703 research outputs found
Nomothesia and financial administration:'Constitutionalization' and institutional Development in fourth-century Athens
Full text linkThis chapter tackles the problem of the changes to the merismos – the law that in the fourth century allocated Athenian funds to various treasuries and magistrates – ordered by decree in IG II3 1 327, 452 e 355, yet to be ratified by the nomothetai. Previous scholarship has either argued that such changes were enacted in accordance with a special derogation to the law forbidding nomoi ep’andri (Hansen 1979/80: 90–99; 1985: 360–362; 2017), or that they were not in fact law ad hominem (Rhodes 1972: 103; 1984: 55–60; Canevaro and Harris 2012: 116–119; Canevaro 2013: 145–150). In all this scholarship (including my own), the focus has been only on the level of the formal rules governing Athenian financial administration and lawmaking, with no attention to the informal institutional norms, practices, and the discourses that surrounded them. By analysing these inscriptions within the wider context of Athenian finances and lawmaking, the chapter proposes a new reconstruction of how these changes were institutionally legitimised, and of the effects that this legitimation had on the role of the nomothetai and on the development of Athenian financial administration. In doing so, the chapter tackles issues of (excessive) constitutionalisation (Grimm 2012: 105–9; Michelman 2011; Sajo 1999: 33–8) and uses tools from the New Institutionalisms – particularly more expansive approaches to institutions that include not only formal rules but also practices, ideas and narratives (March and Olsen 1984; 1989; Lowndes and Roberts 2013: 46–76; Schmidt 2008; 2010) –, at the same time assessing the strengths and weaknesses of traditional approaches to Greek institutional history
Nomothesia and financial administration:'Constitutionalization' and institutional Development in fourth-century Athens
Full text linkThis chapter tackles the problem of the changes to the merismos – the law that in the fourth century allocated Athenian funds to various treasuries and magistrates – ordered by decree in IG II3 1 327, 452 e 355, yet to be ratified by the nomothetai. Previous scholarship has either argued that such changes were enacted in accordance with a special derogation to the law forbidding nomoi ep’andri (Hansen 1979/80: 90–99; 1985: 360–362; 2017), or that they were not in fact law ad hominem (Rhodes 1972: 103; 1984: 55–60; Canevaro and Harris 2012: 116–119; Canevaro 2013: 145–150). In all this scholarship (including my own), the focus has been only on the level of the formal rules governing Athenian financial administration and lawmaking, with no attention to the informal institutional norms, practices, and the discourses that surrounded them. By analysing these inscriptions within the wider context of Athenian finances and lawmaking, the chapter proposes a new reconstruction of how these changes were institutionally legitimised, and of the effects that this legitimation had on the role of the nomothetai and on the development of Athenian financial administration. In doing so, the chapter tackles issues of (excessive) constitutionalisation (Grimm 2012: 105–9; Michelman 2011; Sajo 1999: 33–8) and uses tools from the New Institutionalisms – particularly more expansive approaches to institutions that include not only formal rules but also practices, ideas and narratives (March and Olsen 1984; 1989; Lowndes and Roberts 2013: 46–76; Schmidt 2008; 2010) –, at the same time assessing the strengths and weaknesses of traditional approaches to Greek institutional history
Making and changing laws in ancient Athens
Full text linkThis chapter explores the development of ideas about legislation and legislative procedures in ancient Athens. It isolates an ideology of legislation that mistrusted legal change, and that came into conflict with democratic ideas and practices. It then discusses the creation of nomothesia procedures at the end of the fifth century BCE that reconciled the need for legal change with that for consistent and stable laws, and follows the workings of these procedures throughout the fourth century BCE
On Dem. 24.20–23 and the so-called ἐπιχειροτονία τῶν νόμων:Some final clarifications in response to M. H. Hansen
Full text linkThis short article goes back to the problem of the authenticity of the document found at Dem. 24.20–23, with wide implications for the reconstruc- tion of Athenian nomothesia. Without providing a comprehensive response to M. H. Hansen’s recent KLIO article on the topic (M. H. Hansen, The Inserted Doc- ument at Dem. 24.20–23. Response to Mirko Canevaro, KLIO 101, 2019, 452–472; itself a response to a previous KLIO article by M. Canevaro), it clarifies some key issues and clears up some important misunderstandings, also providing new evi- dence against the authenticity of the document
A later Hellenistic debate about the value of Classical Athenian civic ideals? The evidence of epigraphy, historiography and philosophy
Full text linkBook synopsis: In the Hellenistic period (c.323-31 BCE), Greek teachers, philosophers, historians, orators, and politicians found an essential point of reference in the democracy of Classical Athens and the political thought which it produced. However, while Athenian civic life and thought in the Classical period have been intensively studied, these aspects of the Hellenistic period have so far received much less attention. This volume seeks to bring together the two areas of research, shedding new light on these complementary parts of the history of the ancient Greek polis.\ud
\ud
The essays collected here encompass historical, philosophical, and literary approaches to the various Hellenistic responses to and adaptations of Classical Athenian politics. They survey the complex processes through which Athenian democratic ideals of equality, freedom, and civic virtue were emphasized, challenged, blunted, or reshaped in different Hellenistic contexts and genres. They also consider the reception, in the changed political circumstances, of Classical Athenian non- and anti-democratic political thought. This makes it possible to investigate how competing Classical Athenian ideas about the value or shortcomings of democracy and civic community continued to echo through new political debates in Hellenistic cities and schools. Looking ahead to the Roman Imperial period, the volume also explores to what extent those who idealized Classical Athens as a symbol of cultural and intellectual excellence drew on, or forgot, its legacy of democracy and vigorous political debate. By addressing these different questions it not only tracks changes in practices and conceptions of politics and the city in the Hellenistic world, but also examines developing approaches to culture, rhetoric, history, ethics, and philosophy, and especially their relationships with politics
Social mobility vs. societal stability. Once again on the aims and meaning of Solon's reforms
Full text linkRecognition and imbalances of power:Honour relations and slaves’ claims vis-à-vis their masters
Full text linkRecognition and imbalances of power:Honour relations and slaves’ claims vis-à-vis their masters
Full text linkMirko Canevaro/Andrew Erskine/Benjamin Gray et al. (Eds.), Ancient Greek History and Contemporary Social Science, Edinburgh Leventis Studies 9, Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press 2018
No full textRohde D. Mirko Canevaro/Andrew Erskine/Benjamin Gray et al. (Eds.), Ancient Greek History and Contemporary Social Science, Edinburgh Leventis Studies 9, Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press 2018. Historische Zeitschrift. HZ. 2020;310(1):135–136
- …
