EW LAWS MADE. 297 in the poekilO, pursuant to the above decree, two concluding lawa were enacted, which completed the purpose of the citizens. The first of these laws forbade the magistrates to act upon, or permit to be acted upon, any law not among those inscribed ; and declared that no psephism, either of the senate or of the people, should overrule any law. 1 It renewed also the old prohibition, dating from the days of Kleisthenes, and the first origin of the democracy, to enact a special law inflicting direct hardship upon any individual Athenian apart from the rest, unless by the votes of six thousand citizens voting secretly. The second of the two laws prescribed, that all the legal adju- dications and arbitrations which had been passed under the ante- cedent democracy should be held valid and unimpeached, but formally annulled all which had been passed under the Thirty. It farther provided, that the laws now revised and inscribed should only take effect from the archonship of Eukleides ; that is, from the nomination of archons made after the recent return of Thrasybulus and renovation of the democracy. 2 1 Andokides dc Mystcr. s. 87. ^f]^ia/j.a te pijSev, fifi~e fiovhfjf pyre &TJUOV (vofiov) KVpiurspov elvai. It seems that the word vopov ought properly to be inserted here : see Demosth. cont. Aristokrat. c. 23, p. 649. Compare a similar use of the phrase, ftqdsv icvpiuTepov elvat, in Demos- then. cont. Lakrit. c. 9, p. 937. 1 Andokides de Myster. 8. 87. We see (from Demosthcn. cont. Timokrat. c. 15, p. 718) that Andokides has not cited the law fully. He has omitted the words, S-xoaa d' e;r2 ruv rpianovTa eTrpa^'dri, TJ iftig, f/ 6jjfioaip, unvpa e/vat, these words not having any material connection with the point at which he was aiming. Compare ^Eschines cont. Timarch. c. 9, p. 25, ical iaru ravra unvpa, uaTcip rlt kiri TIJV rpiuKovra, r) T& rrpb EiiAfJov, % el rtf uHrj ITUTTOTC roiaiiri) kyevcro irpo&effftia ...... Tisamenus is probably the same person of whom Lysias speaks contempt- iiously, Of. xxx, cont. Nikomach. s. 36. Meier (De Bonis Damnatorum, p. 71) thinks that there is a contradiction l>otwcA the decree proposed by Tisamenus (Andok. de Myst. s. 83), and another decree proposed by Dioklos, cited in the Oration of Demosth. cont. Timokr. c. 11, p. 713. But there is no real contradiction between the two, and the only semblance of contradiction that is to be found, arises from the (act that the law of Diokles is not correctly given as it now stands. It onght to be read thus : elite, Tot>f voftovi; roi>c rpd Evitfaidov rtdevTaf h> 18*
