Inscribed Athenian Laws and Decrees 3521 3221 BC

8/21/2019 Inscribed Athenian Laws and Decrees 3521 3221 BC

1/446


2/446

Inscribed Athenian Laws and Decrees352/1322/1 BC


3/446

Brill Studies in Greek and

Roman Epigraphy

Editorial Board

Adele Scauro (Brown University)John Bodel (Brown University)

Te titles published in this series are listed at brill.nl/bsgre


4/446

Inscribed Athenian Laws

and Decrees 352/1322/1 BC

Epigraphical Essays

ByStephen Lambert

LEIDEN BOSON2012


5/446

Cover illustrations: (Front) Athenian Assembly decree o 346/5 BC honouring Dioskourides oAbdera and his brothers (IG II3 1, 302, photo courtesy o the Epigraphical Museum, Athens)(Back) Dedication to Hephaistos by the Athenian Council o 343/2 BC and beginning o theCouncils decree honouring Phanodemos o Tymaitadai as the best speaker in the Council inthe ninth prytany (IGII31, 306, photo courtesy o the Epigraphical Museum, Athens).

Tis book is printed on acid-ree paper.

Library o Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Lambert, S. D., 1960 Inscribed Athenian laws and decrees 352/1322/1 BC / epigraphical essays by StephenLambert. p. cm. (Brills Studies in Greek and Roman Epigraphy) Includes bibliographical reerences and index. ISBN 978-90-04-20931-2 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Law, GreekSources. 2. LawGreeceAthensSources. 3. LawGreeceAthens

Historyo 1500. 4. Athens (Greece)Politics and government. 5. GreecePolitics andgovernmento 146 B.C. I. itle.

KL4115.A75L36 2012 340.538dc23 2011043461

ISSN 1876-2557ISBN 978 90 04 20931 2 (hardback)ISBN 978 90 04 22852 8 (e-book)

Copyright 2012 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, Te Netherlands.Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Global Oriental, Hotei Publishing,

IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP.

All rights reserved. No part o this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored ina retrieval system, or transmitted in any orm or by any means, electronic, mechanical,photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission rom the publisher.

Authorization to photocopy items or internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NVprovided that the appropriate ees are paid directly to Te Copyright Clearance Center,222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA.Fees are subject to change.


6/446

CONENS

Acknowledgements ............................................................................ viiPreace ................................................................................................. xi

PAR A

MAIN SERIES

I Athenian State Laws and Decrees, 352/1322/1:I Decrees Honouring Athenians ......................................... 3

II Athenian State Laws and Decrees, 352/1322/1:II Religious Regulations ........................................................ 48

III Athenian State Laws and Decrees, 352/1322/1:III Decrees Honouring Foreigners. A. Citizenship,Proxeny and Euergesy ........................................................... 93

IV Athenian State Laws and Decrees, 352/1322/1:III Decrees Honouring Foreigners. B. Other Awards ..... 138

V Athenian State Laws and Decrees, 352/1322/1:IV reaties and Other exts ................................................ 184

PAR B

OHER PROLEGOMENA

VI en Notes on Attic Inscriptions ......................................... 221

VII Fragmente Athenischer Ehrendekrete aus der Zeit desLamischen Krieges (zu Ag. XVI 94 und IG II2292) ........ 240VIII Te Only Extant Decree o Demosthenes ......................... 249IX Fish, Low Fares and IG II2 283 ............................................ 273X On IG II2546 .......................................................................... 285XI Aferwords ............................................................................... 294XII IG II2410: An Erasure Reconsidered ................................. 299XIII Greek Inscriptions in the University Museum, Oxord,

Mississippi ............................................................................... 311

XIV Restoring Athenian Names .................................................. 321XV Polis and Teatre in Lykourgan Athens: the Honoric

Decrees .................................................................................... 337


7/446

vi

XVI Athens, Sokles, and the Exploitation o an AtticResource (IG II2411) ......................................................... 363

XVII Inscribed reaties ca. 350321: an Epigraphical

Perspective on Athenian Foreign Policy ........................ 377

PAR C

CHRONOLOGY

XVIII Athenian Chronology 352/1322/1 B.C. ........................ 389

Appendix: Select Addenda and Corrigenda (2011) ..................... 401Indices ................................................................................................ 407


8/446

ACKNOWLEDGEMENS

Te publication o ascicule 2 o IG II31 and this collection o associ-ated prolegomena mark the end o the epigraphical phase o my workon the inscribed laws and decrees o Athens, 352/1322/1 BC. Begunin 1999, the work was substantially complete by 2005. Since thenobstacles various in shape and size have strewn the path, but now thatthe journey is done, I am less mindul o them than I am o the manydebts o gratitude I owe to the individuals and institutions who have

helped along the way.First and oremost, when working on the third edition o a great

epigraphical corpus, one is acutely aware that ones steps are guidedby the kindly light shone by the labour o ones predecessors. Numer-ous scholars have made lasting contributions to the epigraphy othese 282 inscriptions in the 250 years since the rst was published byP.M. Paciaudi in 1761 (see chapter 8); and that includes all whom Imay mention rom time to time in the ollowing pages in disagreement.It is a pleasure to acknowledge here the pioneering work o the earlyGreek scholars, in particular Kyriakos Pittakis, Alexandros Rangaband Stephanos A. Koumanoudes, the heroic labours o JohannesKirchner, editor o the second edition o IG II, and the invaluablework o Benjamin Meritt and the team o epigraphists responsible orpublishing the inscriptions rom the Agora excavations. Te contribu-tions o two scholars o past generations, however, are outstanding inquality and quantity: Ulrich Khler, editor o the rst edition o IG II,and Adol Wilhelm, who was responsible or much o the best work

in the second edition. Both were brilliant scholars, but I rate Khlerscontribution more highly, or he achieved the greatest transormationin the quality o this corpus, introducing order and light, and was aparticularly good judge o the point at which restoration o text notpreserved on the stone ceases to be legitimate and helpul and becomesspeculative and potentially misleading.

I gladly reiterate here my warm thanks to the many scholars o thepresent generation whose contributions are acknowledged in the indi-

vidual papers collected in this volume. o these I add now three urther

grateul acknowledgements: to Emmanuel Vintiadis and Peter Liddel,who rendered invaluable assistance in the early years, particularly in


9/446

viii

researching older bibliography; to Klaus Hallo and Angelos Matthaiouor their important contributions in the later stages; or moral supportto Ron Stroud, especially in the earlier stages, and, especially in the

later stages, to Robin Osborne and above all to Peter Rhodes. It is alsoa pleasure to acknowledge here the tremendous value, or this projectand or Attic epigraphy more broadly, o the contribution made byStephen racys pioneering work on epigraphical hands.

One o the principles underlying all good epigraphical corpus workis, where practicable, comprehensive autopsy o the stones, and thisrequires the collaboration o many museums. I have great pleasure inreiterating here the thanks expressed in the individual papers to all

the museums I have visited in the course o this work, and their staffs,who have invariably been courteous, riendly and helpul. o these Iadd now my thanks to the staff o the British Museum or acilitatingaccess in 2010 to inv. no. 773 (IG II31, 395). Because o the numbero inscriptions discovered in the Agora and the even larger numberstored in the Epigraphical Museum at Athens, I owe special debts othanks to John Camp and the staff o the Agora excavations, and aboveall to the staff o the Epigraphical Museum and its successive Direc-tors, and most especially, since most o the work was done during his

Directorship, to Charalambos Kritzas.Excellent libraries are also indispensable to good epigraphy. For themost part the library work was done at the British School at Athens in19992004, and I take this opportunity to thank successive Directorsand staff, and Penny Wilson, the librarian, or their unstinting support.In the very last stages o the work, in 20092011, I was also privilegedto enjoy, as Visiting Fellow o Utrecht University, the library and theother incomparable acilities o the Fondation Hardt, in Vandoeuvres,Geneva, and I am extremely grateul to Monica Brunner, Heidi del

Lago and the other staff who make visits there so agreeable. Tesevisits were acilitated by my happy collaboration with Josine Blok onher project on religion and citizenship in Athens, and I am grateul toher too or much support o many kinds.

Serious epigraphy is a undamentally important business, but it isalso a laborious one and, unlike my predecessor as British editor oan Attic IG, David Lewis, editor o IG I3, I do not hold a Universitypost in epigraphy. In these circumstances this work would not havebeen completed had I not been prepared to do a signicant propor-tion o it in my own time and at my own expense. Nevertheless, itwould also have been impossible without nancial support. I grate-


10/446

ix

ully acknowledge the contribution o the UK Arts and HumanitiesResearch Board, who unded my work part-time (50%) between 1999and 2004 on a project or which the grant-holder was John Davies (or

whose patience over the long haul I am very grateul); and the PackardHumanities Institute, which also supported my work between 1999and 2005. Some o the initial groundwork was laid at the Universityo Heidelberg, where I was privileged to enjoy a Humboldt Fellow-ship or parts o the two years 19992001, at the kind invitation oAngelos Chaniotis.

Finally I owe our debts o gratitude specic to this volume: to AdeleScauro, or proposing it; to Benjamin Millis and Evelyn van t Wout

or expert help in compiling the indices; to the original publishers othe papers or permission to reprint them here: to Habelt-Verlag oBonn or chapters IXI and XIII; to the Canadian Institute in Greeceor chapter XII; to the Greek Epigraphical Society or chapters XIV,XV and XVIII; to Nicholas Sekunda and the Institute o Archaeol-ogy, Gdask University, or chapter XVI; and to ditions Ausoniuso Bordeaux or chapter XVII; and to the Epigraphical Museum, Ath-ens, or supplying rom their archive the photographs reproduced onthe cover.


11/446


12/446

PREFACE

As soon as I began work on the new edition o the inscribed laws anddecrees o Athens, 352/1322/1 (IG II3Part 1, ascicule 2) in 1999,it became clear to me that it would be desirable to publish a series oprolegomena. Te pages o IG, with its tradition o extremely concisepresentation o epigraphical texts, were not the place to describe, justiyand explain in adequate depth and detail the epigraphical innovations,such as new readings and restorations, joins and datings, and the resh

interpretative ideas that I had to propose (some my own, some kindlycommunicated to me by colleagues); and it seemed proper to exposethese innovations and ideas to open scrutiny beore they becameincorporated in a Corpus which ought ideally to reect not so muchthe private opinions o any individual as a collective scholarly view.

Te result was the 18 papers gathered in this volume. Originallypublished between 2000 and 2010 in the Zeitschrif r Papyrologie undEpigraphik, conerence proceedings, commemorative volumes andFestschrifen, they are arranged here into three parts. Part A is a con-nected series o ve papers, a catalogue o the inscriptions arrangedthematically, with bibliography, notes on some o the results o mywork on individual texts and some discussion o historical context andphysical eatures o the stones. Part B consists o papers reporting nd-ings relating to inscriptions individually or in small groups. Some othese also treat inscriptions outside my Corpus ascicule; or example,one o the papers proposes new restorations o names in inscriptionsboth in my Corpus and outside it; another reports the results o a visit

to the University Museum, Oxord Mississippi, where I studied notonly the one inscription there that belongs in my Corpus, but alsoother Greek inscriptions in the collection. Tough most o the papersin this Part are primarily epigraphical in ocus, most also contain somediscussion o historical context, and two o the later ones, on honor-ic decrees relating to the theatre and on inter-state treaties, are quitestrongly historical in emphasis. Part C contains a single paper on thechronology o Athens in this period, a subject on which the prescriptso inscribed laws and decrees supply most o the evidence and which

is in turn undamental to the restoration o incompletely preservedprescripts.


13/446

xii

My hope that the publication o prolegomena would stimulate ur-ther progress in the epigraphy o these texts has been realised. Selectaddenda and corrigenda to 2007 are at pp. 208214, and I include at

the end o this volume a note o the more important urther improve-ments that have been achieved since 2007.

Some readers will consult this collection in pursuit o a reerencein IG or elsewhere to one o the original papers, and to assist theman indication o the original page numbers has been embedded in thereprinted texts. (A vertical line marks the end o the original page-number printed in the margin alongside it.) Indices and concordances,including the new IG numbers, have been included to assist those

searching or discussions o specic inscriptions. Te opportunity ore-publication has been taken silently to correct some typographicalerrors in the original papers.

Photographs o inscriptions were included in the original papersonly where no photograph had previously been published. Tat gap inthe literature has now been lled, and a complete set o photographsis now readily accessible in the IG ascicule itsel. It has thereore beendecided not to reproduce the photographs once again in this volume.

English translations o the inscriptions are being made available

on-line.


14/446

PAR A

MAIN SERIES


15/446


16/446

CHAPER ONE

AHENIAN SAE LAWS AND DECREES 352/1322/1I DECREES HONOURING AHENIANS*1

his is the irst o a series o articles on categories o inscribedAthenian state laws and decrees, 352/1322/1. hey are intended

* Tis chapter was previously published in Zeitschrif r Papyrologie und Epigraphik150 (2004), 85120.

1 I am very grateul to the ollowing scholars or their help in the preparation othis article: Sean Byrne, Jaime Curbera, Malcolm Errington, Simone Follet, ChristianHabicht, Klaus Hallo, Sally Humphreys, Charalambos Kritzas, Angelos Matthaiou,John Morgan, Robert Parker, Peter Rhodes, Ronald Stroud, Leslie Treatte and Ste-phen racy. I alone am responsible or remaining aws. Charalambos Kritzas andJohn Camp kindly acilitated access to inscriptions in the Epigraphical Museum andthe Agora. I thank Charalambos Kritzas also or supplying the photographs o inscrip-tions in the EM and Klaus Hallo or the images o the squeeze in the IG archives atthe Berlin Academy reproduced at Fig. 8. Wherever possible, I have read every lettero every inscription at autopsy. I have also examined squeezes (principally those in

Berlin, Oxord and Princeton), photographs and, where this seemed likely to be ruit-ul, early transcripts. Following the principles that have been adopted or IG II3, wherean inscription can not be dated precisely and the possible dates span the periods omore than one ascicle, it has normally been allocated according to the highest date inthe range. Accordingly some decrees that might date to 352/1322/1 are not includedhere and some inscriptions that are included might not date to within this period.Some very ragmentary items that might have honoured Athenians will be listed in

Ath. State III. Te ollowing abbreviations are used:Agora XV: B.D. Meritt and J.S. raill edd., Te Athenian Agora. Vol. XV. Inscriptions:

the Athenian Councillors (Princeton, 1974);Agora XVI: A.G. Woodhead ed., Te Athenian Agora. Vol. XVI. Inscriptions: the

Decrees (Princeton, 1997);APF:J.K. Davies,Athenian Propertied Families 600300 BC (Oxord, 1971);Ath. State IIII: articles in the present series;Develin,AO: R. Develin,Athenian Officials 684321 BC (Cambridge, 1989);Faraguna, Atene:M. Faraguna,Atene nell et di Alessandro (Rome, 1992);Gauthier, Bienaiteurs:Ph. Gauthier, Les cits grecques et leurs bienaiteurs (Paris, 1985);Henry, Honours:A.S. Henry, Honours and Privileges in Athenian Decrees (Hildesheim,

1983);Henry, Prescripts:A.S. Henry, Te Prescripts o Athenian Decrees (Leiden, 1977);Humphreys, Strangeness:S.C. Humphreys, Te Strangeness o Gods (Oxord, 2004);IOrop:B. Petrakos,(Athens, 1997);IRham:B. Petrakos, . Vol. II,(Athens, 1999);Knoeper, Eretria XI:D. Knoeper, Eretria XI. Dcrets rtriens de proxnie et citoyen-

net (Lausanne, 2001);Lettered Attica: D. Jordan and J. raill edd., Lettered Attica. A Day o Attic Inscrip-

tions, Proceedings o the Athens Symposium, 8 March 2000 (Publications o Cana-dian Institute at Athens, no. 3; 2003);


17/446

4

as prolegomena to IG II3 ascicle 22 and have a threeoldpurpose:

(a) to make available photographs o inscriptions o which none hasbeen published previously;

(b) to discuss new textual and occasionally contextual points more ullythan is possible within the constraints o a concise corpus ormat;

(c) to acilitate historical research. |

Athens began regularly inscribing decrees honouring its own citi-zens in the 340s.3 Te ew known cases rom beore this are excep-

tional. Earlier in the 4th century the city had awarded high honoursto the generals Konon, Iphikrates, Chabrias and imotheos.4None othe decrees survives, but at least in the case o Konon it seems thatit was inscribed, or at XX 69 Demosthenes quotes rom the stele( ): . Te honours included ateleia and a bronzestatue. At XX 70 he has the decrees or Konon read out (the textsare not preserved in the manuscripts). At XX 86 he has the decrees

LGPN II: M.J. Osborne and S.G. Byrne edd.,A Lexicon o Greek Personal Names. Vol.II. Attica (Oxord, 1994);

Meritt, Ath. Year: B.D. Meritt, Te Athenian Year (Berkeley, 1961);Mikalson, Calendar: J.D. Mikalson, Te Sacred and Civil Calendar o the Athenian

Year (Princeton, 1975);PAA: J.S. raill ed., Persons o Ancient Athens (oronto, 1994);Prakt. Wilhelm: A.P. Matthaiou ed., ,

Adol Wilhelm (Athens, 2004);Pritchett-Neugebauer: W.K. Pritchett and O. Neugebauer, Te Calendars o Athens

(Cambridge Mass., 1947);Rationes:S.D. Lambert, Rationes Centesimarum (Amsterdam, 1997);Rhodes, Boule:P.J. Rhodes, Te Athenian Boule (Oxord, 1972, rev. 1985);RO: P.J. Rhodes and R. Osborne, Greek Historical Inscriptions 404323 BC (Oxord,

2003);Schwenk: C.J. Schwenk, Athens in the Age o Alexander (Chicago, 1985);Treatte: L. Treatte, Te Grammar o Attic Inscriptions (Berlin, I 1980, II 1996);racy,AD: S.V. racy,Athenian Democracy in ransition (Berkeley, 1995);V.-erzi: C. Veligianni-erzi, Wertbegriffe in den attischen Ehrendekreten der klassi-

schen Zeit (Stuttgart, 1997);Whitehead, Demes:D. Whitehead, Te Demes o Attica (Princeton, 1986).

2 Te ascicle will contain c. 250 texts.3 No. 18, passed in 346/5 and honouring a man who held office in 347/6, is the

earliest dated example in the series. In general on the history o honoric practice inAthens and elsewhere in Greece see Gauthier, Bienaiteurs; on Athens see recently alsoI. Kralli,Archaiognosia 10 (19992000), 13362.

4 On the award o the megistai timai in the 5th and early 4th centuries see Gauthier,Bienaiteurs,248 and 92103; RO notes to 8 and 22.

85


18/446

5

or Chabrias read out, though he does not speciy in this case thatthey were inscribed. Te unusualness o these honours is conrmedby the epigraphical record, or o the over 250 extant decrees o the

period 403352 inscribed at the initiative o the state, there is not onethe main purpose o which is to honour an Athenian.5Agora XVI 52,or Eukles, herald o the Council and People, supporter o democracyand reedom in 403, and or his son Philokles, appointed to the sameoffice, is probably not an exception, since the decrees lack the custom-ary clause providing or their inscription and were perhaps set up atprivate initiative and expense.6

From these cases, rom other allusions in the orators7and rom the

evidence o inscribed dedications made by officials honoured by theCouncil and/or People,8 it is clear that decrees honouring Athenianswere not a wholly new phenomenon in the 340s; it was the regular

5 Athenian envoys are quite commonly praised and invited to dinner (, theterm normally used or Athenians) in the prytaneion in decrees dealing with diplo-matic matters (e.g. or envoys returning rom Mytilene in 368/7, IG II2107 = RO 31,246) but they are not usually named and the honour is incidental to the decreesmain purpose. Ofen it was patently part o the intention in such cases to enable theenvoys to participate in the hospitality (, the term used or oreigners) offeredto visiting oreign diplomats (at IG II2107, 2630, to the representatives o the Les-bian cities at the allied Council). It is also probably in a diplomatic context that oneshould understand the invitation to in IG II270 o c. 390378, extended tothree Athenians who had apparently been made citizens o Phokis (c. Develin, AO229). Te unusual IG II2366 = Schwenk 80 (archon Kephisodoros), inscribed (perhapsat private initiative) in a crown on a base, may date to 366/5 rather than 323/2 (pro-poser with name only would be anomalous in 323/2, c. Henry, Prescripts, 43). Tehonorand is also invited to , so might be an Athenian, but might as easily bea naturalised oreigner (commonly recipients o invitations to , e.g. IG II2226,268) or a oreigner exceptionally invited to (as e.g. Lapyris o Kleonai, IG II2365b, 911, o 323/2, c. P.J. Rhodes, ZPE 72 (1984), 1939). IG II2171, honouringArtikleides (possibly an Athenian), is dated to beore 353/2 in IG II2 but may ratherdate to 335 or later (see Ath. State III). IG II2 143 (c. SEG XXXIV 63) includes alist o Athenians honoured preceded by some highly ragmentary text. Tis appearsto include wording reminiscent o a decree, perhaps a quotation rom a decree, butthough it was included in IG II2among the decrees, it might more appropriately beclassied as a dedication.

6 Support or the democracy in the crisis o 403 may have been a actor inuencingthe decision to inscribe in this case. Te decree o Teozotides, which provided or thesons o citizens who had died ghting or democracy in 404403, was also inscribed(SEGXXVIII 46). Tough not explicitly an honoric decree in orm, it was implicitlyhonoric in intention.

7 E.g. Demosthenes claim that he had requently been crowned by the People(XVIII 83, 120, 222, 257).

8 See or example the rst thirty or so inscriptions in Agora XV. Council pryta-nies had been honoured since the 5th century, but the relevant decrees began to beinscribed regularly only afer 307 (c. Agora XV p. 2). No. 4 and, i it is genuine, no.8 are apparent early orerunners. Te series o dated dedications by other officials


19/446

6

inscribing o the decrees by the city that was new. It is tempting toascribe the development in part to an increased inwardness o politicalocus consequent upon Athens reduced international standing afer

Chaironeia. Tis may have been a contributing actor afer 338, butit is notable that the series begins a decade earlier, when Athens wasstill ully and vigorously engaged on the international scene. Probablymore signicant was the developing culture o the written word inthe activities o the polis, which reached its zenith in the Lykourganperiod, epigraphically the most intensely documented in Athenian his-tory as regards the number and variety o inscriptions produced bythe polis and its organs and subgroups; and also in their preoccupa-

tion with administrative detail. Te routine honouring o officials byinscriptions was the product o an administrative culture which | wasbecoming increasingly epigraphic, but also in a wider sense more liter-ate and more bureaucratically developed. Indeed it is perhaps signi-cant in this regard that secretariesofficials concerned with the writingup o both epigraphic and other types o documentseature promi-nently among the early honorands. Athenian political culture was alsointensely timocratic, however, and it is arguably more surprising thatdecrees honouring Athenians had not been routinely inscribed beore

the 340s than that they began being inscribed then. Te practice wasperhaps acilitated by new legislation or at least new nancial arrange-ments (crowns, sacrices and inscriptions were a budgetary expensewhich required legal provision).9It may also be relevant that the tribeshad long been inscribing decrees honouring Athenians (usually theirown members) and this may have generated pressure or the polis todo the same.10

stating explicitly that they had been crowned by the Council and People begins in the350s (e.g. SEG XXI 668, taxiarchs o 356/5; IG II22821, o 351/0). 9 Note in this respect the early item in the series, no. 3, where the award o crowns

required a retrospective amendment to the law to authorise the expenditure. C. M.H.Hansen, GRBS 20 (1979), 3943.

10 See e.g. IG II2113841. Honoric decrees o other subgroups o the polis, how-ever, are rare beore the middle o the ourth cent. Most o those inscribed by demesdate to the second hal o the century (see the list at Whitehead, Demes,37493). Statedecrees honouring Athenians seem ofen, perhaps normally, to have been awardedat the initiative o the honorand. C. Ath. Pol. XLVI 1 (on awards or the Council).In several cases this is implicit in the wording o the decrees, which may reer to thehonorands statement or report as the basis o the award (the earliest dated example

is no. 20 o 337/6) or grant the official the right to seek honours on a later occasion(e.g. no. 5, 3032). We can not iner rom the absence o such wording in other casesthat the honorands initiative was lacking, since its inclusion may have been at the

86


20/446

7

All the decrees listed below honoured Athenians as holders o astate office or or analogous activities, never (at least explicitly) or anydistinction they may have enjoyed as private citizens. In this period

the honorands all into three main (overlapping) categories: (A) coun-cillors, Council officials and secretaries; (B) priests and other officialswhose duties were primarily religious; and (C) those honoured orservices in connection with the Amphiaraion in Oropos. Under (D)are grouped those whose office is unknown or who do not all intoany o the other categories. (E) and (F) are not sel-standing statedecrees and will not be in ascicle 2 o IG II3, but are included here orcompleteness.11

Te reerence section o the table lists key bibliography since IG II

2

.Other items relevant to the text can be traced via the reerences givenor the notes. New points are set out in ootnotes or in longer notes ol-lowing the tables (indicated by a star against the number in column 1).(ph.) indicates a published photograph; in such cases I do not usuallypublish a new photograph here. Column 4 o the table gives the nameo the honorand and the office held, where known. New readings orrestorations o names and relevant new prosopographical inormationare set out in the notes. For the rest, data on the individuals can be

traced via the bibliography given or via LGPN, APF and PAA. Only oneman appears more than once as honorand, Phanodemos son o Diyl-los o Tymaitadai, the Atthidographer (FGH 325), honorand o no.1 decree 3, sole honorand o no. 16 and rst honorand o no. 17. Hewas also proposer o no. 1, decree 2, o IOrop 296 honouring the godAmphiaraos (see introduction to section C) and was rst on the list ocontributors rom outside the Council on no. 6 (l. 19). Tat he shouldbe a gure who was (or was to become, c. Humphreys, Strangeness,102 n. 61) best known or his literary work adds a urther dimension

to the literate quality o this type o inscribed decree in its earlyphase. One also suspects that the character o his work as a specialistin cult placed him outside the political ray and made him an uncon-troversial candidate or honours.12 At any rate political anonymity

choice o the drafer. Some honours, however, were awarded as the result o a com-petition (explicitly or Phanodemos as a councillor at no. 1, decree 3). C. Gauthier,Bienaiteurs,112120.

11 An analysis o these categories and their development afer 321 would be ruitul,

but lies beyond the scope o this article.12 C. Jacoby, introduction to FGH 325, pp. 1723. Phanodemos cultic interestsare apparent rom his literary work, as well as the epigraphical record. Te strong


21/446

8

is something Phanodemos shares with nearly all the honorands in thelist below (the general Diotimos, perhaps honoured by no. 21, mightbe an exception, but the text is very ragmentary and the restoration o

his name uncertain). Tere were, | it seems, a ew decrees granting highhonours to prominent Athenian political gures o this period,13butthey were either not inscribed, or the stones have not been ound.

Te nal column o the table lists the honours awarded:14normallya crown; occasionally with additional provision or sacrice, with orwithout a dedication (c. note on no. 1). In every case where the decreeis erected at the initiative o the state and the relevant inormationis preserved the crown was o gold.15 Foliage () crowns were

awarded to some oreigners at this period, but no. 27 (restored) andno. 28 are the only such awards to Athenians. It is unlikely to be coin-cidental that in both cases the monuments were erected at the initia-tive o the honorands or o the relevant tribe (Kekropis). We may inerthat, when oliage crowns were awarded to Athenians at this period,the relevant decrees were not usually inscribed.

At this period the price o gold crowns is usually (but not always)specied in the decree. For both citizens and non-citizens they wereo 500 or 1,000 drachmas (c. Henry, Honours,245; other values pro-

vided or in no. 29, but that was not itsel an honoric decree). It is apossible implication o the decrees listed below (especially no. 1) thatthe Council was only entitled to award 500 dr. crowns to Atheniansand that 1,000 dr. crowns required an Assembly decree, but there isinsufficient evidence to establish that this was a denite rule.

avour o local patriotism in his Atthis (c. Jacoby, p. 173) would also doubtless haverecommended him as a candidate or honours. Apart rom the Atthis, he wrote aboutthe island Ikos and served with other prominent Athenians on a Pythais, probably in326 (Syll.3296, with R. Parker, Athenian Religion [Oxord, 1996], 247). Phanodemospatently had much in common with Lykourgos, but there is no evidence directly link-ing the two men.

13 E.g. Demades (Gauthier, Bienaiteurs, 10910; P. Brun, Lorateur Dmade[Bordeaux, 2000], 7883); Euboulos (Hyp. F104106 Jensen, with Gauthier, 107). Onthe megistai timai in hellenistic Athens see also Kralli [n. 3].

14 In general, Athenians could not be crowned or their tenure o office until theyhad rendered their accounts (euthynai) and this is reected in the wording o decrees.See C. Veligianni, Hellenika 40 (1989), 23956.

15 In general on crown types see Henry, Honours,2242.

87


22/446

9

A. Decrees honouring councillors, Council oicials and secretaries

Date Reerence Honorand Honour

1* 343/216 IG II2223 + Add.p. 659. Syll.3227.

Agora XV 34 (C only).Gauthier, Bienaiteurs,1148. V.-erzi, B5.

1. Council in office or itswork at City Dionysia(B810)

Council decrees:2. provides inter alia or

inscribing o 1 (B17)3. honours Phanodemos

son o Diyllos o

Tymaitadai (councillor)(A416)

4. honours Eudoxos sono Teangelos oSypalettos (in charge oCouncil administration)(B1117)

5. same as 4 (C116)

1. 500 dr. c(rown) +50 dr. or sacrice

3. 500 dr. c(+probouleumaproposing thatAssembly awards1,000 dr. c)

4. 500 dr. c

(publicly unded)5. 500 dr. c(privately undedby councillors)

2* 337/6?pryt. 10

E. Schweigert, Hesp. 7(1938), 2924 no. 19(ph.). Schwenk 9 (SEGXXXV 64). racy,

AD 78. V.-erzi, B7.

An official in office, perhapsChairestratos son oAmeinias o Acharnai,prytany secretary o 337/6

c |

3* 1. 336/5pryt. 92. 336/5pryt. 103. 335/4pryt. 3or 8

IG II2330 + 445.Schwenk 18. Develin,

AO 364 (SEG XXXIX81). racy,AD 118.V.-erzi, B8.

1. Council decree honouringPhyleus son o Pausaniaso Oinoe (secretary oCouncil and People?, inoffice) (2946)

2. Decree o Council andAssembly: honorandas decree 1 + associatesecretaries?, in office(4765)

1. [500 or 1,000dr.]17c

2. Phyleus: csyn[grammateis?]:1,000 dr. c

16 Decree 1 was passed at the Assembly in the theatre afer the City Dionysia(Elaphebolion = pryt. 8) 343/2. Decrees (2 and?) 35 were passed at or shortly aferthe end o 343/2.

17 Currently restored as 1,000 dr., but in no. 1, decree 3, the Council awards acrown o 500 dr., and proposes that the Assembly award a crown o 1,000 dr., so it ispossible that this Council-awarded crown was also o 500 dr. and separate rom thatawarded to Phyleus in decree 2.

88


23/446

10

3. honorand as decree 1,office completed (128)

3. [1,000 dr.?] c18

4* c. 34032519

J.S. raill, Hesp. 47(1978), 2747 no. 5(ph.) (SEGXXVIII52). A.S. Henry, ZPE110 (1996) 3012.racy,AD 78.V.-erzi, B10. S.D.

Lambert, in Prakt.Wilhelm,32741nos. 4, 5, 16, 44.

Prytany treasurer (?) andprytaneis o Leontis (?)

[500 or 1000 dr.] c

5 c. 340325202. pryt.10

IG II2415. C.Veligianni, Hellenika40 (1989), 249n. 49. racy,AD 84.V.-erzi, B15.

1. End o a decree.Relationship to decree 2obscure21

2. Decree o Council andAssembly honouringKallikratides son o

Kallikrates o Steiria(anagrapheus).

1. ?2. 500 dr. c

18 Tis is apparently conrmation, afer his euthynai, o the crown provisionallyawarded to Phyleus with no specied value in decree 2. 1,000 dr. would be in linewith the crown(s) awarded to the syn[grammateis?] in decree 2. C. however the 500

dr. crown awarded the anagrapheus in no. 5.19 Te date is inerred rom hand (see racy) and prosopography (see raill). 339/8is excluded by SEG XVI 52, 4, 336/5 (?) by Agora XV 42, 335/4 by Agora XV 43,332/1 by IG II2546 (see S.D. Lambert, ZPE 141 (2002), p. 118 l. 7), 328/7 by AgoraXV 49, 14.

20 Lettering: Cutter o IG II2 334, c. 345c. 320 (racy). Te year was ordi-nary (last pryt. had 34 or 35 days, ll. 89, c. Ath. Pol. XLIII 2 with Rhodes).335/4 is excluded by Agora XV 43, 229; 324/3 by Agora XV 53, 1315. Since theofficer responsible or inscribing the decrees was the prytany secretary (23)they should date to beore 321/0, when the anagrapheus acquired that unction(c. A.S. Henry, Hesp. 71 (2002), 1078).

21 It is also obscure whether the invitation to the honorand in decree 2 to seek ur-

ther honours rom the Assembly (2831) looks genuinely to the uture or is a clauseoriginally contained in theprobouleuma which has remained embedded in the decreeas passed by the Assembly (c. no. 3, 456).

able (cont.)



24/446

11

6* 328/7 B. Leonardos,Arch.Eph. 1917, 408no. 92 (ph.). D.M.Lewis,ABSA 50(1955), 346.AgoraXV 49. J.S. raill,Hesp. 47 (1978), 271.Schwenk 56. racy,

AD 923. V.-erzi,

B17. IOrop 299 (ph.)

Council dedication withlist o contributors, bothcouncillors and non-councillors, and Councildecree honouring thecouncillors Euthykratesson o Drakontides oAphidna, Philostratos sono Philinos o Acharnai

and Chairestratos son oChairedemos o Rhamnous

500 dr. c |

7* 326/5324/3?

IG II2547. Schwenk74. racy,AD1145.

proedroi? 22 ?

Uncertain

8* 339/8 or331/0 23

IG II 221. J. Kirchner,AM 51 (1926), 1578.E. Schweigert,AJP61 (1940), 358.O. Masson,Mus.Helv. 50 (1993), 4460(especially 513).

A Council prytany

9* c. 350340?

IG II2298. racy,AD 70.

? c ?

able (cont.)


2223

22 Tat the honorand(s) were Athenian official(s) is implied by l. 21, where theyare praised conventionally or perorming their duty as the laws require, ][vel sim. Tat they were the proedroi is a possible implicationo 1718: - -] [- - | - -] [- -, since the , the agenda o theCouncil and Assembly, was a responsibility o these officials (Ath. Pol. XLIV 2). Fora decree honouring in the literary record see Hyp. Phil. 4, c. Whitehead,

Hypereides (Oxord, 2000), 54.23 I genuine, the decree was passed in the third month, Boedromion, and wouldpresumably have honoured a prytany o the previous year, afer its euthynai.

89


25/446

12

1. IGII2223

B67. A. Wilhelm, Wien. Stud. 612 (19437), 1626, proposed to

restore , epithet o Dionysos, in the erasure at no. 10,3940, where the place o erection o the stele is specied, and in ourtext where the Council is praised because it [ ] [--]. In no. 10 theconjecture arose rom an error in the number o spaces indicated atthe end o IG II2410, 39 and is inconsistent with letter traces legiblein the erasure.24Te resulting absence o a parallel casts doubt on itin our text. I have suggested that no. 10, 3940, read: [[[25]|[]]]. Here I suggest that we also have

to do with specic locations. I restore [|]. C. no. 11, 33, [;and IG II2783, 6, . Teintention in all our cases is to distinguish city and Piraeus cults o thesame deity; and in our case the qualication also serves to distinguishthe city Dionysia (, c. e.g. Dem. XXI 10, IG II2851, 1112 and 958, 2930) rom its rural counterpart.

B10. In the amount allocated or sacrice to [][], in addition to the lef

vertical what is probably the lef part o a pendent delta is just leg-ible at autopsy, so ( IG II2, Ich erkenne . . . eine Zahl, vermutlichmit einem eingeschriebenen Zeichen, A. Wilhelm, Urkunden dra-matischer Auffhrungen [Vienna, 1906], 234). C. no. 17, 37, 100 dr.or sacrice and dedication or the ten epimeletai o the Amphiaraia;no. 11, 24, 30 dr. or sacrice or the priest o Asklepios; no. 10, 36, onegure amount, probably 100 or 50 dr., or ten hieropoioi or sacriceand a dedication.

B11. Certainty is impossible, but given the athers name in -and the very small deme (bouleutic quota 01, c. J.S. raill, Demosand rittys [oronto, 1986], 126) it is possible that the proposer o therst decree or Eudoxos, [- c. 6 -] borethe only name current in iv BC and attested in Pambotadai that will t,, and was an ancestor o LGPN II 18, s. o Pambotadai, s. ii . |

24 C. S.D. Lambert, in Lettered Attica,5767 [= this volume, 299310].25 [is perhaps preerable.

90


26/446

13

2. SEGXXXV 64

Tough it has been generally accepted, Schweigerts ingenious scheme

o restoration o this ragmentary inscription to yield an honoricdecree or the prytany secretary o 337/6, (c. Schwenk, 414), while attractive at several points, is notwholly secure (c. the critical remark o R. Flacelire, J. and L. Robertat Bull. p. 1939 no. 59). Tere is no physical indication o line length(the lef side is not preserved) and the scheme depends crucially on therecognition o ]|[in 7 as a reerence to the honorandand o -in 1126as his athers name. Schweigert restored:

10 ]

,

- stoich. 40 [] -

[]- [, ] , - [ ]

was not a rare name (45 citizen cases in LGPN II) and itcan not be ruled out that the honorand was another Athenian withthis athers name. Moreover, as Schwenk points out, the restorationo the prescript works only i it is assumed that was omitted beore

the name o the secretary and his athers name afer it:1 ]- [ ]- [

Omission o beore the secretary has been plausibly restored in twoother decrees o this year (IG II2 242 = Schwenk 10 and IG II2 276 =Schwenk 12); and the secretarys athers name is occasionally omittedin prescripts at this period (c. e.g. Schwenk 31, 78 = IG II2 336B;

Henry, Honours, 423).27

ogether, however, these two irregularitiesinduce a measure o unease.Tere are more serious problems at 810, where Schweigert prints:

26 Enough o the mu is legible or the letter to be beyond doubt; o the alpha onlythe bottom o the right diagonal is preserved.

27 Schweigerts date, 16 Skir. = 22nd o pryt. 10 is almost wholly restored, but

is apparently the only one that would suit the remains o the prytany number in 1(][), the other calendrical data or this year and the posited line length. It isaccepted by Pritchett-Neugebauer, 42; Meritt, Ath. Year,77.


27/446

14

]- []- [] -

10 [. . . . . . . .15

. . . . . . . ]Tis is unsatisactory. is typically used in connectionwith services rendered on repeated, discrete, past occasions by oreignhonorands, e.g. []|[][ ]|[] , IG II2498, 21. Tere is no parallel or its usein relation to an Athenian honorand at this period and it is unsuitablewith a present indicative verb such as , describing a single con-tinuous period o office. Perormed his office is idiomatic English,

but

(or ) is not in the idiom o Atheniandecrees. Moreover while . . . is not uncommon, does not

occur in any inscribed state decree o 352/1322/1 and is very rarein such decrees at adjacent periods.28 It is also ar rom sure that thehonorand was crowned by the Council: in the two other decrees | romthis period certainly or probably honouring secretaries, the crowningwas done by the prytanies (no. 5, 16; no. 3, 9 etc.).

wo suggestions or improvement are made by Veligianni-erzi: ] in l. 10 uses vocabulary better

attested in this context, but is again unattractive on acount o .In act the number o letters available or the restoration in 10 is inde-terminable, since we do not know what was the ending o the verb,|- in 910 (it might have been passive, c. no. 3, 9). In 1213she suggests [][], but apart rom the questionable insertion o , the inver-sion o the normal order, . . . is unex-ampled in state decrees at this period,29and crowns were o 500 dr. or1,000 dr., but not more (see above). Te absence o price with a gold

crown, while unusual, would not be unexampled (a partial list o casesat Henry, Honours, 25). might be considered (c.Henry, Honours,3940), but would be without parallel in this periodin an Assembly decree or an Athenian (see above). At 15 n.16 in.

28 Te reason is perhaps that is inconsistent with the economy o expressionwhich is normally a eature o decree language at this period. C. J.D. Denniston, TeGreek Particles (Oxord, 1954), 512. Te restored example at Agora XVI 94 r. c + j is

removed at ZPE 136 (2001), 67. Tere is an unrestored example rom 319/8 at SEGXXI 310, 21.

29 Tere is a restored example in a decree o the Paraloi at SEG XXXVII 102, 8.

91


28/446

15

-]|[is perhaps possible, i.e. reerence to the provision omoney or the gold crown which occurs in other decrees in this list,e.g. no. 1 and no. 3 (c. Henry, Honours,368).

At 1314 Schweigert restores:

] , -[ ]

Te precise wording can not be regarded as certain, but the gen-eral sense is likely to be correct, c. no. 3, 325 (restored rom 8, 22,601):

|]. . .

. . . . . ]35 [],30

and now also no. 4, 212, as restored by Parker:

], [

See on no. 4 or other comparanda.At 1921 Schweigert restores:

][]-20 [][]- [

but, like Schwenk, I am unable to conrm the epsilon in 20. Withoutit, there is insufficient basis or restoration.

3. IGII2330 + 445

Te main issue is the identication o the offices held by the hono-

rands, apparently three (or our, see below) in number and all rom thesame deme, (Aiantid, c. Agora XV 72, 204) Oinoe. Khler suggestedthat they were a tribal contingent o the thirty .Members o this board are attested perorming duties as hieropoioi orAthena and or Zeus Olympios at the Olympieia (see Rhodes, Boule,12930; IG II21257 = Schwenk 77; 1496, 823 and 1134) and Khlerrestored our text at several points on the basis that they were being

30 is ormulaic and it seems unlikely that there is a direct connec-tion with the amous anti-tyranny law, also passed in 337/6 (RO 79). C. B.D. Meritt,Hesp. 21 (1952), 357; V.-erzi, 111 n. 332.


29/446

16

honoured or these duties. Tis, however, is problematic on a numbero counts. Only Phyleus is said to have been elected, |][. . . (56), tending to imply that he was the holder o aunitary office, not member o a board. Moreover the secondary hon-orands are not only rom the same deme as him, they are also notrequired to render separate accounts (62, c. 58). One obtains the clearimpression that they are subordinates, not co-responsible memberso a | board.31Another problem is that there is no suggestion, in thewording justiying the honours, that the duties perormed had been oa religious nature. Tis contrasts with the decrees or religious officialslisted below (section B) and in particular with the other substantial

extant decree honouring hieropoioi at this period, no. 10, where theirwork is described as ollows:

-

[][]-25 [. . . . . . . . . . traces20. . . . . . . . . .] [] |[. . . . . . . . . . . traces22. . . . . . . . . . .] |[.] - [][], [][]- .

In our case it would be especially odd to choose to call the syllogeishieropoioi,but not to reer in the decree to any religious unctions.

Rhodes lef the office open. What seems the correct solution has beensuggested to me by Angelos Matthaiou per. ep., viz. that the principalhonorand is the . Tis official,not to be conused with the = , is mentioned in Agora XV 12, 645 (400350) and36, 345 (343/2?) and may be identical with the reerred to in Agora XV 43, 228 (335/4). In Agora XV 32, 64 (afer

mid-iv) and 44, 458 (334/3) his title is . His principal (or according to Ath. Pol. sole) unctionseems to have been to read out documents in the Council and theAssembly (Ath. Pol. LIV 5 with Rhodes p. 604; A.S. Henry, Hesp. 71(2002), 93). Matthaious restorations, which suit excellently the spaceavailable and the context, are:

31 C. Rhodes; Schwenk, who also points out that, even when they were unctioning

as hieropoioi the syllogeis were known as syllogeis (IG II21257 = Schwenk 77). Schwenktakes the honorands to be hieropoioi and not syllogeis,but her argument that they werenot equal members o a board goes equally against their being hieropoioi.

92


30/446

17

(a) 6 []- [] |Koe.

(b) 13 [] [][(c) 21 []

Tis exceeds the normal line length by 1 letter, as, in the text o IG II2, ollowingWilhelm, does the previous line.

(d) 33 ]- [] [

(e) 51 [] [] []

Te normal word-order in clauses like (e) is .C. however also IG II2 47, 234, ()() and IG II2127, 9, [ ][].

Te terms in which the honorand is praised also suit a secretary verywell. Note in particular the similarity between the wording o thisdecree and nos. 2 and 5, which also certainly (5) or possibly (2) hon-

oured secretaries at this period and which also reer to the crown-ing o the honorand by the prytanies (no. 5, 16; c. 356 etc. o ourdecree), use the verb and the adverbs and/or (no.5, 1417; c. | 8, 34 etc. o our decree) and mention that the honorandhad perormed his office according to the laws (no. 2, 14; c. 8, 345etc. o our decree).

What, then, o the secondary honorands, surprisingly mentionedin preserved text in only one o the three decrees (4765)? At 52they are [-, restored hitherto as [. Tis suited thetheory that they were ellow members o the board o syllogeis, butis less obviously appropriate to subordinate secretaries.32 Te term (co- or associate secretary) is attested in classical

32 It seems that we can rule out that our co-honorands were other state secretaries,e.g. the , the . and the (c. AgoraXV 43, 229231), or those officials held independent offices, were required to renderindependent accounts and one would not expect them all to come rom the same

deme. In Agora XV 43 the is rom the same deme as the . , but the other secretaries are rom different demes and, unsurprisingly, thatseems to be the normal pattern.

93


31/446

18

Athens. At IG I371, 8, a board is required [h][]and in IG I3269 (o 443/2) and270 (442/1) [while on the sameinscriptions, in 443/2, and in 442/1 .33 was also used. E.g. theunidentied board at IG II2 2825 was served by both a and a . Afer 307 a single appears inbouleutic texts and it is interesting that it is with the that he is then associated (c. Agora XVp. 15). Should we perhaps envisage a development rom a 4th centuryarrangement under which the

was responsible or a pool o associate secretaries with whom hemight be personally connected (and who might have assisted the otherstate secretaries as well as himsel?) to a hellenistic system in whichthere was a single ormal, proessional, undersecretary? Te absenceo other ourth century evidence or state urges cau-tion, as does another apparent anomaly. Line 52 currently reads:

[]-

Tis was never satisactory, since , like , is normallyused substantively, not adjectivally. [would dispose othis problem, but would tend to imply that the number o them wasthree rather than two,34i.e.

[--5or6name---3or4-]-

Similarly at 5960 instead o:

][]-[]O[][

we should have:

][-5or6name---3or4-]-[][][

33 C. Rhodes, Boule 139 with n. 3.34 Klaus Hallo points out per ep. that one might retain two by restoring [, but it is difficult to nd a parallel or such an expression in an Athenian

decree o good period.


32/446

19

Tis is possible, but there is a consequential issue to be addressed in l. 61,where since the ed. princ., C.D. suntas,Arch. Eph. 1885, 131142, therestoration has been [|] : : . is problematic. It might conceivablyindicate a single crown awarded jointly to two honorands, but thereis no parallel in the many hundreds o decrees o the Athenian statewhich award crowns (see Henry, Honours,467).35Te phrase invari-ably used or two honorands is | , or more than two,. would exceed the space available bythree letters and can probably be ruled out. , however,is also too long, albeit by two letters. Tis is not a decisive argument

against it: restorations o other lines exceeding the normal length (byone letter) have been accepted elsewhere in the text, e.g. in l. 20.36 Onthe other hand we can not be certain that is correct;and that conrms the advisability o a cautious approach to the resto-ration o lines 52 and 5960.37

Wilhelms restoration o one o the co-honorands in 52 and 59 as](Hermes 24 (1889), 1369), to yield homonymy with theather o the principal honorand, while quite possible, is also not com-pelling. At this period amily relationships are as, or more likely, to

be maniest in shared name components than shared whole names;38

and the name is also attested in Aiantid Oinoe in iv

35 Tere is a verbal parallel in a hellenistic decree rom Rhamnous, IRham 17, 11,o 236 : |. I have ailed to nd a parallel in non-Attic inscriptions, with the exception o ID 1521 (ii ), which reads (1214):

| |

and at 1921: | |

36 Te stoichedon arrangement on this stone is on any account unusual. wo let-ters were added to each line in 29 ff., expanding the line length rom stoich. 46 tostoich. 48. Tis was achieved not, as was normal in such cases, by a change in lettersize or spacing, but by beginning (and presumably nishing) the text one letter intothe margin on either side. Tis suggests that the stone widened signicantly towardsthe bottom, though its ragmentary state makes this difficult to assess accurately.

37 Tere are various ways that crowns could be arranged on an inscription andthe number o them can not be inerred rom the one that survives (c. Schwenk,

p. 100).38 C. M. Runes, Wien. Stud. 44 (1924/5), 173 and most recently Lambert, in Prakt.Wilhelm,3356 [= this volume, 32930].

94


33/446

20

(e.g.Agora XV 59, 29; only in Hippothontid, e.g. IG II21926,131).

Te restoration o the calendrical elements o this text (13, 2931,

479) has been regarded as settled since Khler.39However, the dateo the latest o the three decrees (ll. 13), the only one passed afer theend o the honorands term o office (and afer the rendering o hisaccounts), is uncertain. Khler restored 17th o pryt. 3. (ll. 13), whichis the earliest possible date in the year (which was ordinary) consistentwith the data. It may seem prima acie reasonable that such a decreewould have been passed at the earliest opportunity, but the assumptionis doubtul. O decrees certainly honouring Athenians in this period,

there is only one dated one which appears to have been passed aferthe end o an annual term o office, i.e. no. 18, o the 8th pryt. o theyear ollowing that in which the honorand had been elected to office.Most likely the term o the office in that case was annual (see notebelow on no. 18). No. 17, honouring the epimeletai o the Amphiar-aia, was passed on 16th Pyanopsion = 33rd day o pryt. 3, but theseepimeletai perormed duties at a specic estival. It is not clear thatthey held office or an annual period.40 No. 8, apparently honouringprytaneis, was passed in the second prytany, presumably o the year

afer that in which they had served; but the authenticity o this decreeis in doubt. Examples are not difficult to nd rom other periods wherethere was a signicant passage o time between the office held and thesubsequent honoric decree. In 103/2, or example, the decree hon-ouring the parthenoi who had worked on the peplos presented at thePanathenaia in the rst month o the year, Hekatombaion, was notpassed until the 7th prytany, 11th Gamelion (IG II21034). Beore allthe ragments o that inscription were known, both Khler and Fou-cart had assumed that the decree must have been passed at the earliest

opporunity afer the estival, i.e. in Hekatombaion or Metageitnion, anassumption which the discovery o a new ragment showed to be alse(c. S.D. Lambert, ZPE 142 (2003), 74). Te clear implication is thatcaution is appropriate in restoring calendrical text in cases o this sort.In our case, other dates in this year are epigraphically and calendricallypossible. I, like no. 18, the decree was passed in pryt. 8, the equation

39 C. Pritchett-Neugebauer, 44; Meritt,Ath. Year,79.40 C. C. Veligianni, Hellenika 40 (1989), 245.


34/446

21

17th day o 8th prytany ([] in l. 1) = [Elaphebo-lion] would suit.41|

Tere have been attempts to restore the tribes in prytany, but in

no case can this be determined on current evidence. Antiochis is nowknown to have held the tenth prytany in 335/4 (see SEG XXI 272),not the third (as restored at IG II2331), so on any account Kirchnersrestoration o it in l. 1 alls. Spacing at l. 29 would normally suggestAegeis or Oineis, but given the possibility o reading orthe more common (c. Treatte I, 3167; IOrop 296, 3),even that is not certain (though admittedly there are no comparableirregularites in this text, as preserved).

Tere is insufficient basis or identication o the decree propos-ers at 5, ([. . . . . . . . . . . 22. . . . . . . . . . . ) and 32 ([. . . . . . . .. . . 22. . . . . . . . . . . ). At 5 Lolling suggested [ , a man attested as councillor in 334/3 (Agora XV44, 56) and this was accepted into IG II2. Tere is no reason, however,to make a link between a councillor in 334/3 and the proposer o adecree in 335/4; and the scope or possible restorations when only[- is preserved is wide indeed. Kirchners tentative restora-tion o 32 as [ , attested at IG XII. 8.

100, 2, is similarly adventurous and runs up against the problem that,though our man was a councillor in 336/5, he does not appear amongthe Ikarians on the Council list probably o that year, Agora XV 42(c. Develin,AO 364 [SEG XXXIX 81]). Correctly, it is not accepted atLGPN II s.v. 4, c. 10.42

Tere has been uncertainty about the reading and restoration o645. Autopsy indicates clearly that the nal preserved letter o 64was delta, not the alpha read by some eds.43 It seems thereore that

41 Tere is no rmly attested calendar equation or 335/4 beore 18th Skirophorion= 23rd o pryt. 10 (SEGXLVIII 101, c. Meritt,Ath. Year,80). Tat is a regular equa-tion or an ordinary year. We have no means o assessing the sequence o ull andhollow months earlier in the year, but the equation 17th day o 8th prytany = Elaphebolion would be consistent with its being day 266 o a regular ordinaryyear, i.e. (4 36 day prytanies) + (3 35 day prytanies) + 17 = 266th day; (5 ullmonths 30) + (4 hollow months 29) = 266th day. For Elaphebolionas a meeting day o the Assembly c. Mikalson, Calendar,136.

42 In act, as Develin notes, the restoration A[is not quite certain. Te rarerA[is also possible.

43 One gains a better impression o this letter at autopsy than on the Berlin squeeze.Completely preserved, it is raised somewhat rom the bottom o the stoichos as typi-cally with deltas in this script. Te triangle is too large in this script to be the upper

95


35/446

22

R. Schll, Sitzungsber. Akad. Mnchen 1886, 1145 n. 1, was right torestore [ here rather than [ (Khler). Te recoveryprovision seems to come in the next line, where I read a probable

iota (upper vertical with no adjoining stroke to the right o it) beorethe omicron and restore the inevitable ](c. 18, [][). So:

[. . .5. . ] [] [ --------------]65 [. . .5. . ][ ------------------]

For helpul discussion o the honoric language used in these decreessee Veligianni-erzi. Her suggestion, [] [] or [][]at 37, however, is contradicted by my reading o the Oat autopsy (not visible to Schwenk; the horizontal and a slight sugges-tion o the vertical o the tau and most o the O, i.e. upper section, arelegible). Since the text does not correspond precisely with a knownormula, the square brackets are better lef empty.

4. SEGXXVIII 52

Te text is inscribed on a block o grey marble o which the top, bottomand back, all smooth, are preserved. Tis suggested to H.A. Tompson

ap. raill that it belonged to the lintel or epistyle o a monument. Nearthe centre o the top is an iron dowel, indicating another course above(Tompson). Te preserved ace contains a decree o the Council hon-ouring the treasurer (?), and a prytany list o Leontis. As the earliestcertain extant example o an honoric state decree inscribed togetherwith a prytany list (though c. no. 8), the text is o considerable inter-est. raill notes that several other prytany or bouleutic inscriptionsmay have been composed o more than one block, but there is noparallel or the listing o councillors on a larger architectural composi-tion as required here. Other relevant texts (e.g. a decree honouringthe prytany Leontis) may have been inscribed on the block above andperhaps on one or other o the sides o the present block, which arenot preserved (c. no. 1).

section o alpha. Te horizontal is nearly, but not quite at the bottom o the letter. C.

the comment o racy,AD 117, on the deltas o this cutter: sometimes the crossbaris not placed exactly at the bottom, with the result that the letter can be mistaken oralpha.


36/446

23

Te surviving text o the decree is very ragmentary and while thereare ormulaic passages which raill (advised by Meritt) was able torestore convincingly, there are enough striking and unique eatures |

to urge caution elsewhere. Te honorand, it appears, was treasurer(], l. 1, the traces o the mu and iota are very slight); presum-ably o the prytany Leontis, but serving also as treasurer o the wholeCouncil (c. Agora XV p. 9). My text o the decree, which occupiescolumn 1 o the inscribed ace, is as ollows:

------------------- [------?]- stoich. 27 [ . . . . . . . .15. . . . . . .?]-

or ?] []- [. . . . . . . . 16. . . . . . . .] 5 [. . . . . . . . . . 20. . . . . . . . . .]- [. . . . . . . . . 17. . . . . . . .]- [. . . . . . 12. . . . . .] [. . . . . . . . . . 19. . . . . . . . . ] [. . . . . . . 12. . . . . . ?] -10 [] [] [][] [][]- [, ][]- [][] -15 [. . 4..]NA [. . . . . 9. . . .?]- or ? [] - [. . . . . . . . . 17.. . . . . . . ] [. . . . . .11. . . . .]-20 [: .]: - [, ],

[ ] []- [. . . . . . 11. . . . .]25 [] - [ ]- []: (the underlined pairs o

letters occupy one stoichos)[] non-stoich.[, ]

30 [ ]

[] [][][].

96


37/446

24

19. raill printed:

[---- ]-

[. . .. . . . .9

. . . .?]- or?][]-[]

5 []-[ ]-[][]|[vv] -[

L. 6 is one letter short. has a strongly hellenistic avour anddoes not otherwise appear in bouleutic texts beore i (e.g. ][, Agora XV 264, 5). Veligianni-erzis|[ ] is preerable. Similarly, I can nd nothing inan Assembly decree very close to ] |[ ] in 45, and it is possible that ] is romsome other noun, or verb (e.g. ]). [ ] [ vv. at 89 is more plausible,though the vacat o two letters raises suspicion; wouldreduce it to one.

1018 in. are as persuasively restored by raill according tothe normal ormula (I print minor new readings rom autopsy).]at 18 is very striking. raill ventures ]|[, rightly queried by J. and L. Robert, Bull. p. 1979 no.151. One expects or statues, which are very rare honoursor Athenians (or indeed oreigners); a golden one would be uniquein the epigraphical record (bronze is the usual material); and the

provision, in prytany decrees, o painted portraits on gilded shieldsis not attested until afer Sulla (see Henry, Honours, 294303). Apainted statue would be unique and unexpected. In the absence oparallels restoration is imprudent. We may have to do with an awardo some sort, but i the honorand is treasurer, the reerence mightalternatively be to some action he has taken with respect to goldenobject(s).

In 20 raill restores 1000 dr. as the value o the crown awarded,comparing no. 1; possible, but 500 dr. can not be ruled out (c. above,

Introduction).

97


38/446

25

Between the rendering-o-accounts ormula and the inscription or-mula we have a short phrase beginning (2122). raills is without parallel in an Attic inscription and does notyield satisactory sense in context. Te subject o - in this typeo context ought to be the honorand. |[was sug-gested to me by Robert Parker.44 Close parallels are no. 2, 1314, asrestored by Schweigert:

] , -[ ]

SEG XLIII 26,15 (decree o Acharnai):

. . .[] , []. . .C. also no. 1, B56:

] |[] -[] . . .

no. 5, 2830:

[] []-

[][], []-30 [] [, . . . .

At 234 we encounter another oddity. Here there seems no obviousalternative to raills restoration ]|[, butthis is a unique way o describing the officer responsible or the inscrip-tion o a decree, usually known as the (c. A.S. Henry, Hesp. 71 (2002), 104, not noting this case). At 24 raillrestores ], but the denite article would be sur-prising. One might suspect that a word other than stele was used orthis monument, but the term occurs unrestored in l. 26. Tere seemsto be no obvious solution (stoichedon irregularity?). in 29 is Henrys correction o raills (c. IG II2 509

vv. 711; later also suggested by Veligianni-erzi). At the end o 30raill prints [], but the correct reading is

44 A similar idea was proposed to me independently by Angelos Matthaiou.


39/446

26

[.45| Tis, in turn, points to the deletion o , restoredby raill afer , a deletion which considerations o spacing alsoindicate (the kappa in 29 is aligned between the epsilon and sigma at

the preserved beginning o 30).

6. IOrop 299

Tis monument o 328/7, set up by the Council at the Amphiaraion,is unusual in a number o ways. Physically it is unique among thedecrees o this period in being inscribed not on the normal tall/nar-row/thin stele, nor on the wider/shorter/thicker block which usu-ally served as a dedication base, but on a block which was tall and

narrow like a stele (H. 0.97, w. 0.26), but also relatively thick sothat it could serve as a base or a dedication (th. 0.195 (top)0.210(bottom)); see the phots. in Arch. Eph. and IOrop. Te stele has athickened oot, with a moulding at the bottom that extends acrossthe ront and a little way (45 cm.) along each side. Te crowningelement is missing. It perhaps included a small statue o Amphiaraos(Petrakos).

Te monument is also unique in that, while ully official ( , 12), it was paid or privately byless than ve percent o the councillors in office that year (twenty-oneare listed, plus treasurer and two secretaries), and they were joined bya group o ten Athenians rom outside the Council. o the list o theirnames is appended a Council decree honouring the councillors whotook the lead in the project and whose names are at the top o the listo councillor-donors. What actors determined the involvement o thisgroup o men with this project? wo eatures are notable. Part o thepurpose o the monument, as with the decrees listed in section C, was

patently that o establishing symbolically the presence o the Athe-nian state at the Amphiaraion in the years immediately ollowing thecession o Oropos to Athens, probably by Alexander in 335 (Knoep-er, Eretria XI, 36789, esp. 372). Te rst eature, the prominence othe men listed, reects the importance attached to the acquisition o

45 Henry also detected that something was amiss in this line, but his reading othe end o the line, based only on raills printed photo, [], isincorrect.

98


40/446

27

the shrine.46Lewis noted this in respect o the non-councillors, headedby three o the leading gures o the period, Phanodemos, Demadesand Polyeuktos o Sphettos,47but the councillors too are more promi-

nent than would be a random cross-section o the Council. Five o thetwenty-one are rom known liturgical and/or very prominent amilies,including two o the three honorands o the decree;48and all but threeo the rest are well-known or at least probably or possibly attestedelsewhere in person or by amily.49|

Te other detectable eature (not previously noticed) is regional.Several o the contributors have links, not only with the Amphiar-aion, but with the surrounding region; and again this applies to both

the councillors and the non-councillors. Phanodemos seems to havebeen the leading Athenian in matters connected with the Amphiar-aion in these years (c. the inscriptions at section C) and both he and

46 racy, AD 93 n. 24 notes that the inscription, cut in small and crowded letter-ing in a non-stoichedon style, is surprisingly unprepossessing. Te number o ortho-graphic irregularities is also greater than was normal on state inscriptions. Te cutteris not known. Perhaps it was the work o a local mason. One wonders i it was theassociated statue that drew so many distinguished contributors (was it in a precious

metal?).47 O the seven other contributors rom outside the Council, the fh listed waswealthy/prominent, Kephisophon o Cholargos (l. 23, LGPN II 26, seeurther below), as, i the demotic is correctly restored, was the seventh, Pheidippos oM[yrrhinous] (l. 37, LGPN II 11, ? = 10, c.APF p. 42). Te sixth, Aristeideso Hermos, is the only one who is certainly not otherwise known, or rom a knownamily. O the last three (ll. 3840) only parts o names are preserved, all airly com-mon and with no demotics. As Lewis noted, they can not be identied. Te ourth is[-67- ]. Six letters are missing, or possibly seven i iota was included. Sinceit is the only name attested in Kollytos that will t, [is possible, though thecompany would be distinguished or a amily known hitherto only rom two hellenis-tic unerary monuments (IG II26501 and 6502).

48

First honorand: LGPN II 24. C. 32, 4, - 23, APF 14726. Second honorand: LGPN II 16, c. 17 (and seebelow). Other councillors: LGPN II 39,APF 5758; LGPN II 6, APF5463; LGPN II 50, c. APF p. 276.

49 Reerences can be traced conveniently via LGPN II and PAA. On Chairestratos oRhamnous, Oulias o Steiria, Kallisthenes o rinemeia and Demetrios o Aphidna seebelow. LGPN II 15 (l. 8) was probably related to 13, 14, 27. LGPN II 4 (l. 13) was probably related to 2 and = or relatedto 3. LGPN II 3 (l. 14) ? = the amous sykophant o Dem. LVIII etc.(c. 1, 2), as Petrakos and raill saw (c. PAA 508320). LGPN II 16 (l. 25) = or related to 15 (c. PAA 123175). LGPN II 17 (l. 26)? = 16 (c. PAA 132725). LGPN II 196 (l. 27), ? = 195. LGPN II

13 (l. 30) (c. 14, but heavily restored). Te three unknowns are: Protokles o Kephisia(l. 16), Epigethes o Eroiadai and Nikandros o Marathon (ll. 289), respectively 13th,19th and 20th on the list.

99


41/446

28

Demades had been honoured as epimeletai o the Amphiaraia theprevious year (no. 17). Te three leading contributors, who were alsothe honorands o the decree, were all rom demes in north or north-

east Attica (Acharnai, Aphidna and Rhamnous);50 and one o them,Euthykrates o Aphidna, as Habicht has seen (Untersuchungen zur poli-tischen Geschichte Athens in hellenistischer Zeit [Munich, 1979], 150),was ancestor o a proxenos o the Boeotian koinon in iii/ii BC, a actattested by another inscription set up in the Amphiaraion (c. IOrop188). Tis amily rom the large and ancient deme o Aphidna, sup-posed to have been one o the twelve originally independent Ur-poleiso Attica,51seems to have had a denite northward-acing orientation.

Oe was not, it seems, located in northern Attica,

52

but the involvemento Empedos o Oe (l. 13) in this group may have reected comparablenorthern interests, or the same man (or a related homonym) wasAthenian ambassador in connection with a treaty with Tessaly c. 360(IGII2175, 2). In 332/1 another man rom Aphidna on the list, Dem-etrios (l. 24), had proposed the decree rom the Amphiaraion honour-ing Phanodemos or his legislative work or the estival Amphiaraia,no. 16 below. Finally, despite my hesitation at Rationes,171, Oulias oSteiria, listed immediately afer the three principal donors in l. 7, may

with high probability be identied with (or as a relation o ) the onlyother bearer o this name attested in Attica, the Oulias who boughtproperty sold by the Melaineis in the Lykourgan public land sale pro-gramme (Rationes, F10B, 20), or, as I showed at Rationes, 196, thisgroup was located in the northeastern border area o Attica.

Te order in which the contributors are listed is also o interest.Leonardos, 42, noted that it is not, as usually on bouleutic monuments,tribally determined. Tere are two obvious possible criteria: size ocontribution and seniority. Te act that the un- or not-well-knowns

on both lists cluster toward the end might suggest the ormer;53but theinerence is not certain since the quality o our prosopographical data

50 Te third honorand, Chairestratos o Rhamnous, was perhaps identical with theChairestratos who was sculptor o Temis at Rhamnous. C. IRham 120. Note also thedemotics o Nikandros o Marathon (l. 29) and the treasurer, Sotiades o Acharnai(l. 32).

51 FGH 328 Philochoros F 94; c. Whitehead, Demes,11; Rationes,1934. Euthykratesprobably bought property at Aphidna in the Lykourgan public land-sale programme,

Rationes,158, c. 244, 2889.52 SEG XLVIII 297.53 C. above nn. 47 and 49.


42/446

29

or 321307, the period when young men in 328/7 could be expectedto have made their greatest impact on the historical record, is gener-ally less good than or the preceding democratic years. Tere is a clus-

ter o men who were apparently just over sixty in 328/7 in ll. 1014,but i age was the criterion it does not look as i it can have beenprecisely applied since, on the most likely prosopographical arrange-ments, a man who was in his sixtieth year (i.e. public arbitrator) in329/8 is sandwiched between two men who were in their sixtieth yearsin 330/29.54Among the non-councillors there could be no objection toa hypothesis that the rst three, Phanodemos, Demades and Polyeuk-tos o Sphettos were in order o seniority. Current scholarship places

Demades date o birth around the early 380s,

55

that o Polyeuktos inthe second hal o that decade.56We lack rm inormation with regardto Phanodemos, but since he was honoured by the Council in 343/2 itis quite plausible that he was then over fy, i.e. born perhaps c. 395and in his late 60s | at the time o this dedication.57On the other hand,Phanodemos pole position might be due to the leading role he playedat the Amphiaraion afer 335; and i (what is not sure) the fh man onthe list, Kephisophon o Cholargos at l. 23, was identical with the mano this name who was public arbitrator in 330/29,58he was probably

older than both Demades and Polyeuktos.Te proposer o the decree on the stone is given as

(l. 41, also, without athers name, one o thecontributors at l. 11). Leonardos plausibly suggested or. Both names are well-attested in Attica (LGPN II pp. 4778)and there are several instances on this stone where the cutter haswrongly inscribed a single letter, and one or two where he may haveinadvertently omitted a letter ( or at l. 9, c.Treatte I, 579; perhaps also or at l. 10,as the stone does not otherwise show - or -, which would be a

54 Diaitetai in 330/29: Lykourgos o Melite (l. 10), SEG XXXVII 124.2; Teokrineso Hybadai (l. 14), IG II2 2409, 44 (c. Lewis, 32). Diaitetes in 329/8: Euetion oSphettos (l. 12), IG II21925, 1617.

55 P. Brun, Lorateur Dmade (Bordeaux, 2000), 12 n. 5.56 A. Oikonomides, AW 22 (1991), 38; c. Lewis, 35.57 C. Lewis, 35.58 IG II22409, 68 (c. Lewis, 33). C. PAA 569375, 569056 and 569380. A Kephiso-

phon o Cholargos was last on the list o epimeletai o the Amphiaraia (no. 17, 329/8),

or which a good case can otherwise be made that it is in order o seniority. Tat mightsuggest that he was a young man in 329/8 and tends to conrm that we should becautious about identiying him with the public arbitrator o 330/29.

100


43/446

30

rarity in a state decree at this late date). J.S. raill, Hesp. 47 (1978),271, however, advised by Habicht, proposed , on the basiso the known son o Kallisthenes o rinemeia who was alessee in the accounts o the Delian Ampictyony (IGII21641, 17) andis also on the mid-iv BC bouleutic list published by raill (c. LGPNII s.v. 7).59Tis was noted but not accepted into his text byPetrakos in IOrop. Tough there is no other case on the stone o cor-ruption o a whole syllable, Habichts suggestion is attractive. It cannot, however, be ruled out that, as commonly at this period, we haveto do with a amily in which more than one name in - occurred.60

Te conusion o upsilon and iota which Habichts correction entails

suggests another. At 335 the current text is:

35

Now in act it is the second o these two men who is known to us assecretary o 328/7 (, c. A.S. Henry, Hesp.71 (2002), 9194; LGPN II s.v. 9 and 10 are the same man).Te rubric in 33 clearly applies also to this man. Sokrates

o Paionidai (or whom see LGPN II s.v. 104) presumablyheld one o the other secretaryships (?, c. Agora XV 43, 228, also listing two secretaries). Tis sug-gests that the rubric should read (as e.g. at IG II22941,1732, 7).

7. IGII2547

Progress may be made on the date, on which the key bibliographysince IG II2has been:61

59 Te only other identiable member o the amily at present is Teoteles son oKallisthenes o rinemeia, councillor in 303/2 at Agora XV 62, 225.

60 Te phenomenon o shared name components in amilies is discussed mostrecently by me in Prakt. Wilhelm,3356 [= this volume, 32930].

61 It is not necessary to discuss in detail the restorations o the prescript proposedin IG12. Tey entail signicant epigraphical or calendrical irregularities and weresuperseded by the proposal o Dow, Meritt and Pritchett (see below). E.g. Kirch-ner assumed that | could mean 22nd o a month. It has since

become established that it designates 29th (or perhaps occasionally 28th) o a month.He also assumed that two o the rst our prytanies had 35 rather than 36 days, whichis inconsistent with Ath. Pol. XLIII 2.


44/446

31

B.D. Meritt, Hesp. 4, 1935, 536; W.K. Pritchett and B.D. Meritt, TeChronology o Hellenistic Athens (Cambridge Mass., 1940), 23 (SEGXXI 292); Pritchett-Neugebauer, 56; Meritt, Ath. Year, 1056; S. Dow,

Hesp. 32 (1963), 33940, 351; Summary at Schwenk 74. M.H. Hansen,GRBS 23, 1982, 348 no. 81. racy,AD 114.

Te parameters are supplied by the hand, racys Cutter o IG II2337, whose known work dates to 337323. Beyond that, the only sig-nicant inormation supplied by the very ragmentary remains o the |prescript is that the secretarys demotic ends ]. Tis would suit335/4, 332/1, 328/7, 325/4 or 324/3. Te demotics o the secretarieso 336/5, 331/0 and 326/5 are not known.62 Te date is unlikely, oncurrent evidence, to be beore 333/2, the year o the earliest decreenaming the symproedroi (IG II2336B = Schwenk 31). Most probably,thereore, this decree dates to 332/1, 331/0, 328/7, 326/5, 325/4 or324/3. Te names o the archons and/or secretaries o the rst threeo these years can not be accommodated to the surviving text withoutassuming a signicant irregularity. Any o the last three, however, iscurrently possible with no irregularity. Pritchett and Meritt, buildingon a suggestion o Dow (ap. Meritt 1935), restored 5th o pryt. 10 =29th Targelion 324/3, an equation suitable to a regular ordinary year.

Hansen pointed out that 10th o pryt. 9 = 29th Mounichion 324/3 isalso possible.On current evidence or the year 326/5, the same two equations can

be applied, mutatis mutandis, to that year, which was also ordinary,i.e.

[or ]- stoich. 28[][]-

[. . . . . . . 13. . . . . .][]- [ ] [ ]-

5 [, ] []- [ ] [

or []- [][]- [.......13......][]-

62 Te secretaries o this period are conveniently listed by Develin, AO. IG II2328(= Schwenk 15) has been thought to show that the secretary o 336/5 had 19 letters,

but the prescript o this decree can as easily be restored to the year 335/4. [-, inscribed on the moulding o IG II2348 (= Schwenk 44), is more likely to be thehonorand than the secretary o 331/0. On both these decrees see Athenian State III.

101


45/446

32

[ ] [ ]-5 [, ] []- [ ] [

Te known calendrical data or 326/5 are:

(a) Leontis probably held the sixth prytany. See IG II2800, as restoredby S. Dow, Hesp. 32 (1963), 35863 = Schwenk 64, which impliesthat the athers name + demotic o the secretary o this year had1516 letters, consistent with l. 3 o our text.

(b) 30th o [pryt. 7], Erechtheis = 8th [Elaphebolion], an equationsuitable to a regular ordinary year (IG II2359 = Schwenk 63).

(c) Pandionis occupied the . .4

. .prytany (SEG XXXV 74).(d) IG II2363 = Schwenk 67 is too ragmentary to yield rm inorma-tion (might not date to 326/5).

Te prescript can also be restored or the intercalary year, 325/4, i.e.

325/4 [ ]- stoich. 28 [], []- [][]- [ ] [ ]-

5 [, ] [ ]- [ ] [|

Tere are two decrees o 325/4 which preserve calendrical inorma-tion: IG II2360 = Schwenk 68 = RO 95; IG II2361 = Schwenk 69.

Te known prytanies in 325/4 are Aegeis (5th, Schwenk 68) andAkamantis (10th, Schwenk 69).

I 325/4 began as a normal intercalary year, with two prytanies o 39days, 10th o pryt. 3 was the 88th day (39 + 39 + 10). I one assumesthat Hekatombaion and Boedromion were ull and Metageitnion hol-low, (29th) Boedromion = 88th day (30 + 29+ 29). No datum is inconsistent with these assumptions, though it isclear that, by the time IG II2360 = Schwenk 68 was passed, on 34th opryt. 5 = 11th [probably Posideon II (intercalated)] the prytany calen-dar and the estival calendar had become out o step by about 2 days.

8. IGII 221

Te current text is:

339/8 [] - stoich. 33 []

102


46/446

33

[] []

5 [. . . . . . 12. . . . . . ] -

[] - [---------------------]

Te inscription was rst published by Lenormant (Rh.Mus. 21 [1866],363 no. 102) and, as ofen with inscriptions rom this source, it isdifficult to resolve satisactorily the question o its authenticity (seein general O. Masson, Mus. Helv. 50 (1993), 4460, this inscription,523). Khler included it in IG II, but registered scepticism. He notedthat no prytany decree was known earlier than iii ; that the omis-sion o the proposer and o the demotic o the chairman would behighly unusual; and that the repetition o the article afer would be unexpected. Te inscription was excluded altogether romIG II2. Te subsequent discovery o a squeeze in Berlin, however, ledKirchner to republish it in 1926 as genuine, with a restoration o theprescript to the second prytany o the year 339/8. Subsequently aninscription discovered in 1937 and published by E. Schweigert, Hesp.7 (1938), 2912 no. 18 = SEG XVI 52, revealed that the demotic o thesecretary o 339/8 was . Tis suited the space available at l.

3 o our text, and Schweigert (1940) restored accordingly.A photograph o the Berlin squeeze is at Fig. 8.63Clearly the inscrip-tion existed, but was it genuine or a orgery? As Stephen racy pointsout per ep., the slight irregularities in the stoichedon layout might bean argument or authenticity: the text . . . is . . . characteristic o whatcutters do in practice, especially i they are working ree hand with-out making a careul nal layout. Tis is, I think, most ofen the waythey worked. Te vertical columns wander or maeander a bit and thiswandering is caused in large part by iota which this inscriber always

places at the lef side or edge o the stoichos. Tis placement pulls overas it were the letter immediately to the right; omega in line 3 and zetain line 4 are good examples. He also makes tau as though it were aniota so that the vertical is placed at the lef side o the stoichos. Whenthe crossbar is then added, the letter alls to the lef (see the tau in l. 6).I nd nothing amiss with the shapes o the letters, not even the omega.64Teir somewhat thick appearance may be due to the hardness o the

63 According to Lenormant in 1866 the inscription was in oulouse apudD. Montano. Enquiries in the oulouse region have so ar ailed to trace the stone.

64 Tis was in reply to my observation that the omega was unusually tall and thin.


47/446

34

squeeze paper . . . in any case stamps can not be used to incise letters.65I also nd the sort o | small inconsistencies that are characteristic oancient cutters. [E.g.] the central horizontal o the epsilon is usually

quite long and occasionally slants upwards a bit. It is once or twiceshorter (l. 5). As racy implies, the orms o the letters can in generalbe paralleled in the second hal o the ourth century (see, or compari-son, the phot. o IG II2 540 a at Fig. 9); and as the oremost presentday authority on Attic letter cutters his opinion should be accordedconsiderable weight. However, the hand is unidentiable and the gen-eral impression created by this squeeze makes me somewhat uneasy,an unease shared by Angelos Matthaiou. Apart rom the omega, Mat-

thaiou notes (personal communication) that the omicron is unusuallylarge in proportion to other letters (suggestive almost o a 5th centuryhand) and that the shape o the kappa is somewhat odd. He is alsostruck by the unusual thickness o the letter strokes (c. 1.52.0 mm.).Another unsettling eature is the stoichedon grid, horiz. 0.0137 vert.0.0176. Te vertical exceeds the horizontal stoichedon by over 25%.O the c. 130 Athenian state laws and decrees which certainly dateto 352/1322/1 there are only three in which vertical stoich. exceedshorizontal by more than 10%. From the point o view o the script,

we must conclude that, on present evidence, it is possible that thiswas the work o an ancient crafsman, but we can not rule out that itwas a clever orgery made by a skilled 19th century mason. I he useda genuine ancient decree as an exemplar that might explain why theinscription in many respects looks authentic.

Some o the peculiar textual eatures noted by Khler also continueto give cause or concern. Te omission o a proposer, though veryrare, can be paralleled at this period (Henry, Prescripts, 44), but theinclusion o the chairmans athers name, but no demotic, can not at

any period (c. Henry, Prescripts,41). A prytany inscription in 339/8would no longer be as surprising as it was in Khlers time, since wenow have no. 4, discovered in 1973 and dating to c. 340325; but theinclusion o the denite article afer continues to sur-prise (one expects + tribe name, c. Agora

65 Tis was in reply to my observation that t

Inscribed Athenian Laws and Decrees 3521 3221 BC

Documents

Transcript of Inscribed Athenian Laws and Decrees 3521 3221 BC