred War', BCH80 (1956) 33-52.
tions: Studies presented to Victor Ehrenberg on his 75th birthday (Oxford, -- 'The tribal organization of Chios', BSA 55 (1960) 172-89.
1966) I-20. -- 'Legislation in Sparta', Phoenix 21 (1967) 11-19·
BARRON,]. P. 'The sixth-century tyranny at Samos', CeL N.S. 14 FRANKEL, H. 'A thought pattern in Heraclitus', AJP 59 (1938)
(1964) 2IO-29·
3°9-37·
BEAZLEY,]. D. 'Panathenaica', AJA 47 (1943) 441-65.
 192 BIBLIOGRAPHY
FRITZ, K. VaN. 'Pythagoras', RE 47. Halbb. (1963) 171-209. JONES, "V. H. S. 'Philosophy and medicine in ancient Greece',
-- 'Die griechische EAW8€p{a bei Herodot', Wiener Studien 78 Bulletin of the History of Medicine. Suppl. 8 (1946).
(1965) 5-31. jONGKEES,j. H. 'Note on the coinage of Athens', Mnemosyne 3rd
GANSZYNIEC,R. 'Kranz', RE 22. Halbb. (1922) 1588-1607. Ser. 13 (1947) 143-60.
GOMME,A. W. 'Athenian notes', AJP 65 (1944) 321-39. KAGAN, D. 'The enfranchisement of aliens by Cleisthenes', Historia
GOMPERZ, T. 'Nachlese zu den Bruchstilcken der griechischen 12 (1963) 41-6.
Tragiker', Sber. d. Kais. Ak. d. Wiss., Philos.-hist. Cl. (Vienna, 1888) KAHN, C. H. 'Plato's funeral oration', CP 58 (1963) 220-34.
3-52• KAHRSTEDT,U. 'Kleisthenes', RE 21. Halbb. (1921) 620-1.
GRIFFITH, G. T. 'IsegOI'ia in the Assembly at Athens', Ancient society -- 'Untersuchungen zu athenischen Behorden II: Die Nom(}~
and institutions: Studies presented to Victor Ehrenberg on his 75th birthday theten und die Legislative in Athen', Klio 31 (1938) 1-25.
(Oxford, 1966) 115-38. KIRKWOOD,G. M. 'Hecuba and Nomos', TAPA 78 (1947) 61-8.
GSCHNITZER,F. 'Zur Geschichte der griechischen Staatenverbin- KOEPP, F. 'Harmodios und Aristogeiton', Neue Jahrbucher fur das
dungen: Halikarnassos und Salmakis (Syll.3 45)', RhM 104 (1961) klassische Altertum 9 (1902) 609-34.
237-41. KOLBE, W. 'Die Anfange der attischen Arch6', Hermes 73 (1938)
HAMMOND,N. G. L. 'The Lycurgean reforms at Sparta', JHS 70 249-68.
( I 950) 42-64. LARSEN,j. A. O. 'Cleisthenes and the development of the theory of
HARRISON,A. R. W. 'Law-making at Athens at the end of the fifth democracy at Athens', Essays in political theory presented to G. H.
century B.C.', JHS 75 (1955) 26-35. Sabine (Ithaca, N.Y., 1948) 1-16.
HARVEY, A. E. 'The classification of Greek lyric poetry', CQ,N.S. 5 -- 'The Boeotian confederacy and fifth-century oligarchic theory',
(1955) 157-75· TAPA 86 (1955) 40-50.
HEIDEL, W. A. 'Pythagoreans and Greek mathematics', AJP 61 LATTIMORE,R. 'The composition of the "History" of Herodotus',
(1940) 1-33· CP 53 (1958) 9-2 I.
HEREWARD, D. 'New fragments of IG IJz :0', BSA 47 (1952) LEWIS, D. M. 'Cleisthenes and Attica', Historia 12 (1963) 22-40.
102-17. LIPSIUS, j. H. 'Zur attischen Nomothesie', Berliner philologische
HERZOG, R. 'Heilige Gesetze von Kos', Abh. d. Preuss. Ak. d. Wiss., Wochenschrift 37 (1917) 902- 12.
Philos.-hist. Kl. (Berlin, 1928). No.6. LLOYD-JONES,H. 'Aeschylus, Agamemnon 416 ff.', CQ, 47 (= N.S. 3)
HIRZEL, R. "J1.ypafl)QC; N6p.oc;", Abh. d. philol-hist. Cl. d. Kgl. Sachs. Ges. (1953) 96.
d. Wiss. 20 (Leipzig, 1900). No. I. LURIA, S. 'Zwei Demokrit-Studien', in j. Mau and E. G. Schmidt
HOHL, E. 'Zeit und Zweck der pseudoxenophontischen Athenaion (edd.), Isonomia: Studien ;:;ur GleichheitsvorsteUung im griechischen
Politeia', CP 45 (1950) 26-35. Denken (Berlin, 1964) 37-54.
HOMMEL,H. 'Naukraria', RE 32. Halbb. (1935) 1938-52. MAASS,E. 'Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der griechischen Prosa',
jAcOBSTHAL, P., and U. VaN WILAMOWITZ-MoELLENDORFF'Nord- Hermes 22 (1887) 567-95.
ionische Steine', Abh. d. Kgl. Preuss. Ak. d. Wiss., Philos.~hist. Cl. MACKINNEY, L. 'The concept of isonomia in Greek medicine', in
(Berlin, 1909), 64-7 I. j. Mau and E. G. Schmidt (edd.), Isonomia: Studien ;:;urGleich-
JACOBY, F. 'Herodotus', RE Suppl. 2 (1913) 205-520. heitsvorstellung im griechischenDenken (Berlin, 1964) 79-88.
-- 'Patrios Nomos: State burial in Athens and the public cemetery MACURDY,G. H. 'Had the Danaid trilogy a social problem?' CP
in the Kerameikos', JHS 64 (1944) 37-66. 39 (1944) 95-100.
JAEGER, W. 'Solons Eunomie', Sber. d. Preuss. Ak. d. Wiss., Philos.- MEIER, C. Drei Bemerkungen zur Vor- und Frilhgeschichte des
hist. Kl. (Berlin, 1926) 69-85. Begriffs Demokratie', Discordia concors:Festschrift fur Edgar Bonjour
JEFFERY, L. H. 'The courts of justice in archaic Chios', BSA 51 (Basel, 1968) 3-29.
(1956) 157-67. MERITT, B. D. 'Greek inscriptions', Hesperia 8 (1936) 48-82.
-- 'The pact of the first settlers at Cyrene', Historia 10 (1961) -- 'Attic inscriptions of the fifth century', Hesperia 14 (1945)
139-47· 61-133.
'94 BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY '95
MERITT, B. D. 'Greek inscriptions', Hesperia 36 (1967) 57-101. SEGAL, C. P. 'Sophocles' praise of man and the conflicts of the
MITCHELL, B. M. 'Cyrene and Persia', JHS 86 (1966) 99-113. Antigone', Arion 3. 2 (1964) 46-66.
MOURELATOS,A. P. D. 'Heraclitus, fro 114', AJP 86 (1965) 258-66. SEGRE, :M. 'La legge ateniese sull'unificazione delIa moneta', Clara
MUGLER, C. 'L'Isonomie des atomistes', RPh 3e Ser. 30 (1956) Rhodos 9 (1938) 151-78.
231-50• STARR, C. G. 'The credibility of early Spartan history', Historia 14
MYRES, J. L. 'Eunomia', CR 61 (1947) 80-2. (1965) 257-72.
NESTLE,W. 'Odyssee-Interpretationen II', Hermes 77 (1942) 113-39. STIER, H. E. "Nop.o, BauIAEvs', Philologus 83 (1928) 225-58.
NORVIN, W. 'Zur Geschichte der spartanischen Eunomia', Clanim STROHECKER,K. F. 'Zu den Anfangen der monarchischen Theorie
et Mediaevalia 2 (1939) 247-93 and 3 (1940) 47-II8. in der Sophistik', Historia 2 (1953-4) 381-412.
OLDFATHER, W. A. 'Lokris (Staat und Kultur)" RE 25. Halbb. THOMPSON,W. E. 'The archonship of Cleisthenes', C] 55 (1959-
(1926) 1237-69. 60) 217-20.
OLIVER, J. H. 'Text of the so-called constitution of Chios from the -- 'Three thousand Acharnian hoplites', Historia 13 (1964)
first half of the sixth century B.C.', AJP 80 (1959) 296-30 I. 400-13.
-- 'Reforms of Cleisthenes', Historia 9 (1960) 503-7. VALETON, 1. M. J. 'Quaestiones Graecae: De inscriptione Lyg-
ORLANDINI,P. 'Antenor', Enciclopedia del!'arte antica, I (Rome, 1958) damensi', Mnemosyne N.S. 36 (1908) 289-334.
408-9. VLASTOS,G. 'Solonian justice', CP 41 (1946) 65-83.
OSTWALD, M. 'The Athenian legislation against tyranny and sub- -- 'Equality and justice in early Greek cosmologies', CP 42 (1947)
version', TAPA 86 (1955) 103-28. 156-78.
-- 'Pindar, NOMOE, and Heracles', HSCP 69 (1965) 109-38. -- 'Isonomia', AJP 74 (1953) 337-66.
PEEK, W. 'Ein attisches Skolion', Hermes 68 (1933) II8-2I. ~-" 'Iuovop.la 1ToAITIK1J",in J. Mau and E. G. Schmidt (edd.),
PHOTIADES,P. S. "llEpl Ti), Jyyv7], 1TpO' yap.ov", 1487]vii 32 (1920) Isonomia: Studien ::;ur Gleichheitsvorstel!ung im griechischen Denken
100-55· (Berlin, 1964) 1-35.
PODLECKI,A. J. 'The political significance of the Athenian "tyran- VOLLGRAFF,W. " 'Ev P.VpTOVKAaSl", Mnemosyne N.S.49 (192 I) 246-50.
nicide"-cult', Historia 15 (1966) 129-41. WASER, O. "Evvop.la", RE 6 (1909) 1129-31.
POHLENZ, M. 'Nomos', Philologus 97 (1948) 135-42. WELLMANN,M. 'Alkmaion von Kroton', Archeion I I (1929) 156-69.
-- 'Nomos und Physis', Hermes 81 (1953) 418-38. -- 'Die Schrift 1TEPL[pi), vovuov des Corpus Hippocraticum',
RAUBITSCHEK,A. E. 'Some notes on early Attic stoichedon inscrip- Archivfiir Geschichte der Medi::;in 22 (1929) 290-312.
tions', JHS 60 (1940) 50-9. WHITE, M. E. 'The duration of the Samian tyranny', ]HS 74 (1954)
-- 'Two monuments erected after the victory of Marathon', AJA 36-43.
44 (1940) 53-9· WILHELM, A. 'Inschriften aus Erythrai und Chios', Jahresh. d. Osterr.
-- 'The heroes ofPhyle', Hesperia 10 (1941) 284-95. arch. Inst. Wien 12 (1909) 126-41.
REINACH, T. 'Inscriptions grecques', REG 16 (1903) 180-92. -- 'Die lokrische Madcheninschrift', Jahresh. d. Osterr. arch. Inst.
ROBERTS, W. RHYS, 'Dionysius of Halicarnassus as an authority Wien 14 (191 I) 163-256.
for the text of Thucydides', CR 14 (1900) 244-6. WOODBURY,L. 'Apollodorus, Xenophanes, and the foundation of
RUSCHENBUSCH,E. '''HAlala: Die Tradition iiber das solonische Massilia', Phoenix 15 (196 I) 134-55.
Volksgericht", Historia 14 (1965) 381-4. WOODHEAD,A. G. "'Iu7]yopla and the Council of 500", Historia 16
STE. CROIX, G. E. M. DE. 'The constitution of the Five Thousand', (1967) 129-40.
Historia 5 (1956) 1-23. WOTKE, F. "Nop.o8€TaI", RE Supp!. 7 (1940) 578-81.
SCHEFOLD,K. 'Kleisthenes', Museum Helveticum 3 (1946) 59-93. WUST, F. R. 'Zu den 1TpvTavIE, TWV vavKpapwv und zu den alten
SCHOLL, R. 'Ueber attische Gesetzgebung', Sber. d. Philos.-philol. attischen Tritt yen' , Historia 6 (1957) 176-9 I.
Cl. d. K. Bayr. Ak. d. Wiss. (Munich, 1886) 83-139. -- 'Zu Kleisthenes', Historia 13 (1964) 370-3.
SCHROEDER, O. "N6p.o, 6 1TavTwv (3auIAEvs', Philologus 74 (1917) ZIEHEN, L. 'Panathenaia', RE 36. Halbb. (2) (1949) 457-93.
195-204.
All references to classical authors are based on the Oxford Classical Texts
or, where these are not available, on the Teubner or Bude editions. Excep-
tions are indicated by the editor's name placed in parentheses after the
name of the ancient author.
Collections of fragments are identified by the following abbreviations:

CGF G. Kaibel, Comicorum Graecorumfragmenta, I (Berlin, 1899).

DiehlJ E. Diehl, Anthologia Lyrica Graeca3, 3 fascc. (Leipzig, 1954-5)·

DK6 H. Diels, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, 6th ed. by W. Kranz,
3 vols. (Berlin, 1951-2).
Dox. H. Diels, Doxographi Graeci (Berlin, 1879).
Edmonds J. M. Edmonds, The Fragments of Attic Comedy, 3 vols. (Leiden,
1957-61).
F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (Berlin and
Leiden, 1923- ).
E. Lobel and D. (L.> Page, Poetarum Lesbiorum fragmenta
(Oxford, 1955).
A. Nauck, Tragicorum Graecorumfragmenta2• Supp!. by B. Snell
(Hildesheim, 1964).
D. L. Page, Poetae Melici Graeci (Oxford, 1962).

Aelian, Varia Historia 2. 25 Eumenides 171 28

Aelius Aristides (Keil): 391-3 13 with n. 2, 18
11. 80 124 n. I 448-50 41
28. 138 3 n. 5 484 4n.5, 13, 18
Aeschines: 491 17,18
1.5 84 n. 2 571 4 n. 5, 13, 18
157 n. 2 576 41 n. I
23
84 n. 2 615 4 n. 5, 13, 18
3· 154
4 n. 5, 17 n. 3 681 4 n. 5, 13, 18
19°
Aeschylus: 693 33 n. 2
Agamemnon 151 61 n. 1,86 778-g (= 808-9) 28
221 86 Persae 693 44 n. I
312 53 Prometheus 149-50 43-4,44 n. I
25 4°2-3 43-4
594
1142 61 n. 1,86 Supplices 220 41
12°7 22 241 41
1564 15 387-g1 43,44,58-9, 120, 161
Choephoroe93 24 670-3 28, 120
7°8 15
150-1 41
22 1034 13 with n. 3
4°0
34 frg. (Nauck» 198 62 n. 3, 72
424
37 with n. with n. 2, 73
989-90 I
Aeti us, Placita 5: 6-7 Ranae 761-4 49 19 138-9
92-4 19. 125 n. 4, 148 n. 2
19·5 (Dox. 430-1) 105 n. 2 6. Thesmophoriazusae 361-2 49 I
I 92 nn. 3 and 4 130 n. I, 134
26. 4 (Dox. 438-g) 379 157 n. 2 2-6
104 n. 2 3 92 n. 3
Alcaeus, frg. (L.-P.): 947 43 2 139
4 92 n. 5 127, 129, 130, 134, 138,
6.27 120 n. I 1039 88 3
93 143 n. 2, 148 n. 3
35. I 34 n. 6 7· 12 94 n. I 1137 43
Vespae 467 49 139 n. I
72•6 34 n. 6 12-16 94 n. 2
1222-6 124 and n. I, 184 129 n. I
129.25 34 n. 6 Antiphanes, frg. (Edmonds) 85
181. I 1227 124 n. 2 139
34 n. 6 124 n. I 150 n. 2
249 127 n. 4 Antiphon, frg. (DK6) 44A: frg. (Edmonds) 430 124 n. I, 183 20

Aristophanes: Scholia to: 20. 1-3 143-5

Alemaeon, frg. (DK6) 4 I. 17-23
Acharnenses 980 123 with n. 4 I 3 n. I, 140 n. I, 142, 143
99-106, 177-8 23-31
Lysistrata 273 146 n. I n.4, 148 n. 5, 150 n. I,
Aleman, frg. (PAIG): Archilochus:
632 182 157 n. I
10.10 61 n. 1,62 n. 2 frg. (DiehI3) 22. 3 120 n. I
Nubes 1364 125 n. I, 183 144 and n. 2
4° 21 (Bude) 230 34 n. 6
Vespae 544 183 144, 145
64 64 Aristophanes:
1222 183 3 n. I
Alexander of Aphrodisias: Acharnenses 45 157 n. 2
1239 183 127, 129, 130, 134, 138
De mixtione 3 (Bruns 532 48,57
Aristotle: n. 5,148 n. 3
216.28-217.2) 773 39
Athenaion Politeia 3·4 16,18, 21 130 n. I, 143-5
Quaestiones I. 9 (Bruns 980 123, 124 n. I
174-5 21. I 3 n. I, 143, 150 n. 2
19·30-2) 1093 123 n. 4, 124 n. I
4. 3n·3,5n.2,15,175 2 3 n. I, 150 n. 4, 155
Anacreon, frg. (PMG) 61 Aves 331 4 n. 5,14 I
112 n. 2 3 155
Anaxagoras, frg. (DK6): 518 43 3
174 4 151 and n. I, 152 n. 2,
4 102 n. 3 755-9 39 4
7-12 5 154 n. 2, 155 n. I
6 102 n. 3 1038-9 49
7. I 3 and n. 3, 4 n. I, 5 n. 2, 5 152, 153
102 n. 3 1344-5 22
15 6 152 n. 2, 154, 166 n. I
102 n. 3 1346 49 148, 156, 159
17 102 n. 3 1347-8 22 n. 2 3 156 22. I

Anaximander, frg. (DK6) I 100 n. I 8. 3 6 n. 2 4 132

1353-4 22 n. 2, 48
Anaximenes (Spengel, Rhet. Gr. 4 162 5 14°
I53g-40 73
9. 156, 162 n. 2 26. 4 46 n. 3
12) 22 112 n. 2 1650 48 I
29. I 108 n. 2
Anaximenes of Lampsacus, frg. 1655--6 2 59
48 3 n. 5 108 n. 2
(FGR) 24 49 n. 2 Ecclesiazusae 130 12·4 3
157 n. 2 180
Andocides: 216 13·4 141, 147, 156 n. I, 165 3°
24 112 n. 2
I De mysteriis I 7
n. 3 30. 2
2 n. 3 609 34 n. 3 180
5 141 33.1-2
43 140 with n. 3 759 49 n. I
81 14. I 129 n. 2, 147, 156, 165 35. 2 4,5,59
3 n. 3, 5 n. 2, 15 762 49 n. I 41. 2 3,5 n. 2, 60,108 n. 3,174
82 5 n. 2 n·3
944 49 n. I 62. I 153
83 I n. 2, 3 n. 3, 5 and n. 2, 3 147, 156 n. I
987-8 53 n. I Ethica Nicomachea
1022 4 147, 156 n. I
15 49 n. I
15. I 156 n. I 5.3, 1131"23
84 In.2 1041 49 n. I
2 141 n. 4 10, 1I37b28-9
85 I n. I 1049 49 n. I
16·4 147 n. 2 AIetaphysica
86 In·4 1056 49 n. I
6 147 and n. 2, 148 A, 986"27-9 98 n. 4-
87 I, 2, 3, 5, 57 1077 49 n. I
148 29-30 97 n. 2
89 In·4 Equites 447-8 142 n. I 7
8 147, 165 n. 3 31-4 102 n. 4
97 108 n. 2 Lysistrata 63 1-3 126
147 [De Mundo] 5, 396b35 105 n. 2
106 148 n. 4 Nubes 1040 34 n. 3 9
10 4 n. 2, 16, 18, 59, 140 De Partibus Animalium
2 De reditu suo 26 138, 148 n. 4 1183-7 48
27 with n. 2 2. 7, 652b36 104 with n. I
108 n. 2 14°° 34 n. 3 103 with
Anonymus Iamblichi (DK6): 1421--6 17. 2 129 n. 2 Physica 7. 3, 246b4-6
36 139 n. I n. 5
3· I 88, 92 n. 3 Plutus 789 37 3-4
18·4 140 n. 4, 141 n. 4, 142 Politica
6 92 n. 3 795 37 n. I 2.9, 1271"6
4·3 92 n. 2 914 49
 Aristotle, Politica (cont.) : 3 I~ 10. 17.2 140 n. 4 1246 42 n. 5
12, 1273b38 108 n. 2 6 127 n. 2 I I. 84. 7-8 170 n. 2 1258 42 n. 5
1274a7 108 n. 3 7 127 with n. 3 14·34.6 164 n. 3 1429 34
22-31 60 n. 2 8 127 with n. 4 Diogenes Laertius: 1561 24 n. 3
b15-16 5 n. 2 9 127 n. 2 8.26 105 n. 2 Heraclidae 141 48 n. 2
3·2, 1275b34-7 141 n. 2 10-13 96-7,121-36,182-5 83 97 n. 3, 102 n. 4 292-3 36
36-7 151 with n. 2 14-18 129 Dionysius of Halicarnassus: 963 48
5, 1278a25-6 180 19 127 n. 2 Antiquitates Romanae 1009-11 43
9, 1280a7-25 182 20-2 127 n. 2 I. 74. 6 Hercules 723 90
16, 1287a6-8 172 23-4 127 5. I. I 757 90 with n. 3, 91
4·4, 1291b34-5 108 n. 5 25 127 n. 2 6. 66. 4 778-80 26, 90 with n. 4
I 292a36-7 2 n. I Chrysippus, frg. (von Arnim 3. Epistula ad Ammaeum 2. I I 1316 25
8, 1294a3-7 84 n. 2, 94 n. 3 121) 471 103 n. 5 1322 48
9, 1294b14-34 117-18 Cicero, De Natura Deorum: Empedoc1es, frg. (DK6): 1361 42
15, 1300bl-3 112 n. 2 I. 50 96 n. I 8 102 n. 3 Hippolytus 91 38
5. I, 1301a19-1302a8 182 10 9 96 n. I 9· 5 38-g 93 38
3, 1302b29 117 n. 2 Cleidemus, frg. (FGH) 8 152 n. 6 17·4-8 102 n. 3 98 22
7, 1306b30 1I8 n. I Cratinus, frg. (Edmonds): 16-20 102 n. 3 461 53
36-1307a2 81 116 53 n. I 21 102 n. 3 866 44 n. I
38 81 n. I 127 4,15 n. 2 22 102 n. 3 1043-4 53 n. 3
1307al-2 81 n. 2 Critias, frg. (DK6): 26 102 n. 3 1046 53
9, I 31Oa28-3 2 108 n. 5 25· 5 51 100 n. I 1328 26
3°
10, 1312b7-8 139 n. I 9 51 Ephorus, frg. (FGH) 139 60 n. 2 Ion 20 36
6.2, 1317a40-b3 106 n. 3 52 n. 1,91 n. I Etymologicum AJagnum: 25 36
4°
40-b17 108 n. 5 S.v. Bu>..>..oq,opos 183 2~ ~
b18-20 106 n. 3 Democritus, frg. (DK6): VEf-LW lon.2 442-3 48, 91 with n. I
4, 1319b19-27 163 n. 2 9 Euripides: 643 43 with n. 2
22-3 164 with n. 3 125 Alcestis 56-7 23 1047 26
25-6 155 266 683 25 125°-6 48 n. 2
Rhetorica 3. 18, 1419a31 112 n. 3 Demosthenes: Andromache I 76 48 1312-13 42
Topica 15.18 109 n. 2 243 33 1322 29
4.2, 122b26-31 103 n. 2 20·92 2 n. I 491 87 Iphigenia Aulidensis 399 87 with
123a4 103 n. 2 158 5 n. 3 Bacchae 331 34 n. I n. 4, 88 n. 2, 89 n. I
6.2, 139b21 103 n. 5 23·51 5 n. 3 387 87 694 23
6, 145b8 103 n. 5 62 5 n. I 484 33 734 42
Arrian, Anabasis: 24. 20-3 In.2 891 34 n. 3 1°95 26,90
3. 16·7-8 132 n. 3 3° I n. I 995-6 (= 1015-16) 87 with n. Iphigenia Taurica 35 43
7. 19,2 132 n. 3 105 162 n. 2 3,89 n. I 38 48
Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae: 139 84 n. 2 C)clops 299 25 275 9°,91
15.667 f 53 n. I 149 45 n. 4 338 48 277 48
693 f 127 27· 5 59 n. 3 Electra 234 34 n. 3 465 43
694 c-695 f 96 with n. 3, 36. 8 59 n. 3 905-6 53 with n. 4 586 48
126-9 [43] 59 n. 2 1268-9 48 958-60 42,52-3
695 a-b (= PMG, Nos. 893-6) [43]. 57 5 n. I Hecuba 291 48 97° 48
96 with n. 3, 121-36, 182-5 [44] 59 n. 2 799-801 29,38 1I62 44 n. I
[46]. 18 59 846-g 39 1189 48
Bacchylides (Snell B): [48]. 19 178 864-7 47 1458 42,53
13·186-9 72 with n. 4 Dio Cassius 52. 4·3 178 866 57 Medea 238 25
15·53-6 72 with n. 3 Dio Chrysostom 2. 63 127 974 36 494 4 n. 5,15
Diodorus Siculus: Helena 800 42 n. 3 538 32
Carmina Convivialia (PMG, frgg. 7. 12 81 n. 5 866 12 with n. 6 812 25
884-g(7) : 12. I 82 n. 3 871 42 1000 89
No. 1-5 128-9 8. 30. 2 163 n. 2 1241-3 42 n. 5 Orestes 429 42
202 INDEX LOCOR UM INDEX LOCORUM 2°3
Euripides, Orestes (cont.): Galen, De TemjJeramentis (Helmreich): 3-4 76 6 II 112, 114-15, 115
I,

487 34 n. 3 1.2 101 n. 4 n. I, 166 n. 6

67. 1-68.6 76
495 33 4 105 n. 2 69·3 145 n. I 81. I I I I, II5 n. I
5°3 25 6 104 n. 6 82. 7-8 35 3 I I I, 179
523 33 n. I 8 104 n. 6 25 82. 1-2 115 n. I
9°
571 36 9 105 n. 2 94. I 34 n. 4 4 III
892 53 2. I 105 n. 2 96. 2-97· 3 73-5,89 5 34 n. 4, 179
941 48 2 104 n. 6 97·3 62,89 83. I I I 1,166 n. 2
1426 34 n. 4 4 104 n. 6 131. I 41 2-84. I 179
1455 88 n. I 3·4 104 n. 6 132.3 41 2 115 n. I
Phoenissae 18-20 87 Gorgias, [rg. (DK6): 136. 2-137. I 35 3 34 n. 4
294 36 6 26,51 140. 3 35 n. I 87 179
380 87 II. 7 89 144. I 91 118. I 47 n. I
Stheneboea (Page, Greek Literary I I a. 30 51 n. 5 3 41 123. I 165
Papyri 1. 128) 15 15 n. I, 18 36 88,89 n. I 52 142-3 107-9, 165-6
Supplices 45 86 n. 3
- 146.3
152.3 145 n. I 142-4 179
313 32 Hellenica Oxyrhynchia (Bartoletti) 16.2 158.2 II5 n. I 142.2 108 and n. I, 166 n. I
377-8 22 118 with n. 3 162. I 88 3 107 n. 6, 164 n. I
4°6-8 106 n. 3 Heraclitus, [rg. (DK6): 172. I 34 n. 4 4 108, 166 n. I
43° 34 n. 3 I 27 n. 4 173- 4 34 n. 4 5-143. I 165
431-2 29 32 27 195.2 35 n. 2 143. 1-148. I 165
433 47 33 3° 196.1-4 35 n. 2 2 108 n. 4, 166
526 42 n. 4 44- 30, 33 197 35 n. 2 4.26. I 35
540-1 42 n. 4 5::; 100 n. I 199·1-5 35 n. 2, 41 39. I 39
563 42 n. 4 80 100 n. I 200 35 n. 2 68.2 35 n. 3
671 42 n. 4 94 100 n. I 216. I 35 78.4 41
Troades 231 44 n. I 114 26-8, 30, 33, 100 n. I, 120 2.35.2 34 n. 4 80. 5 34 n. 4
266-7 4 n. 5, 17,42 n. 5 [HerodesJ, Peri politeias 30-1 118 36. I 41 103. I 35 n. 3
324 42 n. 5 37. I 35 105. I 34 n. 4
1031 53 Herodotus: 39·4 41 106 31
1210 25 1. 8. 3-4 88 42. 3 41 107 34 n. 4
[rg. (Nauck2) 52. 8 38 n. 3 29 5 n. 4, 46, 60 n. 3 45. 2 34 n. 4 117 35 n. 3
122. I I 88 35. I 41 65·3 41 137·2 109 n. 3, 167
141 39 59-61 14° 79. I 34 n. 4 159-61 163 with n. 3, 163-5
172 48 n. 4 59·3 156 n. I 92. I 34 n. 4 161 163-5
228.8 36,53 4-5 141 n. 4, 147, 156 113·2-3 41 161. 3 163 nn. 4 and 5, 166 n. I
252 32 59. 6 4, 15, 147 124. I 73 with n. 3 168. I 34 n. 4
282. 13 36 60.1-3 156 n. I 136.2 47 n. 2 169.2 34 n. 4
292.4-6 38 n. 4 5 147 147·3-4 53 17° 34 n. 4
337 25 61. I 24 177·2 47 n. 2 171 34 n. 4
346 25,36 2 156 n. I 180 138 172.2 35 n. 3
360.45 4 n. 5,15 4 141 n. 4 3.2.2 24 187. I 34 n. 4
388.3 25-6 62. I 156 n. I 16. 3-4 41 19° 35 n. 3
4°2 48 n. 3 64 141 n. 4, 148 n. 5 20.2 34 n. 4 200. I 115 n. I
433 33 65-8 75-9 31. 2-5 47 n. I 201.2 44 n. I
469 36 65. I 76 3 14,18 5·3·2 34 n. 4
530.9 36 2 76 with n. 2, 85 4 35 n. I 6.1-2 35 n. 3
597 48 2-66. I 76-7 38.4 33,37-8 16.2 24
853 33 3 82 n. 3 47. I 77 n. I 18. 2-3 35 n. I
920 22 n. 4 4 77 with n. 2 80. I 178 19.2 44 n. I
1049.2 42 n. 3 5 77 with n. 3, 78 with n. I 2-82 107, II 1-13, 178-g 37.2 109-1 I, 167
1064. I 26 66. I 78 nn. 2 and 4, 80 n. I 2 107 n. 7, 164 n. I 38.2 110 and n. I
1091 26 n. I [-2 76 3-5 112 42. 2 46 n. 4, 60 n. 3
2°4
Herodotus 5 (cont.): I I I. I 46 22 Nicodemus of Heracleia (Anthol.
23
49. 8 77 n. I 123.2 139 24 22 Gr. 6) 316 70 n. 2
55 131 n. I, 138 n. 4,139 n. 2, 13°.2 41 De Morbo Sacro 17 39
148 n. 2 131. I 108 n. 2, III n. I, 130 Parmenides, frg. (DK6):
20 39
57· I 131 n. I n. I, 146 n. 3, 150 De Natura Hominis 4 103 n. 4 8.55-61 102 n. 3
62-5 130 n. I, 134, 138-9 7.2. I 47 n. I De Prisca lvfedicina 5 103 n. 3 9 102 n. 3
62.2 125 n. 4, 127 n. 5, 148 8 a. I 34 n. 4 De Victu I. I I 22 n. 4 12 102 n. 3
n. 2 41. I 24 103 n. 3 16 102 n. 3
3· 69
63· 2-4 129 n. I 102. I 33 Homer: Pausanias:
64. 2 148 103. I 35 n. 4 Iliad 5. 70 27 n. I 1.8·5 132 nn. 3 and 4, 133
66-730 I 143-5 104·4 31,32 27 n. I 27. 2 129
555
66. I 140 n. I 104.4-5 109 I I. 741 27 n. I 4·24·7 170 n. 2
2 3 n. I, 130 n. I, 142, 136. 1 34 n. I 15. 186-95 178 10·5·13 138
143 and n. I, 150, 157 n. I 164. I 164 n. I 178 Pherecydes of Syros, frg. (DK6) 2,
2°9
69·2 3 n. I, 130 n. I, 149 nn. 209.3 35 O,ryssey I. 3 21 n. 2 co!' 2
I and 2, 150, 151, 156, 157 n. I 238. 2 91 n. 2 Philo, De Sacrificiis Abelis et Caini
9.106 77
70 148 n. 5 8. 34 II5 n. 1 112-15 77 (II p. 268 M) 5 79 n. I
70. I 144 n. 2 55 129 63,65 n. 4 Philochorus, frg. (FGH) 67 129
17·487
2 185 65 128 n. 4 18.130 27 n. I Philoponus on Aristotle, De Anima
2-71 144 89. I 24 19.482 27 n. I 405"29 97 n. 4
72. I 144, 185 106·3 53 23. 177-230 12 Pindar (Sne1l3):
4-73. I 144 n. 7 9·41. 4 34 n. 4 183-204 18 Isthmians 2. 38 24
73.1 I~ 48. 2 24 296 12 and n. 2 5.22 62n·3,71
2-3 145 78--g 91 n. 2 27 n. I 43 30 n. 4
325
74. I 144 n. 6 99·3 44 n. I Scholia to Odyssey 23. 296 12 n.2 ~ 20 15, 18
1-2 145 104 44 n. I Homeric Hymns: Nemeans I. 72 29
75. I 146 I I I. I 35 n. I 8.16 12 n. I 3.55 24
2 46 n. 4, 60 n. 3 Hesiod: 30. II-12 69 n. 7 4. 33 15, 18
3 146 Opera et Dies 11-16 65 n. 6, 66 9. 29-30 62 n. 3, 7 I
76 115 n. I n. 5 Iamblichus, De Vita Pythagorica: 10.33 13, 18
77. 1-2 146 219-24 65 n. 6, 66 n. 5 104 97 n. 3, 98 n. 3 11.27 13n·4,18
78 109, 135, 146, 157 n. 2, 159 236-7 70 n. I 257 100 n. 4 Olympians I. 37-8 62 n. 3, 70
88. 2 35 n. 4, 52 250 65 n. 6, 66 n. 5 267 97 n. 3 6.69 13,18
92. I 115 n. I 259-64 65 n. 6, 66 n. 5 Isaeus: 7.88 13
1/.5 108 n. 2 276-80 21 1.2 178 8. 25-7 13 n. 5, 18
94. I 129 n. 2 276 52 n. 2 178 78 4°
35
99.2 110 n. 2 388 23,94 10. 13 59 n. 3 9. 15-16 64 n. 1,71
103. I 110 Theogonia 63-7 2 I n. 5 Isocrates: 13.6-8 64 with n. 1,69 n. 7
6. I I. 3 61 n. 2 74 21 n. 5 6-10 71
5·39
38. I 23 217-19 63 n. 3 7.16 29 12, 18, 174
39. I 138 n. 3 226-32 66-8 20 40 13,18
43·3 107 n. 4, 108 n. 2, 109 307 86, 89 n. I 12. 178-80 Paeans I. 10 72 with n. I, 73
n.4, III and n. I, 167, 178, 179 417 4° Pythians I. 62 34
52. 3 46 n. 4, 60 n. 3 901-6 63-4, 66-8, 71 n. 3 Lysias: 64 14,18
58. 2 41 frg. (Rzach3) 221 40 n. 3 2.18 108 n. 2 2.43 29
67. I 145 n. I Hesychius, S.V. ;4pp.o8iov 10.16 162 n. 2 86-8 30-1
70 145 n. I p.€>.o, 12.42 108 n. 2 5.67 61 n. I
86 {3. 2 33 [Hippocrates] : 13. 12 108 n. 2 10. 70-1 34 n. 2
89 47,60 n. 3 De Aiire, Aquis, Locis frg. 169 20, 37-8, 40 n. I
100. 1 146 n. 2 12. 18-19 105 n. 2 Melica Adespota, frg. (PMG): Scholia to Nemeans I. 72 29 n. I
103. 3 138 n. 3 14 35 937. 11-15 69 n. 7 Olympians 13. 29 174-
105 128 n. I 16 22
13 71 n. I Plato:
106. 3 41 19 35 n. 6 1018 (b). 6-7 64 n. 2 Cratylus 384 d 7
Plato, Cratylus (cont.): Gorgias 45 I e 125 n. I, 183 Sirnonides, frg. (PMG) 65 I 127 368 34 n. 3
388 d 12 In·3 Leges I. 629 a 82 n. I with n. 3 382 31 n. I, 47 n. 3, 58 n. 2
Epistulae 7. 326 d 181 Pliny, Naturalis Historia: Sirnplicius on Aristotle, De Anima 449 31 n. 1,47 n. 3, 58 n. 2
182 4°5a29 97 n. 4 45°-2 22
336 b 34· 17 132-3, 142
d 181 132 n. 3 Solon, frg. (DiehIJ): 454-5 58
7°
181 Plutarch: 3 64-9 481 47 n. 3, 58 n. 2
337 a
Gorgias 482 e G I n. 3 Agis 5 7 n. 2 3. 1-10 67 519 41
482 e--484 c 8 7 n. 2 5 68 n. I 613-14 23
4°
51 7 n. 2 7 68 n. I 663 47 n. 3
483 b 9
II 8 68 Il. I 797 16 Il. 8
e 23 7 Il. 2
508 a 181 8-g 65 n. 5 800-1 4 n. 5, 14 with n. 4
Lycurgus 5·4 75 n. 1,82 n. 3
Hippias lUaior 284 d-e 51 n. 6 6 7 n. 2 9 68 n. I 847 47 n. 3, 58 n. 2
Leges I. 642 d 185 6.10 81 n. 5 II 68 n. I 908 53
2. 674 b 7 In·3 13 7 n. 2 14-25 67 914 25
3·694 a 182 13. I 46,49
16 68 n. 2 1113-14 31
182 Pericles 37·3 19 68 n. I Electra 87 105 n. 2
695 d 46 n. 3
10 n. 2 Solon 3. 5 26-g 67 580-1 52 with n. 3
4·714 a 3 n. 5,15
6. 756 e-758 a 181, 182 II 138 n. 6 3° 68 with n. 5 1043 53
780 d 5 In·3 15 3 n. 5 31-2 65n.l,gon.1 1506 31
18.2 156 33 68 n. I Ichneutae 189 24
7. 795 a I In·3
8.835 e 5 19. I 162 33-8 65 n. 3, 85 n. I Oedipus Coloneus 125-37 87
In·3
3 n. 4, 15, 18 34 65 n. 4, 68 n. I 142 86-7,91
836 e 4 In·3 4
10.889 e 6 20.2 36 65 n. 6, 66 168 25
In·3 59
8go d 4 In·3 24 141 n. 5 37-8 65 n. 6, 66, 68 n. I 337-8 34 n. 4
6 In·3 4 n. I 38-9 65 n. 2, 68 n. I 548 47
25·3
904 a 9 In·3 30.3 141 n. 4 3a 81 n. 5 907-8 52
cg In·3 Themistocles 23. I 144 n. I 3b 81 n. 5 914 31
I I. 927 b 6 74 n. 2 Moralia 303 e-304 c (Quaest. 5·9-10 65 n. 5 1382 29
Menexenus 239 a 181 6 81 n. 5 Oedipus Tyrannus 579 61 n. 2
Gr. 57) 165 n. 3
Phaedo 58 b 5 In·3 615 b-c (Quaest. Conv. I. I) 23. 21 178 863-71 29
Phaedrus 235 d 4 n. I 125 n. I, 183 24. 15-16 3 n. 5, 43 n. 3 Trachiniae 616 25
644 c (Quaest. Conv. 2. 10) 18-20 3 n. 5, 15, 18 682 4 n. 5,17,18
256 d 7 In·3
Politicus 29 I e 2 10 n. 2 Sophocles: 1095-6 86 with n. 4, 8g n. I
In·3
Protagoras 337 a 61 n. 2 833 d (Vit. X Or. Antiph. 2O) Ajax 350 25 1I77 25
22 n. 4 2 n. 3 548 25 Stobaeus, Florilegium (Wachsmuth-
c-338 b
Respublica 2. 369 c-4. 445 c 862 b-c (De Malig. Her. 26) 712 17 Hense):
713 7°-1,87 n. 2 I. 1.5: see Tragica Adespota, frg. 471
100 n. 5 128 n. 2
108 n. 3 91 I a (De Plac. Phil. 5. 30) 1°73 34 n. 3 4. 2: see Tragica Adespota, frg. 502
8.555 b
61 n. 2, 182 177-8 11°4 4 n. 5,17 4. I. 48 4 n. 3
558 c
119 n. 4,182 Pollux: 1108 83 n. 3 138 10 n. 2
561 e
562 a 108 n. 3 8.91 128 n. 2 113° 41 36. 29 177
563 b 182 106 4 n. 3 1160 83 n. 3 37·2 177
1I0 143,144 n. I 1247 47 Strabo:
9. 587 a 10 In·3
c 2 Polyaenus: 1343 41 6. I. 8: see Ephorus, frg. 139
In·3
10.604 a 10 I. 22 140 n. 4 Antigone 24 41 8.4.10 81-2
In·3
b6 165 n. 3 59 31 Suda: S.V. ayopa.uw 182
In·3 6. 45
Polybius 6. 8. 4 182 156 44 n. I EV f£VP'TOVKAa81 'TO g !1'o,
9 In·3
Polyclitus (DK6 I. 391) 24, 177 29 q,op~aw 182
607 a 7 In·3
Symposium 182 a 7 29-36 102 n. 6 178-91 38 'Hp68o'To, 167 with n. 2
In·3
186 d 104 n. 7 Porphyry, De Abstinentia 4. 22 3 n. 3 191 34 n. I OvSbroT ' €yw Toihov
Timaeus 60 e 2 213 29 imo8.gof£uL 123 n. 4
In·3
Plato: Scholia to: Sextus Ernpiricus 9 (Ad". 282-8 41 n. 2 71'apOLVOS 123 n. 4
Alcibiades I. 121 e 97 n. 4 Physicos I) 54 52 n. I 285-7 41 n. 2 po/paL 7 nn. 2 and 4
 INDEX LOCORUM

Theognis (Young) : 45 5° 36 502 29 n. 5

7°
54 30, 94 46. 4 5° 84·3 I15 n. 2 Tyrtaeus, frg. (DiehI3):
55-6 3° 47. 2 115 n. 2 85. I I15 n. 2 2 81 n.4
289-9° 22 56. 2 23 105.2 23,52 3 a, b 81 n. 5
Theophrastus: 58. 3 23 n. I 6.14 5° 6 81 n. 5
De Sensibus (Dox. 502-3) 12-15 62. 3 I13, 114 16.2 38 Tzetzes, Jllap..{joL T€XVLKOl 7TEpl KWP.c.{JOtUS
104 n. 2 3-4 115,116-19 4 173 (CGF 42-3) 85-9 183
(Dox. 508) 32 104 n. 3 3-5 32 18·7 34 n. 3
(Dox. 510) 39 104 n. 4 64·3 32 n. I 33. 2 115 n. 2
(Dox. 5I1) 41 104 n. 4 65.1-2 88 with n. 3 5 49, I 14 with nn. I and 4,
(Dox. 512) 46 104 n. 4 66.2 23,88 115
(Dox. 515) 58 104 n. 5 3 88 39. I 114 n. 4,178 Xenarchus, frg. (Edmonds) 4. 22
Metaphysica (DK6 58. B 14) 33 67·5 88 54·5 147 5 n. 3
105 n. 2 6 23 n. 1,88 6 33 n. 2,14°,147,148 n. I Xenophanes, frg. (DiehI3):
Thucydides: 70. 5-6 49,60 n. 4 55. 1-2 140 with n. 2 2 69-70
1·9·2 I15 n. 3 6 115 n. 2 3 141 n. 4 2. 19 69 n. 4,71
12 44 n. I 82.6 31,41 57. I 141 n. 4 22 69 n. 5
17 80 n. 2 8 I14, 115 4 140 n. 4, 142 n. I Xenophon:
18. I 79-80, 139 n. I [84]. 2 31 n. 2 58.2 141 n. 4 Anabasis 4. 6. 14 I18 n. I
24. 2 36 3 22 n. 3 59. 2 138 n. 4, 148 n. 2 6. 6. 28 7 n. 2
4° 52 95. 2 176 2-3 139 n. I Apologia 21 178
41 33 4·21. 3 115 n. 3 4 139 and n. 2 Cyropaedia:
72•2 115 n. 2 22.2 115 n. 2 60.4 115 n. 2 2. I. 31
77. I 5° 3 115 n. 2 89.4 I15n.2 2. 18

3 32 38. I 49 n. 3, 60 n. 4 7.75.6 178 21

84· 3 32 66. I 115 n. 2 8. 9. 3 115 n. 2 3·5

103.3 170 n. 2 74·3 108 n. 2 48. 3 I15 n. 3 4.6. 12
115·3 108 n. 2 76.2 108 n. 3,119 53.2 33 n. 2 Alemorabilia:
125. I 115 n. 2 78.2-3 115 64·5 176-77 I. 2.4°-6 51 n. 6
126.2 144 n. 3 3 113,114 n. 2 65·3 180 42 2 n. 3, 5 I n. 6
8 174 84. 2 I15 n. 2 72 108 n. 2 4·4·13 5 I n. 6
12 144 n. 3 92.7 89,91 75.2 108 n. 3 Oeconomicus 14. 4 5 n. 3
127. I 144 n. 3 93·3 I18 n. 5 76.6 33 n. 2 Respublica Lacedaemoniorum 10. 7
2. 3. 2 115 n. 3 97-101 91 n. 2 31. I I15 n. 2 118 n. I
34. I 36, 175-{) 97. 2 36 n. I 92.9 115n.2 [Respublica Atheniensium] :
5 175 98.2 36 97. 2 103 n. 3, 106 1.8 79 n. I
35·I 49 105. I 115 n. 2 Timotheus, Persae (P !vIG, frg. 8-9 82-5
37·I 34 n. 3, 50,114 n. 3 106.2 115 n. 2 791) 237-40 69 n. 7 9 50 n. 3
3 50 with n. 1,58 118 42 Tragica Adespota, frg. (Nauck2): 10 50 n. 3
39·4 5° 133·3 49 26 39 n. 2 18 50 n. 3
52.4 42 5·27·2 I15 n. 2 99 33 n. I 3·2 2 n. 3, 50 n. 3
53·I 90 with n. 2 30. I I15 n. 2 471 29n·5 II 117 n. 2,169 n. 2
4 5° 31. 6 119
65.8 115 n. 2 41.3 115 n. 2
72.2 115 n. 2 45·I 115 n. 2
73. I I15 n. 2 49·I 49
97·4 36 60. I I15 n. 2
3·34·4 33 n. 2 2 34 n. I
37·3 5° 5 115 n. 2
4 33 n. 2 63·4 49 n. 3, 60 n. 4
5 115 n. 2 66. 2-3 49 n. 3, 60 n. 4
42. 6 115 n. 2 69·I 178
43. 2 115 n. 2 2 36
 INDEX LOCOR UM 211

B 1-2 45, 169 n. 4 27 45

16-24 46 28 45
19-20 168 n. 2, 169 n. 4 3° 45 n. 2
Hesperia: 45 45
ATL D 14 III. 14-15 50 n. 2
8 n. 6, 16 n.
D 15.41-2 42 n. I 8 (1939) 59-65 135 n. 2, 137
POxy: 46
2256, frg. 3 59 n. 4 5,18,45
48 101 n. I, 120 n. 2 10 (1941) 284-95 17 n. 3
2450, frg. I 37 n. 2, 38 25 44, 167-70
14 (1945), No. II. 7 51 n. 2
25·19 8 n. 3, 167-8
Bengtson, Staatsvertriige 2, No. 145 32 (1963) 187-208 135 n. 2
Schwyzer, DCE: 19-20 44, 167 n. 3
42 n. I 36 (1967), No. 15 4 n. 4, 16 n. 6,
No. 51 42 n. 2 32 44,167
Buck, CD, 18
NO.2 44 n. 3, 167-70 7 n. 6 34-5 44,167
4°9
2.19-20 44, 167 n. 2, 167-8 8 n. I 170 with n. 3
IC: 410.5 44
32 44,167 41 I. 3 14 with nn. I and 2 86. 15-17 152 n. 2
12• I. I 2n. 3
34-5 44,167 412 7 n. 6, 8 n. I 87·4-5 5 n. I
3. 16 2n. 3
23·28-g 7 n. 7 413 7 n. 6, 8 n. I 5 51 n. I
52. C. 19 16 n. 7, 18 4. 26 2 n. 3
414 7 n. 6 19-20 3 n. 2, 5 n. I,
15·30-1 42, 168 n. 2
57 170-3 418.19 8 n. I 51 n. I
16 n. 5, 18, 170 37 102 n. I, 120 n. 2
57· 46 424. 10-1 I 8 n. I 96. 15-16 34 n. I
59. A. I 8 n. 6, 16 n. 3, 18 77 48-9 2, No. 100.6 In·4
77-6 59 n. 2
SEC:
13-14 16 n. 4,18 10, No. 17 42 n. I 1I6.21 In·4
8 n. 6, 16 n. 3, 18 94. 17-18 51 n. 3
14 103 51 n. 3 137·13-14 In·4
178 23-5 51 n. 3
352 135 n. 2, 137 162. 15 In·4
110.15-17 152 n. 2
II, No. 1178 14 with nn. I and 2 [36] In·4
1I5·4-5 5 n. I
181. 25 In·4
5-6 51
Tod, CHI: 200.217 In·4
5 51 n. I, 173 with
12, No. I 161-3 246 In·4
n. I
1.2 7 n. I, 162-3 204. 11-14 14 with n. 3,
3 n. 2, 5 n. I, 15,
24 45, 170-3 18
Gortyn, Law of (Kohler-Ziebarth): 18,51 n. I, 173 n. I
24. 26 45 12 4 n. 3
III. 20 8 n. 2 485 133 n. 2
29-30 8 n. 2 22• 10.6-7 51 n·4
IV. II 8 n. 2 4·493 7 n. 8
31 8 n. 2 5. 1,20.2-3 7 n. 2
45-6 8 n. 2 1I55 42 n. 2
48 8 n. 2 1498.12 7 n. 3
50-I 8 n. 2 5.2, 159 A. 8 8 n. 5, 17 n. 2, 18
VI. 15 8 n. 2 B.20 8n·5,I7n.2,I8
31 8 n. 2 12. 8, 263. 7 168 n. I
VII. 47-8 8 n. 2 14·645· 145-6 7 n. 5
VIII. 10 8 n. 2 151 7 n. 5
25-6 8 n. 2
29-30 8 n. 2 J1cfarmor Parium (Jacoby):
35-6 8 n. 2 ep. 46 142 with n. 2
40 8 n. 2 54 132 n. 4
IX. 15-16 8 n. 2 Meiggs and Andrewes:
23-4 8 n. 2 B 26. 27 169 n. 3
X.44-5 8 n. 2 33 169 n. 3
46 8 n. 2 30 169 n. 2
53 178 87·15 168 n. 2
XI. 19-23 8 n. 2 116 45-6
26-7 8 n. 2 116. A 21-2 45, 168 n. 2, 169
28-9 8 n. 2 n·4
XII. 15-19 8 n. 2 45-6, 168 n. 2,
22-3 8 n. 2 169 n. 4

aypa1rTa vop.lp.a, in Sophocles, 58.
ayparpos vop.os, in Andocides, I with n. 4.
in Thucydides, 58.
aOlKos, associated with avop.os, 87, 88,
89,92 n. 3·
aoos, legal term in Halicarnassus,
167-8, 169, 170.
in Thasos, 168 n. I.
alJEOs, associated with avop.os, 87, 88.
a[vos, legal term in Epidaurus
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.
'>.wIJEpLa, associated with vop.os, 109. personification of, 63, 64-7, 71,
associated with 100vop.La, 108, 166, 72-3.
182. as title of Solon, frg. 3, 64.
associated with democracy, 108. as title of Tyrtaeus, frg. 2, 81-2.
£TalpELal, in Athens, 142-3. Eilvop.os, musical sense of, 61 n. I.
£vOuva, I 12. in Aeschylus, 61 n. 1,62,72, 73.
(3am>'EVS, title survives institution of Evvop.Eop.al, in Aeschines and Demos- in Aleman, 6 I n. I.
kingship, 6. thenes, 84 n. 2. in Pindar, 61 n. 1,62,7°,71-2.
(3ov>'r, 0TJP.OOLTJ,in sixth-century Chios, in Anonymus Iamblichi, 93.
162. in Herodotus, 62, 73-4, 76. Tel FEFaOTJPoTa, legal term in Naupactus,
in Thucydides, 79-80. 17°,171.
8, ypap.p.aTa, in Gortyn code, 8.
in [Xenophon], 82-5.
yparpr, 1rapavop.wv, 2 with n. 3.
Evvop.La, 62-85, 92-5. IJEIJP.WV, see IJEOP.WV.
yparpos, term for 'statute' in Olympia, 8.
etymology of, 61, 73 n. 3. IJEIJ(r)p.os, see IJwJLos.
yparpw-derivatives in Gortyn code, 8.
as a quality of personal behaviour, IJEOJLWV, IJEOJLla, Nemean Games as
and 62,63,65, 70-1,94. TEIJJLWV of Heracles, 13 n. 4.
0TJp.oKpaTEop.al, in Herodotus, 107 n. 4,
as condition oflaw-and-order, 62, 63, constitution of Naupactus as IJEIJJLWV,
109 n. 3, I I I.
16,45, 170-3·
opposed to TvpavvEvop.al, 109 n. 3. 64, 65, 69, 70, 73, 74-5, 76-8, 80,
0TJp.oKpaTLa, not identical with 100vop.La, in Aeschylus, 15, 17.
83,94·
associated with owrppoovvTJ, 72-3, in Euripides, 15, 17.
120.
in Herodotus, 15.
relation to 100vop.La, 107, 111-13, 181. 176-7.
TEIJJLWS in Pindar, 15.
not appropriate name for Cleisthenes' opposed to iJ(3plS, 63, 65, 7 I, 72.
opposed to avop.La, 70, 94. of Athens, 4, 16,59, 140, 174-5·
reforms, 153-4.
describes Plataean constitution dur- opposed to ovovop.La, 65-9, 70, 94· last used of 'statute' 511/10 B.C., 4,
association with wealth not an essen- 59, 158.
ing Persian Wars, I 17.
not used in Alemaeon, frg. 4, 106. tial attribute of, 69-70, 80. IJWJLolJha,,6, 16, 174-5.
first attested in Herodotus, 120 n. 2. constitutional change not implied in, IJWJLOS, basic idea in, 18-19, 55.
74-5,82. etymology of, 9- 10.
in Herodotus, 109 n. 4, I I I n. I,
120 n. I. associated with constitutional work- not found on Linear B tablets,
in Athenian treaty with Colophon ings of the state, 84. 10 n. 3.
religious overtones in, 68, 7 I with not necessarily written, 16-17.
447/6 B.C., 120 n. 2.
0TJP.OTlKOs, 147 with n. I, 165 n. 3. n. I. used of Draco's statutes, 3, 5, 15,51,
OlmpTJrplop.OS, 141-2, 151. does not imply 'statute' before 57,59, 175·
[Xenophon], 68, 70, 74-5, 78, 80. used of Solon's statutes, 3-5, IS, 57·
OLKTJ, in Hesiod, 2 I.
related to vop.os, 2 I, 94. meaning of affected by vop.os = uses of, before end of fifth century
'statute', 62, 82-5, 92-4. B.C., 17-18.
ooPVrpOPOl, 141 n. 4, 142 n. I.
= thing placed in significant loca-
OvvaoTELa, form of oligarchy in Thucy- EuvofLla:
in Egypt, 73. tion, 12.
dides, 113.
rules Thebes during Persian Wars, in Media, 73-5. = something stored away, treasure,
113, 115, 116-19. in Sparta, 64, 75-82, 82 n. 3, 84 n. I. 12.
in Aleman, 64. = place of burial, 13 n. I.
opposed to democracy and to d>'ly-
in Anonymus Iamblichi, 92-4. = fundamental regulation, 13-15.
apXLa loovop.os, 113, 116-17.
in Aristophanes, 73. = establishment of fundamental in-
Ovovop.La, 65-9.
etymology of, 6 I. defined by Aristotle, 84 n. 2, 94. stitution, 13.
in Bacchylides, 72-3. = institution of celebrating victors in
opposite of Evvop.La, 65-9, 70, 94.
relation to avop.La, 70. in Herodotus, 73, 76, 78. song, 13, 174·
in Hesiod, 63-4, 65, 69-70. = establishment of athletic games,
relation to KaKovop.La, 85 n. I.
in Homer, 63, 64, 65· 13·
in Hesiod, 65-7.
in Pindar, 64, 71, 72, 73· = founding act, 13.
in Solon, 65-9, 90.
in Solon, 64-9, 84. = status conferred by external
personification of, 66-7.
in Sophocles, 70- I. agency, 13.
Tel .zpTJp.Eva, term for 'statute' in Myce- in Xenophanes, 69-70, 7 I. = rule of propriety and good be-
nae,7· in [Xenophon], 62, 82-5, 95. haviour, 15.
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, 114 n.
laovo/-,{a, 96-120, 180-2.
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, inhibits human freedom of action,
Vfo1ToAi'TaL, 151.
106, 108-9, III, 113, 115, 116 47-8, 50.
v£oXpoos, revolutionary connotations of,
with n. I, 117, II8-19, 121. depreciation of, begins in philosophy
44 with n. I.
alleged association with nobility, and science, 38-9.
vopoas, 9-10.
122-3· vOJ.L€V~, g. in Antiphon, 37.
as propaganda term, 113-14, 115, in Aristophanes, 36-7, 39.
"opo~, 9·
135, 153-5, 158. ,'o/-,La,
in Naupactus and Eastern LOCl'is, in Democritus, 39.
attempted establishment of, in Samos, in Empedocles, 33-9.
45, 170-2.
107-9, 165-6. vopoLpoa, in Sparta, changed by Lycur- in Euripides, 36, 38, 39, 42, 47-8.
granted to Miletus by Aristagoras, gus, 77, 78. in Herodotus, 39.
109-1 I. in Sophocles, 58. in Hippocratic writings, 39.
in Athens, in Cleisthenes' reforms, 96, vopooOw{a, I with n. 2. in Athens and Corcyra, 42.
101,122-3, 130, 135, 137, 153-7. = way of life, 21-2.
VOPOOL,of all Greeks, 33, 36, 39, 41, 43·
possible models of, 161-6. = normal order of things, 22-3.
of non-Greeks, 33.
in AIcmaeon of Croton, 99-106, 107, of Aegina, 52. = normal way in which something is
II3, II9· of Aetolia, 36. done, 23-4, 94·
in Herodotus, 107-13, 114, 116, = normal or proper conduct of in-
of Argos, 35, 49, 52.
I r9-2o, 166-7. dividual, I n. 3, 24-6, 62, 85,
of Athens, 36, 41, 42, 46, 60.
in Isocrates, r80-I. of Babylonia, 35, 4 I. 86, 87, 90, 93, 94·
in Plato, 181-2. of Caria, 52. treated like statutory enactment,
in Thucydides, 113, 114, 115, 116, of Corcyra, 42, 49, 60. 26, 91.
120. of Corinth, 47, 60. = source issuing and guaranteeing
laovo/-,LKOs, in Plato, 182. norms, 26-9, 120, 158.
of Egypt, 35,41,43,47,53.
laovopoos, in Harmodius skolia, 96-7, of Erechtheids, 36. = law-and-order, I n. 3, 30-3, 62,
101, 107, 113, 121-36, 161. of Issedones, 35. 85,94·
in Plato, 181. = mores of a social or political group,
of Libya, 35 n. 3.
in Thucydides, 113, 114, 116-19. of Makrokephaloi, 35. 33-4·
laorT]S, 182. of Massagetae, 35. = custom, social practice, I n. 3,
of Nasamones, 35 n. 3· 34-7·
KaO{aTTJfLL, 77, 108. of Odrysians, 36. treated like statutory enactment,
I. KaKovopo{a, relation to ovavofL{a,85 n. I. of Olympia, 49. 36-7, 48 n. 3.
in [Xenophon], 82-5, 95. = conventional belief, I n. 3, 37-
of Persia, 35, 41, 47·
KaKOVOJLOS, 61 n. I. of Phoenicians, 36.
4°·
in Herodotus, 76-7, 78-9, 85. of Sauromatians, 35 n. 3· = religious practice, custom, or be-
KoAa~w, 83 n. 3. of Scythians, 35 nn. 3 and 6, 41. lief, I n. 3, 40-3, 87·
KOPOS, opposed to £vvofL{a, 65, 7 I. of Sparta, 35-6, 46, 49, 60. = precedent, 52-3.
KOPVVTJq,0POL, 141 n. 4, 147. of Syracuse, 49. = rule, as in a game, 53.
KpaatS, see aupopo£TpOSKpaaLS. of Taurians, 35 n. 3, 43, 48. = statute, as political and judicial
KwAaKpETaL, title survives original func- of Thracians, 35 n. 3. regulation, 43-52, 120, 158.
tions,6 and n. 3. VOfLOS, = pasture, abode, district, 9. indifference in fifth century
vOfLoS, = melody, tune, 10, 21-2, 86. whether or not it is written,
VOfLOS, basic idea in, 20-1, 54, 55· 43-52, 60, I7 I.
etymology of, 9-10, 61. in Athens, relation to 1~q,wpoa,
wO{aTTJfLL, 77, 108. 1-3, 168, 169.
compounds of, 60-1, 62-136, 157--8.
po£Taf3aAAw, 108 n. 3. not on Linear B tablets, 10 n. 3. possible antecedents of, 167-
poofpa, division in Cyrene in Demonax' not in Solon, 3 n. 5. 73-
reform, 163. may have beginning in time, 52-3. used of Draco's and Solon's
poovapx{a, opposed to laovopo{a, 99-102, may be god-given, 21. laws only by later authors,
106. may control the gods, 29. 3,5,51, 173·
related to O{KTJ, 2 I, 94. used of Cleisthenes' laws, 3,
vaUKpapoL, title survives original func- associated with JAevO£p{a, lO9. 158-60.
tions, 6. opposed to tyranny and narrow not used before 5II/1O B.C., 6,
VEfLW, 9-10, 61, 73 n. 3,81. oligarchy, 32, 47. 59·
vOjJ,o<; (cont.): See also aypaq,os vOjJoos and written
=statute in Athens (cont.) : legislation.
replaces BEajJoos, 55-6, vOjJoos-q,va,s controversy, 22, 23, 35, 36,
158-60, 173· 39-40, 51.
first attested 464/3 B.C., 43, 58- oA,yapx1a, first attested in Herodotus,
9, 95, 161. 120 n. 2.
.\dlllctuS, Attic skolion on, 129. Anaxagoras, contemporary of late
first explicit mention as written, 57. o>.,yapx1a in Thebes 427 B.C.,
laovojJoos,
Aeacidae, 15. years of Alcmaeon of Croton,
established as written by 403/2 B.C., 113, II{, 115, 116-19.
1,2,5,7, 10,57,96. Aegina, 13, 15· 98-9'
opposed to democracy and Dvvaaula, aUjJojJo€Tpla and KpaaLS in doctrine of,
identified by name of proposer, 51. vOjJoos of, 52.
affects connotations of £!JvojJola, 62,
"3· called EUVOjJoOSby Pindar, 7 I. 104.
as political slogan, 114. Anaxandrides and Ariston, kings of
Aesehines, .tJvojJo€ojJoa, in, 84 n. 2.
8,2-5', 92-4. as appropriate name for Spartan con-
Aeschylus, avojJoos in, 6 I n. I, 86. Sparta, defeat Tegea, 76.
of aV0jJo,a, 9 I, 92-4. stitution, I 17- I 8.
€uvojJoos in, 62, 72, 73· Anchimolius, leads Spartan troops
of laovojJola, I 19-20, 158.
in Aeschylus, 22-3, 24, 25, 28, 33 n. 2,
34,37,41,43,53,58-9, 120, 161.
0PPos °
See also laovojJoos.
VOjJoLOS,in Naupactus, 45, 171.
(JEup.,ta in, 15, 17.
BwjJoos in, 13.
against Hippias, 129, 139.
Andocides, cites law of 403/2 B.C.,
1TapavojJo€w, 88, 9 I. vOjJoos in, 22-3, 24, 25, 28, 33 n. 2, 31, differentiating between vOjJoos and
in Aleaeus, 34 n. 6.
1TapavojJola, 85. 37,41,43,53,58-9,120,161. ifi~q,wjJoa, I, 3, 5, 7, 57·
in Aleman, 21-2.
1TapavojJows, 23, 88. Aetolians, I n. 4, 36. uses BwjJoos and vOjJoos indifferently of
in Antiphon, 37, 51.
1T<1.TpLOSvOjJoos, 36, 175-6. Agariste, daughter of Cleisthenes of Draco's laws, 5.
in Archilochus, 34 n. 6.
1TMiBos, associated with laovojJola,1 14-16. Sieyon,41. Anonymus Iambliehi, alleged author-
in Aristophanes, 22, 24, 34 n. 3, 36-7,
in Herodotus, I I 1-12, 114-15. Agis, king of Sparta, 49 n. 3· ship of, 92 n. I.
39, 43, 48-9, 53 n. I, 57·
used by Callicles, 23, 40, 5 I. in Thucydides, 115-16. Ajax, Attic skolion on, 129. avop.€w in, 93.
1TpoaETa,pl'ojJoa"inHerodotus,1 42-3, I 57. Aleaeus, author of Attic skolion, 127· avojJola in, 92-4,95.
in Critias, 51-2.
vOjJoos in, 34 n. 6. avojJoos in, 88.
in Democritus, 39. p~Tpa, legal term in Chios, 7, 162-3.
in Cyprus, 7. Aleibiades, 38. €Vvop.EOfl-at in, 93.
in Empedocles, 38-9.
in Heracleia, 7. Alemaeon, Athenian commander in €vvopia in, 92-4.
in Euripides, 22, 23, 24 n. 3, 25-6, 29,
in Messenia, 7. First Sacred War, 138. Antenor, see tyrannicides.
32-3, 34, 36, 38, 39, 42, 47-8,
in Olympia, 7, 8. Alemaeon, archon 50716 B.C., 143-4, Anthesteria, 42.
52-3, 57·
145,149· Antiphon, speech against Demosthenes,
in Gorgias, 26, 51. in Sparta, 7.
Alcmaeon of Croton, dates of, 97-9· 2 n. 3.
in Heraclitus, 26-8, 30, 33, 120. in Tarentum, 7.
relation to Croton, 106. vOjJoos in, 37, 51.
in Herodotus, 23, 24, 25, 31, 33, a1TovDoq,opo" I n. 4.
not a Pythagorean, 97-8. Aphrodite, sexual relations as BwjJoos of,
34 n. 4, 35, 39, 41, 46-7, 52, 53· av>'>'oyos, in Halicarnassus, 168, 172.
in Hesiod, 21, 23-4,4°. frg. 4, textual problems, 177-8. 13·
aVjJojJoETpOS KpaaLS,meaning of, 102-5. Arcadia, Spartan designs against, 76.
in Hippocratic writings, 22, 35, 39. laovojJola in, 99-106, 107, 113,
in Alemaeon, frg. 4, 102-5. scene of Philippides' vision of Pan,
in Pherecydes of Syros, 40. in Aristotle, 103-4. "9·
aVjJojJoETpOSKpaa,s in, 102-5· 128.
in Pindar, 20, 24,29,3°-1,34,37-8, in doxography, 103-4.
Alemaeonids, curse on, 144, 145, 185. Arcesilaus II of Cyrene, 163.
41. in Galen, 104.
exiled by Hippias, 138. Archedemides, archon 464/3 B.C., 59·
in Plato, I n. 3, 23, 40. awq,poavvTJ, associated with .tJvojJola,
led opponents of Peisistratids at Leip- Archestratus, enacted vOjJoo, at Athens,
in Sophocles, 22, 23, 24, 25, 29, 31, 72-3,176-7.
32, 34nn. 3 and 4, 38, 41,47, 52, 53· sydrium, 138. 5·
Tagl,s,20. influence in Delphi, 138. Archidamus, praises Spartan adherence
in Theognis, 22, 30, 94.
T€BjJoLOS, see B€ajJoLOV. role in liberating Athens from tyr- to vOjJoo" 32.
in Thucydides, 23, 31-2, 33, 34 n. 3,
uBjJoos, see BwjJoos. anny, 130, 134, 138-9, 150. Archilochus, vojJoos in, 34 n. 6.
36,38,42,49-50,58,60, 175-6.
T€TBjJoos, see BwjJoos. alleged opposition to, in 507 B.C., archons, Athenian, oath exacted from,
in Erythrae c. 450 B.C., 45-6, 168 n. 2,
TupavvEvojJoa" opposed to DTJjJooKpaTfojJoa" 131, 132 n. I, 134-5. 3-4·
169.
109 n. 3. See also Cleisthenes. Areopagus, Council of the, under
in Halicarnassus c. 460-455 B.C., 44,
v{3p,s,associated with avojJola, 86, 89. Aleman, EvvojJola in, 64. Solon, 162.
167-70, 172.
opposed to £!JvojJola, 63, 65, 71, 72. in, 6 I n. I. as BwjJoos for trials of homicide estab-
in treaty between Athens and Colo- EVVOJLOS

VOJ.LOS in, 21-2. lished by BwjJoos of Athene, 13·

phon 44716 B.C., 41-2, 168 n. 2.
in Naupactus, 45 n. 2, 170-3.
in tribute assessment of 425 B.C.,
168 n. 2.
ifi~q"ajJoa, in Athens, relation to vOjJoos,
Alexander the Great, restores tyranni- equal votes for and against accused
1-3, 168, 169.
cide group to Athens, 132. result in acquittal, 48.
in Erythrae c. 450 B.C., 45, 169.
Amasis, 47 n. 2. Argos, vOjJoo, of, 35, 49, 52.
ifiijq,os, 2 n. 4.
 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 Peisis-
tratus, 147, 156.
Aristogeiton, tortured after murder of
Hipparchus, 140.
See also Harmodius and Aristogeiton.
Ariston, see Anaxandrides and Aris-
ton.
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 fortifica-
tion of Munichia and surrender of
Peisistratids, 139.
account of events in Athens 508/7-
507/6 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 vali-
dates 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',
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 de-
fined 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, 149-
60.
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.
7, 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 safe-
conduct, 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 at-
tack 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 Diodotus, attitude to vO!-,os, 50. Eunomia, personifications of, 63, 64-7,
century, 165 n. 3. Diogenes, KpaUE< UV!-'!-'E'TPOSin doctrine 71, 72-3·
offered to Samians by Maeandrius, of, 104. sister of Dike, 63-4, 71, cf. 72.
108. Dionysia, reorganization of possibly sister of Eirene, 63-4, 7 I.
established by Mardonius in Ionia celebrated in Attic skolion, 12g. sister of H6rai, 63-4.
4g2 B.C., 109, 110, 167, 17g. doxography, UV!-'!-'E'TPOSKpaa,s in, 103-4. sister of Moirai, 63-4.
desired by Miletus, 110-1 I. Drabeskos, battle of, 175. sister of Tycha, 64.
in Plataea during Persian \Vars, I 17. Draco, issued first written legislation in daughter of Promatheia, 64.
in Thebes before battle ofOenophyta, Athens, 60, 174. daughter of Themis and Zeus, 63,
117 n. 2. Ow!-'os as term for 'statute', 3, 4, 5, 67, 7 I.
praised by Athenagoras, 114. 51, 175· Euripides, first tragedian to speak of
supported by Athens during Pelo- vo!-'os used of his statutes by later written vo!-'o" 57.
ponnesian War, 113. authors, 5, 5 I, 173· takes background of written legisla-
Athenian, establishment in 507 B.C. legislation against tyranny revived tion for granted, 48.
celebrated in Harmodius skolia, 511/10 B.C., 4 with n. 2, 16, 59, avoj-Lfa in, 26, 90- I.
126, 130, 133-6, 137, 153, 15g. 140. G.vo!-'os in, 87-8.
establishment of brings change laws on homicide republished 409/8 avoJLw~ in, 8g.
from Ow!-'os to vo!-'os, 55-.6, 158- B.C., 3, 5, 50-1,173· O£u!-'wv in, I 7.
60. drinking songs, see skolia. vo!-'os in, 22, 23, 24 n. 3, 25-6, 2g,
credited with defeat of Boeotia and Dysnomie, personification of, 66-7. 32-3, 34, 36, 38, 39, 42, 47-8,
Chalcis 506 B.C., 109, 135, 146, 52-3, 57·
15g· Eastern Locris, early fifth-century
rotation of office in, 106. O£O!-'wv, on colony at Naupactus, Five Thousand, government of, in
in [Xenophon], Constitution cif 16, 45, 170-3· Athens, 103 n. 3, 106, 180.
Athens, 82-3. laws on inheritance and property, Funeral Oration, Pericles', in Thucy-
democratic institutions, in sixth-century 170-1. dides, 58 with n. I, 114.
Chios, 162. See also Naupactus.
democratic sentiments, in late sixth- Egypt, vO!-,o' of, 35, 41, 43, 47, 53· Galen, UV!-,!-,ETpOS KpaU''i in, 104.
century Ionia, 109, 166-7, 173. £vvo/Lla in, 73. Gephyraei, genos of Harmodius and
Democritus, lived later than Alc- Eirene, sister of Eunomie, 63, 64, 7 I. Aristogeiton, 130- I.
maeon of Croton, g8. in Solon, 67. Gerousia, 112.
alleged author of Anonymus Iam- Eleusinian Mysteries, I n. 4. Gorgias, G.vo!-'os in, 88.
blichi, 92 n. I. Eleusis, occupied by Spartans 506 B.C., dvo!-,w'i in, 8g.
'well-proportioned mixture' in, 104. 145-6· vo!-'os in, 26, 5 I.
Ow!-'os in, 17. Empedocles, contemporary of late Gortyn, laws of, described as ypa!-'!-'aTa
vo!-'os in, 3g. years of Alcmaeon of Croton, or by ypaq,w-derivatives, 8.
Demonax of Mantinea, reformer at g8-g. Gytheion, vo!-'os in lex sacra of, 42 n. 2.
Cyrene, 163-5. vO!-'O'i in, 38-9.
demos, in Athens, political role under UV!-,!-,E'Tpta Tfj'i KpauEws in doctrine of, Halai, festival of Artemis at, 42, 53.
tyranny, 147-8, 156-7. 10 4. Halicarnassus, law of c. 460-55 B.C.,
political role after overthrow of enfranchisement, of aliens by Cleis- 44, 167-70, 172.
tyranny, 142-5, 148-60. thenes, 141 n. 2, 151-2. uses uSos as legal term, 8, 167-8, 16g,
Demosthenes, general, 2 n. 3. act of 404/3 B.C., 51. '170.
Demosthenes, orator, ElJVo!-,£o!-,a' in, ephebic oath, see oaths. uses vo!-'os = 'statute', 44, 167-70,
84 n. 2. Ephialtes, enacted vO!-,o' at Athens, 5. 172•
Dicaeus, has VISiOn before battle of Epidaurus, uses alvos as legal term, 8. excluded from Dorian pentapolis, gl.
Salamis, 128. Erechtheids, vo!-'os of, 36. Harmodius, death of, 514 B.C., 122,
Dieitrephes, abolishes qemocracy in Erythrae, citizenship possibly defined 142 n. I.
Thasos 41 I B.C., 176. by law, 46. and Aristogeiton, g6-7, 121-2, 124
Dike, sister of Eunomie, 63, 64, 68, 7 I. medized under her tyrants, 16g n. 3. n. I, 130-1, 133-6, 148, 15g.
attendant of Eunomia and Themis, regulation of judicial procedures Harmodius skolia, Athenaeus as source
72• c. 450 B.C. contains vo!-'os and of, g6, 121, 123, 126-7.
in Solon, 67-8. .p~q,w!-,a, 45-6, 168 n. 2, 16g. date of, 97, 121-36, 185.
 Harmodius skolia (cont.): laovo/1-La in, 107-13, 114, 116, 119-20 Ionia, democratic sentiments in late on allocation of funds to sanctuaries
form of, 123-5. 166-7· sixth century, 109, 166-7, 173. 418/17 B.C., 51.
first referred to in Aristophanes, 123- KaKoVO/1-0S in, 76-7, 78-9, 85. revolt of, 109- I I. revision of, under the Thirty, 5.
4, 126. vO/1-0S in, 23, 24, 25, 31, 33, 34 n. 4, !rasa, battle of, 163. of Teisamenus 403/2 B.C., I n. 2,
significance of myrtle bough in, 35, 39,41,46-7, 52, 53· Isagoras, may have stayed in Athens 3 n. 3, 5·
182-5· 7TArj(JOS in, I I 1-12, 114-15. during tyranny, 148. of 403/2 B.C., differentiating be·
as earliest testimony of laovo/1-La, 7TpOa€Ta,pL'O/1-a, in, 142-3, 157. opponent of Cleisthenes, 131, 133, tween vO/1-os and ifJ+pw/1-a, 1-3,
121-30, 161. Hesiod, influence on Solon, 65-7. 140, 142-5, 148. 5,7,57·
celebrate establishment of Athenian on Pindar, 71. archon 508/7 B.C., 142-3, 145, 148-9. of Corcyra on precinct of Zeus and
democracy in 507 B.C., 126, 130, on Bacchylides, 72. attempts to establish oligarchy at A1cinous, 49.
133-6, 137, 153, 159· aVO/1-0S in, 86. Athens, 144, 150, 155. of Corinth, 47.
laovo/1-os in, 96-7, 101, 107, 113, SlK7J in, 21. calls Cleomenes to aid against of Erythrae c. 450 B.C., 45-6, 168 n. 2,
121-36,161. c,vavo/1-La in, 65-7. Cleisthenes, 144, 145, 149, 150, 169.
Harpactides, archon 511/10 B.C., 139- Evvo/1-La in, 63-4, 65, 69-70. 160. of Gortyn, 8.
40• Vo/1-0S in, 2 I, 23-4, 40. Isocrates, laovo/1-La in, 18o-I. of Gytheion, 42 n. 2.
Hecale, 154. Hipparchus, murder of, 514 B.C., 122, Issedones, vO/1-0' of, 35. of Halicarnassus on real estate c.
Hecatompedon inscription, 2 n. 3. 125,134,138. Isthmian Games, as TE(J/1-oS of Poseidon, 460-55 B.C., 8, 44, 167-70, 172.
Hegesicles, see Leon and Hegesicles. Hippias of Elis, alleged author of 13· of Eastern Locris on inheritance and
Heliaia, Solonian, as possible model for Anonymus Iamblichi, 92 n. I. property, 170-1.
Chios, 162. use of vO/1-0S, 22, 51. Kedon, attempt against tyranny in on colony at Naupactus, 16, 45,
possibly attended by aliens under Hippias, tyrant of Athens, relations Atticskolion, 127, 129, 130, 134, 138, 170-3·
Peisistratus, 142. with Athenian nobility, 137-9, 148, 148. of Ozolian Locris on new lands and
Heracleia, uses p~Tpa for 'statute', 7. 165-6. on homicide, 16.
Heracles, establishes Olympic Games actions after Hipparchus' murder, Labyadai, phratry at Delphi, use of of Naupactus, 16,45, 170-3.
as T€(J/1-oS, 13. 125, 138, 140, 148. TE(J/1-oS by, 16. of Olympia on attack during Olym-
establishes Nemean Games as TfI· helped by Thessalian cavalry against laws and decrees, 48. pic truce, 49.
(J/1-LaV, 13 n. 4. Spartans, 129, 139. of Argos, on succession to priesthood of Sparta, 7, 46, 49.
Heraclitus, lived earlier than A1cmaeon fortifies Munichia, 139. of Hera, 49. of Syracuse, 49.
of Croton, 98. expelled from Athens 511/10 B.C., of Athens, define father's authority See also written legislation.
),oyos in, 27. 129,130,133,134,148. over daughters, 59. Leipsydrium, defeat commemorated in
Vo/1-0S in, 26-8, 30, 33, 120. See also Peisistratids. first issued in writing by Draco, 60, Attic skolion, 127, 129, 130, 134, 138,
Hermotimus, 53. Hippocratic writings, On Ancient Medi. 174· 148.
Herodotus, leaves Halicarnassus for cine later than A1cmaeon, 98. Draco's against tyranny, 4 with Leobotes, son of A1cmaeon, accuser of
Samos, 167. conjoin /1-ETPLaS and Kpiia's to express n. 2, 16, 59, 140. Themistocles, 144 n. I.
as interpreter of Pindar, 37-8. balanced mixture, 103. on homicide, 3, 5, 50-I, 173· Leogoras, great-grandfather of Andoci-
Debate of Persian Conspirators in, vO/1-osin,22,35,39. Solon's, 2, 46, 48, 59, 170. des, 138.
107, I I 1-13, 163-4, 166-7. Histiaeus, argues against revolt in left intact under the tyranny, 4, father of Andocides, 2 n. 3.
source of, 166, 178-9. 512 B.C., 109, 167. 15, 140, 147-8. Leon and Hegesicles, kings of Sparta,
account of Lycurgus' reforms at Homer, influence on Solon, 65. preserved by Cleisthenes, 158. fail at Tegea, 76.
Sparta, 75-9. attributes lack of (JE/1-'S to Cyclopes, prohibiting torture of Athenian Leucon, battle of, 163.
account of events in Athens 50817- 77- citizen, 140-1. Libyans, vO/1-0' of, 35 n. 3.
507/6 B.C., 143-6. EVVO/1-La in, 63, 64, .65, on Salamis, 2 n. 3. Linear B tablets, do not have (JW/1-oS,
fails to differentiate between written hoplite census, as requirement for on ostracism, 156, 159. or vO/1-0S, 10 n. 3.
and unwritten vO/1-0" 46-7. Theban citizenship, 118-19, 180. enacted by Ephialtes and Arches· Locris, use of TE(J/1-oS, 8, 16.
aVOfL€W in, 91. H6rai, 63-4, 67. tratus,5· See also Eastern Locris and Ozolian
aVO/1-La in, 73, 74, 8g-90. Hypoknemidian Locris, see Eastern Pericles' on citizenship, 46. Locris.
aV0/1-0S in, 88. Locris. on maintenance in Prytaneion, Lycurgus, reforms of, in Sparta, 75-82.
C,7JI-LaKpaTEO/1-a, in, 107 n. 4, 109 n. 3, Hysiae, captured by Boeotians 506 B.C., 48-9. enacts pfjTpa' in Sparta, 7 n. 2.
III. 145· treaty with Colophon 447/6 B.C., Lygdamis, tyrant of Halicarnassus,
c,7J/1-0KpaTLa in, 109 n. 4, I I I n. I, 120 41-2, 120 n. 2, 168 n. 2. 167-9.
n. I. Inheritance, laws concerning, in on colony at Brea c. 445 B.C., 170. Lysagoras, archon 509/8 B.C., 142.
"}VO/1-E0/1-a, in, 62, 73-4, 76. Athens, 59, 170. Megarian Decree, 48, 57.
"}VO/1-La in, 73, 76, 78. in Eastern Locris, 170- I. on coinage 422 B.C., 51.
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 partici-
pating in, 41.
Mardonius, deposes tyrants and estab-
lishes 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 Arista-
goras, 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 Har-
modius 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 settle-
ment 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 Pelo-
ponnesian War, 113.
Olympia, p~Tpa, TO yp6.q,OS, and
O£O<T )p.os as legal terms in, 7, 8,
14·
vop.os in, 49.
Olympic Games, 13, 69.
Opus, 64 n. 1,71, 172.
Oracle, see Delphi.
ostracism, purpose of law on, 156, 159.
Otanes, proposes democracy in Persia,
107, 111-12, 114, 163-4, 166-7, 179.
Ozolian Locris, uses T£TOP.OS for law on
homicide, 16.
Pagondas, speech before battle
Delium,8g.
Pallene, battle of, 14I.
divided among three demes in
Cleisthenes' reforms, 154.
Pan, establishment of cult in Athens in
Attic skolion, 128.
Panathenaic festival, reorganization
possibly commemorated in Attic
skolion, 129.
occasion of Hipparchus' murder 514
B.C., 125, 138, 184.
contest of men's choruses introduced
509/8 B.C., 142.
Pandrosus, in Attic skolion, 128-9.
Parthenion mountains, scene of Philip-
pides' vision of Pan, 128.
Peisistratids, in Attic skolia, 129-3°.
attitude to Solonian constitution, 140.
relations with Sparta, 138-9.
besieged on acropolis 511/10 B.C.,
139, 144, 148.
expelled from Athens 511/10 B.C., 4,
130, 140, 148.
withdraw to Sigeum 511/10 B.C., 139.
names proscribed on stele, 140.
See also Hippias.
Peisistratus, in Attic skolia, 129-3°.
marries daughter of Megacles, 24.
his rise to power, 140, 156-7.
bases his power on approval
Assembly, 147, 156-7.
his geniality, 147.
did not change OEafLLa of Athens, 4,
15, 147·
develops Attic industry, 141.
may have granted citizenship to
aliens, 141-2.
relations with Athenian nobility, 147.
reorganizes Dionysiac and Pana-
thenaic festivals, 129.
interest in Salamis and Troad, 129.
Peitho, sister of Eunomia in Aleman,
64·
Percothariae, in Naupactus, 170-I.
Pericles, defines VOfLOS as written
statute, 5 I.
citizenship law in Athens, 46.
Megarian Decree as written VOP.OL.
57·
his exile demanded by Spartans,
144 n. 3.
vop.os in his Funeral Oration, 49-50.
of no mention of laovofL{a in Funeral
Oration, 114.
Persephone, see Demeter and Kore.
Persia, VOfLOLof, 35, 41, 47·
Debate of Conspirators in, 107, 111-
13,163-4, 166-7, 178-9.
law of succession in, 24.
Spartan relations with, 145 with
n. I.
alliance requested by Athens 507 B.C.,
145·
Pherecydes of Syros, vOfLOS in, 40.
Philippides, vision of Pan on his way to
Sparta, 128.
Phoenicians, vop.os of, 36.
phratry, political role of, in Athens,
141-2, 151-2.
Phyle, epigram on the dead of, 4 n. 5,
17·
Pindar, influenced by Hesiod, 71.
£!JVop.{a in, 64, 71, 72, 73·
dlvOfLoS in, 61 n. 1,62, 70, 71-2.
vop.os in, 20, 24, 29, 30-1, 34, 37-8,
41.
T£OfLoSin, 12, 13-14, 15, 174.
Plague, in Athens, influenced attitude
to vOfLoS, 50.
created avofL{a, 90.
Plataea, has democratic constitution
during Persian Wars, 117.
of argument against Thebes 427 B.C.,
23, 32, 88, 116.
Plato, laovofL{a in, 181-2.
laovofJ-tl<6s in, 182.
laavoJLos in, IS!.
vOfLoS in, I n. 3, 23, 40.
polemarch, commands right wing at
Marathon on basis of vOfLoS, 46.
offers sacrifice to Artemis on anni-
versary of Marathon, 128.
Polycrates of Samos, 107, 165.
Poseidon, establishes Isthmian Games
as a 7£OfLoS, 13.
Probalinthus, 154.
Promatheia, mother of Eunomia in
Aleman, 64.
Protagoras, alleged source of Debate of
Conspirators, 179.
alleged author of Anonymus Iam-
blichi, 92 n. I.
Prytaneion, law on public maintenance
in, 48-9.
Pythagoreans, Alcmaeon of Croton
alleged member of, 97-8.
Pytheas of Aegina, 72.
Pythia, see Delphi.
Salamis, Peisistratus' interest in, 129.
Athenian decree on, 2 n. 3.
Salmacis, 167-8.
Samos, democracy not likely in early
sixth century, 165 n. 3.
attempt to establish laovofLla
107-9,164.
Sauromatians, vOfLo, of, 35 n. 3.
Scamandrius, archon 510/9 B.C., 141,
142•
Scythians, vOfLo, of, 35 nn. 3 and 6, 41.
called EvvofLo, by Aeschylus, 72.
Sigeum, 129, 139.
Simonides, possibly author of Attic
skolion, 127.
skolia, traditions concerning, 124.
Attic, in Athenaeus, 96, 121, 126-30.
to Athene Tritogeneia, 128.
Demeter and Persephone invokedin,
128.
Pandrosus in, 128-9.
on Admetus, 129.
Ajax and Telamon in, 129.
Peisistratus and Peisistratids
129-3°·
possibly commemorate reorgani~a-
tion of Dionysia and PanathenaIa,
129·
commemorateKedon,127, 129, 130,
134, 148.
commemorate battle of Leipsyd-
rium, 127, 129, 130, 134, 148.
commemorate victory at Marathon,
128-9, 130.
commemorate sacrifice to Artemis
vowed by Miltiades, 128.
commemorate establishment of Pan
cult, 128.
commemorate victory at Salamis,
128-9, 130.
See also Harmodius skolia.
slaves, in Cleisthenes' enfranchisement,
151 with n. 2.
Solon, influenced by Hesiod, 65-7.
influenced by Homer, 65.
includes thetes in Athenian Assem-
bly,156.
alleged originator of institution of
funeral oration, 49 n. 2.
his constitution as possible model for
Chios, 162.
admits skilled craftsmen as citizens to
Attica, 141 n. 5.
weakness of his constitution, 151, 154.
constitution and laws left intact under
tyranny, 4, 15, 140, 147-8.
institutions and laws preserved by
Cleisthenes, 158-9.
in, ovavofLla in, 65-9, 90.
EvvofLla in, 64-9, 84.
laws of, called 8EafLol, 3-5.
called vOfLo, by later authors, 3, 5,60.
enacted without ratification by
Council and Assembly, 2.
in Aristophanes, 48.
. in Herodotus, 46, 60.
on inheritance, 59.
Sophocles, ayparrTa vOfL'fLa in, 58.
avofLoS in, 86-7.
£vvofLLa in, 70- I.
8WfLoS in, 17.
VOfLOS in, 22, 23, 24, 25, 29, 31, 32,
34 nn. 3 and 4,38,41,47,52,53.
sortition, 112.
Sparta, vOfLo, of, 35, 36, 46, 49, 60.
freedom of attributed to VOfLoS, 3 I,
in, 10 9.
prevented by vOfLoS from fighting at
Marathon, 41.
praised by Archidamus for adherence
to vOfLo" 32.
';>7Tpa used for 'statute', 7.
and EvvofLla, 75-82, 82 n. 3, 83,
84 n. I.
changed by Lycurgus, 77.
vOfL'fLa
constitution as mixture of democracy
. and oligarchy, 117-18. . . Troad, Peisistratus' interest in, 129.
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 command-
ing army unsupervised, 49 n. 3.
during Messenian Wars, 81-2.
war with Tegea, 76.
war with Argos, 35.
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·
Tarentum, pTJTpa used for 'statute', 7.
Taurians, vOfLO' of, 35 n. 3, 43, 48.
Tegea, war with Sparta, 76.
8wfLoS used for 'statute', 8, 17.
Teisamenus, decree of, 403/2 B.C., 1
n. 2, 3 n. 3, 5.
Telamon, in Attic skolion, 129.
Telesarchus, frustrates Maeandrius'
planned laovofLla, 165.
Tetrakomoi, 154.
Thasos, uses UOOS as legal term, 168 n. I.
revolt from Athens 411 B.C., 176-7.
Thebes, constitution of, 118-19.
citizenship in, 118-19, 180.
characterized by EvvofLla in Pindar,
71-2.
justifies pro-Persian policy in 480/79
B.C., 32, 113, 115, 116-19.
has democratic regime before Oeno-
phyta, 117 n. 2.
argument against Plataeans 427 B.C.,
2 132-4, 142, 159, 184-5.
23, 3 , 88, 113, 114, I 16-19.
ruled by o;>"yapxla laovofLos in 427
B.C., 113, 114, 115, 116-19, 180.
Themis, mother ofEunomia, 63, 64,71.
attended by Dika, 72.
Themistocles, 131-2, 144 n. I.
Theognis, vOfLOS in, 22, 30, 94.
theokolos, official in Olympia, 14.
Theramenes, alleged author of Anony-
mus 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 lao-
vOfLla, 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 Thou-
sand as fLETpla gUyKpaatS, 103 n. 3,
106.
dvofLla in, go.
o.vofLOS in, 88.
avofLWs in, 89.
3uvau'Tda in, I 13.
EvvofLEofLa, in, 79-80.
luovop.€Oj.LUt in, 114 n. I.
iaovoJ-L{a in, 113, 114, 115, 116, 120.
laovoJ.Los in, 113, 114, 116-19_
VOfLoS in, 23, 31-2, 33, 34 n. 3, 36, 38,
42,49-50,58,60,175-6.
rr;>'~8osin, 115-16.
Thyreae, 35.
tribes, in Athens, increased to ten by
Cleisthenes, 143, 150- I.
Trichonians, I n. 4.
Tritogeneia, see Athene.
Tycha, sister of Eunomia, 64.
tyrannic ides, statue group by Antenor,
by Critius and Nesiotes, 132,184.
cult of, 131, 132.
See also Harmodius and Aristogeiton.
tyranny, as caused by avofLla, 93-4.
opposed to VOfLos, 32, 47.
opposed by iaovofLla, 97, 101, 107,
109-11,113.
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,
n·4·
written legislation, interest in begin-
nings of, 60.
begins in Athens with Draco, 60.
not necessarily implied in (lEap.!", 16-
17·
not necessarily implied in vOfJoOS
fifth century, 43-50.
to be assumed as background of
Sophocles, 17.
of Euripides, 48.
of Aristophanes, 49.
not explicitly mentioned by Thucy-
dides,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,
2 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.
in Zeus Eleutherios, 108.
Zeus Karios, 140.