Deceleans and Demotionidae again

Classical Quarterly

Volumn 47, Issue 1, 1997, Pages 109-120

  Rhodes, P J ^a  

^a DURHAM UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 67649700394     PISSN: 00098388     EISSN: 14716844     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/cq/47.1.109     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Wade-Gery saw the Demotionidae as a body of experts, Andrewes as a genos (cf. below, p. 114). This kind of interpretation was first advanced by E. Szanto, RM 40 (1885), 506-20;
2. I accepted it, in Andrewes' version, in A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia (Oxford, 1981), pp. 69, 501.
3. F. Bourriot, Recherches sur la nature du génos (Paris, 1976);
4. D. Roussel, Tribu et cité (Paris, 1976). Both regard the Demotionidae as a phratry.
5. The suggestion that the phratry of the Demotionidae had split into smaller phratries, of which the Deceleans were one, was first made by C. Schaefer, Altes und Neues uber die attischen Phratrie (Naumburg a. S., 1888).
6. But Hedrick, 38-42 cf. 15, argues that must mean not 'the one who has been rejected' but 'the one who has not been judged'.
7. I.e. advocates to represent the Deceleans against them: cf. Ath. Pol. 42.1 on the procedures for admission to a deme (using the term kategoroi); and for synegoroi as advocates for the authorities against an individual cf. Ath. Pol. 54.2. But Wade-Gery, 138-9 = 128-9, followed by Andrewes, 3 with n. 10, interpreted the synegoroi as assessors to sit with the Demotionidae.
8. But Hedrick, 62-3 cf. 15, thinking that this refers to the extraordinary adjudication (cf. below), interprets it to mean 'take a preliminary vote on whether they need to adjudicate about anybody' rather than 'take the vote in the adjudication'.
9. Hedrick, 13-14, reports that what has been inscribed in the erasure has (or would have had if two letters had not been omitted) forty more letters than the text which would have occupied that space if inscribed regularly.
10. Hedrick, 11-12, 22-5.
11. 2140, a law amending a previous law.
12. In Athenian lawsuits, an anakrisis before the appropriate magistrate preceded the trial in a law court: see e.g. A. R. W Harrison, The Law of Athens, ii (Oxford, 1971), 94-105.
13. IG xii. 5 528 (= Michel 403), 540 (= Michel 404), 541, 1061,
14. cited in this connection by M. Guarducci, RFIC 63 (1936), 504-6;
15. Ito, 609 n. 18;
16. see also N. F. Jones, Public Organization in Ancient Greece (Philadelphia, 1987), p. 206.
17. Wade-Gery, 136 = 124-5, thought that I and II, which are inscribed by the same hand, might have been enacted on the same day (cf. Wilamowitz, 259-60).
18. However, as Andrewes in particular stressed (5 n. 15, 14), 'the law of the Demotionidae' is modified by these decrees of the phratry.
19. Lambert, 103. Wilamowitz, 261, had claimed that 'no one other than the plenum can decide appeals'.
20. Lambert, 99-102. Wilamowitz, 260-1, had to reject that presumption and claim that the phrateres were the voters in 15-18, in the extraordinary adjudication, but the Deceleans were the voters in 26-9, in the regular adjudication. This seems an unnatural interpretation of the text.
21. Hedrick, 44-52.
22. Hedrick, 78-80, cf. 69-73 on the relationship between decrees I and II (discussed below).
23. Hedrick, 80-5.
24. Lambert, 119-20.
25. Lambert, 123.
26. 2 1241 = his T 5
27. and Hesp. 51(1982), 48-50 no. 7 = his T 12 as evidence for a plurality of phratriarchs in other phratries.
28. Lambert, 102, is perhaps too confident here. However, I cannot accept the argument of Hedrick, 56, 61-72, that Decree I is concerned (apart from digressions) with the extraordinary adjudication and Decree II with the regular adjudication, that Decree I is not among the decrees amended by II, and that the separate vote of the thiasos is not a new requirement in Decree II.
29. Wilamowitz, 264-5.
30. Lambert, 134-9.
31. 3 569;
32. Brycus, a deme of Rhodes, IG xii.I 1032.
33. Cf. R. Osborne, JHS 115 (1995), 219, in his review of Lambert (published after I had written this comment).
34. Summarized by Lambert, 59-64.
35. Lambert, 60 n. 5, 69-70.
36. Wade-Gery, 139-42 = 129-33.
37. Wade-Gery, 141 with n. 1 = 131 with n. 3, wrote: 'The Law of the Phratry perhaps still resides unwritten in their breasts; if not, it resides written in their keeping', and compared Lys. 6.10 and passages in Plato's Laws.
38. Andrewes, 5-9.
39. Since this paper was completed two books have been published which briefly and hesitantly support the view championed here, that the Deceleans were the phratry: D. Ogden, Greek Bastardy (Oxford, 1996), pp. 47-9;
40. R. Parker, Athenian Religion: A History (Oxford, 1996), pp. 321-2 cf. 64.