We have many documents of state honorary decrees from fourth-century Athens. Although these honours were mostly awarded to non-citizens, some were to Athenian citizens. Though these decrees which honoured fellow citizens might bring about social inequality among citizens, honours and privileges continued nevertheless to be conferred on citizens by them. This paper is intended to shed light on the social functions of these honorary decrees in the Athenian citizen body during this period. I use not only inscriptions of the decrees awarded to citizens, but also literary texts as supplementary materials. The commonly held view of the character of these decrees based primarily on the epigraphical evidence can be summarized as the following four points. First, the number of honorary decrees increased in the third quarter of the fourth century. This increase has been explained as a response to the liturgies made by propertied citizens in order to get over the financial crisis that followed the fall of the Athenian Empire. Secondly, there was a custom of honorary decrees ex officio, that is, routine conferment of honours to officials at the end of their term of office. Some scholars have explained this custom as a means of encouraging citizens indifferent to politics to participate in the government, and others have argued that it was helpful to recruit the political leaders indispensable for democracy. Thirdly, officials could receive honours only after they gave accounts (euthynai). These restrictions could prevent honours being awarded to corrupt officials. Lastly, inscriptions now rendered more detailed reasons for the honours being awarded than before. This stylistic change has been interpreted not only in terms of the honorees' desire for publicity, but also as a means to promote other citizens' services to the polis. These commonly held opinions may be right for the most part, but there remains a problem. The more honorary decrees were passed, the less the honours themselves would be valued. Thence, the honorary decrees would not have functioned as effectively as before. I propose two other ways that the honorary decrees functioned in Athenian society. One is that the honorary decrees formed and reconfirmed an ethical code among citizens. Discussions preceding the decisions in the assembly and publication of the honorary inscriptions would contribute to make images of the ideal citizen and to drum these images into citizens. Therefore, honorary decrees might make an ethical standard known to citizens. Another possibility can be explained as follows. Generally speaking, a would-be honoree must show obedience to an honorer in order to secure honours from the latter and, if he can, to receive higher honours. The honorary system is, therefore, an effective means of manipulating an administrative apparatus. This must have been the case in classical Athens. Officials aspiring to receive honours ex officio could not help subordinating themselves to the will of the assembly and the rhetores who shaped opinion there (1,111 ; Aischin. 22,8 ; 20). Otherwise, they might not be able to receive even honours ex officio-routine honours-and this would inevitably be shameful while other citizens were being awarded there. In other words, the assembly, that is, the Athenian citizen body could control the officials by way of honorary decrees. Thus, the system of honours that were awarded regularly to Athenian citizens prevented concentration of power in the hands of a few citizens and contributed to the exceptional social stability of fourth-century Athens.