Thè Laws of Demetrius of Phalerum and Their Guardians
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
265 Thè Laws of Demetrius of Phalerum and their Guardians. By William Scott Ferguson. Most of the Athenian δροι or boundary-stone inscriptions fail to specify the time at which the transaction recorded was completed J). There are some exceptional cases, however. Thus the following documents are dated precisely: (1) IG II 2 1133 in 315/4 B. C., (2) Sitz. d. Beri. AJcad., 1397 665 no. 4 in 315/42), (3) Ibid., 1898 783 no. 27 in 315/4, (4) IG XII 8 18 in 314/3, (5) Ibid., 19 i in 314/3, (6) Ibid., 19 ii in 314/3—307/6, (7) IG II 2 1134 in 313/2, (8) Säe. d. Beri. Alad., 1897 665 no. 5 in 312/1, (9) IG II 2 1136 in 305/4, (10) Ibid., 1137 in 305/4-303/2, (11) Ibid., 1138 in 302/1, and (12) Ibid., 1141 in 276/5. From this list two inferences may be made (1) that the practice of indicating the year in a boundary record was established by the law-code of Demetrius of Phalerum, and (2) that this code was promulgated in the year 316/5 B. C. On these points an argument is hardly required. The catalogue speaks for itself. We may simply mention that the Varían Chronicle3) enters the item, Δημήτριος νόμους έ'&ηκεν Ά&ήνησιν under the archonship of Demogenes (317/6 Β. C.), and that Syncellus (Hierony- mus) enters under the year 316/5 B. C. the item, Δημήτριος ò Φαλη- ρενς έγνωρίζετο τρίτος νομοθέτης Ά&ήνησιν. Neither of these reports, however, has any real weight. The Parian Chronicle simply dates the legislation of Demetrius in the year in which he assumed office — in which doubtless, he received the commission to revise the laws. The date of Hieronymus, though correct, is probably so by accident, since his determinations have in general the value only of approximations. We may mention also that IG II 584 (Ditt., Syll.2, 164) with Wilhelm's res- toration 4) νόμονς~\ έ'&ηκεν καλ[ονς και σνμφερόντας τει πόλει, places the legislation of Demetrius at the beginning of his decade of govern- ment in Athens, where, too, the general consideration that the reformer would be unlikely to defer long so essential a step as the revision of the laws places it. The inscriptions cited above, however, enable us to 1) These inscriptions are published in IG 112 1103 ff., 5 1111 ff., Hitzig, Bas griech. Pfandrecht, 62 f. ; Ziebarth, Sitz. d. Beri. Alead., 1897 664 ff., 1898 776 ff. ; Tillyard, Annwal of the British School in Athens, XI 1904/5 63 ff. ; Robinson, Amer. Jour. Phil., 1907 432; IG XII 8 18 ff. Cf. also Dareste, Reinach. and Haussoullier, Becueil des inscr. jurid. grecq., 107 ff. The whole subject of mortgages and their pub- lication and preservation is discussed by Beauchet, Hist, du droit privé de la répu- blique athénienne, vol. III 176 ff., 319 ff. ; IV 60 ff. 2) Republished without identification in Annual of the British School, XI 63 ff. no. 20. 3) IG XII 5 1 444 CXIV. — 4) GGA 1903 784, 790. Klio, Beitrage zur altan Geschichte XI 3. 18 ι Brought to you by | Brown University Rockefeller Library Authenticated | 128.148.252.35 Download Date | 5/25/14 7:50 AM 266 William Scott Ferguson, fix the date of its promulgation in 316/5 Β. C. In the following year the archon's name became an integral part of these records. Another characteristic of the records inscribed on the boundary stones after 316/5 B. C. is the frequency with which a specification is made of the person with whom the original papers (σνν&ήκαι) are deposited. This is done in the case of (2), (4), (5), (6), (8), and also in the case of IG II 2 1139, II 5 1139b, which Kirchner1) dates in ca. 300 B.C., and in the case of IG II 2 1140, Sitz, cl. Beri. Alcací, 1898 nos. 26 and 28, of which all we can say is that they belong to the fourth century B. C. It is omitted, however, in (3), of which the date is 315/4 B. C., (7), of which the date is 313/2 B. C., and (9) to (11), of which the dates range from 305/4 to 302/1 B. C. (1) and (12) are mutilated and hence yield no infor- mation on this point. We cannot say with any degree of certainty that the holder of the contracts was ever specified before 316/5 B. C. We can simply affirm that after 316/5 B. C. his name, like that of the ar- chon2), was frequently, though not always, communicated. The inscription on the δροι was of course not an official, not the legal, record of indebtedness : it was simply an advertisement made in the interest of third parties, or by a creditor interested in having the fact of a loan known to his debtor's neighbors in order to secure himself for the future against a possible denial of obligation. The δροι might be sub- mitted as evidence in the courts, but a proof could be completed without them, and, in fact, the genuineness of the δροι was often the question at issue in litigation3). The sole purpose that the specification of the time of contracting a loan could have was to facilitate a search and above all establish publicly the sequence of several loans secured by a single piece of realty, and thus safeguard investors. How this had been done prior to 316/5 B. C. the inscription first published by Robinson shows4). The property in question was sold with the right to repurchase for 1, 500, 1,200, 600, 150, and 100 drachmae successively. As the entire loan-value of the estate was gradually reached the size of the mortgage decreased. The order of entry thus decided the right to priority of claim. This sufficed when the whole transaction was completed at once, or when the successive mortgages were entered on the same slab; but when they were entered on different sides of the δρος, if that were possible, or on different δροι, there was no obvious means of settling the order of claims without having resort to witnesses, as was usual, or to the original con- tracts, of which the place of deposit was nowhere specified, of which the 1) PA 3165, 7503. 2) The name of the archon is omitted in IG II 2 1139 and 5 1139 b. 3) On these points see Hitzig, and Recueil, Loc. cit. ; also Beauchet, III 355 ff. 4) Amer. Jour. Phil, Loc. cit. Republished by von Premerstein, Athen. Mitt. 1910 103 ff. Robinson very kindly tells me that· he finds his readings of the numerals preferable to those of von Premerstein. 2 Brought to you by | Brown University Rockefeller Library Authenticated | 128.148.252.35 Download Date | 5/25/14 7:50 AM The Laws of Demetrius of JPhalerum and their Guardians. 267 very existence might be successfully denied till it was too late, and which, seem to have been frequently lost or destroyed1). After 316/5 B.C., we may assume, the σνν&ήκαι themselves were always dated precisely, and always deposited with a banker2) or some other reliable person, it being, of course, with the original articles that the legislator dealt, not with their informal publication. What was required in- the formal document became, however, as we have seen, common in the informal document. To wills also (διαϋ-ήκαι) this regulation seems to have been applied. Hence, whereas in the testament of Aristotle3) there is no specification of the party with whom it is to be deposited, this information is care- fully conveyed in the other δια&ήκαι preserved in Diogenes Laertius — these of Theophrastus, Straton, Epicurus, Arcesilaus, and Lycon4) -— all of which are posterior in time of composition to the legislation of De- metrius. Moreover, whereas Demosthenes D) says flatly δια&ηκών ουδείς πώ- ποτε άντίγραφα έποιήσατο, after the time of Demetrius it seems to have been customary for a man to make several copies of his will and indi- cate to the holder of each to whom the others were entrusted. Thus, this was done by Theophrastus and Arcesilaus 6). In one case Demetrius apparently went still farther — in the matter of δόσις or transfer of property by gift during the owner's lifetime. Thus Harpocration defines δόσις : ιδίως μεν λέγεται παρά τοις ρήτορσι σνμβό- λαιον γραφόμενον δταν τις τά αϋτοϋ διδφ τινι διά των άρχόντων, ώς παρά Δεινάρχφ. The significant phrase is διά των άρχόντων, which in- volves the consent of the magistrates before the transaction was legal. As Beauchet points out7), there is no evidence for the official registra- tion of such transfers during the period of the Orators; and it is hardly an accident that the lexicographer supports his affirmation by a reference to Dinarchus alone. Rather, we must assume, Dinarchus reflects the prac- tice established by the Phalerian. So too at the, time of the death of Epicurus, an anagraphe which, as Wilhelm has shown8), always implies the accessibility to the public of the record, was made of the δόσις of the philosopher's property to his executors; and the anagraphe in question was published in the Metroona), the public record office of Athens. This sort of transfer of property needed special control because, in addition to the desirability that there should be no uncertainty as to ownership, it was neces- sary that a man should not be permitted to give away prior to death pro- perty which he could not alienate from his natural heirs by testament10).