LENE RUBINSTEIN(LONDON)
“ ARAI”INGREEK LAWSINTHE CLASSICALAND HELLENISTIC PERIODS:DETERRENCEOR CONCESSIONTOTRADITION?
In 1895 Ziebarth publishedthe firstsystematicsurvey of theepigraphical evidence for arai as adeterrent in thelegislationofthe Greek cities.Primarily on thebasis of theepigraphicalmaterialavailable at thetime, Ziebarth arrivedatthree important conclusions.First,thatthe threat of the ara as ameansofencouragingcompliance with the polis’legislation wasnot confinedtoany particular region or regions of the Greek world. Ziebarth found severalattestations in inscriptions from Mainland Greeceand Sicily in additiontothe more prolific evidence from theAegeanislands andthe Greek andHellenised communitiesinAsiaMinor. Second, that this type of deterrentwas not connected withany particular type of constitution: thereisno evidence to suggest that it wasmore prevalentasatype of deterrent in legislation passedbynarrow oligarchiesoraristocracies than in poleis withabroader-based constitutionalframework (including democracies).And, third, that theattestations of arai in various typesof polis legislationare not confinedtoany one period: the evidence rangesfromthe earliest archaicinscriptions to legislationpassedby poleis underRoman domination, although Ziebarth detected ahigherfrequencyof attestation in thematerialfromthe earliestperiod. However, Ziebarth himselfaddedanimportant modification to hisobservations on continuity as evidenced in theinscriptions.Inhis view,the threat represented by thepubliccursedeclined gradually andcontinuously from thearchaic period onwards,and he ascribed this declinetoa‘general declineinreligious sentiment’. 1 On Ziebarth’s interpretation, thesurvivalofthe public ara in late classicaland Hellenisticinscriptions shouldbeinterpretedprimarily as atestimony to the conservatismthatdeterminedthe framingofGreek legislation,long afterthe ara had lost itsoriginalsignificanceand efficacy. Ziebarth’s generalconclusions were latertoprovide themainpoint of departure for Latte’streatment of the ara in his Heiliges Recht .LikeZiebarth, Latte
1 Ziebarth (1895: 70):‘DieMehrzahlder Beispielegehörtfreilichder altenund ältersten Zeit dergriechischen Geschichte an,und dasist natürlich. Denn nur dieäussersteSucht nach Erhaltung alterFormenkonntegeradediese RechtssitteinZeitenhineinbewahren, in welchen sieihreWirksamkeitmehrund mehr verlierenmusste wegendes gänzlichen Schwindens desreligiösenSinnes’. 270 Lene Rubinstein interpreted theattestations of thepublic imprecationintexts dating from thelate classicalperiodand laterasessentiallyempty formulae retainedinlegal systemsthat hadinother respects undergone aprocessofsecularisation, a‘Verweltlichung’.2 Latte’sgeneral evolutionary schema was, likethatofZiebarth, informed by awider scholarly consensusthatthe traditionalreligious structuresand institutions of the Greek cities were decliningthroughout theclassical period andhad lost most of their significance by theend of thefourthcentury. However, therewas asecond strand in Latte’sargumentation, which hadnot been developedbyZiebarth: thedecline in theimportance of the ara as alegal deterrentwas to be ascribed not onlytochangesinreligious perceptions but should at thesametimebeinterpreted also as aresultofthe increasingpower of the political institutions within individualGreek communities.Originally,the reliance on thedivineagencyfor thepunishment of offenders reflected theweakness of the polis’institutions –thatis, primarily,its courtsand officials –whichmadeit difficult to enforcesanctions againstindividualtransgressors.Asthe powerofthese polis institutions grew, theprotection offeredbythe ara graduallybecame redundant,sothatinthe Hellenisticperiodthese sanctions hadturnedinto‘mere ornaments with which even themosttrivial honorary decree waslavishlyadorned.’ 3 Sincethe publication of Heiliges Recht ,there hasnot,tomyknowledge,been anyattempt to producefurther comprehensive, diachronicdiscussions of thepublic ara as aform of legaldeterrence. In more recentdiscussions,attention hastendedto focus on archaicand early classicalinstances,although thecontinuedimportanceof thepublicimprecation in thelateclassical andHellenistic polis hasalsobeen asserted in discussions of individualinscriptions from theseperiods. 4 Important challengestoLatte’s modelofdecline have been made especially in relationto individualinscriptions from themid-fifth century. Examples areThür (1998: 25-26) on IP Ark 8, andKoerner (1987: 460-461 and467-468) on the ara in IK Erythrai 1 whichregulatedthe termsofappointment of grammateis andonthe famous dirae
2 Latte(1920: 76):‘Um 300, wenn nichtschon früher, istalsodie Rolle des Fluches als wirksamenRechtsschutzesinder hellenischen Welt ausgespielt. Dashindertnicht daß die leergewordene Formnamentlichauf Stiftungsurkundenimmer wiederkehrt,bald allein,baldmit anderenStrafbestimmungenzusammen.’ (myitalics)UnlikeZiebarth, however, Lattemadeanexception in relationtothe Greek communitiesofAsiaMinor: here thethreatofthe ara retained itsoriginal forceasadeterrentbecause of theinfluence of oriental religious perceptions andpractices. 3 Latte(1920: 87). ibid.onthe redundancy of ‘sakrale Strafformen’:‘Abgesehen von wirklich religiösenVerbrechen treten sieinhistorischer Zeit ursprünglichnur ein, wo die Machtdes Staatesgegenüber demeinzelnen zurAhndung nochnicht hinreichte.(...) Als derStaat an Geschlossenheitgewann, seineMacht gegenüberdem einzelnen Bürger immermehrwuchs,damußten dieseFormen überlebt erscheinen, zumalder Glaube, den sievoraussetzten,seine zwingende Kraftfür weiteKreiseverlor.’ 4 SeeLambrinudakis andWörrle (1983: 310-313) on SEG 33.679 (Paros,C2),and Knoepfler(2001: 229-238) on SEG 51: 1105 (Eretria,C4). “ ARAI”inGreek Laws in theClassical andHellenistic Periods 271
Teiorum .Whilebothscholarsagree withthe traditionalpropositionthatthe ara reflects averyancient type of sanction, bothofthemalsourgethatthe inscriptions testifytoacontinuous belief in thecommunitiesthatproduced thetexts that the threat of divine punishment anddivineintervention in theprocessoflaw enforcementwas very real indeed. 5 However, if the ara as asanctionhas recently been interpretedasmorethanjust an ‘empty formula’,especiallyasfar as our fifth-century evidence is concerned, the Hellenisticattestations of its usestill need to be reassessed in thecontextofa generalsurvey. Thecallfor such areassessment is allthe more urgent because of the developmentthathas takenplace generallyinmodern scholarshiponGreek religion in theHellenistic period, adevelopmentthathas led to afundamental revision of the 19thcentury modelofdecline.6 This paperwillconcentrateonevidencefor public imprecations in inscriptions datingfrom thefourthcentury down to about 150 B.C.,withreference to thearchaic andearly classicalmaterialprimarily forthe purposes of identifyingareas of continuity as well as of change.Inaddition to the arai pronounced by officialsof individualcommunities, sometimeswiththe assistance of priests, thediscussionwill take into account some of theevidencefor thepracticeofself-imprecationasthe confirmationofanundertaking made by oath.There aretwo reasons why this type of curseisrelevanttothe present discussion. First, although the ara is pronounced personallybythe potential targetofdivinepunishment for breach of theterms of the oath,its inclusioninoathformulaemust, at leastoriginally,havebeen basedupon thesamebeliefinthe reality of divine intervention anddivinesanctions as that which underpinned thepronouncementof arai at festivalsand political gatherings. Second, thereisaconspicuous overlap between theareas protected by arai
5 On thebasisofthe evidence of IP Ark 8, Thür (1998: 26) concludesthat‘Fluchtäfelchen oder“Orakeljustiz”funktionieren ausdem festen Glauben, daß Gottheiten ständigindas menschlicheLeben eingreifen.Indiesenneuerdings wieder mehr beachteten Texteist zwar finmenf°w nichtmehrzufinden, wohl aber Formendes ·laow,und zwar meistens verneint:“nichtsegensreich”. Eidund FluchimgriechischenVolksglaubenbilden die Brückezum offiziellenProzeßder archaischenZeit .’ (myitalics). As far as theefficacy of the ara is concerned, themostmonumentaltestimony to itssurvival in the postclassical eraisthe araepitymbios ,for whichsee,above all, IK 52 ÉAra‹ ÉEpitÊmbioi .However,thisevidencedoesnot in itself undermineLatte’s evolutionary model: as indicatedinn.2,Latte regardedAsiaMinor,fromwhich most attestations of this type of ara derive, as an exceptiontothe rule. 6 For continuity in patterns of religious observance andfor thelackofaclearhiatusinthe Hellenisticperiod, seee.g.Habicht (1997: 166-170),Mikalson(1998: 315-323 with references to studies of cultsinother Hellenisticcities),Pakkanen(1996: 131-137), Parker (1996: 256-281),and Parker (2005),esp.76-77 on thecontinuedimportance of thepublic imprecation‘persisting well downintothe Hellenisticperiod’.Itmustbenoted that thescholarscited allidentifyareas of change anddevelopmentinreligious practices andorganisation, but change anddevelopmentare not necessarily to be interpretedas signs of a‘crisis’. 272 Lene Rubinstein pronounced on behalf of thecommunity andthosewhich were protected by prayers andcurses in oathstobesworn by individual membersofthe citizenbody. As noted earlier,partofthe basisofLatte’s contention that thepublic imprecationhad been reduced to amereformalitybythe endofthe fourth century washis observation that,inthe laterperiod, even themosttrivialdecrees were sometimes ‘adorned’ with thethreatofthe ara directed againstindividuals who attemptedtorevoke or in otherwaysunderminethe decision. However,closer inspection of theindividualinscriptions in whichthe publicimprecation is invoked as adeterrent doesnot in my view support thecontention thatsuchatrivialisation hadindeed takenplace. It is an incontrovertible fact that thelateclassical andHellenistic periods have not yieldedany singlepiece of evidence for thecontentsofpublic arai that comes anywhere near thewealthofdetailpreserved in the diraeTeiorum from thefifth century. Thescope of thetwo surviving Teian arai is also widerand more comprehensivethanany otherindividualattestations of such public imprecations,be they archaic, classicalorHellenistic.Indeed,one of theTeian texts,Meiggs and Lewis30, states explicitly that thetextofthe inscription containedthe very words that were to be pronounced at thefestivalsofthe Anthesteria,the Herakleiaand of Zeus.The twoTeian inscriptions arenot entirely unique:one inscription from third- century Deloscontainsthe wording of apublic imprecation to be pronounced by priests andpriestessesagainst individualsguilty of unlawfulabduction of slaves as well as otheroffenders.But it is still fair to saythatnoother Greek communityof anyperiodhas yielded comparable epigraphicalevidencefor thewording of such public imprecations. On theother hand, as farasthe specific contentsofthe Teian arai are concerned, that is,the individualareas to whichthe imprecations apply, thereare a considerable numberofparallels,including parallelsdatingfrom thelateclassical andearly Hellenistic periods.Inthe appendixtothis articleIhave setout for comparison themainthemesofMeiggs andLewis no. 30,the earlier of thetwo diraeTeiorum,along with asurveyofthe evidence for theapplicationofthe public ara in inscriptions from thefourthcentury andlater.Apart from thefirst three inscriptions listed underheading a.i, whichare entrenchment clausesofapparently trivialhonorary decrees, 7 all of theother later attestations can be said with some justificationtofallwithinthe broad areasprotected by the public arai in fifth- century Teos.Arguably, thecategoriesfrom b. to f. were anything but trivial: the
7 The decreehonouringThersippos of Pordoselene(IK Adramyttion 34) constitutesa warningthat thepolitical contextofanhonorarydecisioncouldrenderthe decisionitself highlycontroversialtothe point of actually constitutingathreat to theinternal stability andthe external safety of thecommunity in question. The Pordoselenian decision, by elevatingthe political standing of Polyperchon’sallyThersippos, constitutes an unmistakeabletokenofloyalty to Polyperchon at atimewhenhis positionwas clearly threatened by an alliance between Antigonos,Lysimachos,Ptolemy andKassandros. “ ARAI”inGreek Laws in theClassical andHellenistic Periods 273 matters to whichthe imprecations relate rangefrom actionsthatcould potentially lead to destabilisationofthe entire communitytoprotection of ritual andsacred propertytocontrol of individuals whoseactions might otherwise be difficultor, in some instances, impossibletoprosecute andpunishbyother means. Thefactthatthe late classicaland early Hellenistic arai areoften appliedto individualdecisions withanarrowly definedscope is not in itselfanindication of ‘trivialisation’ or change:indeed such applications areequally well attestedinthe archaicand early classicalmaterial, andagain,there is aremarkableelement of continuity in thetypes of decision that were securedby arai. 8 Oneareawhere continuity is especially noticeableisthatofoffences committed in relation to religious ritual, sanctuariesand sacred property. Whilethisisnot at allsurprising, thecontinuedrelianceonthe deterrent constituted by divine punishment, sometimes in combinationwithpenalties administered by theinstitutions of the polis ,does suggest that thepublic imprecation hadnot been emptied of its originalreligious significance. However, if theelementsofcontinuityare more conspicuous than have traditionallybeen recognised, thereare also importantindications of change in the applicationofthe publicimprecations.Asnotedearlier,Latte didnot just explainthe reduced significance of thepublic imprecations as aresult of ageneral declinein traditionalreligious sentiment: he also pointed to theriseofthe power of the political institutions of individual communitiesasafactor that contributedtomaking therelianceondivinesanctions increasingly redundant.Thissecond strand of Latte’sargumentationmay indeed account for thelow number of attestations in the late classicaland early Hellenisticmaterialofimprecations directed specifically at officialswith theaim of limitingtheir powersand of making them comply with the termsoftheir office. Ihavenot been able to find asingle late classicalorHellenistic parallel to the early classicalexamplesofregulations in whichthe imprecationservestoensure that officials imposepenalties for individualoffences committedwithin theirareaof responsibility.9 As for the ara beingusedasadeterrentinorder to force officials to step down from aposition of powerafter aspecified period,along thelines of IK
8 Examplesofarchaicand C5 decisions andregulations with arai in narrow context: Koerner no. 29, IG IV 506 (Argos C6): imprecation on persons whodestroythe text of thelaw (a.), IG IX 1(2) 609=Koerner no. 47 (Naupaktos,C6/5):imprecationonpersons whoinstigateredistributionoflandor stasis with theaim of securing aredistributionof land (b.), PEP Chios 76c(ChiosC5):imprecationonPentekaidekawho fail to impose penaltyonother officialsfor failingtopunish offences against horoi (c.), IP Ark 20 (North ArkadiaC6):imprecationonfemalewho failstodedicategarment worn unlawfullyinsanctuary (d.), IK Rhodische Peraia 251 (Lindos C5):imprecationon strategoi whofailtocollect contributionfromindividualsoldiers(e.), PEP Chios 76d (Chios C5): imprecationonany individualwho attempts to rendersaleoflandinvalid (f.) 9 e.g. PEP Chios 76c (Chios, C5), IP Ark .8line 23 with commentary (Mantinea,C5) and more generally Koerner(1987: 467-485) on enforcementofthe ‘Strafpflicht’ofofficials. 274 Lene Rubinstein
Erythrai 1, Ihaveasyet found onlyasingle example. 10 Aregulationfrom third century Teos,which concerns themergerofTeosand thesmaller settlement of Kyrbissos, contains detailed regulations on theelectionof phrourarchoi to take charge of astrongholdinKyrbissos, each for aperiodoffour months.Ifa phrourarchos refusestohandoverthe strongholdtohis successorupon theexpiry of histermofoffice,heisto‘flee Teos andAbdera andtheir territories underacurse, hispropertyistobeconfiscatedand no blood guilt shallattachtothe person who killshim’.11 Thefollowing line of theinscription shows clearly that what the community wasattemptingtoguard itself against wasareal andimmediate threat of stasis:‘if the phrourarchos dies fighting, hispropertyistobeconfiscated’.12 The phrourarchos,likeother military commanders,differedfrom even themost powerfulofficialsinchargeofthe internal administrationofaGreek community in that he hadmilitaryresources at hisimmediate disposal,resources whichmight allowhim to resist by armedforce anyattempt to forcehim to comply with the formal limitations imposed on hispower. What is at stakehere, then,isnot just the questionofaccountabilityand limitation of thepolitical powers of individuals: the cursealong with theother penaltieswas most likely intended to guard the communityagainst an outright armedconflict. As for themoregeneral problem of ensuring that officials carried out theirtasks as specified, Ihavefound onlyone instance of thepublic imprecationasadeterrent, namely in thelaw on educationalprovision in second-century Teos.The mentionof the ara occurs towardsthe endofthe text, anditisclearly aimedatthe citizens generally as well as at officials in charge of theadministrationofthe educational trust: ‘The one who makesaproposal or acts in contraventionofthislaw or who failstocarry out thetasks as stipulated in thelaw,let himand his genos be destroyed’. This is followedbyfurtherdeterrentsinthe form of penalties as prescribed forpersons guilty of hierosylia,along with an enormous fine of ten thousanddrachmaipayable to the polis,and prosecution by ho boulomenos by actions both publicand private. 13
10 IK Erythrai 1(C5): ˆsoi≥dh§grammãteusanépÚXalk¤deußkayen,toÊtvnmØ §je›naigrammateËsai¶ti mhden‹ mhdemi∞i érx∞i,mhd¢ tÚloipÚngrammateÊen §je›naimhden‹ pl°on μëpajt∞i aÈt∞iérx∞i,mhd¢ tam¤hi pl°on μ•n¤mhd¢ dÊo tima›w tÚnaÈtÒn:˘wd'íggrammateÊshi≥én°lhtaiμe‡phiμ§pichf¤shi, katãrhtÒnteaÈtÚne‰naika‹êtimonka‹Ùfe¤lenaÈtÚn•katÚnstat∞raw: Fora detailed discussionand furtherreferences,see Koerner(1993: 451-463). 11 SEG 26.1306: ˘wd'ínparalabΔntÚxvr¤on mØparad«[it]«i frourãrxv[i]t«[i] ÍpÚt∞wpÒlevw épos[tel]lom°nviée‹kay' •kãsthn tetrãmh[no]n,f[e]Êgein teaÈtÚn éraiÚn§kT°vka‹§jÉAbdÆrvnka‹§kt∞w x≈rawka‹t∞w Th˝vn ka‹t∞w ÉAbdhr[i]t«n ka‹tåˆntaaÈtoËdh[mÒ]siae[‰]nai,ka‹˘wínépokte¤nhiaÈtÚnm[Ø]miarÚw¶stv: 12 SEG 26.1306: §ånd¢ maxÒmenow [époyãnhi,Ípãrx]e[i]naÈtoËdhmÒsiatåˆnta: 13 Ùfeil°tv d¢ ka‹t∞i pÒleißkastow t«nprhjãntvn ti paråtÒnde tÚnnÒmonper‹ toË érgur¤ou toÊtouμmØpoioÊntvn tåprostetagm°nadraxmåwmur¤[aw,] dikasãsyvd¢ aÈt«iıboulÒmenow ka‹§nfid¤aiw d¤kaiw ka‹§ndhmos¤aiw ka‹metåtoËlÒgoutoË “ ARAI”inGreek Laws in theClassical andHellenistic Periods 275
In this text,the Teian arai aredirectedasmuchagainst theordinarycitizen who might exercise hisright in alegislative forumtomakeproposalsincontravention of thelaw as against theindividual officials whoare chargedwith administeringthe moneybelonging to thetrust,and it is significant that theofficials arenot highlighted as themainthreat. Moreover,the elaboratespecificationofthe proceduralmeans by whichoffenders couldbebrought before thecourtstestifies to aconfidenceonthe part of thecommunitythatits politicaland legalinstitutions wouldbecapable of limitingthe powerexercised by its officialstoaconsiderable degree. This text may, then,illustrateLatte’s point that,asthe centralpolitical institutions became increasinglypowerful,the perceivedneed to invoke divine sanctions as penaltiesfor specific offences decreasedasaresult,and it might be temptingtointerpret thepresenceofthe ara in theTeian regulations on theirschool trustasaconcession to tradition. However, mattersmay not be as simple as that.The powerfularchaic official who, becauseofhis personal prestigeand resources,might usehis officetoensconce himselfinanimpregnableposition, de facto beyond thereach of the polis’laws, mayhavebeen perceivedaslessofanintractable problem in thelateclassical and early Hellenisticcommunities. Fifthcentury Chiosreliedonthe gods as thelast resort,atthe topofachainofaccountabilitywhich prescribedpunishmentof individualoffenders by aboard of horophylakes ,punishmentofthe horophylakes by theFifteen,and punishment of theFifteen through divine destruction invokedinan imprecation. In thelater periods,mostattested Greek communitieswouldhave replaced thegods withother institutions at theverytop of theirchains. Butifthe threat posed by theunaccountable individualofficialwas perceivedaslessacute in thelateclassical andearly Hellenistic poleis,the problemofpolitical power exercisedwithout accountabilitybroadlydefined arguablypersisted in relation to judgeswho casttheir votes in secret ballots andparticipantsinlarge political gatherings.Likewise, persistent problemswereposed by offences of omission, which were notoriously difficult to detect andprosecute. Theimprecations intendedtoguard thecommunity against stasis andsubversive activities are, like theimprecation in theTeian educationalregulations,directedas much against ordinary citizens exercising their politicalprivilegesinlarge, collective decision-makingbodies as againstindividuals who exercisedpower ex officio .Likewise, entrenchment clauseswith imprecations were typically directed as much againstindividual proposersofmotions that mightundermine thedecisionin
§pimhn¤ou tØnépÆghsinka‹§gkair«i œi ín boÊlhtai,proyesm¤aid¢ mhd¢ êllvi trÒpvimhyen‹ §j°stvt«n dik«n toÊtvnmhdem¤an§gbale›n,ıd¢ èliskÒmenow §ktin°tv diplãsion ka‹tÚm¢n¥misu ¶stv t∞wpÒlevw,flerÚnÑErmoËka‹ÑHrakl°ouw ka‹Mous«n,ka‹kataxvriz°syvefiwtÚnlÒgontÚnprogegramm°non,tÚd¢¥misu toË katalabÒntow ¶stv... The final clauses of thelaw have recentlybeen discussed by Fröhlich(2004: esp. 109-112) whodoesnot,however,comment on thedeterrent constitutedbythe public imprecation. 276 Lene Rubinstein questionasagainst thosewho presidedoverthe politicalmeeting andhad responsibilityfor puttingdecisions to thevote. In many instances theimprecation wouldundoubtedly have been complementedbyregular legalactions comparable to theAthenianproceduresofthe graphe paranomon andthe graphe nomonme epitedeion theinai.Nevertheless, thedeterrent offeredbythe public imprecation may still have been perceivedasnecessary –asindeed theAthenianevidencesuggests that it wasevenaslateasthe fourth century –partlybecause of theunpredictability of theoutcome of trials of this type,and partlybecause of theuncertainty surrounding thewillofindividualcitizenstoinitiate theprosecutions. Indeed,someofthe public imprecations suggest that it wasnot thelack of powerofthe polis’courtsand officials vis àvis individual offenders that was perceivedasthe probleminthe fourth century andlater:the weakestlinkinthe processoflaw-enforcementwas theindividualcitizen whoseagencywas required for settingthe processoflaw-enforcementinmotion. Hence, we find thepublic imprecationcomplementingthe proceduresand penaltiesthatdependedon individualprosecutors for theiractivation,14 and, equallysignificantly,there are threeattestations of theimprecationbeing directed againstindividuals who fail to
14 In additionto SEG 26.1306, thefollowing inscriptions provide examples: PEP Chios80 (C4, imprecationcombinedwithasacred fine of athousand drachmai), IG XII,2526 = RO 83 (Eresos,C4; imprecation combined with prosecutionwarranted by law concerning theremovalofstelaiconcerningtyrantsand theirdescendants), IdiCos ED 53 (Kos,C4; imprecationcombinedwithother epitimia), IK AdramyttionII34 (Pordoselene, C4; imprecation combined with sacred fine of 300 stateres,hereditary atimia andprosecution warrantedbylaw on katalysistou demou ), IP Ark. 2(Tegea, C4; imprecation combined with fine of ahundred drachmai), SEG 25.447 = IP Ark 24 (Alipheira, C3;imprecationcombinedwith sacred fine of ten thousanddrachmai), IK Ephesos 4(Ephesos, C3; imprecationcombinedwithprosecution for insubordinationand plottingagainst collectiveinterests), Labraunda III8(Mylasa,C3; imprecationcombined with atimia,fineand confiscationofproperty as well as prosecutionby ho boulomenos), SEG 44.949 (Teos, C3; imprecationcombinedwith confiscationofprecious metal unlawfullywithheld and phasis by ho boulomenos), ID 1520 (localassociationatDelos, C2; imprecation combined with informationlodgedby ho boulomenos), SEG 33.679 (Paros, C2;imprecationcombinedwith agon timetos initiated by ho boulomenos). The co-existence in such text of thethreat of thecurseand provision forregular court proceduresand punishment has long been regarded as an indication that communaltrust in theefficacyofdivinesanctions waswaning(see recently Lambrinudakisand Wörrle (1983) 313: ‘Die Kombinationist auch sonst–und schon im 5. Jahrhundert –zu beobachtenund verrätnatürlich mangelndes Vertrauenindie praktische Verbindlichkeit religiöser Vorstellungenund Normen,die mandeswegen dochnicht fürverzichtbar gehalten hat.’See also,morerecently, Horster(2004: 44-46)). For adifferent interpretationofthe co-existence of divine andhuman sanctions as deterrents seeParker (2005: 77) whocommentsonthe fifth-century diraeTeiorum that ‘itisinconceivable that theTeianswouldsimplyhavelefttraitors, forinstance,tobepunished by thegods. (...) Thereisnoincompatibility,notension, between threateningthe sameoffenderwith bothpunishment andcurses.’ “ ARAI”inGreek Laws in theClassical andHellenistic Periods 277 report an offencethattheyhavewitnessed (see Appendix, headingc). Failure by a witnesstoreport an offence–sometimesanoffence so seriousthatitmight threaten theveryexistence of thecommunityasawhole –isanoffenceofomission that must have been exceedinglydifficult to detect andalmostimpossible to prove before acourt. In an earlier context, Ihavecommentedonthe questionofhow individual communities attempted to combinethe volunteer principle with thedesiretoensure maximumefficiency in theactualprocess of law-enforcement.While theincentives offeredtovolunteersinthe form of financialrewards as well as thepoliticalprestige to be derivedfrom asuccessful high-profile prosecutionare well known, Iwas able to find onlyone attestation, from fifth-century Chios, of apenalty threatened against an individual who failed to report on acriminalact that he hadobserved.15 Ifailedto discoverany otherexamplesofpressure beingplacedonpotential volunteer informerscomparable to theresponsibilities placedonofficials to take actionin connectionwith offences committedwithintheir area of jurisdiction. Iwas therefore temptedtoconclude that,whilethe stickwas frequentlyemployedagainst officials who in some contextsclearly couldbetaken to task for failingtoinitiate alegal processwhenrequired, thecarrotwas not onlythe preferred method but normally the only method by whichother citizensmight be spurredinto action. However, if it is assumedthatthe threat of divine punishment for failingto reporttothe polis ’authorities wasperceived as bothrealand serious in thefourth century andlater,the Chianexample is not as exceptionalasIfirstthought. Although thethreeinscriptions documenting theapplication of thepublic imprecationagainst reluctantinformerscannot,withthe best will in theworld,be said to be overwhelming, thenotion that failure to actwas punishable –not with fines, atimia or death, but with destructionthroughdivineintervention –recurs in theformulaeofself-imprecation pronounced with certain typesofoaths.Inthe appendixtothisarticle Ihaveset outexamplesofthe kind of undertakings that were confirmed withcompulsory oathssealedby euchai and arai. 16 As wasthe caseofthe public imprecations,the material pertaining to compulsory self-imprecations showsaremarkable affinity to thecontents of the fifth-century diraeTeiorum,but theattestations of divine destructioninvokedby individualcitizensonthemselvesfor failing to report on actsoftreason, planned revolutions andother serious offences constitutesaconspicuous difference. Where thefifth-century Teian arai invokeddivineretribution on theoffenderdirectly, a
15 PEP Chios 1=LSAG 116(Chios, C4):the individual whoobservesunlawfulherding, depositing of manureorremoval of sacredequipmentfromsacred grovesisobliged to reportthe offence to the basileis underthe threat of asacredfineoffivestateres. 16 Ihavenot includedexamplesfrominter-state treaties (which meritadiscussionoftheir own),except those that concernactsof sympoliteia,where theoaths swornbymembers of themerging communities bearasstrong resemblance to attested citizenoaths.Nor have Iincludedevidentiary oathsthatserve to corroboratespecificfacts. 278 Lene Rubinstein numberofself-imprecations,particularlythoseassociated with citizens’oaths, recognise thecrucial roleplayedbythe individualcitizen in theprocessoflaw enforcement. In thosecontexts thepassivityofanindividual is equatedwith his condoning theoffenceand leaves him opentodivineretribution. Like thepublicimprecation, theHellenistic self-imprecation of coursehas a long anddistinguishedpedigree. And it might stillbepossibletoargue withboth Ziebarth andLatte that itspreservationintexts from thefourthcentury andlater simply reflects atraditionalritual that wasperceived as essentialindefiningthe identity of thecommunity, butwhichhad nonethelesslostits real religious significance,and withthatits significance as alegal deterrent.This,however, runs counter to theevidence, whichsuggeststhatindividual communities took particular stepsand sometimesinvested considerable resources to ensure that everybody requiredtoswear oathswith imprecations actually didsoatspecifiedtimes. In fourth-century Eretria,for example, allindividuals who hadsworn theoath confirmingtheir arrangementswithanindividualcontractor were registered by name,and asimilar practiceisattestedfor third-century Ioulis. 17 At Dreros, the responsibilityfor administeringthe oath to thenew cohortsofyoung citizens rested with an officialwho wouldbeliabletoprosecution before the boule if he failedto carry out hisduty.18 At Teos it seemsthatindividuals whorefused to swearthe requiredoaths upon themergerwithKyrbissos wouldbeliabletopenalties, 19 although perhaps not as severe as that attested for third-century Itanos:herethe penaltyfor refusingtoswear thecitizen’s oath waslossofcitizen privilegesand complete exclusion fromall communalactivities sacred andprofane. 20 Theseare but afew examples takenfrom averyrichbody of materialwhich deservesfurther systematic investigation. Ihope,however, that they mayprove sufficienttoestablish aplausible casefor seeing thereligious sentimentthatlenta
17 IG XII, 9191 (Eretria,C4) ÙmÒsaitoÁwpol¤tawp]ãntawXairefãnei§nÉApÒllvnow DafnhfÒrou:˘wd'ínm[Ø ÙmÒsei,êtimow¶stv:§jorkoÊntvn d¢]oflprÒbouloi, §jor[k]oÊntvn d¢ ka‹oflstrathgo‹katå[¶tow toÁw§fÆbouw:˜pvw oÔn` tØng∞n] karp¤zhtaitå¶thtås[u]gke¤menaXairefãnhw,énag[rãfein ka‹tÚcÆfismaka‹ tÚn˜rkon §n stÆleiliy]¤neika‹st∞sai§nt«i fler«itoËÉApÒllvnow toË Da[fnhfÒrou:`énagrãfein d¢ ka]‹toÁwÙmÒsantaw:é]nagrãfein d¢ ka‹t«[n] §fÆbvn toÁwÙmÒsant[aw§nstÆlei ... Although some of therestorations proposedbythe editors are very doubtfulindeed, themainpoint about theregistrationofoathtakers seemssecure. cf. IG XIISuppl.235 (Ioulis,C3), and IK Magnesia Sip. 1. 18 IC Iix1:partofthe citizen’s oath wasthe undertaking: ∑mån§gΔtÚgkÒsmon,a‡kamØ §jork¤jontitånég°lantoÁwtÒka§gduom°nouw tÚnaÈtÚn˜rkon tÒnperèm¢w ÙmvmÒkamew,§mbale›n §w tånbvlån,ïi kaépostçntitoËmhnÚwtoËKomnokar¤ou μ toËÑAlia¤ou:èd¢ b[v]låprajãntvn ßkaston tÚnkosm¤ontastat∞raw pentakos¤ouwéf'ïwka§mbãlhièm°raw§ntrimÆnvi: 19 PEP Teos 48 (C3): §ånd° tiwmØÙmÒshi,[zhm¤anchf¤saika]t' aÈtoËtÚnd∞mon …w édikoËntow: 20 IC IIIiv7: ˘wd° ka§p¤damow§Δnt«n politçnmØl∞iÙmÒsaimضstv pol¤tawéllå §rg°syvka‹y¤nvnka‹ényrvp¤nvn. “ ARAI”inGreek Laws in theClassical andHellenistic Periods 279 forceofdeterrencetothe publicly imprecations as well as theself-imprecations incorporatedinoaths of varioustypesasbeing stillverymuchalive in the Hellenisticperiod. They lend additionalforcetoThür’s observationinrelationto IP Ark 8that‘oath andcurseinGreek popular religion constitute thebridge back to the official proceduresofthe archaicperiod’, abridge,moreover, that reacheswellinto theHellenistic period andbeyond. To sumup. Thecontinuity attestedinthe materialinregardtothe areas that were whollyorpartially protected by thethreatofdivinesanctions suggeststhatthe trivialisation of such imprecations,assuggested by Latte, must be rejected.Asfor thequestionwhether thethreat of divine punishment wastaken seriously in the fourth century andlater,the adaptations that appear to reflectchangingpolitical realitiesand powerstructureswithin individualcommunitiesdotogether pointtothe conclusion that they continuedtomatter.21
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Fröhlich, P. (2004): Lescités grecques et le contrôle des magistrats (IVe-Iersiècleavant J.- C.) .Genève. Gschnitzer,F.(2003):‘Bemerkungenzum Zusammenwirkenvon Magistratenund Priestern in dergriechischen Welt’in Kleine Schriftenzum griechischen und römischen Altertum, 145-152, Stuttgart. Habicht, C. (1997): Athens from Alexander to Antony.Cambridge MA. Horster, M. (2004): Landbesitz griechischer Heiligtümerinarchaischer und klassischer Zeit . Berlin. Knoepfler, D. (2001):‘Loid’Érétrie contre la tyrannieetl’oligarchie(première partie)’, BCH 125, 195-238. Koerner,R.(1987):‘Beamtenvergehenund derenBestrafung nach frühengriechischen Inschriften’, Klio 69, 450-498. Koerner,R.(1993): Inschriftliche Gesetzestexteder frühengriechischen Polis .Köln. Lambrinudakis, W. andM.Wörrle (1983):‘Einhellenistiches Reformgesetz überdas öffentlichen Urkundenwesen von Paros’, Chiron 13, 283-368. Latte, K. (1920): Heiliges Recht .Tübingen. Mikalson, J.D. (1998): ReligioninHellenistic Athens.Berkeley, Los Angeles,London. Pakkanen, P. (1996): Interpreting EarlyHellenistic Religion .Helsinki. Parker,R.(1996): Athenian Religion. AHistory.Oxford. Parker,R.(2005):‘Lawand Religion’ in M. Gagarin andD.Cohen [eds], The Cambridge Companion to Ancient GreekLaw.Cambridge, 61-81. Rubinstein, L. (2003):‘VolunteerProsecutors in theGreek World’, Dike 6, 87-113. Thür,G.(1998):‘IPArk8:“Gottesurteil”oder “Amnestiedekret”?(Nochmals zu IG V 2,262)’, Dike 1, 13-26. Vallois, R. (1914):‘ÉAra¤’, BCH 38, 250-271. Ziebarth,E.(1895):‘DerFluch im griechischen Recht’, Hermes 30, 57-70.
21 Iamgratefultothe Leverhulme Trustfor granting me aresearchfellowshipin2004- 2005,duringwhich periodthisarticle waswritten. 280 Lene Rubinstein
APPENDIX The public imprecationinthe late classicaland Hellenistic periods
ThemesinML30 :areas of protection (thematic, not following theorder of thestone) a. protection of thestelaibearingthe wordsofthe ara itself b. protectionagainst installation of aisymnetes (i.e.narrowing of constitution/tyranny) c. protection againstbetrayalofthe city andits territory,including protection against individuals knowinglygivingbad advice to theTeiansinmatters of foreignpolicy d. protectionagainst timouchoi failingtopronouncethe ara at specifiedtimes e. protection against magic(fãrmakadhlhtÆria )employedagainstindividuals or the community as acollectivity f. protection against undermining of grainsupplytothe city
Areasofapplication a. Entrenchment clauses i. entrenchment clausesin(apparently)straightforwardhonorarydecrees IK Ilion 24 (Ilion, C4/3): entrenchment of adecreegrantingextensive ateleia to four Tenedian honorands andanyone whotradeswith them.The politicalbackground and significanceofthisdecisioncannot be assessed.The decreemay be trivial, but is not necessarilyso. TAM III1(Termessos,C2):honorarydecree, apparently straightforward,but notethat neither thenameofthe honorand, nor anyindication of thedecree’soriginalpolitical context have survived. SEG 41.1379 (Limyra, koinon of Pernitai,C4):simplehonorarydecree forPyrimatis Masatos. The background is unknown: thedecreeappears to have been straightforward. IK Ilion 36 (Ilion, C3/2):entrenchmentclause protecting againstreversalofdecisions made in favour of royal family.Potentially of high political significance with implications for thecollectivesafetyofthe community. SEG 45.1876 (unidentified polis in Kolchis, C4/3)?: contextlost, possiblyentrenchment clause,but restoration is uncertain. ii. entrenchment clauses in decisionslikelytohaveserious implications forthe community as awhole FD III1.294 (Delphi,C5/4): entrenchment clause with imprecation on anyone who, in his capacity as damiourgos or ordinary citizen(damoteumenos), abolishesthe lawonlending. PEP Teos 41 (Teos, C2): entrenchment of lawonadministrationofeducational trust set up by Polythros, andimprecationonanyone whoisinbreachofits termswhether by omission or commission. SEG 4.58, IG XIV432 (Tauromenion, C2):entrenchmentoflaw pertaining to admission of newmembers of thegymnasion. Imprecation most likelyalsoonthose whoviolate its stipulations. b. Protectionagainst treason, stasis or actions that mayleadto stasis FD III1.294 (Delphi,C5/4):imprecationonindividuals whoproposeredistributionoflandor cancellationofdebts,along with entrenchment clause pertainingtothe lawonlending in its entirety. SEG 51.1105 (Eretria,C4):imprecationonindividuals whoattempt to abolish thelaw againsttyrannyand oligarchyoract in contraventionofits stipulations. “ ARAI”inGreek Laws in theClassical andHellenistic Periods 281
IK Mylasa 1 (Mylasa, C4):prohibition against overturningthe sentence passedon individuals convicted of treasonagainstMausollos.Corresponds closely to IG XII,2526 = RO 83 (Eresos, C4) IK Mylasa 2 (Mylasa, C4):prohibition against overturningthe sentence passedon individuals convicted of treasonagainstMausollos.Corresponds closely to IG XII,2526 = RO 83 (Eresos, C4) IK Mylasa 3 (Mylasa, C4): prohibitionagainst reversingsaleofpropertyconfiscated fromindividualsconvicted of treasonagainst Mausollos. Corresponds closelyto IG XII,2526 = RO 83 (Eresos, C4) whichplacesacurseonanyone whoattemptstorestore confiscated propertytothe descendantsofAgonippos. IG XII,2526 = RO 83 (Eresos, C4):imprecationonjudgesvotingagainst the polis’ interestsintrialsofEresian tyrants. IG XII,2526 = RO 83 (Eresos, C4): imprecationonanyone whoassists in returningthe exiled descendantsofAgonippos,ifthe latter is convicted,orattemptstorestore conficated propertytothem. IK Adramyttion II 34 (Nasos/Pordoselene C4):being an honorarydecreefor aprominent citizen,Thersippos,thisappears on thesurfacetobeone of Latte’s trivialdecisions,the entrenchment of whichissecured by acurse.But it appearsfromlines A23-29 that Thersippos hadsided decisivelywith Polyperchon andthathis policyinthisregardhad implications forthe entire polis visàvisthe king and, equallyimportantly,the King’srivals. The honoursvoted forThersippos were thus anything but trivial: they were an important tokenofallegiance to an outside potentate andatthe same timepotentially contentious within Nasos/Pordoseleneitself. Within the polis,there wasundoubtedly ariskthatarivalfaction might attempttoundermineThersippos’ position(andwith that,the positionofPolyperchon) by bringing about ashift in the polis’allegiancetoPolyperchon’senemies andusing this a stepping stone to gaining power forthemselves.Itisindicativethatthe curseupon individuals whoattempt to reversethe decision is accompaniedbyanother deterrent, namely that such individuals mayalsobeprosecuted for katalysistou demou !Onthisinterpretation, this instance maybegroupedwith otherexamplesofthe ara as aprotectionagainst stasis . SEG 50.1304 (Sagalassos, C4/3):clearly connectedwith on-going stasis .Divine destructionisinvokedagainst afaction whichhas occupied strongholdinthe city’s territory. SEG 25.447 =IPArk 24 (Alipheira, C3): protectionagainst breachofamnesty following stasis . SEG 26.1306 (Teos, C3):imprecation on garrison commander at fortressinKyrbissos if he failstohandoverfortresstohis successor (the followingclause‘if he dies fighting, his propertyshall be confiscated’ suggestsaclear perceived threatofinternalarmed conflict). c. Ensuring that offenceisreportedand/or punished FD III1.294 (Delphi,C5/4): failurebyanyone knowingofoffencetoreport it (text lacunose). IG XI,4 1296 (Delos, C3):failure by anyone witnessing theabductionofslavesfrom Delosorany sanctuary belonging to thegod to thedetriment of theslave’s master to report theoffencetothe astynomoi. SEG 33.679 (Paros,C2): failure by anyone witnessing damage or destructionof documentsinpublic archive, depositedinsanctuary,toreportthe offence to therelevant officials(cf.heading d.). d. Protectingritual and/or sacred propertyand precincts IP Ark .2(Tegea,C4): thelaw contains regulations of herding within thesanctuary.The priest is obliged to tieand lead away ( inphorbiein ?) smalllivestock.Failure to do so resultsin 282 Lene Rubinstein hisbecoming katarwos.Insofar as thepriestincursthe penalty if he failstotakeaction againstanoffence that he has witnessed,the text mayberegarded as belonging also under headingc. IdiCos ED 53 (Kos,C4):the contents of thelaw arelost, but most likely relate to sanctuary. PEP Chios 80 (Chios,Klytidai,C4):protectionagainstunauthoriseduse of building constructedinsanctuaryfor storage of ta koinahiera. IK Tralles 3 (Tralles,C4): protection of supplicants. IK Ephesos VII,13401 (pertainstothe sanctuaryofMeter GallesiainMetropolis,C4): protection of supplicants. SEG 27.942 (Xanthos,C4):entrenchmentofdecisionrelatingtothe constructionofan altartoBasileusKaunios andregulations forsacrifices. IG XI,4 1296 (Delos, C3): abductionofslavesfromDelos or anysanctuary belonging to thegod to thedetriment of theslave’s master andimprecation on anyone whogenerally offends against ta patria . Syl. (3)1219 = LSAM 16 (Gambreion, C3):protectionoffunerary legislation. The ten- year banontransgressors sacrificingas‘guiltyof asebeia’suggests that thecurse is firstand foremost intendedasaprotectionofritual,but individual funerals wouldobviously have been difficult to controlinpractice(headinge). TAM II i-iii1(Telmessos,C3):imprecationonordinarycitizensand officialsiftheyfail to performannual sacrifices at altartoZeusSoter,constructedatthe behest of King Ptolemy. SEG 9.73, SEG 13.618 (Kyrene, C2/1): protection against unauthoriseduse of equipment of Apollo sanctuary. IPriene 201 (Priene, C2): entrenchment of termsofsaleofpriesthood andits privileges. IPriene 203 (Priene, C2): entrenchment of termsofsaleofpriesthood andits privileges. SEG 33.679 (Paros,C2):imprecation on individuals whodamageordestroydocuments deposited in public archiveinsanctuaryofApollon, Artemisand Leto.Notethatimprecation appliesonlytoactsofdestructionordamagetodocuments that have been carriedout after the transfer of thearchive to thesanctuary: e‡ tiwt«n grammãtvnt«n §n t“ fler“ t«n mnhmonik«n t«nénenhneigm°nvn±d¤khk°ti μ§jalÆlif° ti μ§gg°grafe éf' ô énhne¤xyh efiwtÚflerÒn ,§j≈lh e‰naiaÈtÒnktl. e. Protectingagainst offencesthatare difficultorimpossible to detectand prosecute i. directed againstofficials: Labraunda III 8 (Mylasa, C3): protection of banon euthynai: §ånd¢ μ]p`a`ralãbhi tiw tØn eÎyunanμefisagãghiμdika`[stØwdikãshi μd«i parå] t`ådedogm°napareur°sei ≤itinoËn,§j≈lhw[¶stv aÈtÚwka‹ofl§j aÈ]toËka‹§pikatãratowka‹êtimowka‹ prosapo[teisãtv draxmåw..... `]awka‹¶stvtåÍpãrxontaaÈtoËfleråDiÚwÉOs[ogvka‹ §j°stvt«i bou]lom°nvieÈyÊnein tÚnmاmme¤nantaêneup`[royesm¤awpareur°sei mh]demiçi§kkleiom°nvi: Contextisunclear,but thereisaclear parallel to Koerner no. 27 (Halieis?, C5): a‡ tistiw [®tå]nbolånt[å]n` énf'ÉAr¤sstona®tÚn
Self imprecation
Affinitywithpublicly pronounced arai: Koerner (1993: 166) noted theclose correspondencewith theoathformula in thepublic imprecation of IG IX 1(2) 609 =Koerner no. 47 (‘Bronze Pappadakis’), Naupaktos,ca. 500 B.C.: ë mentói ta]Ëtaparba¤nonti§jjÒleianaÈt ó ika‹geneçika‹pãnt`esin,t ó id' eÈseb°onti H¤laow ¶ssto. Foraparallel, see SEG 9.3=ML 5.46-51.
SEG 31.985 =Koerner no. 79 (Teos, 480-450) combines text of imprecationagainst officials ( timØn¶xvn )withthe text of an oath themainobjective of whichwas clearlytoprotect against stasis.Itisnot absolutely clear whether theoathwas to be swornbyall citizensof Teos or specifically by incoming officials only: §panã`s`ta[s]in oÈ`boleÊs`voÈd¢p`oiÆsv oÈd¢lu[Æ]s`vo[È]d`¢`di≈jv o[Ê]d`¢ [xr]Æ`m[a]t`adhmi≈s[voÈ]d¢ dÆsv.oÈd¢kat`[ak]t`e`[n]°`v ím`m`Ø`s[Á]n[...... ]I`[`]I`SIN`§n` T`°vi [μ]p`l°o`s[i]n[k]a`‹ ím`m`Ø`È`p[Ú]pÒle`v[w]n`[Ò]m`o` katalafy°n[t]a`§nd¢ ÉAbdÆ[r]oisin [s]Ámpentak`o`[s]¤oisin μpl[°o]sinafisumnÆthnoÈstÆsv`[o]ÎtesÁmpollo›si[n] ;the rest is lost.
Areasofapplication a. Entrenchmentclauses(very widespread in treatiesthroughoutthe period) IG XII,9191 (Eretria,C4): self-imprecationbyall citizens undertaking not to alteragreement with contractor andhis heirs in drainingproject. 284 Lene Rubinstein b. Protectionagainst treason, stasis or actions that mayleadto stasis RFIC 70:15 (Telos, C4/3): citizenoathwithundertakingnot to engage in subversionand to abidebypost-stasis settlement. IC Iix1(Dreros, C3/2):citizen oath with undertaking nottobetray polis,not to initiate stasis or participateinconspiracy. IG XII Suppl.235 (Ioulis,C3): undertakingnot to form ties with enemiesofthe community. Tit. Cal. pp.9-10 Txii (mergedcommunity of Kosand Kalymna, C3):undertaking to remainloyaltodemocracy andtoabide by its laws anddecrees, to remainloyaltoKing Ptolemy, not to supporttyranny or oligarchyorany conspiracy that maydestabilise the constitution. IK Magnesia Sip. 1 (Magnesia on merger with Smyrna,C3): undertakingtostayloyal to King Seleukos andthe polis of Smyrna,toabide by sympoliteia agreementand thelawsand decreesofSmyrna, to uphold autonomia , isonomia and dêmokratia of Smyrna. IK Magnesia Sip. 1 (Smyrnaonmerger with Magnesia,C3): undertakingtoabide by agreementwith residents of Magnesia Sip. andtostayloyal to King Seleukos. Undertakingto co-exist with newcitizensonequal termsand admitthemtorelevantcivic subdivisions. PEP Teos 48 (Teos, C3):undertakingnot to demolishthe nucleated settlement of KyrbissosbyTeian citizensupon merger of Teos andKyrbissos. IosPE 1(2) 401 = Syl. (3)360 ( koinon of TaurianChersonnese, C3):citizen oath undertakingnot to betray the koinon or its territory, to remain an enemyofthosewho plot against or betray the koinon,toserve as damiourgos and bouleutês in thebestinterests of the community,without taking bribes or engaging in harmfulactivitiesagainst anyindividual citizen,and not to participateinany synômosia againstthe koinon or anyindividual citizen whoremains loyaltothe koinon. IC IIIiv8(Itanos,C3):citizen oathwith undertakingnot to betray polis or to engage in anyconspiracy against the polis or anyindividual citizen, not to engage in anadasmosgês or cancellationofdebts,and to live as acitizen accordingtothe polis laws. Labraunda III 47 (Mylasa, C2): citizenoathwithundertakingnot to overthrow democracyorany of itsdecisions. c. Ensuring that offenceisreportedand prosecuted IG II(2)1196 (Athens, Aixone,C4): undertaking by dêmotai to upholddecision andtoreport anytransgressionstofellowdemesmen. ka‹§wtÚnloipÚnxrÒnonépofan« to›w dhmÒtaiw, §ãntinãti efid«` poioËntatoÊtvn§nto›w[é]gro›w. RFIC 70:15 (Telos, C4/3):citizen oathwith undertakingtolodge informationwith polis officialsabout revolutionaryactivitiesorconspiracies: afi d° kaa‡syvma¤ tina nevter¤zontaμsullÒgouw sunãgonta§p‹katalÊseitoËdãmou,dhlvs°vto›w êrxousin: IC Iix1(Dreros, C3/2): citizen oathwith undertakingtolodge informationabout conspiracywith polis officials, andtoreport kosmos to boule ,if kosmos failstoexact oath frommembers of the agela whohaveescaped theoathonthe stipulated occasion. efi d° tinãw kapÊyvmaisunomnÊontaw,§jaggel¤vtoËkÒsmouto›wpl¤asin: PEP Teos 48 (Kyrbissos on merger with Teos,C3):undertaking to reportconspirators againstterritory or phrourarchos to theTeian polis (?)and phrourarchos: ka‹ín[efid«tina] §pibouleÊontat«ixvr¤vi μt«i frou[r]ãrxvi dhl≈sv t∞[ipÒlei]ka‹t«i frourãrx[v]i ka‹oÈk[§p]itr°cvkatådÊnamintØn[§mÆn] . IK Magnesia Sip. 1 (Magnesia on merger with Smyrna,C3):undertakingtoreport conspiracies against polis andits territoryaswellasconspiracies to overthrow dêmokratia or isonomia to theSmyrnaian Assembly. ka‹§ãntinaafisyãnvmai§pibouleÊo[nta] t∞ipÒlei “ ARAI”inGreek Laws in theClassical andHellenistic Periods 285
μto›wxvr¤oiw to›w t∞wpÒlevw,μtØndhmokrat¤anμtØnfisonom¤ankatalÊonta, mhnÊsv t«idÆmvit«i Smurna¤vn ka‹boihyÆsv égvniz[Òm]enowmetåpãshw filotim¤aw,ka‹oÈk §gkatale¤cvkatådÊnamintØn§mautoË: IK MagnesiaSip. 1 (SmyrnaonmergerwithMagnesia,C3):undertakingtoreport any plan to harm theMagnesiansadmittedasSmyrnaian citizens or theirdescendantsortheir property, andtoassistthe victims. ka‹§ãntinaafisyãnvmai§pibouleÊontaaÈto›w μto›w §kgÒ[noiw]aÈt«nμto›w ÍpãrxousinaÈt«n,mhnÊsv …wíntãxistadÊnvmai,ka‹ boi[hyÆs]vmetåfilotim¤aw: IosPE 1(2) 401 = Syl. (3)360 ( koinon of TaurianChersonnese, C3):citizen oath with undertakingtoreportany conspiracy to betray koinon or undermineits institutions to the damiourgoi kata polin. oÈd¢t«iprodidÒntika‹katalÊonti §pitrec«oÈd¢sugkruc«, éllå§jaggel« to›w damiorgo›w to›w katåpÒlin: IosPE 1(2) 401 = Syl. (3)360 ( koinon of TaurianChersonnese, C3):citizen oath with undertakingtoreport andjudge anyoffence causing harmtoanindividualcitizen of the koinon. oÈd¢§pibouleus«êdikon prçgmaoÈyen‹ oÈy¢nt«m politçnt«m mØ éfestakÒtvn,oÈd¢t«i§pibouleÊon`[ti §pitrec«oÈd¢sugkruc«oÈy¢noÈye]n¤, éll' efisaggel[«]ka‹krin« cã[fvi]katåtoÁwnÒmouw: IosPE 1(2) 401 = Syl. (3)360 ( koinon of TaurianChersonnese, C3):citizen oath with undertakingtoreportonany synômosia threateningthe koinon to the damiourgoi. ka‹e‡ tinã ka`s`unvmos¤ana‡s[y]vmai§oËsanμ`[gi]nom°nan,§ja`ggel« to›w dam[ior]g`o›w: IC IIIiv8(Itanos, C3):citizen oath with undertakingtoreportany synômosia or syllogos setuptobetraythe polis of Itanos to the polis officials. pÒlintånÉItan¤vn oÈ pr[od]vs°v,oÈd¢x≈ranoÈd¢nã[s]ou[w]t`åwt«n [ÉI]t`an¤vn,oÈd¢[pol]e`m`¤ouw§paj°v, oÈd¢naË[wtåw]t`«n ÉItan¤vn prodvs°v,[oÈd¢] t«npolitçnprodvs°v[oÈd°n]a,oÈd¢ xrÆmatapolit[çn,o]Èd¢` sÊllogon oÈd¢sunvmo[s¤an]poihs°v§p‹ t«ikak¤onit[çw pÒl]iowμt«npolitçn,oÈd¢êl[lv]i` su`ness°`omaioÈden¤, a‡ t¤[wkax]rÆizhi toÊtvnt[i p]oie›n,él`[l']§r°vpot‹toÁwêrxontaw: Milet I,3150 = Syl. (3)633 (Miletos andHerakleia,C2):inprinciple,the oath to be takenby all citizens of thetwo communities constitutesanentrenchment of atreaty, but the effect of thetreatyisthe merger of the poleis .One undertakingtowhich theself-imprecation relatesistoreportany breachofthe agreementtothe boulê andthe Assembly. ka‹§ãntina êllon punyãnvmaiparaba¤nontatåwımolog¤aw,oÈk§pitr°cvkatådÊnamintØn§mÆn, éllådhl≈sv t∞iboulª ka‹t«i dÆmvi. Milet I,3149 (Miletos andPidasa, C2): in principle,the oath to be takenby all citizensof thetwo communities constitutesanentrenchmentofatreaty,but theeffectofthe treaty is the merger of the poleis .One undertakingtowhich theself-imprecationrelates is to reportany breach of theagreement to the boulê andthe Assembly. ka‹§åntinaêllon` p`un[yã]nvmai aflroÊmenonparaba¤nein tåwımolog¤aw,oÈk§pitr°cvk`a`tådÊ`na`min tØn§mÆn,éllå dhl≈sv t∞iboul∞ika‹t«i dÆmvi. d. Protectingritual and/or sacred propertyand precincts Unattested,exceptinverygeneral contexts of certaincitizen’s oaths. e. Protectingagainst offencesthatare difficultorimpossible to detectand prosecute i. self-imprecationbyofficials or quasiofficials CID I.9 = RO 1 (Delphi,Labyadai,C4):protectionagainst maladministrationoffunds, undertakingtoadministeroathtosuccessors in office. IG II(2)1183 (Athens, Myrrhinous,C4):self-imprecation by logistai andindividuals actingas synêgoroi in accountingprocedure. 286 Lene Rubinstein
SEG 26.136 (Athens, Thorikos,C4):self-imprecation by euthynos andhis paredroi . CID I.10, SEG 28.100, IG II(2)1126 (Delphi,C4): self-imprecationby grammateus (?) undertakingtodrawuprecords accordingtothe instructions of hieromnamones ,parallel undertakingby kêrykes. Syl. (3)577 (Milet,C3): self-imprecation by candidates forelected office undertakingnot to rigelection. IdiCos ED:196 (Kos,C3):self-imprecation by official undertaking not to engage in maladministration(particularly embezzlement). PEP Teos 48 (Teos, C3): undertaking to proposeonlythe most suitable candidatefor the electedofficeofphrourarchos (corresponds closely to Syl.(3) 577 (Miletos,C3/2) relatingto electionof paidotribai andteachers). IG II(2)1243 (Athens, Tetrapoleis, C3): undertakingbyofficials to obeyinstructions and to administer same oath to successorsinoffice. IG XII, 207 (Eretria,C3):undertakingbyindividuals appointed to assign contractsto technitai to make theawardswithout bribes or anyregardto charis or individual enmity. IC IIIvi7(Praisos,C3): undertakingbyofficial to administer oath with self-imprecation to thecitizensgenerally within specified time.The rest of theoathrelates to entrenchment of treaty with Stalitai. IG XII,7515 (Aigiale,C2): undertakingbyofficialstodesignate epimelêtês from among euergetai and aleitourgetoi (the firstpartofthe oathis‘evidentiary’, confirmingintegrity of theofficials’own pastconductinoffice). FD III1:362 +4:354 (Halai andBoumeliteia,C2): undertakingbyquasi officials (= guideswho will show judgesround disputed territory andpoint out horoi)onlytoshow them theoriginal horoi andnot to fabricateany newones. FD III1:362 +4:354 (Halai andBoumeliteia,C2): undertakingbyquasi officials (= dikastagôgoi)not to exertundue influence on judges,their secretaryortheir slaves or to bribethemprior to thehearing of thedispute. SEG 43.381 (Beroia, C2): undertakingbygymnasiarchoi to discharge theirduties accordingtolaws, andnot to be influencedby charis or enmity. ii.self-imprecation by individualswho will cast votes in collectivedecision-makingprocesses IG II(2)1183 (Athens, Myrrhinous, C4):self-imprecationbyindividuals whowill assume decision-makingroleinaccountingprocess of officials. CID I.10, SEG 28.100, IG II(2)1126 (Delphi,C4):self-imprecationbyamphiktyons actinginajudicial capacityaswellasagentsofimplementationofpenalties. IK Knidos I221 (Knidos, C4/3):self-imprecation by individualsjudging disputebetween Kalymnaand thedescendantsofaKoan citizen. Tit. Cal. pp.9-10Txii (mergedcommunity of Kosand Kalymna, C3):undertaking by citizensofthe merged community to cast votes (openlyaswellasinsecretballots)thatwill benefitthe polis,without regard to charis. FD III4:278 (Delphi,C2): undertakingtojudge without regard to charis, philia or enmity,torestore property to Apollonimmediately afterverdict,and not to acceptbribes or engage in embezzlement. f. Protection of grainimports IosPE 1(2) 401 = Syl. (3)360 ( koinon of TaurianChersonese,C3): citizenoathwith undertakingnot to importgrain excepttothe TaurianChersonese(close correspondencewith ML 30, public imprecation, Teos C5: ˜stiw§wg∞n tØnTh˝hn kvlÊoi s›ton§sãgesyaiμ t°xnhi μmhxan∞iμkatåyãlassanμkat' ≥peiron μ§saxy°ntaénvyeo¤h,épÒllusyai ka‹aÈtÚnka‹g°now tÚk°no).