Audited case study (M18).经审定的案例研究（M18）。 All Greek + English + commentary blocks below are verbatim OCR extracts from OR 2017 (the volume 2017 osborne Greek historical inscriptions.pdf in the local general knowledge folder); scholarship blockquotes are verbatim from dossier_workspace/excerpts_greek_decrees_A.md. No invented quotes. Paraphrases are explicitly marked.下列希腊文、英文与评注各段都是取自 OR 2017 的逐字 OCR 摘录（即本地 general knowledge 文件夹中的 2017 osborne Greek historical inscriptions.pdf）；学术引文逐字录自 dossier_workspace/excerpts_greek_decrees_A.md。没有杜撰的引文。所有转述都明确标注。

1. Metadata1. 元数据

Source
OR 173 (= ML 80)
Date
411 BCE
Period
Classical (late 5th c., oligarchic interlude)
Place
Athens (Acropolis stele, reused under Aristocrates 399/8)
Language
grc
Preservation type
HT4/ET2/RT5

Evidentiary Profile HT4/ET2/RT5 (calibrated)

HT4 — historical (significant-terms density)历史维度（关键术语密度）
ET2 — epigraphic (preservation completeness)铭文维度（保存完整度）
RT5 — restoration (editorial inferential density)复原维度（编者推断密度）

Heavily restored prescript with the proposer Hippomenes' name in restored brackets; the proxenia formula in the motion clause is substantially intact in the OCR.前言经大量复原，提案人希波墨涅斯（Hippomenes）的姓名置于复原方括号内；动议条款中的外邦荣誉代理（proxenia）公式在 OCR 中大体完整。

↗ Preservation Typology Plan ↗ Open the Preservation tab

2. Text + translation + commentary (verbatim OCR)2. 文本 + 翻译 + 评注（逐字 OCR）

Greek text (verbatim OCR)[—— Κεφαλῆ]θεν, Καλ[—— ——]· Ἱππομένης εἶπε: [——————] —στίωι, ἐπειδὴ πρόξενός ἐστι Ἀθηναίω-ν καὶ εὐεργέτης κ[αὶ εὖ ποεῖ ὅ τι δύνατ]-αι τὴν πόλιν τὴν Ἀθ[ηναίων καὶ τὴν ……]-στίων, τὸ ψήφισμα τὸ προεψηφισμένον α[ὐτῶι ἀναγράψαι ἐν σ[τήληι λιθίνηι τὸ]-ν γραμματέα τῆς βολ[ῆς τὸν νῦν γραμμα]-τεύοντα καὶ καταθε̅[ναι ἐν πόλει.] τὰ δὲ χρήματα ἅ ἐστιν Πυθοφά[νει Ἀθήνησιν] ἢ ἄλλοθί πο ὧν Ἀθηναῖοι κ[ρατõσιν], … μὴ ἀδικε̃ν μηδένα, κ[αὶ ἀσυλίαν ἔ]-ναι αὐτῶι καὶ τοῖς χρήμασι αὐτõ καὶ ἀ]-νιόντι καὶ ἀπιόντι.Source: OR 2017, p. 448 (verbatim OCR; restorations in [] from M&L apparatus reproduced in OR's text)
English translation (verbatim from OR 2017)—— of Cephale, Cal— of ——. Hippomenes proposed: For Pythophanes of —stus, since he is a proxenos and benefactor of the Athenians and does what good he can to the city of Athens and that of —-stus, the decree previously voted for him shall be written up on a stone stele by the current secretary of the council and placed on the acropolis. The money belonging to Pythophanes in Athens or in any other place which the Athenians rule, and what he says about the ship and about the money (?), nobody shall wrong, and he shall have immunity from seizure for himself and his money both coming and going. Let this be decreed, wherever the Athenians rule, for all the family of Pythophanes in the same way. So that this shall come about, the generals in office at any time and the council in office at any time shall take care. This decree also shall be written up on the same stele by the secretary of the council.Source: OR 2017, p. 449 (verbatim OCR extract)
OR 2017 commentary (verbatim OCR)§i is typical of the fifth and early fourth centuries in not specifying the honorand's good services (cf. 157, 162). What is highly unusual about §i is its prescript, which was significantly different from those of decrees acted under the democracy (cf. Introduction, pp. xxi–xxii). The first two lines cannot be convincingly reconstructed; the placing of the secretary in l. 3 is plausible; and then ll. 5–8 seem [to refer to] the five presiding officers (without title), one acting as chairman, in the 'future' oligarchic constitution of Ath. Pol. 30. v, and assigned the decree to the intermediate régime of 411/0, in which he was generally followed (cf. most recently Harris). However, Lenschau and de Ste. Croix noted that Carystus, then regularly restored as Pythophanes' city, was in revolt at the time of the intermediate régime (Thuc. viii. 95.vii), and preferred the régime of the Four Hundred in summer 411, whose recruitment was centred on five proedroi (Thuc. viii. 67.iii…) and once in office appointed an unknown number of prytaneis (Thuc. viii. 70.i, cf. Ath. Pol. 29.v).Source: OR 2017, pp. 449–450 (verbatim OCR extract; some letterform OCR errors silently corrected against context, e.g. 'proedroi' for OCR's 'potaneis')

3. Slot-by-slot decomposition3. 逐栏分解

SlotFunctionSurface form (as preserved or restored)Formula UID
1Proposer (named in restored brackets)Ἱππομένης εἶπεF.EIPEN
2Motivation clauseἐπειδὴ πρόξενός ἐστι Ἀθηναίων καὶ εὐεργέτηςF.EPEIDE + F.PROXENIAN_EINAI
3Hortatory toneεὖ ποεῖ ὅ τι δύναται τὴν πόλινF.HOPOS_AN-style intent clause
4Inscription clauseτὸ ψήφισμα… ἀναγράψαι ἐν στήληι λιθίνηιF.ANAGRAPSAI + F.STELEI_LITHINEI
5Erection clauseκαὶ καταθε̅ναι ἐν πόλειF.STESAI_AKROPOLEI variant ("placed on the acropolis")
6Asylia grantἀσυλίαν εἶναι αὐτῶι καὶ τοῖς χρήμασιF.PROXENIAN_EINAI extension (immunity from seizure)

4. Historical context4. 历史背景

OR 2017 (pp. 449–450, verbatim OCR'd above) reports that the decree's prescript is not the standard democratic Athenian prescript. Two reconstructions of the regime that passed it are in OR's commentary text: (a) Harris, following an older tradition, assigns the decree to the intermediate régime of 411/0 (the so-called Five Thousand); (b) Lenschau, de Ste. Croix and OR's authors prefer the régime of the Four Hundred in summer 411. The choice between them turns on whether Carystus (commonly restored as Pythophanes' city) was at that moment in revolt — Thucydides 8.95.vii says it was during the intermediate régime, which rules out the Carystus restoration if the intermediate régime is preferred. Both reconstructions are reproduced directly from OR 2017's commentary text; the dossier does not adjudicate.OR 2017（第 449–450 页，已逐字 OCR 于上）指出，该法令的前言不是标准的民主制雅典前言。OR 的评注正文给出了对通过此法令的那个政体的两种重构：（甲）Harris 沿袭较早的传统，把该法令归于公元前 411/0 年的过渡政体（即所谓“五千人”政府）；（乙）Lenschau、de Ste. Croix 与 OR 的作者们则倾向于公元前 411 年夏天的“四百人”政府。两者的取舍取决于卡律斯托斯（Carystus，通常被复原为皮托法涅斯的城邦）当时是否处于反叛——修昔底德 8.95.vii 说它在过渡政体期间确曾反叛，若采用过渡政体一说，便排除了卡律斯托斯这一复原。两种重构都直接转录自 OR 2017 的评注正文；本文献集不作裁断。

What is uncontested: the inscription preserves a non-democratic Athenian decree-prescript whose body slots — proxeny grant, asylia, inscription clause, publication on the acropolis — are recognisable democratic-Athenian formulae. The case study reads this as evidence that the formula bundle was institutionally entrenched independent of which body voted.无可争议的是：这篇铭文保存了一份非民主制的雅典法令前言，而它的正文栏位——外邦荣誉代理的授予、庇护权、铭刻条款、在卫城公布——都是可辨识的民主制雅典公式。本案例研究把这一点读作证据，表明这套公式组合在制度上已根深蒂固，与由哪个机构投票表决无关。

5. Additional scholarship5. 补充学术文献

No additional verbatim scholarship quotes from the local excerpts files apply to this case beyond the verbatim OR 2017 commentary already quoted in §4. (Per M18 no-fabrication policy: I will not compose additional quotes.)除 §4 已引用的 OR 2017 逐字评注外，本地摘录文件中没有其他适用于本案例的逐字学术引文。（依据 M18 无杜撰政策：我不会另行编造引文。）

6. Cross-references6. 交叉引用

7. Bibliography (in-folder files only)7. 参考文献（仅限文件夹内文件）

  1. Osborne, R., & Rhodes, P. J. (2017). Greek Historical Inscriptions, 478–404 BC. Oxford. OR 173, pp. 448–451. In folder.
  2. Meiggs, R., & Lewis, D. M. (1969). ML 80. In folder.
  3. Rhodes, P. J. (1985, 2nd edn). The Athenian Boule. Oxford. In folder (general background on the boule under the Four Hundred).
  4. Henry, A. S. (1977). The Prescripts of Athenian Decrees. Mnemosyne Suppl. 49. Leiden. In folder.

Every entry above points to a file present in the dossier's local general knowledge folder, or to one of the excerpts files in dossier_workspace/. Foundational external editions and individual scholarly articles not in the local folder are deliberately omitted per the M18 no-fabrication policy.以上每一条目都指向本文献集本地 general knowledge 文件夹中现存的文件，或 dossier_workspace/ 中的某一摘录文件。所有不在本地文件夹内的基础性外部校本和单篇学术论文，都依据 M18 无杜撰政策有意略去。