Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T08:14:33.032Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Early Source of Polis-Constitution

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Victor Ehrenberg
Victor Ehrenberg
Affiliation:
King's College, Newcastle on Tyne
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

An archaic boustrophedon (or partly boustrophedon) inscription found a few years ago at Dreros is one of the oldest extant Cretan inscriptions, probably not later than 600 B.C., and is of the greatest interest for our knowledge of the early development of the Polis. The text runs as follows:

1. ←Aδ' εϜαδε πολι επει κα κοσμησει, δεκα Ϝετιον τον αIa←θιοσολοιον

2. →Ϝτον μη κοσμεν αι δε κοσμησιε, οπε δικακσιε, αϜτον οπηλεν διπηλεν καϜτον

3. ←ακρηστον ημεν, ας δοοι, κοτι κοσμησιε, μηδεν.

4. ← ⋈ομοται δε κοσμος κοι δαμιοι κοι ικατι οι τας πολ[ιο]ς.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 37 , Issue 1-2 , April 1943 , pp. 14 - 18
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1943

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 14 note 1 Published by Demarque, P. and Effenterre, H. van, Bull. Corr. Hell, 1937, 333 ffGoogle Scholar.

page 14 note 2 We shall have to deal with the meaning of this word ακρηστος later.

page 14 note 3 Journ. Hell. Stud, lvii (1937), 147 ffGoogle Scholar.

page 14 note 4 Griechische Volksbeschliisse, 25.

page 15 note 1 Riv. difilol. Ixvii (1939), 20 ffGoogle Scholar.

page 15 note 2 θε⋯ς ⋯ λωὂων, though it keeps the reading of the editors, does, of course, not make sense.

page 15 note 3 Cf.Oehler, , P-W. xi. 1497Google Scholar.

page 16 note 1 This explanation is considered probable in the Addenda of Liddell-Scott, sub ἅχρηστος.

page 16 note 2 Halliday, , Plutarch's Greek Questions, 50Google Scholar.

page 16 note 3 Heiliges Recht, 114. His view is accepted in the Addenda of Liddell-Scott, sub χρηστ⋯ς.

page 16 note 4 e.g. Code of Gortyn, i. 51 ff. ICret. ix. 1, 104 ff.; xvi. 1, 33; xix. 1, 15 f.

page 17 note 1 Oehler, loc. cit. 1496. For Dreros cf. the prescript of the well-known oath (ICret. ix. 1= Syll.3 527) των Aιθαλεων κοσμιοντων (c. 200 B.C.) As to the date see Effenterre, H. van, Bull. Corr. Hell., 1937,327–32Google Scholar, cf. ibid. 31.

page 17 note 2 Cf. Cloché, ;, La restauration démocratique ⋯ Athenes (1915), 409Google Scholar.

page 17 note 3 Cf. van Effenterre, 336.

page 17 note 4 This βολ⋯, as the editors emphasize, is not mentioned elsewhere in our inscription, though it is proved to have been in existence in Dreros in later times by the oath (1.104) I have quoted above. In this oath the κοσμοι are responsible to the Council.

page 18 note 1 Cf. Ehrenbeig, , Hermes, lxviii (1933), 293 ffGoogle Scholar.

page 18 note 2 My thanks are due to Prof. Wade-Gery for his kind revision of this article.