Bibliographic record
Abstract
The nature of contracts in Athenian law is a much debated topic. The Athenians in the time of the orators are said to have possessed a statutory basis for the validity of contracts in the famous law on homologia , which explicitly declared all agreements to be valid ( kyrios ). Consequently, a good deal of the debate on contracts has focused on the interpretation of this statute. This article argues that there was, in fact, no such statute: what existed was a kind of clause adopted in several different laws, which established that agreements between the parties involved take precedence over the statutory norm at hand. Thus, Athenian written laws did not explicitly regulate contracts in general. This hypothesis also helps resolve the seeming discrepancy between this alleged statute’s apparently absolute endorsement of all and any agreements and the claims we read in some fourth-century authors that agreements were valid only if they did not contradict the existing laws. La nature des contrats dans le droit athénien est un sujet fortement débattu. Selon l’opinion commune, les Athéniens, au temps des orateurs, possédaient une base légale pour la validité des contrats dans la fameuse loi sur l’ homologia , qui déclarait explicitement que tous les accords étaient valides ( kyrios ). Par conséquent, une grande partie du débat sur les contrats s’est consacrée à l’interprétation de cette loi. Cet article soutient qu’en fait une telle loi n’existait pas : ce qui existait, c’était une sorte de clause, adoptée dans plusieurs textes de loi différents, qui établissait que les accords entre les parties impliquées avaient préséance sur la norme légale concernée. Ainsi, les lois athéniennes écrites ne réglementaient pas explicitement les contrats en général. Cette hypothèse permet aussi de résoudre l’apparente contradiction entre un entérinement soi-disant absolu de cette loi présumée pour la totalité des contrats et l’affirmation que nous lisons chez certains auteurs du IVe siècle que les accords étaient valables seulement s’ils ne contredisaient pas les lois en vigueur.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".