Death to Tyrants! by David Teegarden

written on the old stele and the transcripts of the kings against them and the decrees previously written by our ancestors and the votes against the tyrants. If contrary to this any of the tyrants, either those who lived in the city or their descendants, is caught setting foot on the land of Eresos --- the damos shall deliberate and ---
    Text 6 records a decree of the Eresian dēmos validating “all that has been written against the tyrants, both those who lived in the city and their descendants.” Four documents are mentioned. The first document is “the law against the tyrants that is written on the old stele.” As noted at the beginning of this chapter, we do not know for certain the date of that law’s promulgation; and we know very little about its provisions. The second group of documentslisted in the decree is “the transcripts ( diagraphai ) of the kings” against the tyrants. The only explicitly mentioned transcripts in the dossier are from Alexander: one ordering the Eresians to try Agonippos and Eurysilaos (texts 1 and 2), the other ordering the Eresians to try the descendants of the “former tyrants” in order to determine whether or not they will be allowed return to Eresos (text 3). But Philip Arrhidaios’s judgment (text 4) is almost certainly a transcript, and Antigonos’s letter (text 5) might have contained one too. The third group of writings mentioned consists of previous decrees promulgated against the tyrants. Texts 3 and 6 are clearly decrees: they contain the generic motion formula “the dēmos decided.” And texts 1 and 2 are likely parts of decrees too: they publicly declared how the dēmos will try the two tyrants. And there were likely additional decrees that are no longer extant: formal decrees of banishment and property confiscation, for example. 30 The fourth group of documents listed in text 6 consists of “the votes against the tyrants.” That obviously refers to the jury votes in the trial against Agonippos and Eurysilaos (texts 1 and 2) and the trial of the descendants of the “former tyrants” (text 3).
    The most salient context for this decree (text 6) is the widespread conclusion that, in the future, kings would not interfere in Eresos’s interior game. The fact that three different kings in one generation decided not to interfere supports that conclusion, of course. But the Eresians had more to rely on than simply the particular decisions of individual kings: the logic of the modern legal concept of stare decisis seems to have taken root. The only legitimate action for a king vis-à-vis involvement in Eresos’s interior game concerning tyrants and their descendants, that is, was to follow Alexander’s precedent—namely, to let the Eresians decide the matter for themselves. In support of that conclusion, one might note, first, that both Philip’s transcript (text 4) and Antigonos’s letter (text 5) refer to Alexander. The exact context of the Antigonos’s reference is unknown. But he quite likely was explaining the rationale of his own decision: he will follow the precedent established by Alexander. 31 Second, the decree recorded in text 6 cites Alexander’s rulings as the sourceof authority of both the Eresians’ decisions and the decisions of the subsequent two kings:
    Since previously also King Alexander sent back a transcript and ordered the Eresians to hold a trial concerning Agonippos and Eurysilaos, as to what should be done to them…. And when [or since] Alexander sent a letter also about the family of Apollodoros and his brothers Hermon and Heraios…. Be it resolved by the damos : That there shall be valid against the tyrants … the law against the tyrants … and the transcripts of the kings.
    The pro-democrats’ realization that the Hellenistic kings would not interfere in their internal actions against tyrants and the descendants of tyrants had very