We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
The Phaselis decree (IG I. 16+ = Meiggs—Lewis, No. 31 = IG I. 10) is our chief piece of evidence for the manner in which the Athenians regulated civil-suits arising between themselves and the allies in the mid-fifth century. It reads as follows:
page 49 note 1 The decree is usually dated 469–450, though Mattingly, , PACA 7 (1964), 38Google Scholar, has suggested that it was passed after 428/7, and Henry, Alan, The Prescripts of Athenian Decrees, Mnemosyne Suppl. 49 (1977), p.4 n.13Google Scholar, objected to the early use of ephelkustic nu in line 3. This difficulty can be obviated by reading, with Wade-Gery, , Essays, p.182Google Scholar, 
instead of 
in lines 3 f. Wade-Gery, , pp.182–5Google Scholar, followed by Meiggs and Lewis, p.68, argued that the decree was pre-Ephialtian, inferring from 
(lines 18 f.) that Athenian archons were still responsible for verdicts. Sealey, , Essays in Greek Politics, pp.49 f.Google Scholar, denied the inference, citing Plato's use of the verb in Laws 958 B-C; Harrison, A. R. W., The Law of Athens, Procedure, p.38 with n.l, adduced other and more cogent parallels, most notably Aθπ. 57.4, which effectively undermine Wade-Gery's thesis. A mid-fifth century date, consistent with the letter-forms, is best.Google Scholar
page 49 note 2 This text incorporates the improvements made in the version of Meiggs and Lewis by Bradeen, and McGregor, , Studies in Fifth-Century Attic Epigraphy (Norman, 1973), p.116.Google Scholar
page 50 note 1 See Croix, G. E. M. de Ste., CQ N. S. 11 (1961), 101–4.Google Scholar Cf. Hopper, R. J., JHS 63 (1943), 40CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Gauthier, P., Symbola (Nancy, 1974), pp.160 f.Google Scholar
page 50 note 2 Art cit. 94–112.Google Scholar
page 50 note 3 We do not know the reason why the polemarch's court was more favourable than the thesmothetes‘. Wade-Gery, , Essays, p. 188 n.2Google Scholar, inferred that a. prostates might have been unnecessary in this court, Croix, Ste., art. cit. 101, that it was less busy and so speedier. Gauthier, p.186, supposes that previously the Phaselites had been subject to summary decisions reached by magistrates with police powers.Google Scholar
page 50 note 4 Seager, R., Historia 15 (1966), 509Google Scholar, Meiggs, R., Athenian Empire, p.232.Google Scholar
page 50 note 5 Cf. Meiggs, , Athenian Empire, p.230.Google Scholar
page 50 note 6 Gauthier, , Symbola, p.186, drew the same conclusion from the use of 
in lines 18 f., appropriate only to a defendant's defeat in a suit.Google Scholar
page 51 note 1 Dionysius probably is referring here to an instance of forum contractus, not forum rei. However, the linguistic point of material importance is that the dative with 
adequately and incontestably identifies only one of the two parties involved.
page 51 note 2 See, e.g., Kühner-Gerth, , Ausfübrlicbe Grammatik, i. 518 f.Google Scholar
page 51 note 3 See Lysias, 3.26, [Dem.] 32.2, 35.32; for a good example with 
, see Dem. 5.14.Google Scholar
page 51 note 4 See Tod, , p.271.Google Scholar
page 52 note 1 The use of 
in lines 6 f. seems to favour the second alternative. ‘Whatever cause of action arises at Athens with a Phaselite as a defendant’’ is a state- ment implying that Phaselites were already required to use Athenian courts when under legal attack. On the other hand, it is just possible that the author of the decree used the locative ‘at Athens’’ in the place of 
because he was specifically thinking of the Athenians domiciled at Athens whom the decree was intended to convenience. Certainly the bulk of Athenian-Phaselite trade was conducted at Athens and the 
would predictably arise there.
page 52 note 2 
See Meiggs, , Athenian Empire, p.229, for recent discussion of the question whether the first participle is causal and subordinate to the second or both are coordinate. The preference of some scholars for the second alternative, Meiggs included, hinges on the belief that the Athenians were responsible for no such transferral of judicial venue. Now, however, there is every reason to prefer the first: the Athenians brought such trials to Athens because they were unfairly treated as prosecutors in foreign law-courts.Google Scholar
page 52 note 3 Essays, pp.180–200.Google Scholar
page 52 note 4 It must be kept in mind, of course, that Athens allowed other 
to go on as before (lines 11–14 of the Phaselis decree). These will have included, presumably, the right of the allies to ensure that Athenians observed local laws governing imposts, taxes, property-ownership, civil order, piracy, etc.
