Onomatologos: Studies in Greek Personal Names Presented to Elaine Matthews 1842179829, 9781842179826

Citation preview

Onomatologos Studies in Greek Personal Names presented to Elaine Matthews

Elaine Matthews

Onomatologos Studies in Greek Personal Names presented to Elaine Matthews edited by

R. W. V. Catling and F. Marchand with the assistance of M. Sasanow

τίς πόθεν εἰς ἀνδρῶν; πόθι τοι πόλις ἠδὲ τοκῆες; who are you and where from? where are your city and your parents? (Homer, Odyssey i 170 and passim)

This book has been published with the help of generous financial subventions from the following bodies and institutions: The Faculty of Classics, University of Oxford St Hilda’s College, Oxford The Craven Committee (Derby Fund), Faculty of Classics, Oxford The Jowett Copyright Trust, Balliol College, Oxford The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies, London All Souls College, Oxford The Aurelius Trust The British School at Athens

ἵδρυται Πέτρῳ θησαυρὸς ἐπ’ ἀστυφελίκτῳ ἔνθα συνείλικται πουλυετεὶ καμάτῳ οὐνόμαθ’ Ἑλλήνων ἀπ’ Ἄβας εἰς Ὠφελίωνα πάντων καὶ πασῶν, παντοπαδῶν τε τόπων. ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἐκτελέσαι τόσον ἔργον ἂν αὐτὸς ὁ Πέτρος ἔσθενε μοῦνος ἐών· σὺν δὲ δύ’ ἐρχομένω ἠνυσάτην, ἀγαθὴν δὲ συνέργατιν εὗρε πόνοιο Τελχίνων τέχνας εὖ μὲν ἐπισταμένην βιβλίον αἷσι τὸ νῦν συντάττειν ἔστιν ἀμοχθί εὖ δὲ φιλοφροσύνην, εὖ δὲ δόσιν Χαρίτων, ἧς ἀτὲρ οὐ τόσος ηὐξήθη θησαυρὸς ἂν ὥστε οὐνομάτων πλήθει καὐτὸς ἔχειν ὄνομα. χαῖρε, φίλη, μνῆμ’ ἐκτελέσασ’ ὀνομάκλυτον ὄντως, ἡμετέρας δὲ δέχου τάσδ’ ὀλίγας χάριτας. Robert Parker

Published by Oxbow Books, Oxford

© Oxbow Books and the individual authors, 2010

ISBN 978-1-84217-982-6

This book is available direct from Oxbow Books Phone: 01865-241249; Fax: 01865-794449 and The David Brown Book Company PO Box 511, Oakville, CT 06779, USA Phone: 860-945-9329; Fax: 860-945-9468 or from our website www.oxbowbooks.com

Cover image: Cornelian ringstone, 3rd century BC. Private Collection. A woman writing on a diptych; possibly a poetess, wearing a chiton with himation, with one foot resting on a box (possibly for scrolls). © Beazley Archive, Oxford University (Photo: C. Wagner)

Printed in Great Britain by Short Run Press, Exeter

CONTENTS

Foreword Editorial notes General Abbreviations About the Contributors

xi xiv xv xxvii

1. Elaine Matthews: an appreciation Alan Bowman (Oxford)

1

AEGEAN ISLANDS 2. Simonides of Eretria (redivivus?) Ewen Bowie (Oxford) 3. Phaistos Sybritas. An unpublished inscription from the Idaean Cave and personal names deriving from ethnics Angelos Chaniotis (Oxford) 4. L’apport des mémoriaux de Claros à l’onomastique de Chios Jean-Louis Ferrary (Paris) 5. Carian names and Crete (with an Appendix by N. V. Sekunda) Richard Hitchman (Oxford) 6. Ménédème de Pyrrha, proxène de Delphes: contribution épigraphique à l’histoire d’un philosophe et de sa cité Denis Knoepfler (Neuchâtel and Paris)

6

15 22 45

65

CYPRUS 7. Lykophron’s Alexandra and the Cypriote name Praxandros Simon Hornblower (London)

84

CYRENAICA 8. Sur quelques noms nouveaux de Cyrénaïque Catherine Dobias-Lalou (Dijon) 9. A catalogue of officials of an association (?) in a newly discovered inscription from Ptolemais in Cyrenaica Adam Łajtar (Warsaw) 10. A new inscription from Ptolemais in Libya Joyce Reynolds (Cambridge)

92

102 119

viii

Contents

ATHENS 11. Some people in third-century Athenian decrees Sean G. Byrne (Melbourne) 12. Revising Athenian Propertied Families: progress and problems John Davies (Liverpool) 13. LGPN and the epigraphy and history of Attica S. D. Lambert (Cardiff) 14. A new edition of IG II2 2391. Exiles from Ionia? Angelos P. Matthaiou (Athens) 15. Foreign names, inter-marriage and citizenship in Hellenistic Athens Graham Oliver (Liverpool) 16. Sarapion, son of Sarapion, of Melite – an inadvertent chronographer Michael Osborne (Melbourne)

122 132 143 153 158 168

PELOPONNESE 17. La famiglia di Damonikos di Messene D. Baldassarra (Venice) 18. ‘Becoming Roman’: à propos de deux générations parentes de néo-citoyens romains à Sparte et à Athènes J.-S. Balzat (Athens and Oxford) and A. J. S. Spawforth (Newcastle) 19. Sparta’s friends at Ephesos. The onomastic evidence R. W. V. Catling (Oxford) 20. New personal names from Argos Charalambos B. Kritzas (Athens) 21. Corinthians in exile 146–44 BC B. Millis (Athens and Leicester) 22. IG V (1) 229 revisited Heikki Solin (Helsinki) 23. The Peloponnesian officials responsible for the second-century BC bronze coinage of the Achaian koinon J. A. W. Warren (London)

174

183 195 238 244 258 263

MAGNA GRAECIA AND SICILY 24. Nomi femminili nella Sicilia di lingua ed epoca greca Federica Cordano (Milan) 25. Onomastics and the administration of Italia / víteliú? Michael H. Crawford (London) 26. Lamina bronzea iscritta da Leontinoi: Note onomastiche Maria Letizia Lazzarini (Rome)

272 276 280

Contents 27. Soprannomi nella Sicilia ellenistica: osservazioni e aggiunte Giacomo Manganaro (Catania)

ix 285

DALMATIA 28. Greek personal names in Latin Dalmatia John Wilkes (Oxford)

290

CENTRAL GREECE 29. Τυννίχα. Per Elaine: un ‘piccolo’ contributo C. Antonetti, D. Baldassarra, E. Cavalli and F. Crema (Venice) 30. Remarques sur l’onomastique des cités de la Tripolis de Perrhébie Jean-Claude Decourt (Lyon) 31. Zum Problem thessalischer Phratrien Christian Habicht (Princeton) 32. The Philippeis of IG VII 2433 Fabienne Marchand (Oxford) 33. Kaineus N. V. Sekunda (Gdańsk)

312 320 327 332 344

MACEDONIA 34. Échantillons onomastiques de l’arrière-pays macédonien au IIIe siècle av. J.-C. M. B. Hatzopoulos (Athens)

356

BLACK SEA AND THRACE 35. Sur quelques noms d’Apollonia du Pont Alexandru Avram (Le Mans) 36. Teutaros, the Scythian teacher of Herakles David Braund (Exeter) 37. La préhistoire du nom de Saint Sébastien: onomastiques en contact Dan Dana (Rouen) 38. Des anthroponymes en -οῦς Laurent Dubois (Paris) 39. New lead plaques with Greek inscriptions from East Crimea (Bosporos) Sergey Saprykin and Nikolai Fedoseev (Moscow)

368 381 390 398 422

ASIA MINOR 40. Asalatos at Kyme in Aiolis R. H. J. Ashton (London) and N. V. Sekunda (Gdańsk)

436



Contents

41. Adrastos at Aphrodisias R. van Bremen (London) 42. Names in -ιανός in Asia Minor. A preliminary study Thomas Corsten (Oxford and Vienna) 43. CIG 2017: a phantom Thracian name and a false Corcyraean provenance Charles V. Crowther (Oxford) 44. Trading Families? Alan W. Johnston (London) 45. The Coinage of Leukai Philip Kinns (Newbury) 46. An onomastic survey of the indigenous population of north-western Asia Minor Pınar Özlem-Aytaçlar (Izmir) 47. A new inscription from the Cayster valley and the question of supernomina in Hellenistic and Roman Lydia Marijana Ricl (Belgrade) 48. Griechische Personennamen in Lykien. Einige Fallstudien Christof Schuler (Munich)

440 456 464 470 479 506

530 552

NEAR EAST 49. Bishops and their Sees at the Sixth Session of the Council of Chalkedon: the Near Eastern provinces Fergus Millar (Oxford) 50. An unnoticed Macedonian name from Dura Europos Argyro B. Tataki (Athens)

568 578

GENERAL STUDIES 51. Onomastics and law. Dike and -dike names Ilias N. Arnaoutoglou (Athens) 52. Four intriguing names Jaime Curbera (Berlin) 53. Onomastic research then and now: an example from the Greek novel Nikoletta Kanavou (Athens) 54. The Roman calendar and its diffusion in the Greco-Roman East: The evidence of the personal name Kalandion Pantelis M. Nigdelis (Thessaloniki) 55. ΗΡΟΠΥΘΟΣ. Une pousse printanière pour Elaine Matthews? Jacques Oulhen (Rennes) Index 1: Index of Personal Names Index 2: General Index

582 601 606

617 628

647 669

FOREWORD This volume of fifty-four papers is offered to Elaine Matthews by friends and colleagues, not just in Britain but in many other countries, in recognition of the great contribution she has made to the Lexicon of Greek Personal Names. The LGPN, conceived by Peter Fraser and described by one eminent Greek scholar as Britain’s most significant contribution to Classical scholarship since the publication of Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, has had as its primary aim the documentation on a geographical basis of the personal names attested between the earliest use of the Greek alphabet (c. 750 BC) and the early seventh century AD throughout the Hellenic and hellenized world, wherever the Greek language and script was used. Marshalling the vast quantity of data (slightly more than 300,000 entries in the six published volumes), imposing a controlled standardized format, and generating from this material a magnificent work of reference has been a formidable achievement for which she deserves much of the credit. Its appearance has done a great deal to transform and revitalize the study of Greek onomastics, providing the raw material for linguists and philologists, students of Greek and Latin literature, epigraphists, papyrologists, numismatists and prosopographers, as well as social historians with broader interests in the geographical and chronological distribution of personal names. Some of the first fruits of such work have appeared in two volumes of papers, originally delivered at conferences hosted by LGPN in 1998 and 2003, edited for publication by Elaine (the first jointly with Simon Hornblower), and frequently cited in this volume. Without wishing to duplicate the appreciation of Elaine Matthews by Alan Bowman, the editors would nevertheless like to add a few words of their own to emphasize the vital role she has played in bringing Peter Fraser’s great vision to fruition. Like all those who have worked for LGPN over the past 35 years or so, we have witnessed at close quarters Elaine’s firm hand and clarity of thought in the resolution of the many and varied problems of method and procedure that crop up in the various stages of work on any of the six volumes so far published. We have admired not just her grasp of the wide range of technological issues and mastery of the project’s ever-changing computing requirements, but also her recognition of LGPN’s future potential and determination to ensure that it remains a research tool of permanent utility. We have appreciated her success in securing the funding needed to keep the project going, in coping with the various changes of funding regime and in adapting to the fickle conditions and demands made by the funding bodies. Elaine has also earned the gratitude and praise of the younger members of staff in her role as mentor, ensuring that LGPN served as an educative, character-forming experience by constantly raising standards and channelling enthusiasm in the right direction. These managerial responsibilities have naturally restricted her involvement in the compilation and detailed editorial work on the onomastic material, especially since the publication of LGPN IIIB in 2000. But without her commitment to these vital issues there would probably have been no book, at least in the form with which we have become familiar.

xii

Foreword

Moreover, it should not obscure the considerable academic contribution she has made to all the published volumes, whether in her dogged work on the intricacies of Delphian prosopography and chronology or in tackling the problems presented by non-Greek names in Thrace and regions bordering the northern Black Sea. And in those areas where she has been less well acquainted with the primary material, she has always been quick to recognize the nature of the problems and how they can best be resolved within the precise but narrow format of LGPN. More than anyone, Elaine’s has been the guiding hand that has brought the vast body of separate entries into a form that can be presented concisely and elegantly on the printed page and has converted the original concept into concrete shape, in the form of the six handsome volumes that have appeared to date. The first element in the title of this book, Onomatologos, is a term used in later antiquity to describe eminent lexicographers such as Hesychius and Pollux as ‘collectors of words’, but in its most literal sense it seemed to us appropriate to Elaine as a ‘collector of names’, even if it reflects just one of the many roles she has performed. The wide recognition of and admiration for the part Elaine has played became apparent in the enthusiastic and warm response to the invitations to contribute to this volume, which were extended to many of those who had been involved in some way with LGPN. The number of such people, as well as the range of their disciplines and nationalities, reflect well the collaborative and international nature of such an undertaking. As the Acknowledgements in successive volumes of LGPN reveal, all have been greatly enriched by the willing collaboration of scholars with a wide range of specialist knowledge and their generosity in making available unpublished texts and works in progress or in press. The original remit to contributors was the broad one of Greek onomastics and prosopography and the scope of the papers offered reflects well the wide range of LGPN itself, extending to all points of the compass far beyond the Greek heartlands bordering the Aegean sea. Besides their honorific purpose, it is hoped that the contributions to this volume will further advance this field of study, revealing some of the potential that has been unlocked by the steady building of a more solid edifice to stand in place of the ‘ruine dangereuse’ to which the great nineteenth-century work of W. Pape and G. Benseler had been reduced, at least as an onomastic tool, by the accumulation of so much new evidence, mainly from inscriptions and papyri, over the course of the century separating publication of the authoritative third edition of their work and volume I of LGPN. It remains to record our thanks to the many scholars who have contributed to this volume for their response to our invitation and for their subsequent friendly cooperation and patience, especially to those who produced papers as early as 2007 and have waited so long to see them published. Alan Bowman, a long-time friend and Oxford colleague of Elaine’s, kindly took on the task of writing the appreciation of her. When this book was first conceived in May 2007, it was discussed with Peter Fraser among a number of people and he agreed to write a tribute to Elaine; we further hoped he might find a suitable onomastic topic on which to write as well. Sadly, Peter’s health had already begun noticeably to decline and it soon became clear that he would not be able to perform this act of homage to his close comrade in his great enterprise and companion on many of his most recent trips to his beloved Greece, a country whose natural joys and simple pleasures Elaine also came to appreciate. In spite of his deteriorating health, Peter, with Elaine’s encouragement and discreet support, continued coming to work in the new Classics Centre until shortly before his death on September 15th that year. There he was surrounded by the works of the scholars who had inspired much of his own academic life, several of whom figure

Foreword

xiii

large in this book; Wilhelm Dittenberger, Friedrich Bechtel, Friedrich Hiller von Gaertringen, Adolf Wilhelm and Louis Robert, not to mention the hugely influential figure of Olivier Masson. Their framed images, expressing a mixture of benevolence and severity, have for many years looked down on the labours of LGPN staff and continue to occupy a place of honour. In preparing this book we have benefitted greatly from the facilities available in the Ioannou Centre for Classical and Byzantine Studies in Oxford. In particular we acknowledge the help and advice of our colleagues, Thomas Corsten and Édouard Chiricat, and the skills Maggy Sasanow (Centre for the Study of Ancient Documents) brought to the preparation of the maps and figures. Thanks are also due to Katherine Clarke (St Hilda’s College, Oxford) and, for their help in the choice of an appropriate cover illustration, to Sir John Boardman, Donna Kurtz and Claudia Wagner (Beazley Archive, Oxford). A further mark of the respect in which Elaine Matthews is held in the scholarly community in Britain was shown by the generous financial support received for publication of this Festschrift. It is our great pleasure to thank the following bodies and institutions for the grants they have made: the Faculty of Classics, University of Oxford; St Hilda’s College, Oxford; the Craven Committee, Faculty of Classics, Oxford; the Jowett Copyright Trust, Balliol College, Oxford; the Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies, London; All Souls College, Oxford; the Aurelius Trust; the British School at Athens. Finally we thank David Brown for agreeing to publish this book and the staff of Oxbow Books, especially Tara Evans, Julie Gardiner, Val Lamb and Clare Litt, for their friendly help and efficiency in bringing it to publication. Oxford, February 2010

EDITORIAL NOTES For the sake of convenience we have applied many of the editorial conventions followed in the Lexicon of Greek Personal Names. Thus for the most part we use the same abbreviations and forms of citation for the epigraphical, papyrological and numismatic corpora, though in a number of cases these have been expanded for the sake of clarity; abbreviations of this source material, as well as the standard handbooks and works of reference are set out in the General Abbreviations, pp. xv–xxvi. Abbreviations for ancient authors and their works are normally those found listed in Liddell–Scott–Jones, A Greek–English Lexicon (9th edn. with Supplement, Oxford, 1968) and the Diccionario Griego – Español vol. I (Madrid, 1980). Citations of standard works of reference (e.g. RE and LIMC) vary somewhat from one article to another, and we have tried to respect individual author’s preferences rather than impose unnecessarily stringent standardization. In the English-language papers, we have generally followed a non-rigorous hellenizing system of transliterating Greek into English, though a number of familiar place-names and personal names are rendered in their latinized or anglicized forms. In the transliteration of the Cyrillic alphabet, we have adopted the phonetic system used, for example, in the Bodleian library’s online catalogue (OLIS). Most, but not all of the ancient cities referred to in the papers are located on the maps which preface each of the regional sections of this book. While every effort has been made to mark their positions accurately, they are intended as an aid to general orientation rather than as an infallible guide to the historical geography of the ancient world.

GENERAL ABBREVIATIONS Achaïe III A. D. Rizakis, Achaïe. III, Les cités achéennes. Épigraphie et histoire. Athens, 2008. ACO E. Schwartz, Acta conciliarum oecumenicorum. I–IV. Berlin, 1914–1940. AD Ἀρχαιολογικὸν Δελτίον. Athens (Mel. = Μελέται, Chron. = Χρονικά). AE Ἀρχαιολογικὴ Ἐφημερίς. Athens. AEp L’année épigraphique. Paris. Ager S. Ager, Interstate Arbitrations in the Greek World, 337–90 B.C. Berkeley / London, 1996. Agora The Athenian Agora: Results of Excavations Conducted by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Princeton. XV = B. D. Meritt and J. S. Traill, Inscriptions. The Athenian Councillors. 1974. XVI = A. G. Woodhead, Inscriptions. The Decrees. 1997. XVII = D. W. Bradeen, Inscriptions. The Funerary Monuments. 1974. XIX = G. V. Lalonde, M. K. Langdon and M. B. Walbank, Inscriptions. Horoi, Poletai Records, Leases of Public Lands. 1991. XXV = M. L. Lang, Ostraka. 1990. XXIX = S. I. Rotroff, Hellenistic Pottery: Athenian and Imported Wheelmade Table Ware and Related Material. 1997. AM Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung. Athens / Berlin. Amyzon J. and L. Robert, Fouilles d’Amyzon en Carie. I, Exploration, histoire, monnaies et inscriptions. Paris, 1983. APF J. K. Davies, Athenian Propertied Families, 600–300 B.C. Oxford, 1971. ASAA Annuario della Scuola archeologica di Atene e delle missioni italiane in Oriente. Bergamo / Rome. Annali della Scuola normale superiore di Pisa, Classe di lettere e filosofia. ASNP Pisa. Asylia K. J. Rigsby, Asylia. Territorial Inviolability in the Hellenistic World. Berkeley / London, 1996. Babelon, Traité E. Babelon, Traité des monnaies grecques et romaines. 3 vols. in 9. Paris, 1901–1932. Baillet, Syringes J. Baillet, Inscriptions grecques et latines des tombeaux des rois ou syringes. 3 vols. Cairo, 1920–1926. BCH Bulletin de correspondance hellénique. Paris. BE J. and L. Robert, Bulletin épigraphique in Revue des études grecques 1938–1984 (repr. in 10 vols. with indices, Paris, 1972–1987); P. Gauthier et al., from 1987– . Bechtel, Gr. Dial. F. Bechtel, Die griechischen Dialekte. 3 vols. Berlin, 1921–1924 (repr. 1963). Bechtel, HPN F. Bechtel, Die historischen Personennamen des Griechischen bis zur Kaiserzeit. Halle, 1917 (repr. Hildesheim / Zurich / New York, 1982).

xvi Bechtel, Spitznamen

General Abbreviations

F. Bechtel, Die einstämmigen männlichen Personennamen des Griechischen, die aus Spitznamen hervorgegangen sind. Berlin, 1898. Bernand, Delta A. Bernand, Le delta égyptien d’après les textes grecs. I, Les confins libyques. 4 vols. Cairo, 1970. Bernand, Inscr. métr. E. Bernand, Inscriptions métriques de l’Égypte gréco-romaine. Paris, 1969. Bernand, Thèbes A. Bernand, De Thèbes à Syène. Paris, 1989. BGU U. Wilcken, W. Schubart et al., Aegyptische Urkunden aus den Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin, Griechische Urkunden. Berlin, 1895– . Bivona, ILLMP L. Bivona, Iscrizioni latine lapidarie del Museo di Palermo. Palermo, 1970. BMC Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British Museum. London, 1873–1927 (volumes followed by regional headings, e.g. Corinth, Thessaly, Ionia). BMI E. L. Hicks, C. T. Newton et al., The Collection of Ancient Greek Inscriptions in the British Museum. 4 vols. in 6. London, 1874–1916. Bradford A. S. Bradford, A Prosopography of Lacedaemonians from the Death of Alexander the Great, 323 B.C., to the Sack of Sparta by Alaric, A.D. 396. Munich, 1977. Brixhe, DGP C. Brixhe, Le dialecte grec de Pamphylie. Documents et grammaire. Paris, 1976. BSA Annual of the British School at Athens. London. BSAA Bulletin de la Société archéologique d’Alexandrie. Alexandria. Buck C. D. Buck, The Greek Dialects. 2nd edn. Chicago, 1955. Buck–Petersen C. D. Buck and W. Petersen, A Reverse Index of Greek Nouns and Adjectives arranged by Terminations with brief Historical Introductions. Chicago, 1944. Byrne, RCA S. G. Byrne, Roman Citizens of Athens. Louvain, 2003. CAT C. W. Clairmont, Classical Attic Tombstones. 8 vols. Kilchberg, 1993; Supplement, 1995. Chantraine, DELG P. Chantraine, Dictionaire étymologique de la langue grecque. 4 vols. Paris, 1968–1980. Chantraine, Noms P. Chantraine, La formation des noms en grec ancien. Paris, 1933. CID Corpus des inscriptions de Delphes. Paris. I = G. Rougemont, Lois sacrées et règlements religieux. 1977. II = J. Bousquet, Les comptes du quatrième et du troisième siècle. 1989. IV = F. Lefèvre, Documents amphictioniques. 2002. CIG Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum. 4 vols. Berlin, 1825–1877. CIJ J.-B. Frey, Corpus Inscriptionum Judaicarum. Recueil des inscriptions juives qui vont du IIIe siècle avant Jésus-Christ au VIIe siècle de notre ère. 2 vols. Vatican City, 1936–1952. CIL Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. 17 vols. with supplements. Berlin, 1863– . CIRB V. Struve et al., Corpus Inscriptionum Regni Bosporani. Moscow / Leningrad, 1965. Claros L. and J. Robert, Claros. I, Décrets hellénistiques, fasc. 1. Paris, 1989. CMRDM E. Lane, Corpus monumentorum religionis dei Menis, 4 vols. Leiden, 1971– 1978. Coin Hoards IX A. Meadows and U. Wartenberg (eds), Coin Hoards. IX, Greek Hoards. London, 2002.

General Abbreviations Coll. Hunter

xvii

G. MacDonald, Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the Hunterian Collection, University of Glasgow. 3 vols. Glasgow, 1899–1905. Coll. Lindgren I H. C. Lingren and F. L. Kovacs, Ancient Bronze Coins of Asia Minor and the Levant from the Lindgren Collection. San Mateo, Calif., 1985. Coll. McLean S. W. Grose, Fitzwilliam Museum. Catalogue of the McLean Collection of Greek Coins. 3 vols. Cambridge, 1923–1929. Coll. Philipsen Sammlung Gustav Philipsen in Copenhagen. Antike Münzen. (Hirsch sale 25, 29th November, 1909). Munich, 1909. Coll. Waddington E. Babelon, Inventaire sommaire de la Collection Waddington. Paris, 1898. Coll. Weber L. Forrer, The Weber Collection. Descriptive Catalogue of the Collection of Greek Coins formed by Sir Hermann Weber. 3 vols. London, 1922–1929. Coll. Winterthur H. Bloesch, Griechische Münzen in Winterthur. 2 vols. Winterthur, 1987. Comptes et inventaires D. Knoepfler (ed.), Comptes et inventaires dans la cité grecque. Actes du colloque international d’épigraphie tenu à Neuchâtel du 23 au 26 septembre 1986 en l’honneur de Jacques Tréheux. Neuchâtel / Geneva, 1988. Corinth Corinth: Results of Excavations Conducted by the American School of Classical Studies. Princeton. VIII (3) = J. H. Kent, The Inscriptions 1926–1950. 1966. XIII = C. W. Blegen, H. Palmer and R. S. Young, The North Cemetery. 1964. XX = C. K. Williams II and N. Bookidis (eds), Corinth, the Centenary: 1896–1996. 2003. Corp. jüd. Cyr. G. Lüderitz, Corpus jüdischer Zeugnisse aus der Cyrenaika. Wiesbaden, 1983. CPG E. Leutsch and F. G. Schneidewin (eds), Corpus Paroemiographorum Graecorum. 2 vols. Göttingen, 1839–1851 (repr. Hildesheim, 1965). CRAI Comptes-rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres. Paris. Decreti di Entella Da un’antica città di Sicilia. I decreti di Entella e Nakone, catalogo della Mostra. Pisa, 2001. Denkmäler H. Swoboda, J. Keil and F. Knoll, Denkmäler aus Lykaonien, Pamphylien und Isaurien. Brünn / Prague / Leipzig / Vienna, 1935. Detschew D. Detschew, Die thrakischen Sprachreste. Vienna, 1957; 2nd edn. 1976. DGE Diccionario griego-español. Madrid, 1980– . DMic F. A. Jorro (ed.), Diccionario micénico. 2 vols. Madrid, 1985–1993. Dornseiff–Hansen F. Dornseiff and B. Hansen, Rückläufiges Wörterbuch der griechischen Eigennamen. Berlin, 1957. DPhA R. Goulet (ed.), Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques. 1– . Paris, 1989– . Dubois, IGDOlbia L. Dubois, Inscriptions grecques dialectales d’Olbia du Pont. Geneva, 1996. Dubois, IGDS L. Dubois, Inscriptions grecques dialectales de Sicile. Contribution à l’étude du vocabulaire grec colonial. 2 vols. Rome, 1989; Geneva, 2008. Durrbach, Choix F. Durrbach, Choix d’inscriptions de Délos I. Paris, 1921. EAD Exploration archéologique de Délos faite par l’École française d’Athènes. Paris. XXX = M.-T. Couilloud, Les monuments funéraires de Rhénée. 1974. Eph. Ep. Ephemeris Epigraphica. Corporis Inscriptionum Latinarum Supplementum. 1–9. Rome, 1872–1913. Eretria Eretria. Fouilles et recherches. Berne / Lausanne. XI = D. Knoepfler, Décrets érétriens de proxénie et de citoyenneté. 2001.

xviii Ergon Farnell, Cults FD FGrHist

General Abbreviations

Τὸ Ἔργον τῆς ἐν Ἀθήναις Ἀρχαιολογικῆς Ἑταιρείας. Athens. L. R. Farnell, The Cults of the Greek States. 5 vols. Oxford, 1896–1909. Fouilles de Delphes. Paris, 1909– . F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, I–III. Berlin / Leiden, 1926–1958. FHG C. Müller, Fragmenta historicorum graecorum. 5 vols. Paris, 1853–1870. Fick–Bechtel A. Fick and F. Bechtel, Die griechischen Personennamen nach ihrer Bildung erklärt. 2nd edn. Göttingen, 1894. Fıratlı–Robert N. Fıratlı, Les stèles funéraires de Byzance gréco-romaine avec l’édition et l’index commenté des épitaphes par L. Robert. Paris, 1964. FRA M. J. Osborne and S. G. Byrne, The Foreign Residents of Athens. Louvain, 1996. FVS H. Diels, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. 6th rev. edn. by W. Kranz, 3 vols. Berlin, 1951–1952. Gow–Page, HE A. S. F. Gow and D. L. Page, The Greek Anthology. Hellenistic Epigrams. 2 vols. Cambridge, 1965. Greek Personal Names S. Hornblower and E. Matthews (eds), Greek Personal Names. Their Value as Evidence. Oxford, 2000. Gusmani, LW R. Gusmani, Lydisches Wörterbuch: Mit grammatischer Skizze und Inschriftensammlung. Heidelberg, 1964. Gusmani, LWE R. Gusmani, Lydisches Wörterbuch: Ergänzungsbände. 3 vols. Heidelberg, 1980–1986. GVI W. Peek, Griechische Vers-Inschriften. I, Grab-Epigramme. Berlin, 1955. Hansen–Nielsen, IACP M. H. Hansen and T. H. Nielsen (eds), An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Greek Poleis. Oxford, 2004. Hermes Hermes. Zeitschrift für klassische Philologie. Berlin / Wiesbaden / Stuttgart. Hierapolis C. Humann, C. Cichorius, W. Judeich and F. Winter, Altertümer von Hierapolis. Berlin, 1898. HN B. V. Head, Historia Numorum. Oxford, 1887; HN2 = 2nd edn. Oxford, 1911. Hoffmann, Gr. Dial. O. Hoffmann, Die griechischen Dialekte. 3 vols. Göttingen, 1891–1898. IAEpid W. Peek, Inschriften aus dem Asklepieion von Epidauros. Berlin, 1969. IAlex M. Ricl, The Inscriptions of Alexandreia Troas, (IGSK, 53). Bonn, 1997. IAnazarbos M. H. Sayar, Die Inschriften von Anazarbos und Umgebung. I, Inschriften aus dem Stadtgebiet und der nächsten Umgebung der Stadt, (IGSK, 56). Bonn, 2000. IApameia T. Corsten, Die Inschriften von Apameia (Bithynien) und Pylai, (IGSK, 32). Bonn, 1987. IAph2007 J. Reynolds, C. Roueché and G. Bodard, Inscriptions of Aphrodisias (2007). available . IArykanda S. Şahin, Die Inschriften von Arykanda, (IGSK, 48). Bonn, 1994. IAskl C. Habicht, Altertümer von Pergamon. VIII (3), Die Inschriften des Asklepieions. Berlin, 1969. IAssos R. Merkelbach, Die Inschriften von Assos, (IGSK, 4). Bonn, 1976. IBeroia L. Gounaropoulou and M. Hatzopoulos, Ἐπιγραφὲς Κάτω Μακεδονίας (μεταξὺ τοῦ Βερμίου ὄρους καὶ τοῦ Ἀξίου ποταμοῦ)´. Αʹ, Ἐπιγραφὲς Βέροιας. Athens, 1998. IBoubon Ch. Kokkinia, Boubon. The Inscriptions and Archaeological Remains: a survey 2004–2006. Athens, 2008.

General Abbreviations

xix

IByz A. Łajtar, Die Inschriften von Byzantion, I, (IGSK, 58). Bonn, 2000. IC M. Guarducci, Inscriptiones Creticae. 4 vols. Rome, 1935–1950. ICentralPisidia G. H. R. Horsley and S. Mitchell, The Inscriptions of Central Pisidia, (IGSK, 57). Bonn, 2000. ICos M. Segre, Iscrizioni di Cos. 2 vols. Rome, 1993, 2007. ICS O. Masson, Inscriptions chypriotes syllabiques. Paris, 1961 (enlarged repr. 1983). ICUR A. Silvagni, A. Ferrua, D. Mazzolini and C. Carletti, Inscriptiones Christianae Urbis Romanae septimo saeculo antiquiores. 1– . Vatican City, 1900– . ID A. Plassart, J. Coupry, F. Durrbach, P. Roussel and M. Launey, Inscriptions de Délos. 7 vols. Paris, 1926–1950. IDidyma A. Rehm and R. Harder, Didyma. II, Die Inschriften. Berlin, 1958. IDorIns W. Peek, Inschriften von den dorischen Inseln. Berlin, 1969. IEK H. Engelmann and R. Merkelbach, Die Inschriften von Erythrai und Klazomenai, I–II, (IGSK, 1–2). Bonn, 1972–1973. IEleusis K. Clinton, Eleusis: The inscriptions on stone. Documents of the sanctuary of the Two Goddesses and public documents of the deme. Athens, 2005. IEph H. Engelmann, D. Knibbe, R. Merkelbach, J. Nollé et al., Die Inschriften von Ephesos. I–VII with Addenda et Corrigenda, (IGSK, 11–17). Bonn, 1979–1981. IG Inscriptiones Graecae. Berlin, 1877– . IGB G. Mihailov, Inscriptiones Graecae in Bulgaria repertae. 5 vols. in 6. Sofia, 1951–1997; 2nd edn. of vol. I, 1970. IGLS L. Jalabert, R. Mouterde et al., Inscriptions grecques et latines de la Syrie. 1– . Paris, 1929– . IGR R. Cagnat and G. Lafaye, Inscriptiones Graecae ad res Romanas pertinentes, I, III, IV. Paris 1906–1927. IGSK Inschriften griechischer städte aus Kleinasien, 1– . Bonn, 1972– . IGUR L. Moretti, Inscriptiones Graecae Urbis Romae. 4 vols. in 5. Rome, 1968– 1990. IHadrian E. Schwertheim, Die Inschriften von Hadrianoi und Hadrianeia, (IGSK, 33). Bonn, 1987. L. Jonnes, The Inscriptions of Heraclea Pontica, (IGSK, 47). Bonn, 1994. IHeraclea IIasos W. Blümel, Die Inschriften von Iasos, I–II, (IGSK, 28 (1–2)). Bonn, 1985. IIlion P. Frisch, Die Inschriften von Ilion, (IGSK, 3). Bonn, 1975. IJO Inscriptiones Judaicae Orientis. Tübingen, 2004. I = D. Noy, A. Panayotov and H. Bloedhorn, Eastern Europe. II = W. Ameling, Kleinasien. III = D. Noy and H. Bloedhorn, Syria and Cyprus. IKalch R. Merkelbach, Die Inschriften von Kalchedon, (IGSK, 20). Bonn, 1980. IKaunos C. Marek, Die Inschriften von Kaunos. Munich, 2006. IKeramos E. Varinlioğlu, Die Inschriften von Keramos, (IGSK, 30). Bonn, 1986. IKibyra T. Corsten, Die Inschriften von Kibyra. I, Die Inschriften der Stadt und ihren näheren Umgebung, (IGSK, 60). Bonn, 2002. IKios T. Corsten, Die Inschriften von Kios, (IGSK, 29). Bonn, 1985. IKition M. Yon, Kition et les textes. Testimonia littéraires et épigraphiques et Corpus des inscriptions. Paris, 2004.

xx IKlaudiupolis IKnidos IKyz ILB ILCV ILeukopetra ILindos ILIug ILS IMetrop Imhoof-Blumer, AGM Imhoof-Blumer, GrM Imhoof-Blumer, MG Imhoof-Blumer, KM IMM IMS IMylasa INap INGalatia INikaia IOlbia IOropos IOSPE IParion IPArk IPerg

General Abbreviations F. Becker-Bertau, Die Inschriften von Klaudiu Polis, (IGSK, 31). Bonn, 1986. W. Blümel, Die Inschriften von Knidos, I, (IGSK, 41). Bonn, 1992. E. Schwertheim, Die Inschriften von Kyzikos und Umgebung, I–II, (IGSK, 18, 26). Bonn, 1980, 1983. B. Gerov, Inscriptiones latinae in Bulgaria repertae. Inscriptiones inter Oescum et Iatrum repertae. Sofia, 1989. E. Diehl, J. Moreau and H. I. Marrou, Inscriptiones Latinae Christianae veteres. 4 vols. Berlin, 1925–1967. Ph. M. Petsas, M. B. Hatzopoulos, L. Gounaropoulou and P. Paschidis, Inscriptions du sanctuaire de la Mère des Dieux Autochtone de Leukopétra (Macédoine). Athens, 2000. C. Blinkenberg, Lindos. Fouilles et recherches 1904–1914. II, Inscriptions. 2 vols. Berlin / Copenhagen, 1941. A. and J. Šašel, Inscriptiones latinae quae in Iugoslavia inter annos MCMXL et MCMLX, inter annos MCMLX et MCMLXX, et inter annos MCMII et MCMXL repertae et editae sunt. 3 vols. Ljubljana, 1963–1986. H. Dessau, Inscriptines Latinae selectae. 3 vols. in 4. Berlin, 1892–1916. B. Dreyer and H. Engelmann, Die Inschriften von Metropolis. I, Die Dekrete für Apollonios: städtische Politik unter den Attaliden und im Konflikt zwischen Aristonikos und Rom, (IGSK, 63). Bonn, 2003. F. Imhoof-Blumer, Antike griechische Münzen. Geneva, 1913. F. Imhoof-Blumer, Griechische Münzen. Neue Beiträge und Untersuchungen. Munich, 1890. F. Imhoof-Blumer, Monnaies grecques. Paris / Leipzig, 1883. F. Imhoof-Blumer, Kleinasiatische Münzen. 2 vols. Vienna 1901–1902. O. Kern, Die Inschriften von Magnesia am Maeander. Berlin, 1900. F. Papazoglu, M. Mirković et al., Inscriptions de la Mésie Supérieure. Belgrade, 1976– . W. Blümel, Die Inschriften von Mylasa, I–II, (IGSK, 34–35). Bonn, 1987– 1988. E. Miranda, Iscrizioni greche d’Italia, Napoli. 2 vols. Rome, 1990–1995. S. Mitchell, Regional Epigraphic Catalogues of Asia Minor. II, The Ankara District, the Inscriptions of North Galatia. Oxford, 1982. S. Şahin, Katalog der antiken Inschriften des Museums von Iznik (Nikaia), I–II, (IGSK, 9–10). Bonn, 1979–1981. T. N. Knipovich and E. I. Levi, Nadpisi Ol’vii (1917–1965). Leningrad, 1968. B. Ch. Petrakos, Οἱ ἐπιγραφὲς τοῦ ᾿Ωρωπού. Athens, 1997. B. Latyschev, Inscriptiones antiquae orae septentrionalis Ponti Euxini Graecae et Latinae. 4 vols. St. Petersburg, 1885–1901; 2nd edn. of vol. I, 1916. P. Frisch, Die Inschriften von Parion, (IGSK, 25). Bonn, 1983. G. Thür and H. Taeuber, Prozessrechtliche Inschriften der griechischen Poleis. Arkadien. Vienna, 1994. M. Fraenkel, Altertümer von Pergamon. VIII (1–2), Die Inschriften von Pergamon. Berlin, 1890, 1895.

General Abbreviations IPerge

xxi

S. Şahin, Die Inschriften von Perge. I, (Vorrömische Zeit, frühe und hohe Kaiserzeit), (IGSK, 54). Bonn, 1999. IPerinthos M. H. Sayar, Perinthos-Herakleia (Marmara Ereğlisi) und Umgebung. Geschichte, Testimonien, griechische und lateinische Inschriften. Vienna, 1998. IPhilae A. and E. Bernand, Les inscriptions grecques de Philae. 2 vols. Paris, 1969. IPorto G. Sacco, Iscrizioni greche d’Italia. Porto. Rome, 1984. IPriene F. Hiller von Gaertringen, Die Inschriften von Priene. Berlin, 1906. IPrusa T. Corsten, Die Inschriften von Prusa ad Olympum, I–II, (IGSK, 39–40). Bonn, 1991–1993. IPrusias W. Ameling, Die Inschriften von Prusias ad Hypium, (IGSK, 27). Bonn, 1985. IRhamnous B. Ch. Petrakos, Ὁ δήμος τοῦ Ῥαμνοῦντος. II, Οἱ ἐπιγραφές. Athens, 1999. ISardis W. H. Buckler and D. M. Robinson, Sardis. VII, Greek and Latin Inscriptions, Part I. Leiden, 1932. ISide J. Nollé, Side im Altertum. Geschichte und Zeugnisse, I–II, (IGSK, 43–44). Bonn, 1993–2001. ISinope D. H. French, The Inscriptions of Sinope. I, Inscriptions, (IGSK, 64). Bonn, 2004. ISM Inscriptiones Scythiae Minoris Graecae et Latinae. 4 vols. Bucharest, 1980– . ISmyrna G. Petzl, Die Inschriften von Smyrna, I–II, (IGSK, 23–24 (1–2)). Bonn, 1982–1990. IStratonikeia M. Ç. Şahin, Die Inschriften von Stratonikeia, I–II, (IGSK, 21–22). Bonn, 1981–1990. IThess J.-C. Decourt, Inscriptions de Thessalie. I, Les cités de la vallée de l’Énipeus. Athens, 1995. IThrakAig L. D. Loukopoulou, M. G. Parissaki, S. Psoma and A. Zournatzi, Ἐπιγραφὲς τῆς Θράκης τοῦ Αἰγαίου, μεταξὺ τῶν ποταμῶν Νέστου καὶ Ἕβρου (νόμοι Ξάνθης, Ῥοδόπης καὶ Ἕβρου). Athens, 2005. ITralles F. B. Poljakov, Die Inschriften von Tralleis und Nysa. I, Die Inschriften von Tralleis, (IGSK, 36 (1)). Bonn, 1989. IVarsovie A. Łajtar, Catalogue des inscriptions grecques du Musée National de Varsovie. Warsaw, 2003. IvOl W. Dittenberger and K. Purgold, Olympia. V, Die Inschriften von Olympia. Berlin, 1896. JIWE D. Noy, Jewish Inscriptions of Western Europe. 2 vols. Cambridge, 1993– 1995. JÖAI Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes in Wien. Vienna. Klee T. Klee, Zur Geschichte der gymnischen Agone an griechischen Festen. Leipzig / Berlin, 1918. Klein D. Klein, Sammlung von griechischen Kleinsilbermünzen und Bronzen. Milan, 1999. Künstlerlexikon R. Vollkommer (ed.), Künstlerlexikon der Antike. 2 vols. Munich / Leipzig, 2001–2004 (repr. Hamburg, 2007).

xxii

General Abbreviations

C. A. La’da, Foreign Ethnics in Hellenistic Egypt. Louvain, 2002. W. Leschhorn, Lexicon der Aufschriften auf griechischen Münzen. II, Ethnika und ‘Beamtennamen’. Vienna, 2009. LGPN P. M. Fraser and E. Matthews (eds), A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names. I–VA. Oxford, 1987– . LIMC L. Kahil et al. (eds), Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae. Zurich, 1981– . LSAG2 L. H. Jeffery, The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece. 2nd edn. with Supplement by A. W. Johnston. Oxford, 1990. LSCG F. Sokolowski, Lois sacrées des cités grecques. 3 vols. Paris, 1955–1969. LSJ H. G. Liddell, R. Scott and H. S. Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th edn. with Supplement. Oxford, 1968. Maiuri, NS A. Maiuri, Nuova silloge epigrafica di Rodi e Cos. Florence, 1925. MAMA Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua. 10 vols. Manchester / London, 1928– . Marcadé J. Marcadé, Recueil des signatures de sculpteurs grecs. 2 vols. Paris, 1953–1957. Michel C. Michel, Recueil d’inscriptions grecques. Brussels, 1900 (Supplements, 1912–1927). Milet T. Wiegand et al., Milet. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen seit dem Jahre 1899. 1– . Berlin, 1906– . Mionnet T. E. Mionnet, Description des médailles antiques, grecques et romaines, avec leur degré de rareté et leur estimation. 6 vols. with 9 supplements. Paris 1806–1837. ML R. Meiggs and D. M. Lewis, A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the end of the fifth century B.C. Oxford, 1969 (rev. edn. 1988). Moretti, IAG L. Moretti, Iscrizioni agonistiche greche. Rome, 1953. Moretti, ISE L. Moretti, Iscrizioni storiche ellenistiche. 2 vols. Florence, 1967–1976. Moretti, Olympionikai L. Moretti, Olympionikai. I vincitori negli antichi agoni Olimpici. Rome, 1957. Muller-Dufeu M. Muller-Dufeu, La sculpture grecque. Sources littéraires et épigraphiques. Paris, 2002. Münsterberg R. Münsterberg, Die Beamtennamen auf den griechischen Münzen, geographisch und alphabetisch geördnet. Hildesheim / Zurich / New York, 1985 (repr.). Münsterberg, Nachträg R. Münsterberg, ‘Die Beamtennamen auf den griechischen Münzen, geographisch und alphabetisch geördnet. Nachtrag zu Num. Zeitschrift 1911, 1912, 1914’, (repr. in Die Beamtennamen auf den griechischen Münzen. Hildesheim, 1985, 1–64. Naukratis W. M. F. Petrie, Naukratis. 2 vols. London, 1886. Neue Pauly H. Cancik and H. Schneider (eds), Die Neue Pauly. Enzyklopädie der Antike. Stuttgart / Weimar, 1996–2003. OCD3 S. Hornblower and A. Spawforth (eds), The Oxford Classsical Dictionary. 3rd edn. Oxford, 1996 and 2003. OClaud J. Bingen, H. Cuvigny et al., Mons Claudianus. Ostraca graeca et latina. 3 vols. Cairo, 1992–2000. ODouch H. Cuvigny, G. Wagner et al., Les ostraca grecs de Douch. 5 vols. Cairo, 1986–2001. La’da Leschhorn, LAGM II

General Abbreviations OGIS

xxiii

W. Dittenberger, Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae. Supplementum Sylloges Inscriptionum Graecarum. 2 vols. Leipzig, 1903–1905 (repr. Hildesheim, 1960). OGS O. Masson, Onomastica Graeca Selecta, eds. C. Dobias and L. Dubois, 3 vols. in 2. Paris, 1990; Geneva, 2000. OHeid C. Armoni, J. M. S. Cowey and D. Hagedorn, Die griechischen Ostraka der Heidelberger Papyrus-Sammlung. Heidelberg, 2005. OKellis K. A. Worp, Greek Ostraka from Kellis. Oxford, 2004. OKrok H. Cuvigny, Ostraca de Krokadilô. Cairo, 2005. Old and New Worlds E. Matthews (ed.), Old and New Worlds in Greek Onomastics. Oxford, 2007. OMich L. Amundsen et al., Greek Ostraca in the University of Michigan Collection. I-IV. Ann Arbor, 1935–1975. OMS L. Robert, Opera Minora Selecta. Épigraphie et antiquités grecques. 7 vols. Amsterdam, 1969–1990. OPEL B. Lorincz, Onomasticon Provinciarum Europae Latinarum. Vienna, 1994– 2002. Osborne, Naturalization M. J. Osborne, Naturalization in Athens. 4 vols. in 3. Brussels, 1981–1983. PA J. Kirchner, Prosopographia Attica. 2 vols. Berlin, 1901–1903. PAA J. S. Traill, Persons of Ancient Athens. 1– . Toronto, 1994– . PAE Πρακτικὰ τῆς ἐν Ἀθήναις Ἀρχαιολογικῆς Ἑταιρείας. Athens. PAgon P. Frisch, Zehn agonistische Papyri. Opladen, 1986. Pape–Benseler W. Pape and G. Benseler, Wörterbuch der griechischen Eigennamen. 3rd edn. Βraunschweig, 1985. Paton–Hicks W. R. Paton and E. L. Hicks, The Inscriptions of Cos. Oxford, 1891. PCairoGood E. J. Goodspeed, Greek Papyri from the Cairo Museum. Chicago, 1902. PCG R. Kassel and C. Austin, Poetae Comici Graeci. 1– . Berlin / New York, 1983– . PCol W. L. Westermann et al., Columbia Papyri. 11 vols. New York / Atlanta, 1929– . PCount W. Clarysse and D. J. Thompson, Counting the People in Hellenistic Egypt. I, Population Registers. Cambridge, 2006. W. Peek, Attische Grabschriften. 2 vols. Berlin, 1953, 1956. Peek, AG Perlman, Theorodokia P. Perlman, City and Sanctuary in Ancient Greece. The Theorodokia in the Peloponnese. Göttingen, 2000. Pfuhl–Möbius E. Pfuhl and H. Möbius, Die ostgriechischen Grabreliefs. 2 vols. Mainz, 1979. PG J.-P. Migne (ed.), Patrologia Graeca. Paris, 1857–1866. PGraux H. Cuvigny, S. Kambitsis et al., Papyrus Graux. 3 vols. Geneva, 1995– 2004. PIR2 E. Groag, A. Stein, L. Petersen et al., Prosopographia Imperii Romani saec. I. II. III. I–VIII (1) A–T. 2nd edn. Berlin / Leipzig / New York, 1933– . PL J.-P. Migne (ed.), Patrologia Latina. Paris, 1844–1855. PLond F. G. Kenyon, H. I. Bell and T. C. Skeat, Greek Papyri in the British Museum. 6 vols. London, 1893–1917, 1974. PLRE A. H. M. Jones, J. R. Martindale and J. Morris, Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire. 3 vols. in 4. Cambridge, 1971–1992.

xxiv PMG PMich PNYU

General Abbreviations

D. L. Page, Poetae Melici Graeci. Oxford, 1962. Michigan Papyri. 1– . Ann Arbor / Toronto / Atlanta / Zutphen, 1931– . N. Lewis, Greek Papyri in the Collection of New York University. New York, 1967. Poralla P. Poralla, Prosopographie der Lakedaimonier bis auf die Zeit Alexanders des Großen. Breslau, 1913 (repr. with Addenda and Corrigenda by A. S. Bradford, Chicago, 1985). POxy B. P. Grenfell, A. S. Hunt et al., The Oxyrhynchus Papyri. 1– . London, 1898– . PP W. Peremans and E. Van ’t Dack et al., Prosopographia Ptolemaica. 9 vols. Louvain, 1950–1981. PPetrie J. P. Mahaffy and J. G. Smyly, The Flinders Petrie Papyri. 3 vols. Dublin, 1891–1905. PPetrie2 W. Clarysse, The Petrie Papyri2. I, The Wills. Brussels, 1991. PPhrurDiosk J. M. S. Cowey, K. Maresch and C. Barnes, Das Archiv des Phrurarchen Dioskurides (154–145 v. Chr.?) (P.Phrur.Diosk.). Papyri aus den Sammlungen von Heidelberg, Köln, München und Wien. Paderborn, 2003. PRyl A. S. Hunt et al., Catalogue of Greek (and Latin) Papyri in the John Rylands Library, Manchester. 4 vols. Manchester, 1911–1952. PSI P. Vitelli, M. Norsa et al., Papiri greci e latini. 15 vols. Florence, 1912– 1979. PTeb B. P. Grenfell, A. S. Hunt et al., The Tebtunis Papyri. 3 vols. in 4. London, 1902–1938, 1976. PTorChoachiti P. W. Pestman, Il processo di Hermias e altri documenti dell’archivio dei choachiti, papyri greci e demotici conservati a Torino e in altre collezioni d’Italia. Turin, 1992. RE A. F. Pauly, G. Wissowa, W. Kroll et al. (eds), Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Stuttgart, 1894–1980. Repertorium WKI S. Hagel and K. Tomaschitz, Repertorium der westkilikischen Inschriften nach den Scheden der Kleinasiatischen Kommission der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Vienna, 1998. Rhodes–Osborne P. J. Rhodes and R. Osborne, Greek Historical Inscriptions, 404–323 BC. Oxford, 2003. L. Barkóczi, A. Mócsy et al., Die römischen Inschriften Ungarns. 1– . Budapest RIU / Amsterdam, 1972– . RMD M. M. Roxan and P. A. Holder, Roman Military Diplomas. 5 vols. London, 1978– . Robert, ATAM L. Robert, À travers l’Asie Mineure. Paris, 1980. Robert, Choix L. Robert, Choix d’écrits, eds D. Rousset, P. Gauthier and I. Savalli-Lestrade. Paris, 2007. Robert, Documents L. Robert, Documents d’Asie Mineure. Paris, 1987. Robert, EEP L. Robert, Études épigraphiques et philologiques. Paris, 1938. Robert, Ét. anat. L. Robert, Études anatoliennes. Recherches sur les inscriptions grecques de l’Asie Mineure. Paris, 1937 (repr. Amsterdam, 1970). Robert, Hellenica L. Robert, Hellenica. Recueil d’épigraphie, de numismatique et d’antiquités grecques, I–XIII. Limoges / Paris, 1946–1965. Robert, La Carie L. and J. Robert, La Carie, histoire et géographie historique avec le recueil des inscriptions antiques. II, Le plateau de Tabai et ses environs. Paris, 1954.

General Abbreviations

xxv

Robert, Noms indigènes L. Robert, Noms indigènes dans l’Asie Mineure gréco-romaine I. Paris, 1963. Robert, Villes L. Robert, Villes d’Asie Mineure. Études de géographie ancienne. Paris, 1935 (2nd edn. 1962). Roscher W. H. Roscher, Ausführliches Lexikon der griechischen und römischen Mythologie. Leipzig, 1884–1937. RPC Roman Provincial Coinage. London / Paris. I = A. M. Burnett, M. Amandry and P. Ripollès, From the Death of Caesar to the Death of Vitellius (44 BC–AD 69). 1992; Supplement I. 1998; Supplement II. 2006 (online). II = A. M. Burnett, M. Amandry and P. Ripollès, From Vespasian to Domitian (AD 69–96). 1999. VII = M. Spoerri, Gordian I to Gordian III. Province of Asia (AD 238–244). 2006. Sardis Sardis, I– . Leiden / Cambridge / Princeton. VI (1) = E. Littmann, Lydian Inscriptions. Part 1. 1916. VI (2) = W. H. Buckler, Lydian Inscriptions. Part 2. 1924. SB F. Preisigke, F. Bilabel et al., Sammelbuch griechischer Urkunden aus Ägypten. 1– . Strasbourg / Berlin / Leipzig / Heidelberg / Wiesbaden, 1915– . Schwyzer, DGE E. Schwyzer, Dialectorum Graecorum exempla potiora. 3rd edn. Leipzig, 1923. Schwyzer, GG E. Schwyzer, Griechische Grammatik, auf der Grundlage von Karl Brugmanns Griechischer Grammatik. 4 vols. 3rd edn. Munich, 1950–1971. SEG Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum, I– . Leiden / Amsterdam, 1923– . SEMA V. N. Bardani and G. K. Papadopoulos, Συμπλήρωμα τῶν ἐπιτυμβίων μνημείων τῆς Ἀττικῆς. Athens, 2006. SGDI H. Collitz, F. Bechtel, O. Hoffmann et al., Sammlung der griechischen DialektInschriften. 4 vols. Göttingen, 1884–1915. SGO R. Merkelbach and J. Stauber, Steinepigramme aus dem griechischen Osten. 5 vols. Munich / Leipzig, 1998–2004. SNG Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum (volumes published by collections, fascicles according to region, e.g. British Museum, Copenhagen, von Aulock). Solin, GPR H. Solin, Die griechischen Personennamen in Rom. Ein Namenbuch. 3 vols. 2nd edn. Berlin / New York, 2003. Solin, SS H. Solin, Die stadtrömischen Sklavennamen. Ein Namenbuch. Stuttgart, 1996. Solomonik, NEPKh E. I. Solomonik, Novie epigraficheskie pamiatniki Khersonesa. 2 vols. Kiev, 1964–1973. Staatsverträge H. Bengston, Die Staatsverträge des Altertums. 2 vols. Munich, 1962–1969. 2nd edn. of vol. II, 1975. Studia Pontica Studia Pontica. 3 vols. Brussels. III (1) = J. G. C. Anderson, F. Cumont and H. Grégoire, Recueil des inscriptions grecques et latines du Pont et de l’Arménie. 1910. Suppl. Cir. G. Oliverio, G. Pugliese Carratelli and D. Morelli, ‘Supplemento epigrafico cirenaico’, Annuario della Scuola archeologica di Atene NS 23–4 (1961–2) 219–375. Syll3 W. Dittenberger, Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum. 4 vols. 3rd edn. ed. F. Hiller von Gaertringen. Leipzig, 1915–1924.

xxvi TAM

General Abbreviations

Tituli Asiae Minoris. Vienna. II (1–3) = E. Kalinka, Tituli Lyciae. 1920–1944. III (1) = R. Heberdey, Tituli Pisidiae. 1941. IV (1) = F. K. Dörner, Tituli Bithyniae. 1978. V = Tituli Lydiae: (1) P. Herrmann, Regio septentrionalis ad orientem vergens. 1981; (2) P. Herrmann, Regio septentrionalis ad occidentem vergens. 1989; (3) G. Petzl, Philadelpheia et ager Philadelphenus. 2007. TCal M. Segre, ‘Tituli Calymnii’, Annuario della Scuola archeologica di Atene NS 6–7 (1944–5) 1–249. Tessere pubbliche F. Cordano, Le tessere pubbliche dal tempio di Atena a Camarina. Rome, 1992. TGF B. Snell, R. Kannicht and S. Radt, Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta. 4 vols. Göttingen, 1971–1978. ThesCRA Thesaurus Cultus et Rituum Antiquorum. 5 vols. Basel / Los Angeles, 2004. Threatte L. Threatte, The Grammar of Attic Inscriptions. I, Phonology; II, Morphology. Berlin / New York, 1980, 1996. Thumb–Scherer A. Thumb, Handbuch der griechischen Dialekte. 2 vols. 2nd edn. Heidelberg, 1932–1959. TLG Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (electronic resource, Irvine, Calif., 2001– ). TLL Thesaurus Linguae Latinae. Leipzig, 1900– . Tod, GHI M. N. Tod, A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions. 2 vols. Oxford, 1933, 1948. Tyana D. Berges and J. Nollé, Tyana. Archäologisch-historische Untersuchungen zum südwestlichen Kappadokien, I–II, (IGSK, 55 (1–2)). Bonn, 2000. VDI Vestnik drevnei istorii. Moscow. Walbank F. W. Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius. 3 vols. Oxford, 1957–1979. Welles, RC C. B. Welles, Royal Correspondance in the Hellenistic Period. A Study in Greek Epigraphy. New Haven, 1934. Zgusta, KP L. Zgusta, Kleinasiatische Personennamen. Prague, 1964. Zgusta, NBKA L. Zgusta, Neue Beiträge zur kleinasiatischen Anthroponymie. Prague, 1970. Zgusta, PNS L. Zgusta, Die Personennamen griechischer Städte der nördlichen Schwarzmeerküste. Prague, 1955. ZPE Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik. Bonn.

ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTORS Claudia Antonetti is Professor of Greek History at the Ca’ Foscari University of Venice. Her research interests include the history and epigraphy of Aitolia and Akarnania, hellenism in Sicily and archaic Greek colonization, especially the relations between Megara and Corinth and their colonies. She is currently working on the history of Kerkyra and preparing with P. Funke an edition of the Greek inscriptions in the museums of Agrinion (Aitolia) and Thyrreion (Akarnania). Ilias Arnaoutoglou, having worked as Assistant Editor on LGPN IV from 1994 to1999, is Senior Researcher at the Academy of Athens, Research Centre for the History of Greek Law. His interests include ancient Greek legal history and institutions, Greek and Roman private associations, and early modern legal history. Richard Ashton is a retired diplomat and is now editor of the Numismatic Chronicle and Special Publications of the Royal Numismatic Society. His particular interests are the ancient coinages of Asia Minor, especially those of Caria and Rhodes; he has collaborated on the numismatic material for several volumes of LGPN. Alexandru Avram, Professor of Greek History at the University of Maine, Le Mans, has published widely on Black Sea archaeology and epigraphy, including the corpus of inscriptions of Kallatis. He is responsible for the Pontic section of the Bulletin épigraphique, is an advisory editor of Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum, and has collaborated closely on LGPN IV and VA. Damiana Baldassarra teaches Greek History at the Ca’ Foscari University of Venice. Besides her research on the history, epigraphy and prosopography of Messenia, she is involved in the study of the unpublished inscriptions in the museums of Agrinion (Aitolia) and Thyrreion (Akarnania), as well as the Greek inscriptions of the Venetia in Classical and post-Classical times. Jean-Sébastien Balzat has recently joined the editorial staff of LGPN, having been MacmillanRodewald Student at the British School at Athens and a doctoral student at the University of Newcastle. His main areas of research are the epigraphy, prosopography and onomastics of Roman Greece. Ewen Bowie, formerly E. P. Warren Praelector in Classics, Corpus Christi College, Oxford, a post held for 42 years, has published extensively on early Greek elegiac, iambic and lyric poetry, and on the literature and society of the Greek world under the Roman empire. Alan Bowman, Camden Professor of Ancient History, University of Oxford, has written extensively on Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt, the social and economic history of the Roman Empire and papyrological subjects. He is jointly responsible for publishing the writing-tablets from Vindolanda on Hadrian’s Wall and co-directs the Oxford Roman Economy Project. David Braund is Professor of Black Sea and Mediterranean History at the University of Exeter. His main research interests are in the history and archaeology of the Black Sea regions, especially its northern shores and modern Georgia.

xxviii

About

the

Contributors

Riet van Bremen is Senior Lecturer in Ancient History at University College London. Her main areas of interests are the Hellenistic world, Asia Minor, and Greek Epigraphy. Sean Byrne is a co-editor of LGPN II (Attica). He is based at The University of Melbourne, co-editing the fourth fascicle of the new edition of IG II, Athenian State Laws and Decrees, 300/299–230/29 BC. Richard Catling, Assistant Editor at LGPN since 1990, has interests in Early Iron Age archaeology, Sparta and Laconia, and the Cyclades. Edoardo Cavalli is a graduate of the Ca’ Foscari University of Venice and part of a research team led by Professor C. Antonetti primarily concerned with North-Western Greece. His main interests are in the history and epigraphy of Central Greece. Angelos Chaniotis, former Professor of Ancient History at the University of Heidelberg (1998–2006), is Senior Research Fellow at All Souls College, Oxford, and a senior editor of the Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum (1998–). He works on Hellenistic history and culture and on the inscriptions of Crete and Aphrodisias. He is currently director of the project “Social and Cultural Construction of Emotions: the Greek Paradigm”, based in Oxford. Federica Cordano is Professor of Greek History at the University of Milan. Much of her research has been on documents of the Greek and indigenous peoples of Sicily, which includes her publication of the important sanctuary archive from Kamarina. Among her other interests are ancient geography and geographical writers. Thomas Corsten, Professor of Greek History and Epigraphy at the University of Vienna from 2010, has worked for LGPN since 2000 as co-editor of volume V (Asia Minor) and is a senior editor of the Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum (2004–). His main interests are in Greek history of the Classical to Roman periods, Greek epigraphy, and onomastics. He has edited epigraphic corpora for a number of cities in Asia Minor, most recently that of Kibyra. Michael H. Crawford is Emeritus Professor of Ancient History, University College London, and Honorary Librarian of the Hellenic and Roman Societies; he is director of the Imagines Italicae project and has most recently contributed substantially to the new edition of the Lex portorii Asiae. Francesca Crema is a doctoral student in Ancient History at the Ca’ Foscari University of Venice, studying the Ionian Islands in the Archaic and Classical periods, and since 1999 has worked at the Museo Archeologico in Venice. Her research interests include Greek epigraphy, in particular the collections of Greek inscriptions in the Veneto. Charles Crowther is University Lecturer in Greek Epigraphy and Assistant Director of the Centre for the Study of Ancient Documents at the University of Oxford. His current research interests are in the history and epigraphy of Chios and Kommagene, and the contribution of new technologies to ancient documentary studies. Jaime Curbera since 2000 has worked for Inscriptiones Graecae of the Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften, after studying Classical Philology in Madrid and Rome and conducting research on Greek onomastics and Greek curse-tablets in Athens.

About

the

Contributors

xxix

Dan Dana is an Assistant in Ancient History at the University of Rouen having taken his doctorate at the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, Paris. His current research involves onomastics, including the publication of a new repertory of Thracian personal names. John Davies, former Rathbone Professor of Ancient History and Classical Archaeology at the University of Liverpool (1977–2003), has written across a wide range of Greek history from Archaic to Hellenistic, especially on social, administrative, and economic themes and on ancient and modern historiography. Jean-Claude Decourt, senior researcher at the CNRS, is head of the department Histoire et sources des mondes antiques at the Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée in Lyon. His research interests lie in the historical geography and epigraphy of Thessaly (on which he collaborated closely with LGPN), Gaul and central Syria. Catherine Dobias-Lalou is Emeritus Professor of Greco-Latin and Comparative Linguistics at the Université de Bourgogne (Dijon) and a member of the French Archaeological Mission in Libya. Her main research interests are in Greek epigraphy and dialects. She is currently responsible for the corpus of Greek inscriptions of Cyrenaica, in coordination with Joyce Reynolds’ projected Inscriptions of Roman Cyrenaica. Laurent Dubois teaches Greek Dialectology in the Department of Historical and Philological Studies in the École Pratique des Hautes Études in Paris. His interests are in the early periods of the Greek language and in its Indo-European origins, with particular reference to dialect in epigraphy and onomastics. Nikolai Fedoseev, is a researcher in the Archaeological Museum at Kerch, specializing in the archaeology of the Bosporan Kingdom and the study of amphora-stamps of Sinope. Jean-Louis Ferrary, member of the Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres, is director of studies in the Department of Historical and Philological Studies in the École Pratique des Hautes Études in Paris. His principal interests are in the relations between Rome and the Hellenic world under the Republic and Principate. He is currently preparing an edition of the texts recording the sacred delegations to Claros on which he collaborated closely for LGPN VA. Christian Habicht, Professor Emeritus, School of Historical Studies, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton University, has written widely in the fields of Ancient History (both Greek and Roman) and Greek Epigraphy. Miltiades Hatzopoulos is Director of the Research Centre for Greek and Roman Antiquity (KERA) and Vice-President of the National Research Foundation in Athens. Among his research interests are the epigraphy, linguistics, institutional history and historical geography of Macedonia. His most recent monograph is La Macédoine: Géographie historique, langue, cultes et croyances, institutions (Paris 2006). Richard Hitchman is Lecturer in Classics at Somerville College, Oxford; his main research interest is in ancient Greek personal names. Simon Hornblower is Professor of Classics, and Grote Professor of Ancient History, at University College London and has been closely associated with LGPN for many years. He has written extensively

xxx

About

the

Contributors

on Thucydides and is currently preparing a full-length scholarly commentary on Lykophron (with translation) for Oxford University Press. Alan Johnston is Emeritus Reader in Classical Archaeology at University College London and Associate Fellow of the Institute of Classical Studies. He has been connected with LGPN since early days, contributing with respect to ‘archaeological material’. His interests are in the material culture of the Archaic and Classical periods, especially pottery and epigraphy. Nikoletta Kanavou, Research Assistant for LGPN from 2003 to 2006, is Associate Tutor in Greek Civilisation at the Open University of Cyprus, and Lecturer in Ancient Greek at the University of Crete. Her research interests lie in ancient Greek literature and onomastics. Philip Kinns, Research Fellow in Greek Numismatics at Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge from 1979 to 1983, is Director of Philately, Stanley Gibbons Ltd. He has contributed to LGPN for over 30 years, serving on its Steering Committee since 1989. His research continues to focus on the late Classical and Hellenistic coinage of Ionia. Denis Knoepfler is Professor at the Collège de France, where he holds a chair in the History and Epigraphy of Greek Cities, and Professor Emeritus at the University of Neuchâtel. He is a leading authority on Euboia and Boiotia, and his interests include historical geography and onomastics, having been responsible for the compilation of the Euboian names in LGPN I. Charalambos Kritzas is Director Emeritus of the Epigraphic Museum in Athens, having worked for many years in the Greek Archaeological Service in Attica, the Argolid and Crete. His interests are in Greek archaeology and epigraphy, especially concerning Argos and Crete. He is currently engaged in the study and publication of a remarkable sanctuary archive of inscriptions on bronze of the Classical period from Argos. Adam Łajtar is Professor of Greek Epigraphy and Papyrology at the University of Warsaw. He has edited Greek inscriptions from different parts of the Greek world, including the Black Sea region, Asia Minor, Palestine, the Nile valley, and Cyrenaica. His special interests concern the civilization of Greco-Roman and Byzantine Egypt extending into Christian Nubia. Stephen Lambert is Senior Lecturer in Ancient History at the University of Cardiff and Visiting Fellow at the University of Utrecht. He has written extensively on Athenian history and epigraphy, and is editing the second fascicle of the new edition of IG II, Athenian State Laws and Decrees, 352/1 to 322/1. Maria Letizia Lazzarini is Professor of Greek Epigraphy at ‘La Sapienza’ University of Rome. Her main interests are in Archaic Greek epigraphy but she is also general editor of the series Iscrizioni greche d’Italia and has personal responsibility for the volumes on Ostia and modern Calabria. In addition she is an advisory editor of the Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum for Italy and Sicily, and is currently working on inscriptions from Gerasa in Jordan. Giacomo Manganaro, formerly Professor of Greek History at the University of Catania and lecturer in Numismatics at the Universities of Messina and of Catania, has specialized in the history, epigraphy and the Greek, Roman and Byzantine antiquities of Sicily. His most recent work (in press) is entitled Pace e guerra nella Sicilia tardo-ellenistica e romana (215 a.C.–14 d.C.). Ricerche storiche e numismatiche.

About

the

Contributors

xxxi

Fabienne Marchand, a member of the editorial staff of LGPN from 2005 to 2008, holds a British Academy Postdoctoral Fellowship at St Anne’s College, Oxford. Her research is concentrated on Boiotia and Euboia, and her interests include Greek epigraphy and onomastics. Angelos Matthaiou is Secretary of the Greek Epigraphical Society, co-editor of the periodical ΗΟΡΟΣ and editor of the first fascicle of the new edition of IG II, Athenian State Laws and Decrees, 403/2–353/2 BC. Fergus Millar is Camden Professor of Ancient History Emeritus at Oxford, and is a member of the Hebrew and Jewish Studies Unit in the Oriental Institute. Having published widely on many aspects of Roman history, he is currently working on religion and society in the Near Eastern provinces of the Roman Empire between Constantine and Mahomet. Benjamin Millis has lived and worked in Greece for many years, before moving to Leicester in 2010. His research has most recently been concerned with various aspects of Hellenistic and Early Roman Corinth, including a prosopography of the city. Pantelis Nigdelis, Associate Professor of Ancient History at the Aristotelean University of Thessaloniki, works on the political and social history of the Hellenistic and Roman periods, Greek epigraphy and the history of research in Ancient History in modern Greece (19th–20th centuries). He is currently preparing a Supplement to IG X (2) (1), the inscriptions of Thessalonike. Graham Oliver, Senior Lecturer in Ancient Greek Culture at the University of Liverpool, works primarily on the social and economic history of the Greek world. Greek epigraphy is central to his research interests and he is editing the third fascicle of the new edition of IG II, Athenian State Laws and Decrees, 321/0–301/0 BC. Michael Osborne, Emeritus Professor of Classical Studies, University of Melbourne; Professor of Hellenic Studies, Peking University (PRC); co-editor of LGPN II, and of the fourth fascicle of the new edition of IG II, Athenian State Laws and Decrees, 300/299–230/29 BC. His current research interests include Hellenistic Athens, Attic epigraphy and prosopography, and the diplomatic history of the late Qing Dynasty in China. Jacques Oulhen teaches Ancient Greek History at Rennes 2 Université. He is a member of the Laboratoire Archéologie et Histoire Merlat (Centre de Recherches en Archéologie, Archéosciences, Histoire, UMR 6566) and is currently working on a new edition of Bechtel’s, Die historischen Personnenamen des Griechischen. Pınar Özlem Aytaçlar, Research Assistant in the Department of Ancient Languages and Cultures at Ege University, Izmir, works on ancient Asia Minor with particular interests in epigraphy. Joyce Reynolds, former Reader in Roman Historical Epigraphy at the University of Cambridge and Honorary Fellow of Newnham College, has written extensively on the Greek and Latin inscriptions of Cyrenaica and also on inscriptions from Aphrodisias. Marijana Ricl, Professor of Ancient History, University of Belgrade, has collaborated closely on LGPN IV and VA and has edited the inscriptions from Alexandreia Troas and northern Macedonia (IG X (2) (2)). She has a particular interest in the cults of Hellenistic and Roman Anatolia, and has conducted epigraphic surveys in Lydia for several years.

xxxii

About

the

Contributors

Sergey Saprykin, Institute of World History, Russian Academy of Sciences, is Professor in the Moscow State University where he is head of the Department of Ancient History. His research interests are in the archaeology, history, and epigraphy of the Greco-Roman world, particularly the Black Sea area. Christof Schuler is Director of the Kommission für Alte Geschichte und Epigraphik of the German Archaeological Institute in Munich. His research interests include Greek epigraphy and the history of Asia Minor, with particular reference to Lycia. Nicholas Sekunda, former Assistant Editor at LGPN (1989–1992), is Professor at the Institute of Archaeology, University of Gdańsk where he is head of the Department of Mediterranean Archaeology, and co-director of the excavations at Negotino in Macedonia (FYROM). His main research interests are in Greek Warfare, Achaemenid Persia, and Hellenistic Crete. Heikki Solin, former Director of the Finnish Institute at Rome, Emeritus Professor of Latin in the University of Helsinki, and past President of the Finnish Academy of Science and Letters, has written extensively on the onomastics of the Greco-Roman world and is currently preparing a new edition of CIL X as well as an Introduction to Ancient Onomastics. He acted as an advisor on the Latin material from South Italy in LGPN IIIA. Anthony Spawforth is Professor of Ancient History at Newcastle University. He has long-standing interests in Greek and Roman epigraphy, onomastics and prosopography, and in the history of Roman Greece. He is currently finishing a monograph, Greece and the Augustan Programme of Cultural Renewal. Argyro Tataki, Emeritus Director of Research of the Centre for Greek and Roman Antiquity (KERA), National Hellenic Research Foundation, has published extensively on the prosopography and onomastics of Macedonia. Together with her colleagues at KERA, she collaborated closely on Macedonia for LGPN IV. J. A. W. Warren (Jennifer Cargill Thompson) is a numismatist with particular interests in the Classical and Hellenistic coinages of the Peloponnese. John Wilkes, former Yates Professor of Greek and Roman Archaeology, University College London, has worked on the history and archaeology of Dalmatia and Illyria mainly under the Roman Empire. He is currently engaged in an epigraphic and archaeological study of the Greek-Latin linguistic and cultural frontiers in the Balkans between the Adriatic and the Black Sea

General regional map.

ELAINE MATTHEWS An appreciation Elaine Matthews read Literae Humaniores at St Hilda’s College, Oxford in 1960–64, where she was tutored, notably, by Barbara Levick, and after a short break returned to complete the B.Phil. (now the M.Phil.) in Ancient History, with a concentration on the second-century author Lucian. Between 1969 and 1975 she was largely preoccupied with bringing up two small daughters (Helen and Julia) but maintained a foothold in academic life through freelance undergraduate teaching and editorial work. For one of the results of that period, many of us have good cause to be grateful. She compiled the indices to Peter Fraser’s Ptolemaic Alexandria, in itself a piece of careful and meticulous scholarship which matches the magnum opus itself and makes consulting it (a frequent necessity for some) both easy and rewarding. Another very fruitful result was the foundation of a long and close friendship and collaboration with its author, of which more below. In the mid-1970s Elaine began what was to be a long and important association with the Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies and the Journal of Roman Studies. She was involved in the complex and demanding editorial work for the Journal and was at the same time Secretary of the Joint Committee of the Hellenic and Roman Societies. A principal responsibility of the latter was the organisation of all aspects of the joint Triennial Conference of the Societies which was and continues to be not simply another forum for university academics to talk to each other. It has served as a showcase for teaching and research in the UK in all fields of Classical Studies, encouraging the presentation of lectures on subjects in new and developing areas and attracting participants from universities, schools, museums and the general public. Elaine’s vision of this as part of the Roman Society’s responsibility to the whole of the spectrum of its constituency and its membership has been an important factor in the maintenance of the relationship between the university and the school sectors which has ensured the survival, and even the health, of the subject through some difficult times. From the late 1980s, her role in the Roman Society became more prominent. Following the much regretted and premature death of its Honorary Secretary, Elizabeth Rawson, Elaine assumed that position in 1989 and still holds it at the time of writing. For almost twenty years the irreducible core of Elaine, the Secretary Helen Cockle and the Treasurer Graham Kentfield, along with a succession of Presidents, ran the affairs of the Society with an efficiency, sensitivity and sense of propriety which (experto credite) made the office and the duties of the President seem like a privilege and an honour, in the good times. That last phrase has a resonance, deliberately so. In the new world of the early twentieth century, the symbiotic relationships of the Hellenic and Roman Societies with the University of London, the School of Advanced Studies and the Institute of Classical Studies became much more difficult than they had earlier been, for institutional and financial reasons which were not of the Societies’ own making. Solutions which will enable the Societies to continue their work and respond to the needs and wishes of their



Alan Bowman

members were difficult to find but Elaine played a very significant role in achieving a modus vivendi at least for the immediate future. That Elaine’s role in this process has been crucial is more readily appreciable in the context of the fact that in the 1990s it was on her own initiative that the Advisory Committee to the Council was established. Elaine chaired this as Honorary Secretary and it meets once a year in order to identify and consider the broader strategic issues facing the Roman Society in the longer term. Simultaneously, from the mid-1970s Elaine’s academic career was developing in the context of the Lexicon of Greek Personal Names which was established by Peter Fraser as a British Academy Research Project in 1972. Elaine joined this as a member of the research staff in 1975, was Assistant Editor from 1981–92 and Editor from 1992 until her retirement in 2008. If the original vision of what a systematic, region-by-region onomastic lexicon could contribute to the institutional, social, ethnic and linguistic history of hellenism and of the ancient Mediterranean was Fraser’s, Elaine takes a huge amount of credit for its implementation and for seeing the existing volumes through to publication. Much more than that, however. One of the dangers inherent in a long-term research project of this sort (apart from failure to maintain an appropriate level of funding, which Elaine has averted time and again) is that they might simply become static repositories of data from alpha to omega, operating in the originally established, strategic framework. That this is so obviously not the case with LGPN is Elaine’s great achievement, which can be summarised in the move over three decades from an analogue to a digital environment, from index cards to databases and in making sure that it can be sustained and adapted to new technologies developing at a rapid pace. In fact, while most of us in the mid-1980s were struggling to come to terms with simple word-processing, Elaine was already publishing on the potential of database technology. Migrating a major resource of this type into the IT environment not only presented (and still presents) formidable technical challenges which Elaine could appreciate but also raises crucial strategic issues. How to up-date the databank and incorporate new evidence which will complement the existing hard-copy and electronic databanks? How to make the onomastic evidence sustainably accessible and usable for the next generation of scholarly communities beyond the philologists and onomasticians? Without overburdening this account with technical detail, it is evident to those of us who have seen this work at close quarters, that the strategic planning and implementation of this process over a period of more than two decades is Elaine’s achievement and should serve as a model for those involved in the creation of digital research resources and web-based services. At the same time, the Lexicon has not only appeared in recognisable guise as a series of literally tangible volumes, but has also generated a minor academic industry of new scholarship on onomastics, to which Elaine’s own contribution has been far from minor. Her brief account of the whole subject in the Third Edition of the Oxford Classical Dictionary is a model of its kind. She has spoken at many international meetings and colloquia and has published her papers in several volumes of proceedings. Two volumes of collected papers, which she edited or   ‘Designing and using a database of Greek personal names’, Computers in literary and linguistic research. Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium of the Association for Literary and Linguistic Computing (1985).    Specifically in the synergy created by the shared premises of the LGPN and the Centre for the Study of Ancient Documents in the Stelios Ioannou Centre in Oxford.    OCD3 1022–4 ‘names, personal, Greek’. See also her article in the Encyclopedia of Greece and the Hellenic Tradition (London and Chicago 2000). 

Elaine Matthews: An Appreciation



co-edited, resulted from symposia organised in connection with the work of the Lexicon. The introductions which she wrote for those volumes are instructive in different ways. The earlier one incorporates a succinct yet comprehensive account of the history of onomastic scholarship, the latter looks beyond the world of hellenism and Greek names, to the studies of onomastics in different societies and linguistic contexts. Both exemplify her ability to see the importance of the detailed work for the broader context. The earlier volume explicitly celebrated the work of the Lexicon’s founder Peter Fraser, with whom Elaine worked so closely for many years. That relationship communicated to her a deep and abiding appreciation of both ancient and modern Greek culture and a close association with many Greek scholars and non-academics who have supported the work of the Lexicon. It is appropriate to emphasise the importance of that symbiosis with Peter Fraser in the last decade of his life. He continued to work in comfort and with pleasure, in congenial surroundings, in the Clarendon Building and then in the Classics Centre in its two locations (the Old Boys’ School and the new Stelios Ioannou Centre) until almost the very last day of his life. He was an enormous reservoir of academic wisdom and accumulated knowledge with which he was able to continue to contribute significantly to the Lexicon until the very end. It was Elaine who enabled that to happen. These institutional and intellectual contributions to the academic endeavours of the community of classical scholars gave Elaine a respected and valuable role in the Oxford classical landscape. Her contributions to the Faculty of Literae Humaniores (now ‘Classics’) were recognised by the conferment of the title of Faculty Fellow in 1995. She served the Faculty as a member of several committees including the Information Technology Committee and chaired the working party which drew up an IT Strategy for the Classics Centre and its Research Projects. She was particularly active in representing the interests and concerns of the ever-growing group of contract research staff, whose contribution to academic research has been in several ways inadequately recognised. Her expertise and experience in IT matters was recognised more widely in the university when she was co-opted on to its Working Party on IT and Legal Issues. She has also made a significant contribution in her college, St Hilda’s, which elected her to a Supernumerary Fellowship in 1996, which she will hold until 2012. She filled the roles of IT Fellow, until 2008, and Secretary to the Governing Body, was a member of the Personnel Committee and willingly offered occasional advice to graduate students, as well as unstinting and wise support to her Governing Body colleagues and college staff. Beyond the horizons of classical scholarship, the particular St Hilda’s development which gave her much pleasure was the establishment of the Jacqueline Du Pré Building which is now a central element in Oxford’s musical scene. She spent a great deal of time helping to deal with the legal and administrative complexities of the college’s role in managing the building, as well as supporting the organisers of the concerts and the education and community programmes. The existence and the content of the present volume reflect very widespread affection and appreciation for Elaine and for her many and diverse contributions to the local, the national and the international academic communities. Alan Bowman    Greek Personal Names: their Value as Evidence (Proceedings of the British Academy, 104. Oxford 2000, ed. with S. Hornblower) and Old and New Worlds in Greek Onomastics (Proceedings of the British Academy, 148. Oxford, 2007).

AEGEAN ISLANDS

SIMONIDES OF ERETRIA (REDIVIVUS?) Ewen Bowie

This paper suggests that the poet and prose-writer Simonides of Karystos or Eretria (known from Suda Σ 444) is the Simonides addressed by the three poems of Euenos of Paros preserved in the Theognidea, and proposes tentatively that Theognidea 11–14, 511–522 and 903–930 might be elegies by Simonides, the latter perhaps composed when he had lost his property in Eretria and was with his xenos Euenos on Paros.

Two quite long elegies in ‘Book 1’ of the Theognidea are addressed to a Simonides, as is one in ‘Book 2’, a poem that is shorter, but by comparison with other pieces in ‘Book 2’ also relatively long. Modern students of classical Greek poetry have of course been tempted to suppose that this Simonides must have been the late sixth- and early fifth-century poet Simonides of Keos. But the author of these three poems seems almost certainly to be Euenos of Paros, a poet and sophist whose activity is firmly pegged to the last decades of the fifth century. Several men named Simonides from the later fifth century could be Euenos’ addressee. One is the Athenian στρατηγός mentioned by Thucydides (iv 7), militarily active in the spring of 425 BC, and presumably active in Athenian symposia for some years on either side of that date: he cannot be ruled out. But a more appropriate literary profile seems to be that of a Simonides from Eretria or Karystos, known only from the Suda: for some reason his disappearance from modern literary histories has been compounded with omission from LGPN, but he deserves at least some attention. The Suda entry is as follows (Σ 444): Σιμωνίδης, Καρύστιος ἢ Ἐρετριεύς, ἐποποιός. τὴν εἰς Αὐλίδα σύνοδον τῶν Ἀχαιῶν, τριμέτρων βιβλία βʹ, περὶ Ἰφιγενείας. Simonides, of Karystos or Eretria, an epopoios: ‘The Gathering of the Achaians at Aulis’; ‘Trimeters’ in two books; ‘On Iphigeneia’.   Frr. 8a, 8b and 8c West. For brief statements of the reasons for thinking these poems to be by Euenos see Bowra 1934, 2 and my article s.v. Euenos [1] von Paros in Neue Pauly 4, 226–7.    E.g. Bowra 1934; Campbell 1967, 368.    Cf. e.g. Pl., Ap. 20a–b. I argue elsewhere that Eratosthenes’ proposal that there were two Euenoi may stem from such indications of an early as well as a late fifth-century date as the address of these three poems in the Theognidea to a Simonides, and that Euenos was the first identifiable collector of the gnomic/sympotic elegiac song-book that became our Theognidea. 

Simonides

of

Eretria



This Simonides’ date is regarded as indeterminable by the ‘Suda on line’, but the ascription of two books of Trimeters seems to me to point to a time when the composition of iamboi was still a living art: the late fifth-century Athenian Hermippos, cited by Aristophanic scholia with the specification ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ ἰάμβῳ τῶν τριμέτρων and ἐν τοῖς τριμέτροις, would plausibly be a contemporary of our Simonides. We have no idea of the content or tone of Simonides’ iamboi. But the title of his work ‘On Iphigeneia’ classifies it as prose mythography. Such a work might be composed at almost any date after the early fifth century, but would be especially attuned to the strong interest in Iphigeneia evident in Attica in the last decades of the fifth century. That interest has long been apparent from Euripides’ choice of the Iphigeneia myth for two plays produced within a few years of each other in the period c. 413–410 BC, Iphigeneia among the Tauri (c. 413 BC?) and at Aulis (410 BC?) and it now seems on architectural grounds that Athenian reconstruction of the temple of Artemis at Brauron belongs later in the fifth century than previously supposed. There was presumably some link between this prose work περὶ Ἰφιγενείας and the third of Simonides’ works registered by the Suda, τὴν εἰς Αὐλίδα σύνοδον τῶν Ἀχαιῶν. I take this work to have been a poem in hexameters, since some such poem is needed to explain Simonides’ description in the Suda as an ‘epic poet’, ἐποποιός. One might guess this to have been a work of easily performable and digestible length like the earlier Hesiodic Shield. Interest in the mythology of Aulis that lies just across the narrow stretch of sea separating Attica from Eretria is not surprising in an Eretrian poet, a man who, like his friend Euenos, was engaged with prose as well as poetic production. The attribution of this work to Simonides suggests to me that Eretria is much more likely than Karystos to be his polis of origin. This range of works – iambic trimeters, a prose work and a (short?) hexameter poem (there is no hint in the Suda that it extended to more than one book) – is valuable in pinning down Simonides to no earlier than the beginning of the fifth century (the prose work) and no later than its end (the trimeters); and if his interest in Iphigeneia and his role as addressee of Euenos combine to put him in its last quarter, it is not only in Euenos that a parallel for composing both prose and poetry can be found – Ion of Chios, Hippias of Elis and Kritias of Athens are likewise credited with both. It is worth asking whether this Simonides also composed any elegiac poetry. That none survived to be catalogued by Alexandrian scholars and to pass through Hesychius to his biographical notice in the Suda does not show that he did not, and in composing both iambic trimeters and elegiacs he would have had several distinguished precedents – Archilochos, Solon and Xenophanes, and perhaps Semonides of Amorgos and Mimnermos. It is tempting, therefore, to think both that our Simonides might have composed elegiac poems and that Euenos might have included some poetry by his friend and addressee Simonides in his elegiac collection. Has any of Simonides’ elegiac poetry survived via Theognis ‘Book 1’?   Their reference to FGrHist 55 C casts no light.   Schol. Ar., Pl. 701 = Hermippos fr. 1 West.    Schol. Ar., Av. 1150 = Hermippos fr. 3 West. For ascriptions of fragments to trimeters of other poets cf. Archilochos fr. 18 West ἐν τοῖς τριμέτροις (= Eust., in Hom. p. 518.27) and fr. 36 West Ἀρχίλοχος δὲ τριμέτροις (Harpocr. s.v. παλίνσκιον).    The stoa is generally agreed to have been constructed around 420 BC, cf. Vikela 2009: but the temple, replacing one destroyed by the Persians in 480 BC, has usually been dated c. 450 BC. A later date was suggested by J. Camp in a lecture delivered in an Oxford seminar on 19 February 2007.  



Ewen Bowie

I start near the beginning of the Theognidea. The brief hymnic invocation at 11–14 seems to be addresssed to the Artemis whose cult at Euboian Amarynthos, in the territory of Eretria, we know from Kallimachos: Ἄρτεμι θηροφόνη, θύγατερ Διός, ἣν Ἀγαμέμνων εἵσαθ’, ὅτ’ ἐς Τροίην ἔπλεε νηυσὶ θοῇς, εὐχομένῳ μοι κλῦθι, κακὰς δ’ ἀπὸ κῆρας ἄλαλκε· σοὶ μὲν τοῦτο θεὰ σμικρόν, ἐμοὶ δὲ μέγα. Artemis, beast-slayer, daughter of Zeus, whom Agamemnon established when he sailed to Troy with his swift ships, hearken to me as I pray, and drive off evil fates: for you, goddess, this is a small thing, but for me a great thing. In a recently published piece I suggested that this poem’s composition by a traveller seemed more likely than by a resident of Amarynthos. If that guess was correct the traveller could plausibly be Euenοs, visiting Simonides and choosing a theme and divine addressee that would pay a compliment to his friend’s works, both verse and prose. But if a local singer is to be credited Euenos’ friend Simonides might himself be thought a good candidate: his work on the Gathering of the Achaians at Aulis will have presumably encouraged him to contemplate the aition of the Amarynthian cult. The other piece with a specific reference to Eretrian territory is the quatrain lamenting the destruction of the vineyards around the river Lelantos (Theognidea 891–4): ὤ μοι ἀναλκίης· ἀπὸ μὲν Κήρινθος ὄλωλεν, Ληλάντου δ’ ἀγαθὸν κείρεται οἰνόπεδον· οἱ δ’ ἀγαθοὶ φεύγουσι, πόλιν δὲ κακοὶ διέπουσιν. ὡς δὴ Κυψελιδῶν Ζεὺς ὀλέσειε γένος. O what cowardice! Kerinthos has been destroyed, and the fine vineyards of the Lelantos are being cut down: the good men are in exile, and bad men run the city: may Zeus destroy the family of the Kypselids! Most who have tried to contextualise this poem have put it earlier, e.g. around 510 BC: the key lies in line 4, where κυψελλίζων is usually emended to Κυψελιδῶν. If these lines are as early as this, our Simonides cannot be their poet. On the other hand the quatrain’s inclusion in a songanthology of the late fifth-century may be due to Euenos’ friendship with Simonides, and it is not entirely impossible that the lines are actually a composition of Simonides reacting to one of Athens’ interventions in Eretria in the second half of the fifth century (on which see further below).10 A stronger candidate for Simonidean composition may be 903–930 – stronger because,   Cf. van Groningen 1966, ad loc.   Bowie 2009. 10   Kerinthos, however, seems more likely to have been incorporated in the territory of Chalkis, though this is not supported by Theognidea 891–4 as suggested by Bakhuizen 1985, 127.  

Simonides

of

Eretria



like Euenos’ own poems in the Theognidea, it is quite long (28 lines) though perhaps not complete:11 ὅστις ἀνάλωσιν τηρεῖ κατὰ χρήματα θνητῶν12 κυδίστην ἀρετὴν τοῖς συνιεῖσιν ἔχει. 905 εἰ μὲν γὰρ κατιδεῖν βιότου τέλος ἦν, ὁπόσον τις ἤμελλ’ ἐκτελέσας εἰς Ἀΐδαο περᾶν, εἰκὸς ἂν ἦν, ὃς μὲν πλείω χρόνον αἶσαν ἔμιμνεν, φείδεσθαι μᾶλλον τοῦτον, ἵν’ εἶχε βίον· νῦν δ’ οὐκ ἔστιν, ὃ δὴ καὶ ἐμοὶ μέγα πένθος ὄρωρεν 910 καὶ δάκνομαι ψυχήν, καὶ δίχα θυμὸν ἔχω. ἐν τριόδῳ δ’ ἕστηκα· δύ’ εἰσὶ τὸ πρόσθεν ὁδοί μοι· φροντίζω τούτων ἥντιν’ ἴω πρότερον· ἢ μηδὲν δαπανῶν τρύχω βίον ἐν κακότητι ἢ ζώων τερπνῶς ἔργα τελῶν ὀλίγα. εἶδον μὲν γὰρ ἔγωγ’ ὃς φείδετο, κοὔποτε γαστρὶ 915 σῖτον ἐλευθέριον πλούσιος ὢ̀ν ἐδίδου· ἀλλὰ πρὶν ἐκτελέσαι κατέβη δόμον Ἄϊδος εἴσω, χρήματα δ’ ἀνθρώπων οὑπιτυχὼν ἔλαβεν· ὥστ’ ἐς ἄκαιρα πονεῖν καὶ μὴ δόμεν ᾧ κ’ ἐθέλῃ τις· εἶδον δ’ ἄλλον ὃς ᾗ γαστρὶ χαριζόμενος 920 χρήματα μὲν διέτριψεν, ἔφη δ’ “ὑπάγω φρένα τέρψας”· πτωχεύει δὲ φίλους πάντας, ὅπου τιν’ ἴδῃ. οὕτω, Δημόκλεις, κατὰ χρήματ’ ἄριστον ἁπάντων τὴν δαπάνην θέσθαι καὶ μελέτην ἔχεμεν· οὔτε γὰρ ἂν προκαμὼν ἄλλῳ καμάτου μεταδοίης, 925 οὔτ’ ἂν πτωχεύων δουλοσύνην τελέοις. οὐδ’ εἰ γῆρας ἵκοιο τὰ χρήματα πάντ’ ἀποδραίη· ἐν δὲ τοιῷδε γένει χρήματ’ ἄριστον ἔχειν. ἢν μὲν γὰρ πλουτῇς, πολλοὶ φίλοι, ἢν δὲ πένηαι, παῦροι, κοὐκέθ’ ὁμῶς αὐτὸς ἀνὴρ ἀγαθός. 930 Whoever of mortals watches his expenditure in the light of his resources has the most renowned excellence for those who have understanding. 905 For if it were possible to discern the end of one’s life, and how much one was going to complete before crossing over into Hades,   My reasoning (set out more fully in the discussion referred to in n. 3) is as follows: one indication that Euenos may have been responsible for collecting a proto-Theognidea is that he has two long and seemingly complete elegies in ‘Book 1’ (and another in ‘Book 2’). Poems both long and complete are scarce in the Theognidea: thus at 30 lines 467–496 (= Euenos fr. 8a West) is our longest apparently complete poem; both the poem under discussion, 903–930, and 373–400 come next at 28 lines, but seem incomplete; 697–718 and 731–752 are the only others over 18 lines. But Euenos himself would of course have both motive and opportunity to include complete texts of his own poems. Similarly he would find it easier to lay hands on long and complete elegies by his friends than either by contemporaries who moved in different circles or by elegists of earlier generations. 12   The MSS have θηρῶν, ‘hunting’, which is universally rejected: of the emendations proposed I print θνητῶν (West) but exempli gratia rather than because I believe it to be what was sung. 11

10

Ewen Bowie

it would have been reasonable that the man who expected his portion for a longer time to be more sparing, so as to have a livelihood: but as it is that is not so, which indeed has aroused great sorrow in me too, 910 my heart is bitten, and my mind is divided, and I stand at a crossroads: there are two roads ahead of me; I ponder which of these I shall go along first, either to spend nothing and drag out my life in wretchedness, or to live a life of pleasure, bringing few things to accomplishment. 915 For I have seen a man who was sparing, and never to his belly would he give the corn that free men eat, though he was wealthy; But before he used up his wealth he went down into the house of Hades and somebody drawn randomly from mankind got his resources: this brings about living in poverty to no purpose, and not giving to the person of one’s choice. 920 And I have seen another man who indulged his belly And exhausted his resources, but said “I am on my way once I have pleasured my heart”: and he begs from all his friends, whenever he sees one. So, Demokles, according to one’s resources is it best of all to arrange one’s expenditure, and to exercise care: 925 for neither will you give a share of your labours to another by dying first nor will you live through slavery, going round begging. Not even were you to reach old age would all your resources be exhausted – and in this generation it is best to have resources. For if you are wealthy, you have many friends, but if you are poor, 930 few, and you are no longer the fine man that you were. This elegy is addressed to a Demokles (line 923) and was attributed by Cataudella to Euenos himself.13 Some features were judged late by Harrison (1902) and Carrière (1948), but van Groningen thought its date uncertain, and noted “Le poète connaît fort bien la langue épique et élégiaque”.14 The name of the addressee, Demokles, does not help much: if it were not attested in Euboia this might be seen as an argument against the authorship of our Simonides, but it is indeed documented for Eretria in IG XII (9) 246 B, 92, a catalogue of ephebes of the late fourth or early third century. However, it is so very common a name in Athens that its appearance at Eretria cannot count for a lot. The poem’s reflections on the importance of drawing upon apparently fixed resources at a pace calculated not to exhaust them before one’s death but equally not to leave too much for random heirs would suit an exile with limited or no access to his erstwhile property, as Simonides may have been (see below), but it would fit many other personae too. The image of standing at a cross-roads and making a choice was also used c. 425 BC by Simonides’ fellow-islander Prodikos of Keos in his Choice of Herakles, but whether Simonides or Prodikos got there first cannot be determined.15   Cataudella 1956, 45–6.   van Groningen 1966, 352. 15   I take it that both Aristophanes in the agon of Clouds and Kratinos in the plot of Wine-flask are humorously reworking Prodikos’ designer-myth, and that accordingly this became familiar to the Athenian theatre-going public not long before 423. 13 14

Simonides

of

Eretria

11

An apparently complete 12-line poem addressed to Klearistos, however, 511–522, has perhaps stronger claims. It is an exuberant greeting to a recently arrived ξένος (Theognidea 511–52216): ἦλθες δή, Κλεάριστε, βαθὺν διὰ πόντον ἀνύσσας 512 ἐνθάδ’ ἐπ’ οὐδ̀ὲν ἔχοντ’, ὦ τάλαν, οὐδὲν ἔχων· 515 τῶν δ’ ὄντων τἄριστα παρέξομεν· ἦν δέ τις ἔλθῃ σεῦ φίλος ὤν, κατάκεισ’ ὡς φιλότητος ἔχεις. οὔτέ τι τῶν ὄντων ἀποθήσομαι, οὔτε τι μείζω σῆς ἕνεκα ξενίης ἄλλοθεν οἰσόμεθα. ἢν δέ τις εἰρωτᾷ τὸν ἐμὸν βίον, ὧδέ οἱ εἰπεῖν· “ὡς εὖ μὲν χαλεπῶς, ὡς χαλεπῶς δὲ μάλ’ εὖ. ὥσθ’ ἕνα μὲν ξεῖνον πατρώιον οὐκ ἀπολείπειν, ξείνια δὲ πλεόνεσσ’ οὐ δυνατὸς παρέχειν.” νηός τοι πλευρῇσιν ὑπὸ ζυγὰ θήσομεν ἡμεῖς 513 514 Κλεάρισθ’ οἷ’ ἔχομεν χοἶα διδοῦσι θεοί. So you have come, Klearistos, completing your voyage across the deep sea 512 here to one who has nothing, as you too have nothing, poor man: 515 but we shall provide the best of what we have: and if somebody comes who is your friend, recline as our friendship bids. I shall not garner away any of what I have, nor shall I get in from elsewhere more substantial provision because of my guest-friendship with you. And if anyone asks about my condition, reply to him as follows: “Hard, by comparison by what is good, but very good by comparison with what is hard: so that a single guest-friend of my family will not go short, but I am not able to provide hospitality for more.” So for your ship’s cargo I shall provide, 513 514 Klearistos, such as I have and such as the gods give. The singer is concerned to insist on how comprehensively he will fulfil the obligations of φιλία or ξενία despite his own very modest means, hinting that this moderation is emblematic of the middle-ness that marks out the ideal symposion. The poem has some prima facie claim to be considered as by Simonides partly, again, because it is substantial and, this time, complete; but partly due to the name Klearistos. This name is not common, and its attestation in Boiotia led Harrison (1902) to suggest that this Klearistos was Boiotian: the name is found at Orchomenos in IG VII 3179, 26 of around 223 BC; at Tanagra in IG VII 1145 of the third or second centuries BC; and at Thebes and Thespiai in the Imperial period. But the name Klearistos is also attested for Euboia: for Karystos in 362/1 BC (BCH 66–67 (1942–3) 85 no. 1 II, 26–7) and in the second century BC (IG XII (9) 8, 6); Klearistides for Eretria in the fourth or third century BC in IG XII (9) 245 A, 264 and – a different Klearistides – 245 B, 117. There are also, it must be admitted,

16   Like West, I move 513–514 from where it is located in the MSS, but put it not after 518 but at the end of the poem (plausibly held by West to be complete) where the vocative address Κλεάρισθ’ rounds it off and the last line ends with the key term θεοί.

12

Ewen Bowie

two Klearistoi from Athens, one from the Argolis and one from Sicily, two from Klazomenai and two from Ilion.17 However, the notion that the poem might be addressed by a Simonides hosting a symposium in Eretria or Karystos to a Klearistos who was also a citizen and resident of Eretria is incompatible with the designation of their relationship as ξενίη and with the description of Klearistos’ journey as completed βαθὺν διὰ πόντον – indeed this phrase also excludes a Klearistos visiting Eretria from Boiotia or Attica. If we are dealing with a Simonidean poem (which can be no more than a guess) either Klearistos or Simonides (or indeed both) must currently be resident in some other place than Eretria. That of course can be reconciled with their both being Eretrian citizens. The Athenian democracy’s attempts to control Eretria in the second half of the fifth century will have caused especial disruption to the lives of the Eretrian elite. Many must have lost land when Tolmides planted a cleruchy of 1000 or 500 Athenians at Eretria around 450 BC,18 and when Euboia’s revolt of the early summer of 446 BC was put down by Athens still more will have been dispossessed with the arrival of more settlers.19 Simonides may well be living, hosting and singing somewhere other than his native Eretria. That the Suda assigns him either to Eretria or Karystos may derive from evidence that some of his life outside Eretria was lived in Karystos. But the phrase βαθὺν διὰ πόντον ἀνύσσας again points us further away. One of Euenos’ poems addressed to Simonides also refers to a journey from ‘the Melian sea’, but a metaphorical one (Theognidea 667–682 = Euenos ? fr. 8b West): εἰ μὲν χρήματ’ ἔχοιμι, Σιμωνίδη, οἷα περ ἤδη, οὐκ ἂν ἀνιῴμην τοῖς ἀγαθοῖσι συνών. νῦν δέ με γινώσκοντα παρέρχεται, εἰμὶ δ’ ἄφωνος 670 χρημοσύνῃ, πολλῶν γνοὺς ἂν ἄμεινον ἔτι, οὕνεκα νῦν φερόμεσθα καθ’ ἵστια λευκὰ βαλόντες Μηλίου ἐκ πόντου νύκτα διὰ δνοφερήν· ἀντλεῖν δ’ οὐκ ἐθέλουσιν, ὑπερβάλλει δὲ θάλασσα ἀμφοτέρων τοίχων. ἦ μάλα δὴ χαλεπῶς 675 σώζεται, οἷ’ ἔρδουσι· κυβερνήτην μὲν ἔπαυσαν ἐσθλόν, ὅτις φυλακὴν εἶχεν ἐπισταμένως· χρήματα δ’ ἁρπάζουσι βίῃ, κόσμος δ’ ἀπόλωλεν, δασμὸς δ’ οὐκέτ’ ἴσος γίνεται ἐς τὸ μέσον· φορτηγοὶ δ’ ἄρχουσι, κακοὶ δ’ ἀγαθῶν καθύπερθεν. 680 δειμαίνω, μή πως ναῦν κατὰ κῦμα πίῃ. ταῦτά τοι ἠνίχθω κεκρυμμένα τοῖς ἀγαθοῖσιν· γινώσκοι δ’ ἄν τις καὶ κακός, ἂν σόφος ῇ.

  Those from Klazomenai are dated to c. 370–360 BC by coins (e.g. Coll. Waddington 1448) and to the (?)Hellenistic period (IEK 508); those from Ilion to the late 3rd/early 2nd cent. BC (IIlion 64, 55) and to the later 1st cent. AD (IIlion 104, 4). I am very grateful to the editors for supplying this information from LGPN VA. 18   D.S. xi 88. 3 cf. Paus. i 27. 5: for a persuasive case, based on Athenian pottery at Eretria, that the cleruchs settled there and were not simply absentee landlords see Green–Sinclair 1970. 19   There is also a tradition, found in Hesychius and Photius, that either some of the richest (ἐκ πλουσιωτάτων, Photios) or τοὺς τῶν πλουσιωτάτων υἱούς (Hesychius) were taken as hostages: where were they kept? 17

Simonides

of

Eretria

13

If I were to have the wealth, Simonides, such as I had until recently, I would not be distressed in the company of men of quality. But as things are it passes me by, though I recognise it, and I am voiceless 670 through destitution, though I would still be able to recognise better than many why we are now being carried along with our white sails lowered from the Melian sea through the dark night: and they are unwilling to bale, and the sea sweeps over both gunwales. Indeed it is with difficulty 675 that it is safe, such are the things they do: they have removed a helmsman who was good, who kept a skilled watch; and they plunder wealth by force, and good order has perished, and no longer is there an equal division in the public interest; the carriers of merchandise are in charge, and bad men are set above men of quality. 680 I am afraid that perhaps a wave will swallow down the ship: let these concealed messages be spoken by me in riddles for the men of quality; but they will be understood even by a bad man, if he is clever. The poem seems to refer to the shift of the poet’s polis from what he regards as a beneficial monarchy to rule by an ignorant and rapacious demos under which he has lost the wealth and influence he once had. If the poet is indeed Euenos, the polis is Paros, of whose internal history we know far too little for this period. At the time of the elegy’s composition and first performance it seems that Euenos was still in Paros, grimly hanging on in a democracy presumably encouraged or imposed by Athens.20 That he addresses this poem to Simonides prima facie requires that Simonides too is in Paros21 – perhaps an exile or refugee from Eretria. This in turns offers a scenario for the Klearistos poem: Simonides now welcomes to his own destitute relocation on Paros his long-time φίλος and now ξένος Klearistos, who is on his way elsewhere, perhaps to start a new life. When this speculative scenario might be dated can only be the subject of further speculation. We are told by Diodoros that in 410 BC Theramenes found an oligarchy governing Paros and imposed a democracy.22 That does not quite fit Euenos’ complaint that the κακοί have removed a good helmsman, but both texts might refer to an oligarchy in which one individual was dominant, and the evidence of Plato for the presence of Euenos in Athens also points to the period after 410 BC.23 But similar Athenian-encouraged shifts to democracy could well have happened earlier on Paros in the second half of the fifth century. Little that is secure has emerged from the above speculations. Theognidea 667–682 can well   Bowra 1934 observed that the ‘Melian sea’ suits a Parian location, but places Euenos and his troubles in the 470s, identifying Simonides with the poet from Keos and associating the imposition of a democracy with Themistokles, cf. Hdt. viii 112. 21   Prima facie – but of course many songs of this period, including elegies (e.g. Solon fr. 20 West) have addressees who were almost certainly not present at their first performance. In choosing to address at least three poems to his friend Simonides, however, I take it that Euenos reckoned to have him present for at least some of these first performances. But it remains true that we cannot be certain Simonides was in Paros for this poem’s debut. I am grateful to Liz Irwin for reminding me of this point. 22   D.S. xiii 47. 23   Pl., Ap. 20a–b cf. Phd. 60d. 20

14

Ewen Bowie

be read as a song of Euenos, déclassé but still inhabiting his native though now democratic Paros, addressed to his ξένος Simonides who has had to leave Eretria for similar political reasons. The same down-and-outness is exuded by the poem to Klearistos, but that cannot prove it to belong to either of these poets. More information will have to emerge before Simonides acquires flesh and bones.

References Bakhuizen, S. C. (1985) Studies in the Topography of Chalcis on Euboea. A Discussion of the Sources. Leiden. Bowie, E. L. (2009) ‘Wandering poets, archaic style’, in R. L. Hunter and I. Rutherford (eds), Wandering poets in Ancient Greek Culture. Travel, Locality and Panhellenism. Cambridge, 105–136. Bowra, C. M. (1934) ‘Simonides in the Theognidea’, Classical Review 48, 2–4. Campbell, D. A. (1967) Greek Lyric Poetry. A selection of early Greek Lyric, Elegiac and Iambic Poetry. London. Carrière, J. (1948) Théognis: poèmes élégiaques. Texte établi et traduit, accompagné d’un commentaire. Paris. Cataudella, Q. (1956) ‘Theognidea, 903–930’, Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 99, 40–46. Green, J. R. and Sinclair, R. K. (1970) ‘Athenians in Eretria’, Historia 19, 515–527. Groningen, B. van (1966) Théognis. Le premier livre. Amsterdam. Harrison, E. (1902) Studies in Theognis, together with a text of the poems. Cambridge. Vikela, E. (2009) ‘The Worship of Artemis in Attica: Cult Places, Rites, Iconography’, in N. Kaltsas and A. Shapiro (eds), Worshipping Women. Ritual and Reality in Classical Athens. New York / Athens, 78–87.

PHAISTOS SYBRITAS AN UNPUBLISHED INSCRIPTION FROM THE IDAEAN CAVE AND PERSONAL NAMES DERIVING FROM ETHNICS Angelos Chaniotis

A dedicatory inscription on a bronze cauldron from the Idaean Cave (c. 550–500 BC) reports that this object was dedicated by Phaistos, son of Sybrita, as a tithe (possibly war booty). Besides the presence of a metronymic, often used in Crete by illegitimate children, the most interesting feature of this inscription is the use of two personal names deriving from homonymous cities: Phaistos and Sybrita (or Sybritos). Personal names deriving from place names or ethnics make up a quite distinctive group in Cretan onomastics. Most of them have exactly the same form as an ethnic name (Apteraios, Knosios, Lappaios, Mallaios, Petraios, Praisios, Rhaukios/Rhaukia, Phaistios, perhaps Hyrtaios); others reproduce the name of a city (Elyros, Malla, Matale/Matala, Sybrita, Phaistos); the names of a third small group are constructed by adding the ending ‑ς to the female name of a city (Latos, Hyrtkinas, perhaps Thennas; cf. Phaistionnas). These names are connected with internal mobility in the island and with the relations between citizens of Cretan poleis. In the case of Phaistos, the son of Sybrita, both his name and the name of his mother reflect connections with cities around Mt. Ida.

During the first archaeological exploration of the Idaean Cave in 1884, Federico Halbherr found an intact bronze cauldron, which he subsequently published together with Paolo Orsi. However, a text, engraved along the vessel’s rim, escaped the notice of the Italian scholars. It was first spotted by Hartmuth Matthäus in November 1991, during his study of the bronze vessels from the Idaean Cave. The publication of the epigraphic finds from the Idaean Cave, including this inscription, has been entrusted to me by Professor Yannis Sakellarakis, whom I warmly thank for this permission as well as for his continuous support. I have briefly mentioned this text in earlier articles and briefly presented it in SEG. It is my great pleasure to present its full publication in a volume which pays a tribute to Elaine Matthew’s contribution to the study of personal names and, more generally, to the study of a neglected but extremely important aspect of Greek culture.  

  Halbherr–Orsi 1888, 38 no. 1.   Chaniotis 1992, 78 n.181 (cf. SEG XLV 714); Chaniotis 2002, 55 (SEG LII 862).

16

Angelos Chaniotis

Figure 1: Drawing of dedicatory inscription on the rim of a bronze cauldron from the Idaean Cave. Drawing: author.

Description Bronze cauldron, intact but squashed and perforated at several spots. Height c. 0.33, diameter c. 0.60–0.62, width of the rim 0.017, thickness 0.001, weight 11.52 kg. Only one of the two square handles is preserved; it is placed within an attachment decorated with two lion heads and a reversed anthemion. An inscription was engraved to the left of the preserved handle; the text is read sinistrorsum from the outside (Fig. 1). The words are divided with vertical lines. Length c. 0.40, height of letters 0.051. The inscription was damaged through the squashing of the vessel; a photographic capture is not possible. The letter-forms (especially Β, Π and Υ) as well as the use of vertical lines between the words suggest a date in the second half of the sixth century BC. The typolοgical features of the cauldron point to the same date. Inventory no. (Herakleion Museum) Χ73. c. 550–500 BC Παῖστος | ἀνέθηκε | Συβρίτας | τὰν [δ]ε[κ]άτ̣α̣ν P(h)aistos, son of Sybrita, dedicated this tithe

Discussion Following a common pattern of Archaic dedicatory inscriptions, the brief dedication begins with the name of the dedicant (Παῖστος = Φαῖστος), followed by a metronymic (Συβρίτας; see below). Phaistos and Sybrita (or Sybritos) are the names of Cretan poleis used as personal names. The name of the dedicant is separated from the patronymic (here, the metronymic) through a verb.  The possibility of a dedication by the city of Phaistos of the tithe of war booty taken from Sybrita can be excluded with certainty. In such a dedication one would expect the formula – ethnic + ἀπὸ + ethnic (Παίστιοι ἀνέθηκαν ἀπὸ Συβριτίων τὰν δεκάταν) or (rarely) ethnic + ethnic in the genitive. In exceptional cases, in which the ethnic of the defeated party is replaced by the name of the polis, a preposition is always used (ἀπό, ἐκ).   Cf. LSAG2 308–9; cf. IC IV pp. 40–1.   Information provided by Prof. H. Matthäus.    See, in general, Lazzarini 1976. On dedicatory formulas in Cretan inscriptions see Ghinatti 2001, 102–8.    See, e.g., Lazzarini 1976, 185 no. 37 ([Λ]έαγρος ἀνέθεκε Γλαύκονος) and 211 no. 236 (Χσενοκλέες ἀνέθεκεν Σοσίνεο). Very often the article ὁ precedes the father’s name; e.g. 190 no. 76, 210 nos. 230–1, 211 no. 242, 212 no. 248.    See, e.g., Lazzarini 1976. The name of the polis, instead of the ethnic, is, however, used in the legend of the earliest Gortynian coinage (Γόρτυνος τὸ παῖμα and Γορτυνίον τὸ παῖμα); Stefanakis 1999, 258.    E.g., Lazzarini 1976, 317 no. 963: Μεσσένιοι Μυλαίον.    See, e.g., L azzarini 1976, 317 no. 964: ἀπὸ Κύμας; 321 no. 992: ἐξ Ἑρακλείας; cf. 322 no. 995: Φλειϝόνταθεν.  

Phaistos Sybritas

17

The dedicant uses the verb ἀνατίθημι to express the act of dedication, and designates the dedicatory object as a ‘tithe’ (δεκάταν). Unfortunately, there is no way to determine whether this tithe originated in war booty or other revenues (agriculture, trade, etc.).10 Cauldrons (λέβητες) were used as units of value and ‘currency’ in Gortyn and Lyttos in the seventh and sixth centuries, in some cases even after the introduction of coinage.11 This is the third inscribed cauldron found in Crete; a cauldron from the sanctuary of Hermes and Aphrodite at Symi Viannou is inscribed on the handle with the signature of a bronze-smith (SEG LII 864, vi BC). Another cauldron with a dedicatory inscription was found at Agia Pelagia (ancient Apollonia) and dates to the fifth century BC (SEG XXXIV 913). In this dedication from the Idaean Cave, the name of the divinity is not given, but it is certain that the dedication was addressed to Zeus Idatas. The dedicant’s origin is not given and cannot be determined, since the cult cave of Zeus on Mt. Ida, as an extra-urban sanctuary, attracted worshippers from different Cretan communities.12 Determining the location of the workshop, which produced the cauldron, would not help. The dedicant may well have been of a different origin than the dedicated object, especially if the cauldron was war booty. Besides the fact that this text increases the number of Archaic Cretan inscriptions of a private character,13 the interest of this inscription rests primarily in the personal names Φαῖστος and Συβρίτα. The dedicant’s name, Παῖστος = Φαῖστος,14 was already attested in Greek onomastics but only in the context of myth and legend. Besides the eponymous hero of Phaistos, Phaistos was allegedly the father of the legendary itinerant priest Epimenides (Suda Ε 2471). Diogenes Laertius (i 109) gives the variant Φαίστιος. The name Φαιστιόννας, attested in Lyttos and Eltynia, seems to be related (see below). At first sight, Συβρίτας seems to be Phaistos’ ethnic. Sybrita was a city west of Mt. Ida. However, the ethnic of Sybrita is attested only in the form Συβρίτιος, which is in fact the form we would expect.15 Consequently, we have to interpret Συβρίτας as the genitive of the female name Συβρίτα, in other words as a metronymic. Metronymics are well attested in Cretan inscriptions from the Archaic to the Imperial period.16 They were used by illegitimate children, i.e., children whose father was not known or lacked citizen status. In Crete, the marriages between members of different civic communities were not legitimate unless a treaty of ἐπιγαμία between their poleis explicitly allowed them.17 We have no information concerning the status of the children of a foreigner and a local woman with citizen status, when epigamia did not exist, but it is quite possible that they received their mother’s status. We may infer this from the ‘law code’ of Gortyn (IC IV 72 col. VI, 55–VII, 10), which stipulates that the children of 10   For the public dedication of war booty in Crete see Staatsverträge II 148 A, 9–11. The inscribed pieces of weaponry known from Aphrati were war booty (SEG LII 829–842). For δεκάτη see Lazzarini 1976, 90–3 and Privitera 2003. 11   Stefanakis 1999, 250. 12   Chaniotis 1988, 34–5; Chaniotis 2006 and 2009. 13   For a collection of this material and discussion of its significance for literacy in early Crete, see Perlman 2002, 194–8, 218–23; cf. Papakonstantinou 2002. 14   In early Cretan inscriptions, the same character is used for both pi and phi; Bile 1988, 74. Cf., e.g., SEG XXVI 1050: Παιδοπίλας = Παιδοφίλας; IC IV 72: πυλά = φυλά. 15   See the testimonia in IC I pp. 289–90. 16   Collection of the evidence and discussion: Chaniotis 2002. 17   On epigamia in Crete, see Capdeville 1994, 217; Chaniotis 1996, 103–4 and 110; all the evidence dates to the Hellenistic period.

18

Angelos Chaniotis

free women and unfree men received the legal status of their mother.18 The Cretan men and women who identified themselves by giving their mother’s name must have been persons who owed their legal status to their mothers. They were children born outside a legitimate marriage, the sons of women of citizen status and men who lacked this status. But besides the use of the metronymic, an interesting feature is the fact that both the name of the dedicant and that of his mother derive from place-names: Phaistos and Sybrita, two poleis at the fringes of Mt. Ida. Phaistos is located to the south, Sybrita to the west of the Idaean Cave, where the dedication was made. The practice of giving a child a name, which is etymologically or semantically related to that of a parent, is not at all unusual in Greece and very common in Rome.19 Also personal names deriving from place-names or ethnics are well attested in Greek onomastics. In Crete, they make up a quite distinctive group (see Table 1).20 In Crete, personal names deriving from geographical names were constructed in several different ways. Most of them have exactly the same form as the ethnic name: Ἀπταραῖος (from the city of Aptera or Aptara), Κνώσιος (from Knossos), Λαππα(ῖ)ος (from Lappa),21 Μαλλαῖος (from Malla), Ματάλα/Ματάλη (from Matalon/Matala),22 Πετραῖος (from Petrai), Πραίσιος (from Praisos), Ῥαυκία/Ῥαύκιος (from Rhaukos), and Φαίστιος (from Phaistos). The name Ὑρταῖος, which has the form of an ethnic, may indeed derive from a place name (Ὕρτα?, a variant of Ὑρτακίνα?). A second group consists of personal names which simply reproduce the name of a city: Ἔλυρος, Μάλλα (female), Συβρίτα (female), and Φαῖστος.23 The names of a third small group are constructed by adding the ending ‑ς to the female name of a city: Λάτως (from Λατώ) and Ὑρτακίνας (from Ὑρτακίνα). Θέννας may also belong to this group, if it derives from Θέναι, a place near Knossos (Amnisos) with an important sanctuary of Zeus Thenatas.24 It seems that Φαιστιόννας ultimately derives from Phaistos.25 The popularity of names deriving from geographical designations is also demonstrated by names which are not related to Cretan poleis and sites, but with Crete as a whole. Ἐρταῖος, a very popular Cretan name (ten attestations),26 is a mythological ethnic of the Cretans. It is only attested for Cretans, and it may reflect local ‘Cretan’ pride.   Willetts 1955, 34–5; Koerner 1993, 516–17; Link 1994, 45–6; Van Effenterre–Ruzé 1995, 132.   E.g. Aristo-krates, father of Demo-krates (LGPN II s.v. Ἀριστοκράτης 79); Hippo-machos, father of Ischo-machos (LGPN II s.v. Ἱππόμαχος 5); Bakchios, son of Dionysios (LGPN II s.v. Βάκχιος 23); Areskon, son of Areskousa (LGPN IV s.v. Ἀρέσκων 2), Zo-genes, son of Zo-pyros (LGPN IV s.v. Ζωγένης), etc. For Rome see Solin 1990. 20   Except for Κνώσιος, these names have been included in LGPN I s.vv. The existence of this group has been observed by Chaniotis 1992, 78 with n. 181 (with reference to Κνώσιος, Πραίσιος, Συβρίτας, Φαιστιόννας, Φαίστιος, and Φαῖστος) and Capdeville 1994 (with reference to Ἔλυρος, Λαππᾶος, Πετραῖος, and Ὑρτακίνας). Names deriving from Crete or Cretan place names (Creticus, Cnosos/Knosos, Cydon, Creta), which are only attested in Rome, present a different historical phenomenon. On these names see Baldwin Bowsky 1999, 327–8. Κρητικός is well attested in the Imperial period, e.g. in Athens (LGPN II), Thessalonike (LGPN IV), Egyptian Thebes (Baillet, Syringes 1914), Herculaneum (LGPN IIIA), and on a Cretan wine amphora (SEG XLIV 1244). 21   On this name see Masson 1985, 196. 22   On this name see Masson 1985, 198–9. 23   Cf. Masson 1985, 199 with n. 77. 24   On Thenai and Zeus Thenatas see Chaniotis 1992, 88–103. Bile 2002, 133, associates Thennas with other names in ‑nnas (see the next note). 25   For the ending of Phaistionnas cf. the Cretan names Ὀρθόννας and Τασκαιννάδας (from *Τασκαίννας). For these names see Masson 1985, 196 (*Τασκάννας) and Bile 2002, 133, who assigns also Thennas to this group. But in these names (Phaistionnas, Orthonnas, *Taskainnas) the suffix ‑nnas (with gemination of ‑n) is added to an easily recognizable root (Phaistios, Orthos, Taskos). 26   LGPN I: men from Arkades, Gortyn (including Lebena), and unknown cities of Crete. 18 19

Phaistos Sybritas

19

Table 1. Cretan names deriving from geographical names.

Name    1     2     3       4  Notes to Table

Citizenship/place attested (date) unknown (mercenary at Hermione; iii BC) Malla (ii BC) Itanos (i BC) unknown (dedicant at the sanctuary of Hermes at Symi Viannou) Keraia (imp.?) Lyttos (ii BC) Lyttos (ii AD) Arkades (ii BC) Alexandria (259/8 BC) Thera (ii/i BC) Gortyn (iii BC) Olous (201 BC) unknown (worshipper at the Asklepieion of Lebena) (i BC) unknown (mercenary in Miletos, iii BC) Lato (ii BC) unknown (Idaean Cave, vi BC) Rhithymna (iii/ii BC) Tarrha (ii AD) Eltynia (iii/ii BC) Lyttos (ii BC) Knossos? (vii BC?) unknown (dedicant in the Idaean Cave, vi BC)

Reference IG IV 729, 14 IC I xix 3A IC III iv 39 CHANIOTIS 1989, 75 IC II xxii 4 IC I xviii 3 A, 13 IC I xviii 152 B BCH 45 (1921) 4 ff. IV, 4 MASSON 1985, 198–9 IG XII (3) Suppl. 1617 IC I xxii 4A SEG XXIII 547 IC I xvii 10 B, 8 Milet I (3) 38 i, 4 SEG XXXII 895 this inscription SEG XXVIII 753 IC II xix 12 IC IV 206 G IC I xviii 119 D.L. i 109 this inscription

  In Chaniotis 1989, 75, I suggested restoring a form of Κνωσί[ων], which is attested in Athens (LGPN II). However, in view of the names which derive from ethnics, Κνώσιος seems more probable. A certain Knosos, a citizen of Ephesos serving as a mercenary in Athens (IG II2 1956, 105 + SEG XXX 116; c. 300 BC), may have been of Cretan origin. For the Latin form (Cnosos, Knosos) see note 20. 2   Matala was kanephoros of Arsinoe in Alexandria; as Masson 1985, 198, has pointed out, her father’s name (Androkades) shows that she was of Cretan origin. The name appears in the relevant papyri in the forms Μητάλα (BGU VI 1227) and Ματέλα (PPetrie III 56b), but Masson 1985, 198, has plausiby suggested that the correct form is Ματάλα, deriving from the homonymous place name in south Crete. 3   This name is also attested for an Athenian in the 4th cent. BC (LGPN II). 4   Cf. Φαίσστιος in a graffito from Athens: SEG XXXVII 208. 1

20

Angelos Chaniotis

A quite different group consists of names deriving from Κρήτη or Κρής (Κρής, Κρῆσσα, Κρῆττα, Κρήτη, Κρητοξένη),27 but never used in Crete. These names were presumably given to Cretan immigrants to other areas (or their descendants). If such names reflect the mobility from Crete to other areas, the names, which derive from Cretan poleis and were used in Crete, are connected with a different phenomenon: with internal mobility in the island and with the relations between citizens of Cretan poleis.28 The mobility between Cretan cities was very significant in the Hellenistic period,29 but, as the term ἀλλοπολιάτας (citizen of another polis) implies, it existed in earlier periods as well.30 A citizen (or free resident) of a Cretan polis could be given a name deriving from another Cretan polis for a variety of reasons: because of the origin of one of his parents (through intermarriage), because of migration, or because of relations of xenia. In the case of Phaistos, the son of Sybrita, both his name and the name of his mother reflect connections with cities around Mt. Ida, not far from the sanctuary, where he brought his dedication. Which city he called his home, we will never know.

References Baldwin Bowsky, M. W. (1999) ‘The Business of Being Roman: the Prosopographical Evidence’, in Chaniotis 1999, 305–347. Bile, M. (1988) Le dialecte crétois ancien. Étude de la langue des inscriptions, recueil des inscriptions postérieures aux IC. Paris. Bile, M. (2002) ‘Quelques épigrammes crétoises (2e s. av.–5e s. ap. J.-C.)’, in J. Dion (ed.), L’épigramme de l’Antiquité au XVIIe siècle, ou Du ciseau à la pointe. Nancy, 123–141. Capdeville, G. (1994) ‘Le migrazioni interne nell’isola di Creta. Aspetti giuridici, economici e demografici’, in M. Sordi (ed.), Emigrazione e immigrazione nel mondo antico. Milan, 187–222. Chaniotis, A. (1988) ‘Habgierige Götter – habgierige Städte. Heiligtumsbesitz und Gebietsanspruch in den kretischen Staatsverträgen’, Ktema 13, 21–39. Chaniotis, A. (1992) ‘Amnisos in den schriftlichen Quellen’, in J. Schäfer (ed.), Amnisos nach den archäologischen, topographischen, historischen und epigraphischen Zeugnissen des Altertums und der Neuzeit. Berlin, 51–127. Chaniotis, A. (1996) Die Verträge zwischen kretischen Städten in der hellenistischen Zeit. Stuttgart. Chaniotis, A. (ed.) (1999) From Minoan Farmers to Roman Traders: Sidelights on the Economy of Ancient Crete. Stuttgart. Chaniotis, A. (2002) ‘Some Cretan Bastards’, Cretan Studies 7, 51–57. Chaniotis, A. (2005) ‘The Great Inscription, its Political and Social Institutions, and the Common Institutions of the Cretans’, in E. Greco and M. Lombardo (eds), La Grande Iscrizione di Gortyna. Centoventi anni dopo la scoperta. Atti del I Convegno Internazionale di Studi sulla Messarà. Athens, 175–194. Chaniotis, A. (2006) ‘Heiligtümer überregionaler Bedeutung auf Kreta’, in K. Freitag, P. Funke and M. Haake (eds), Kult – Politik – Ethnos. Überregionale Heiligtümer im Spannungsfeld von Kult und Politik. Stuttgart, 196–209. Chaniotis, A. (2009) ‘Functions of Extra-urban Sanctuaries in Ancient Crete’, in G. Deligiannakis and Y. Galanakis (eds), The Aegean and its Cultures. Proceedings of the first Oxford-Athens graduate student workshop organized by the Greek Society and the University of Oxford, Taylor Institution, 22–23 April, 2005. Oxford.   See LGPN I–IIIA s.vv.; IEph 3325.   Cf. Capdeville 1994, 221. 29   Capdeville 1994; Chaniotis 1996, 101–52. 30   IC II xii 3; SEG XXXV 991 A; cf. IC IV 72 col. VI, 46–55: ἐκς ἀλλοπολίας. Discussion of the term: Perlman 2004, 124–7; Chaniotis 2005, 184. 27 28

Phaistos Sybritas

21

Ghinatti, F. (2001) ‘Problemi di epigrafia cretese. La diffusione della koine’, Minima Epigraphica et Papyrologica 6, 35–142. Halbherr, F. and Orsi, P. (1888) Antichità dell’antro di Zeus ideo e di altre località in Creta. Florence / Turin / Rome. Koerner, R. (1994) Inschriftliche Gesetzestexte der frühen griechischen Polis: aus dem Nachlass von Reinhard Koerner. Cologne / Weimar / Vienna. Lazzarini, M.-L. (1976) Le formule delle dediche votive nella Grecia arcaica. Rome, 45–354. Link, S. (1994) Das griechische Kreta. Untersuchungen zu seiner staatlichen und gesellschaftlichen Entwicklung vom 6. bis zum 4. Jahrhundert v. Chr. Stuttgart. Masson, O. (1985) ‘Cretica VI–IX’, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 109, 189–200 (= OGS II 455–465). Papakonstantinou, Z. (2002) ‘Written Law, Literacy and Social Conflict in Archaic and Classical Crete’, The Ancient History Bulletin 16. 3/4, 135–150. Perlman, P. (2002), ‘Gortyn. The First Seven Hundred Years. Part II, The Laws from the Temple of Apollo Pythios’, in T. H. Nielsen (ed.), Even More Studies in the Ancient Greek Polis. Stuttgart, 189–227. Perlman, P. ‘Tinker, tailor, soldier, sailor: the economies of Archaic Eleutherna, Crete’, Classical Antiquity 23, 95–137. Privitera, S. (2003) ‘I tripodi dei Dinomenidi e la decima dei Siracusani’, Annuario della Scuola archeologica di Atene 81, 391–423. Solin, H. (1990) Namenpaare. Eine Studie zur römischen Namengebung. Helsinki. Stefanakis, M. I. (1999) ‘The Introduction of Coinage in Crete and the Beginning of Local Minting’, in Chaniotis 1999, 247–268. Van Effenterre, H. and Ruzé, F. (1995) Nomima. Recueil d’inscriptions politiques et juridiques de l’archaïsme grec II. Paris. Willetts, R. F. (1955) Aristocratic Society in Ancient Crete. London.

L’apport des mémoriaux de Claros à l’onomastique de Chios Jean-Louis Ferrary

Parmi les mémoriaux de délégations retrouvés à Claros, ceux de Chios fournissent le dossier le plus important compte tenu du nombre des mémoriaux (36 certains, 7 probables) et de l’effectif des délégations (chœurs de nombre variable mais avec une moyenne de 20 garçons et filles, conduits un chorège et fréquemment accompagnés par un épistate, un ou plusieurs hérauts sacrés, un pédagogue). Ces mémoriaux n’ont pas été publiés par L. et J. Robert, et paraîtront dans le corpus que j’achève de préparer. Le tome premier du LGPN n’avait pratiquement rien pu utiliser de cette documentation, qui fut en revanche mise par J. Robert à disposition de Th. Sarikakis pour sa Chiakè prosôpographia (Athènes, 1989). Mais la préparation du corpus a permis un certain nombre de corrections et de compléments, et surtout la prise en compte dans plusieurs mémoriaux chiotes d’abréviations indiquant une homonymie de l’idionyme et du patronyme, qui n’avait jamais été jusque-là remarquées et identifiées. L’étude onomastique et prosopographique des mémoriaux de Chios méritait donc une étude nouvelle, proposée dans cette contribution avec deux listes, selon que ces noms avaient ou non été déjà signalés dans le LGPN comme attestés à Chios. Among the memorials of delegations found at Claros, the most important dossier emanates from Chios, both in the number of memorials (36, and perhaps an additional 7) and the size of the delegation (choirs of an average of 20 boys and girls, led by a choregos and often accompanied by an epistates, one or more sacred heralds, and one paidagogos). These memorials were not published by L. and J. Robert, and will appear in a forthcoming corpus prepared by the author. Volume I of LGPN included almost none of this documentation, which was made available by J. Robert to Th. Sarikakis for his Chiake prosopographia (Athens, 1989). The preparation of the corpus led to several corrections and addenda, and to the identification in the Chian monuments of abbreviations indicating homonymous names and patronyms. The onomastics and prosopography of the Chian memorials deserved a new study, offered here with two lists of names, one of which gathers names newly attested for Chios. Les mémoriaux de délégations du sanctuaire de Claros conservent le souvenir des délégations venues des cités pour consulter l’oracle ou chanter un hymne en l’honneur du dieu : théopropes, mais aussi, souvent, chœurs de jeunes garçons et de jeunes filles encadrés par un certain nombre

L’apport

des mémoriaux de

Claros

23

d’adultes. Ils nous ont fourni, pour tout le deuxième siècle et, dans une moindre mesure, la première moitié du troisième siècle, des listes extrêmement précieuses pour l’onomastique de ces cités. Les plus anciens ont été publiés entre 1880 et 1912, mais ceux des fouilles de Théodore Macridy et Charles Picard en 1913 sont restés largement inédits. Leur nombre fut considérablement augmenté grâce aux fouilles menées de 1950 à 1961 par Louis et Jeanne Robert et Roland Martin, mais les mémoriaux découverts à cette occasion n’ont eux aussi été que très partiellement publiés. En revanche, les fouilles conduites entre 1988 et 1997 par Madame Juliette de la Genière n’ont permis la découverte que d’un tout petit nombre de mémoriaux, dont les textes avaient été confiés à J. Robert pour qu’elle les joigne à sa publication. L’ensemble de cette documentation (262 textes déjà préparés par J. Robert, mais pratiquement dépourvus d’annotation ; carnets et estampages contenant un peu plus de 150 fragments non préparés) se trouve dans le fonds d’archives légué par Jeanne Robert à l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres. Glen Bowersock, que Jeanne Robert avait désigné comme curateur de ce fonds, m’a proposé d’en assurer la publication. C’est un travail maintenant très avancé, dont la publication devrait être proche. J’ai trouvé à cette occasion, de la part de P. Fraser, d’E. Matthews et de toute l’équipe rédactionnelle du Lexicon of Greek Personal Names, un accueil extraordinairement chaleureux, et il m’a paru normal de contribuer à ce volume en l’honneur d’Elaine Matthews par un hommage constituant, en quelque sorte, un addendum au volume I du Lexicon. La très grande majorité des mémoriaux ont été gravés par des cités d’Asie Mineure, et cette documentation sera utilisable pour les différents tome du volume V, puisque j’ai d’ores et déjà mis mes listes à la disposition de l’équipe chargée de la rédaction des tomes VA et VB. Les volumes II et III ne sont pratiquement pas concernés, puisque la vieille Grèce n’est représentée dans ce corpus que par un seul mémorial de la colonie romaine de Corinthe, publié par Macridy en 1912. 17 mémoriaux viennent des régions couvertes par le volume IV, mais neuf d’entre eux ont déjà été publiés, et ceux qui demeurent inédits contiennent un tout petit nombre de noms.   Voir Robert 1954, 20–8 ; Claros I 3–6.   J’ai établi la chronologie des mémoriaux dans mon article (Ferrary 2005), et je n’y ai apporté depuis que quelques corrections mineures.    Tous se trouvent réunis dans les deux articles de Macridy 1905 et 1912 (en tout, 41 mémoriaux).    Ils ont été abondamment utilisés par Picard 1922, mais surtout pour les informations concernant les dignitaires du sanctuaire, très peu pour l’onomastique des cités consultantes.    J’ai donné une liste des 44 textes publiés ou republiés par L. et J. Robert (dont 31 dès 1954 dans La Carie), ou par des savants auxquels ils en avaient fourni une copie (Ferrary 2005, 727–8). 19 mémoriaux ont d’autre part été publiés comme inédits par Şahin 1987, et repris dans SEG XXXVII, mais, outre un certain nombre d’inexactitudes dans la copie des textes, on notera que deux d’entre eux avaient déjà été publiés par J. et L. Robert (no. 25 = Amyzon 34 n. 22, et no. 26 = Robert, La Carie no. 34).    No. 9 de mon corpus (Macridy 1912, no. 27).    Ce sont, dans mon corpus, les no. 11 (Périnthe, publié par Robert 1974, 74–80) ; 19 (Macridy 1912, no. 24, qu’on serait tenté de rapporter à Odessos en raison de l’onomastique) ; 30 (Thasos : noms des Thasiens publiés par Pouilloux–Dunant 1958, 127 n. 1) ; 87 (Chersonèse de Tauride : fragment inédit, ne contenant aucun nom de membre de la délégation) ; 106 (Charax en Macédoine : publié par Papazoglou 1988, 215–16) ; 108 (Olbia, publié par L. et J. Robert dans BE 1958, no. 476) ; 153 (Plotinopolis, publié par Şahin 1987, 69 no. 23 [l. 5, la pierre ne porte pas Αἰάκων β´ Εἰταλίου, mais Δράκων Βειταλίου ; le LGPN IV a déjà la bonne entrée Βιτάλιος, mais on supprimera l’entrée unique *Αἰάκων, et on ajoutera une huitième occurrence du nom Δράκων]) ; 163 (Marcianopolis : inédit, ne contient que le nom d’un théoprope) ; 173 (Dionysopolis, Macridy 1912, no. 15) ; 174 (Odessos, Macridy 1912, no. 16) ; 176 (Stobi, Macridy 1912, no. 20) ; 229 (Koinon macédonien : fragment inédit ne contenant aucun nom de membre de délégation) ; 234 (Hadrianopolis : fragment inédit avec les noms d’un chorège et de cinq choristes) ; 294 (Ainos : inédit, noms de deux théopropes) ; 308 (Deultum : inédit, nom d’un  

24

Jean-Louis Ferrary

Il en va autrement pour le tome I. Il y a d’une part une série importante de mémoriaux crétois : 11 de Hiérapytna (dont neuf restent inédits), 9 de Lappa (dont 5 restent inédits) et 2 de Kydonia (tous deux inédits), avec des chœurs, et donc une assez grande quantité de noms, pour Lappa et plus encore pour Hiérapytna. Mais il y a surtout la série impressionnante des mémoriaux de Chios, qui est la plus importante de tout le corpus. 36 mémoriaux ou fragments de mémoriaux peuvent avec certitude être attribués à Chios, et 17 autres peuvent l’être avec une plus ou moins grande probabilité. 35 de ces 43 textes demeurent inédits10. Située sur l’île du même nom face à Érythrée, la cité de Chios appartenait au koinon des Ioniens, et elle est la seule cité ionienne avec Phocée à avoir régulièrement, à cette époque, consulté l’oracle de Claros. Les textes conservés vont de la 48 à la 101 prytanie d’Apollon (c. 107–185/6) : ils couvrent donc l’ensemble de la période pour laquelle des mémoriaux nous ont été conservés, à l’exception de celle où ils furent gravés sur des colonnes du pronaos ou de la péristasis (c. 195/6–235/6 au plus tôt). On en doit seulement déduire que les tambours qui portaient des mémoriaux de Chios ont été détruits, à l’exception d’un petit fragment retrouvé près des degrés de la façade du temple, avec l’ethnique Χίων (no. 328). Pour le IIe siècle, la documentation conservée permet d’affirmer que des délégations avec chœurs d’enfants étaient envoyées tous les ans. Les mémoriaux de Chios contenaient essentiellement, et constamment, le nom d’un chorège et ceux des enfants qui composaient le chœur11 : en témoigne la formule ἐτειμήθησαν Χῖοι καὶ ὁ χορηγὸς (αὐτῶν), bien attestée par plusieurs mémoriaux parmi les plus anciens (no. 3, 42, 44, 81, 146). On est en revanche surpris que 3 listes seulement (no. 3, 22, 24), qui comptent parmi les plus anciennes, mentionnent un ou deux théopropes. Peut-être faut-il supposer que le chorège était aussi normalement théoprope, et que l’accent était mis sur la première de ces deux fonctions. Les chorèges étaient manifestement recrutés parmi les membres de l’élite sociale de Chios : celui d’un mémorial datable du premier quart du IIe siècle est un philokaisar (no. 23), celui de 133/4 est en même temps stéphanéphore (c’est-à-dire magistrat éponyme), gymnasiarque et navarque (no. 42), celui de 139/40 est stratège (no. 58), celui de 159/60, enfin, se prétend descendant d’Homère (no. 155). Les chœurs, quant à eux, n’étaient pas composés d’un nombre fixe de garçons et de jeunes filles, comme c’est le cas pour beaucoup d’autres cités, où prédominent les chœurs de 7 ou 9 enfants. L’effectif est très variable, même s’il est nombreux (le plus souvent autour de vingt), et la proportion des garçons et des jeunes filles tout aussi variable, même si le nombre des garçons l’emporte toujours, et souvent de beaucoup. Les noms utilisés pour désigner les membres du chœur varient eux aussi : ὑμνῳδοί (καὶ παρθένοι), παῖδες, ἠΐθεοι (καὶ παρθένοι). Les délégations comprennent parfois d’autres adultes que le chorège (et très rarement un théoprope distinct). Les mentions d’un économe (no. 160 et 166), d’un diakonos (no. 81) ou d’un théoprope) ; 355 (Philippopolis : inédit, nom d’un théoprope) ; 363 (cité thrace : fragment ne contenant aucun nom de membre de la délégation).    Ce sont dans mon corpus les no. 3, 15, 22, 23, 24, 42, 44, 51, 58, 61, 68, 76, 81, 94, 100, 144, 146, 155, 160, 164, 166, 169, 172, 179, 190, 194, 197, 200, 208, 237, 246, 252, 327, 328, 329, 330.    Les no. 21, 28, 92, 122, 331, 332, 333. 10   Mes no. 3 et 246 avaient été publiés par Macridy (1912 no. 18 et 5), et ont pu être utilisés dans LGPN I. Les 6 autres textes n’ont pu l’être, ayant été publiés la même année 1987 par Şahin : ce sont mes no. 44 (Şahin 1987, no. 10 = SEG XXXVII 977), 58 (13 = 972), 61 (15 = 978), 160 (14 = 971), 194 (12 = 973) et 200 (11 = 974). 11   Tout à fait exceptionnel est le mémorial no. 76 qui ne donne que le nom du chorège et le nombre des garçons membres du chœur.

L’apport

des mémoriaux de

Claros

25

esclave public (no. 160) restent épisodiques. Apparaissent en revanche assez régulièrement un épistate (no. 22, 61, 68, 160, 166, 169, 172, 179, 190, 194, 200, 237) et un (ou plusieurs) héraut(s) sacré(s) (no. 3, 61, 68, 155, 160, 166, 169, 172, 179, 190, 194, 197, 200, 208, 237, 246, 252), également qualifié de διδάσκαλος dans les mémoriaux les plus tardifs (no. 197, 208, 246). On notera d’ailleurs qu’une même personne revêt à la fois les fonctions d’épistate et de héraut sacré dans 5 inscriptions (no. 61, 68, 190, 194, 200, 237). Apparaît enfin, moins fréquemment mais avec une certaine régularité, un pédagogue (no. 61, 68, 166, 169, 179, 190). Je montrerai dans ma publication que l’épistate de Chios doit avoir exercé les mêmes fonctions que les ἐπίσταται τῶν παίδων rhodiens (qui étaient, eux, au nombre de trois, et qui dans une liste de magistrats du Ier siècle av. J.-C., figurent, selon un ordre qui paraît hiérarchique, après les gymnasiarques, mais avant le héraut [sacré])12, et que dans les deux cités ce titre désigne le magistrat chargé de contrôler l’éducation des enfants, celui qui, dans les autres cités, est le plus souvent désigné comme paidonome. Les hérauts sacrés, quant à eux, avaient probablement la responsabilité de préparer les chœurs, ce qui explique qu’ils soient également qualifiés de διδάσκαλοι, et qu’ils participent régulièrement aux délégations. La principale difficulté que présentent les mémoriaux de Claros réside dans ces suites d’éléments onomastiques au nominatif ou au génitif à l’intérieur desquelles il faut distinguer des séquences dont chacune correspond à l’onomastique d’un individu, ou à celle de frères et sœurs regroupés avec un patronyme commun en ce cas normalement précédé de οἱ (du type : Ἐπίκτητος καὶ Σωσίπατρος οἱ Φήλικος). Dans d’autres cas (les mémoriaux d’Héraclée, Laodicée ou Iconium par exemple), les chœurs ont en principe un effectif constant, ce qui peut être d’une grande aide pour trancher entre diverses possibilités. Ce n’est malheureusement pas le cas des mémoriaux de Chios, ainsi que je l’ai déjà dit. Les membres des délégations sont normalement nommés par leur idionyme et leur patronyme13, quelquefois suivi d’un nom d’usage que rien ne précise expressément comme tel14. C’est donc en principe la présence ou l’absence aussitôt après d’un patronyme qui permet de distinguer si un nom (au nominatif) est celui d’un nouveau choriste, ou un nom d’usage indiqué à la suite de l’idionyme et du patronyme d’un choriste. Il se trouve que, dans plusieurs des plus anciens mémoriaux de Chios (no. 3, à dix reprises ; 22, à huit reprises ; 23, une seule fois ; 24, une seule fois ; 61, deux fois), il est fait usage d’une barre horizontale ( ) pour indiquer que le patronyme est semblable à l’idionyme. L’usage de ce sigle a été dûment répertorié par R. Koerner, dans son très utile ouvrage sur les abréviations et sigles exprimant l’homonymie dans les inscriptions grecques : il en signale l’usage en Laconie et en plusieurs sites d’Asie Mineure (Samos, Smyrne, Didyme et Magnésie du Sipyle), mais pas à Chios ni à Claros15. Il n’a pas remarqué la présence de ce sigle dans le mémorial no. 3, où Macridy en 1912 l’avait bien noté, sans toutefois l’interpréter, en sorte que les indications que le Lexicon a tirées de ce mémorial sont très souvent erronées : pour ne prendre qu’un exemple, si (c’est-à-dire on ne prend pas garde qu’il faut lire Ἡράκλεος [Ν]εικοστράτου, Νικόστρατος 12   Dédicace au Conseil et au peuple des différents collèges de magistrats : Maiuri, NS 20. Autres inscriptions mentionnant les ἐπίσταται τῶν παίδων : IG XII (1) 43, 22 et 55, 6 ; SEG XXXIX 771–774 et 776. 13   Les papponymes sont très rares, et il n’y a jamais des généalogies sur plus de trois générations comme dans les mémoriaux de certaines cités, Aphrodisias par exemple. 14   On ne trouve jamais ὁ καί, et c’est tout à fait exceptionnellement qu’on trouve, dans le no. 23, Πρότανις Ἔρωτος ὁ καλούμενος Ἔρως, Ἔρως β´ ὁ καλούμενος Πρότανις. 15   Koerner 1961, 10–11, 86 (Laconie), 107 (Samos), 114–15 (Smyrne, Didyme et Magnésie du Sipyle).

26

Jean-Louis Ferrary

Νικοστράτου), on ne voit pas qu’on a ici deux frères, et on suppose un Ἡράκλεος Νικόστρατος fils de Νικόστρατος. J. et L. Robert ont eux aussi négligé ce sigle dans leurs textes préparés. S. Şahin, enfin, ne l’a noté qu’une fois sur deux dans son édition du no. 61, sans en proposer d’interprétation. Il est bien surprenant, j’en conviens, de ne le trouver à Claros que dans un petit nombre de mémoriaux de Chios16, alors que son usage n’a pas jusqu’ici été signalé dans l’épigraphie de Chios. Cette interprétation, pourtant, me paraît incontestable dans les mémoriaux que j’ai signalés : suffisent à le prouver le no. 3 (où on trouve le sigle après tous les idionymes qui ne sont pas suivis d’un patronyme) et le no. 22 (où une lecture de Picard, confirmée par la consultation de l’estampage, n’a aucun sens si on n’interprète pas correctement le sigle)17. Dans deux autres mémoriaux de Chios (no. 51, à 9 reprises, et 146, deux fois), c’est par un autre sigle, , qu’est indiquée l’homonymie du patronyme et de l’idionyme18, et là encore J. et L. Robert n’en ont pas tenu compte dans leurs textes préparés. Cela explique que ces patronymes soient ignorés de Th. Sarikakis, qui dans sa prosopographie des Chiotes a utilisé les informations que lui avait fournies J. Robert sur les membres des délégations19. Comme d’autre part il considère systématiquement comme frères et sœurs tous les choristes dont les noms se suivent jusqu’à l’indication d’un nouveau patronyme (fussent-ils 9, comme dans le no. 155), il en résulte des différences en assez grand nombre entre sa prosopographie et mon index onomastique des Chiotes. Tous les problèmes, au demeurant, ne sont pas résolus par l’identification des sigles d’homonymie entre l’idionyme et le patronyme. Il reste des successions de noms au nominatif dont l’interprétation est matière à controverse et que l’on doit traiter au cas par cas, en n’excluant ni la possibilité de noms d’usage non expressément indiqués comme tels, ni celle que deux frères se succèdent sans que leur statut soit explicitement indiqué par l’addition de l’article οἱ devant le patronyme commun, ni celle enfin que des patronymes représentés par des sigles aient été omis lors de la gravure. Tous les cas difficiles seront discutés dans l’édition. La liste qui suit essaie de rendre compte de mes principales incertitudes (lorsque je précise ‘probablement’ ou ‘peutêtre’). Ces incertitudes concernent aussi, et plus souvent encore, la possibilité de reconnaître une seule personne derrière les patronymes de deux choristes de la même année ou d’années proches. Les mémoriaux tantôt donnent deux listes successives de garçons et de filles, et tantôt mêlent garçons et filles de façon à regrouper les frères et sœurs. Une formule de type Ἀντιοχίς, Βαλέριος οἱ Ἀσκληπίδου est seule à garantir que nous avons des frère et sœur, et sa fréquence dans les mémoriaux du second type incite à considérer comme probablement frère et sœur un garçon et une fille ayant, dans un même mémorial, un même patronyme. Mais jusqu’où est-on en droit d’aller ? La quasi-absence de papponymes rend extrêmement difficile toute tentative d’utiliser les listes pour établir des stemmata familiaux sur plus de deux générations. On verra que j’ai souvent pris soin de distinguer deux entrées, tout en précisant qu’elles pouvaient se   On ne le trouve ailleurs que dans le mémorial no. 25 d’une cité bithynienne ou pontique, peut-être Amasia. Encore, en ce cas, ne suis-je pas vraiment sûr qu’il s’agisse d’un sigle d’homonymie. 17   Voir note 54. 18   Koerner 1961, 107 signale à Chios 3 inscriptions avec des sigles de forme et ), dans deux inscriptions honorifiques dont l’une date du IIe s. ap. J.-C. et dans un catalogue du 1er s. av. J.-C., et il ajoute : “die relativ vielen Kombinationen und die weite Zeitspanne lassen vermuten, daß eine vollständige Sammlung der chiischen Inschriften das Abkürzungswesen der Insel sehr viel reichhaltiger erscheinen lassen wird, als es sich jetzt darstellt”. On notera aussi que Robert (1933, 537–8 n. 3) signale avoir remarqué un signe d’homonymie sur son estampage d’une inscription publiée par Zolotas-Sarou 1909, 351 no. 3, 1er s. av. 19   Sarikakis 1989. 16

L’apport

des mémoriaux de

Claros

27

rapporter à un seul personnage. Peut-être aurais-je dû être encore plus prudent. J’ai distingué dans ma liste les noms qui étaient déjà attestés à Chios dans le Lexicon, et ceux qui ne l’étaient pas encore. Pour chaque nom, j’ai distingué par des nombres en gras mis entre parenthèses – de (1) à (26) pour Ζώσιμος – les différents individus portant un même idionyme. J’ai indiqué pour chacun la date où il est attesté (la première et la dernière apparition lorsqu’il s’agit d’un individu attesté dans plusieurs mémoriaux) ; son statut comme membre (ou père d’un membre) de la délégation, ce qui donne une idée plus ou moins précise de son âge ; le numéro du mémorial ou des mémoriaux où il est attesté ainsi que l’indication de la ligne ou des lignes où son nom apparaît ; enfin, lorsqu’on les connaît, le nom de son père (f. = fils ou fille de) et de ses enfants (p. = père de). Je voudrais ajouter deux brèves remarques sur l’onomastique de Chios. Si on compare les mémoriaux de Chios avec l’ensemble du dossier clarien, on est frappé par l’extrême rareté des citoyens romains20, et par la relative rareté des emprunts à l’onomastique latine21. On constate en revanche la vitalité de noms qui paraissent spécifiques à l’onomastique de Chios. C’est le cas du nom Δίννυς, très bien attesté à Chios et pratiquement inconnu ailleurs22. C’est aussi le cas de Μεγήνωρ, d’autant plus intéressant que le mémorial no. 155 est le premier à nous donner le nom d’un de ces fameux Homérides dont Chios tirait argument pour se proclamer patrie d’Homère23 : Τί(τος) Φλ(άβιος) Στρ(α)τόνικος Μεγήνωρ, Ὁμήρου ἀπόγονος, dont la famille devait peut-être la citoyenneté romaine à Domitien24, et qui portait ce nom spécifiquement chiote25.

  On a seulement un Claudius Phoebus (no. 3, 6), un Ti. Claudius Iacchus et un L. Valerius Asiaticus (no. 22, 4–5, 8), un Iulius Augustalis (no. 81, 5), un Ti. Flauius Stratonicus Megenor (no. 155, 6–7) et un Claudius Daphnus (no. 190, 18). L’assujettissement des résidents romains aux lois de Chios en vertu d’un senatus consultum proposé par Sulla (Sherk 1969, 70, 17–18) n’était certainement pas de nature à attirer les hommes d’affaires romains. Il ne semble pas non plus que la demande d’accès à la citoyenneté romaine ait été très forte à Chios. On notera l’absence dans nos mémoriaux d’Vlpii et d’Aelii. 21   On trouve utilisés comme idionymes dans une onomastique grecque les prénoms latins Quintus, Lucius, Marcus, Publius et Titus ; les cognomina Agrippa, Bassus, Caecilianus, Claudianus, Faustus/Fausta, Felix, Fortunus, Gemellus, Ianuaria, Marcianus, Polla, Pollio, Postumus, Potitus, Primus, Tatianus ; enfin les gentilices Antonius, Sabidius, Turannius et Valerius. Mais seuls semblent avoir connu un certain succès Bassus, Faustus (au témoignage des mémoriaux, ajouter Φαῦστος Φαύστου sur des monnaies d’époque augustéenne : RPC I 2417–18), Felix (au témoignage des mémoriaux, ajouter une funéraire de Φῆλιξ et de son épouse Εἰρήνη : Zolotas 1908, 249 no. 89), Lucius et Primus (mais on corrigera la notice de Sarikakis 1989 Π 206 sur le monétaire Preimos : ὁ αὐτὸς ἴσως πρὸς τὸν Κό(ϊντον) Οὐα(λέριον) Πρεῖμον, πρὶν ἢ οὗτος ἀποκτήσῃ Ῥωμαικὴν πολιτείαν ; en fait, le monétaire est un Q. Valerius Primus qui frappa deux émissions, la première avec ΕΠΙ ΑΡΧ ΚΟ ΟΥΑ ΠΡΕΙΜΟΥ ΧΙΩΝ (Mavrogordato 1918, no. 113–14 et 117), la seconde avec ΕΠΙ ΑΡΧ ΠΡΕΙΜΟΥ ΔΙC ΧΙΩΝ (Mavrogordato 1918, no. 118–23)). 22   La seule exception est un des ‘Actes de vente’ publiés par M. Hatzopoulos (1988, 27 no. 3), qui souligne précisément l’étrangeté de la présence en Chalcidique de ce nom spécifiquement chiote. 23   Voir Str. xiv 1. 35, C 645 ; Ps.-Hdt., Vit. Hom. § 25 (p. 383 Loeb (West)) ; Certamen § 2 (p. 318 Loeb (West)) ; Harpocration et Suda Ο 248. 24   Il est intéressant de noter que Chios, vers la fin semble-t-il du 1er siècle, a frappé des bronzes avec une représentation d’Homère assis au revers, et la légende ΟΜΗΡΟC (RPC II 958). 25   Μεγήνωρ, à ma connaissance, n’est attesté ailleurs que dans une autre inscription de Chios (un éphèbe vainqueur à la course du stade au 1er s. av. s’appelle Hestiaios fils de Mégènor : CIG 2214 ; Syll3 959, 18), et probablement dans une liste de souscripteurs d’Hippocomè de Lycie, où l’on trouve un Διοσκωρίδης Μεγή[νορ]ος μέτοικος (TAM II 168, 58–9). Lui aussi pourrait être originaire de Chios, où le nom Dioscoridès est bien attesté (cf. LGPN I). 20

28

Jean-Louis Ferrary

Noms déjà attestés pour Chios dans LGPN I Ἀγαθοκλῆς (1) 159/60, choriste, no. 155, 13 Ἀγάθων (1) 146/7, père de choristes, no. 94, 5 (p. Ἀγαθέας, Ἀγάθων II, Χρῆστος) – (2) 146/7, choriste, no. 94, 5 (f. Ἀγάθων I) Ἀγαπωμενός (1) 162/3, père d’un choriste, no. 166, 7 (p. Ζώσιμος) Ἀγγελῆς (1) c. 110, père d’un choriste, no. 22, 4 (p. Ἀγγελῆς II) – (2) c. 110, choriste, no. 22, 4 (f. Ἀγγελῆς I) – (3) 139/40, père de choristes, no. 58, 12, 15 (p. Ἀπολλόδωρος, Μονίμη, Ἀλεξάνδρα) – (4) 159/60, héraut sacré, no. 155, 7 (f. Δάφνος) – (5) 163/4–173/4, père de hérauts sacrés, no. 169, 11–12 ; 179, 8–10 ; 190, 10 ; 194, 7 ; 200, 4 (p. Ἀπολλωνίδης, Ἀγγελῆς II ; peut-être le même que 4) – (6) 163/4–165/6, héraut sacré, no. 169, 11 ; 179, 9–10 (f. Ἀγγελῆς I) – (7) 163/4–170/1, choriste, no. 169, 16 ; 179, 15 ; 190, 13 (f. Ἀπολλωνίδης) – (8) 175/6–185/6, père d’un héraut sacré, no. 208, 12 ; 237, 11 ; 252, 9 (p. Ἀπολλωνίδης Πρωτίων ; pourrait être le même que 4 et 5) Ἀθηναγόρας (1) 165/6, choriste, no. 179, 25 (f. Ἀντίοχος) Ἀθήναιος (1) 157/8 ou 158/9, père d’un choriste, no. 146, 5 (p. Ἀρτεμισία) Ἀθηνόκριτος (1) 164/5, choriste, no. 172, 13–14 Ἀλέξανδρος (1*) 145/6, père d’un choriste, no. 92, 5 – (2) 147/8, père de choristes, no. 100, 5 (p. Ἀπολλόδωρος et Ζώσιμος) – (3) 175/6, choriste, no. 208, 13–14 (f. Κάλος) – (4) Ἀλ. Φῆλιξ 184/5, choriste, no. 246, 7 (f. Ἱερός) Ἀμφίμνηστος (1) c. 107, choriste, no. 3, 7 (f. Πουλυδάμας)26 Ἀνδρικός (1) 142/3, membre de la délégation, no. 68, 7 Ἀνδρόνικος (1) 142/3–146/7, père de choristes, no. 68, 4 ; 94, 4 (p. Ἀνδρόνικος II, Ἰσίδωρος, Ἀσιατικός) – (2) 142/3–146/7, choriste, no. 68, 4 ; 94, 4 (f. Ἀνδρόνικος I) – (3) 143/4 ou 144/5, chorège, no. 76, 3 (f. Σύμφορος) – (4) 165/6, choriste, no. 179, 22–3 (f. Ἀρτεμίσιος) Ἄνθος (1) 133/4, choriste, no. 42, 14 (f. Δήμαρχος) – (2) 173/4, choriste, no. 200, 5 (f. Ἐπαφρόδιτος) Ἀντίοχος (1) années 120–142/3, père de choristes dont un devient héraut sacré et épistate, no. 23, 9 ; 24, 5 ; 58, 17 ; 61, 2 ; 68, 6 (p. Λούκιος et peut-être Ζῆθος) – (2) 156/7, nom d’usage du choriste Πολέμαρχος, no. 144, 9 – (3) 160/1–165/6, héraut sacré et épistate, no.160, 8, 11 ; 166, 8, 15 ; 169, 9, 16 ; 172, 10 ; 179, 6 (f. Δαμίων ; p. Τατιανός, Ἐπικαρπία) – (4) 165/6, père de choristes, no. 179, 25, 27, 28 (p. Ἀθηναγόρας, Ἐλάτη, Εὐπραξία) – (5) 172/3, père d’un choriste, no. 197, 10 (p. Εὔπλους) – (6) 172/3, choriste, no. 197, 9 (f. Πρῶτος 4) – (7) 172/3, choriste, no. 197, 11 (f. Τρύφων) – (8) 173/4, père d’un choriste, no. 200, 9 (p. Ἡράκλεια) – (9) 184/5, choriste, no. 246, 9 (f. Κάλος) Ἀντίπατρος (1) c. 107, choriste, no. 3, 10 (f. Βάσσος)27 – 2) 147/8, choriste, no. 100, 4–5 Ἀπελλᾶς (1) 173/4, nom d’usage du choriste Ὀνησιφόρος, no. 200, 6 Ἀπολλόδωρος (1) années 120, père d’un choriste, no. 23, 4–5 (p. Σωσιγένης) (2) 139/40 choriste, no. 58, 12 (f. Ἀγγελῆς) – (3) 147/8, choriste, no. 100, 5 (f. Ἀλέξανδρος) Ἀπολλωνίδης (1) 144/5 ou 143/4, père d’un membre de la délégation, no. 81, 5 (p. Δημήτριος) – (2) 144/5 ou 143/4, membre de la délégation, no. 81, 5 (f. Δημήτριος) – (3) 160/1, choriste, no. 160, 15 (f. Ἀπολλώνιος) – (4) 163/4–173/4, héraut sacré, no. 169, 10, 16–17 ; 179, 8, 15–16 ; 190, 9, 13 ; 194, 7 ; 200, 4 (f. Ἀνγελῆς, p. Ἀγγελῆς) – (5) Ἀπ. Πρωτίων 175/6–185/6, héraut sacré, no. 208, 11–12 ; 237, 10–11 ; 252, 9 (f. Ἀνγελῆς) Ἀπολλώνιος (1) 137/8, père d’une choriste, no. 51, 7 (p. Μέθη) – (2) 139/40, choriste (ou à la rigueur, nom d’usage de Μᾶρκος), no. 58, 11 – (3) 146/7, choriste, no. 94, 6 (f. Πάνφορος) – (4) 160/1, père d’un choriste, no. 160, 15 (p. Ἀπολλωνίδης) – (5) 162/3, père de choristes, no. 166, 19, 22 (p. Σωτήριχος, Ἀπολλώνιος II ; peut-être le même que 4) – (6) 162/3, choriste, no. 166, 22 26 27

  LGPN I (2), considéré à tort comme un Ἀμφίμνηστος Ἡρακλείδης.   LGPN I (5), considéré à tort comme un Ἀντίπατρος Βασσός.

L’apport

des mémoriaux de

Claros

29

(f. Ἀπολλώνιος I) – (7) 173/4, père de choristes, no. 200, 7 (père Ἀπολλώνιος II, Ὀνησιφόρος ou ‑ρίς) – (8) 173/4, choriste, no. 200, 6–7 (f. Ἀπολλώνιος I) – (9) 183/4, père de choristes, no. 237, 17 (p. Δημήτριος, Ἀπολλώνιος II, Ἐπίκτητος) – (10) 183/4, choriste, no. 237, 15–16 (f. Ἀπολλώνιος I) – (11) 183/4, choriste, no. 237, 18 Ἀρίστανδρος (1) 163/4, père du chorège, no. 169, 8 (p. Νικαγόρας) Ἀριστείδης (1) 137/8, père d’une choriste, no. 51, 8 (p. Καλή) (2) 171/2, nom d’usage ou papponyme du chorège Κόσμιος, no. 194, 6 Ἀρίστων (1) c. 110, choriste, no. 22, 7 (f. Νικηφόρος ; probablement Ἀρ. Ζῆθος) – (2) 170/1, père de choristes, no. 190, 17 (p. Ἐπαφρόδιτος, Ζωσίμη) Ἀρτεμίδωρος (1) 127/8, père d’un choriste en 137/8, no. 51, 5 (p. Ἀρτεμίδωρος II) – (2) 137/8, choriste, no. 51, 5 (f. Ἀρτεμίδωρος I) – (3) 184/5, père d’un choriste, no. 246, 8 (p. Σύνφορος) Ἀρτεμισία (1) 157/8 ou 158/9, choriste, no. 146, 5 (f. Ἀθήναιος) Ἀρτέμων (1*) 145/6, membre de la délégation, no. 92, 7 (f. Κάρπος) Ἀσκληπιάδης (1) 164/5, choriste, no. 172, 16–17 – (2) 171/2, choriste, no. 194, 13 (f. Ζῆνις) Ἀφροδίσιος (1) 133/4, choriste, no. 42, 13–14 (f. Ἰάκχος) – (2) 159/60, choriste, no. 155, 13 – (3) père d’un choriste en 171/2, no. 194, 12 (p. Φαῦστος) Βάσσος (1) c. 107, père d’un choriste, no. 3, 828 (p. Φιλογέρων) – (2) c. 107, père de choristes, no. 3, 10 (p. Ἀντίπατρος et de Βάσσος II)29 – (3) c. 107, choriste, no. 3, 10 (f. Βάσσος I)30 Βερενίκη (1) 156/7–162/3, choriste, no. 144, 10 ; 160, 14 ; 166, 18 (f. Ἕλιξ) Γλύκων (1*) début du 2ème siècle, choriste, no. 21, 3 (f. Ζῆθος) – (2) 164/5, choriste, no. 172, 16 – (3) 170/1, père d’un choriste, no. 190, 18 (p. Ἔφηβος) – (4) 170/1, choriste, no. 190, 20 (f. Πίστος) – (5) 173/4, père d’un choriste, no. 200, 9 (p. [Γ]αμικός) Γοργίας (1) c. 107, père d’un choriste, no. 3, 9 (p. Γοργίας II) – (2) c. 107, choriste, no. 3, 9 (f. Γοργίας I)31 Γραφικός (1) 183/4, père du chorège, no. 237, 7–8 (p. Εὔτροπος) (2) 183/4, choriste, no. 237, 14 (f. Εὔτροπος) Δημήτριος (1) 134/5, père du chorège, no. 44, 7 (f. Πύρρανδρος, p. Δημήτριος II) – (2) 134/5, chorège, no. 44, 6–7 (f. Δημήτριος I) – (3) 144/5 ou 143/4, père d’un membre de la délégation, no. 81, 5 (p. Ἀπολλωνίδης) – (4) 144/5 ou 143/4, membre de la délégation, no. 81, 5 (f. Ἀπολλωνίδης) – (5) 159/60, père d’une choriste, no. 155, 14 (p. Ζωσίμη) – (6) 160/1–162/3, héraut sacré, no. 160, 19 ; 166, 11, (f. Νικίας) – (7) 162/3–170/1, père de choristes, no. 166, 15 ; 190, 15 (p. Σύνφορος, Ὀνήσιμος) – (8) 162/3, père d’un membre de la délégation, no. 166, 27, 29 (p. Δημήτριος II) – (9) 162/3, membre de la délégation, no. 166, 27, 29 (f. Δημήτριος I) – (10) 183/4, choriste, no. 237, 15 (f. Ἀπολλώνιος) Δίννυς (1) c. 107, père du héraut sacré et théoprope, no. 3, 11 (p. Δίννυς II) – (2) c. 107, héraut sacré et théoprope, no. 3, 11 (f. Δίννυς I)32 – (3) c. 110, père du hiérope et théoprope, no. 22, 10 (p. Δίννυς II ; peut-être le même que 1) – (4) c. 110, hiérope et théoprope, no. 22, 10 (f. Δίννυς I ; peut-être le même que 2) – (5) 139/40, père du chorège et stratège, no. 58, 6 (p. Διονύσιος) Διογένης (1) 156/7, choriste, no. 144, 12 (f. Πόθος) Διόδωρος (1) 146/7, père d’un choriste, no. 94, 5 (p. Ὀλύμπιχος) Διομήδης (1) c. 110, père du chorège, no. 22, 2 (p. Διομήδης II) – (2) c. 110, chorège, no. 22, 2 (f. Διομήδης I) – (3) c. 110, choriste, no. 22, 3 (f. Σύμφορος)   LGPN   LGPN 30   LGPN 31   LGPN 32   LGPN 28 29

I I I I I

(1). (2). (3), considéré à tort comme un Ἀντίπατρος Βασσός. (7). (5).

30

Jean-Louis Ferrary

Διονύσιος (1) 137/8, choriste, no. 51, 6 (f. Χῖος) – (2) 139/40, chorège et stratège, no. 58, 6, 8–9 (f. Δίννυς ; p. Πραξιτέλης Σεκοῦνδος, Διονύσιος II Καλλίστρατος) – (3) Διον. Καλλίστρατος 139/40, choriste, no. 58, 8–9 (f. Διονύσιος I) – (4) 139/40, choriste, no. 58, 14 (f. Γέμελλος) – (5) 156/7, père du chorège, no. 144, 7 (p. Διονύσιος II) – (6) 156/7, chorège, no. 144, 7–8 (f. Διονύσιος I, p. Εὐτύχης et Ζώσιμος) – (7) 159/60, choriste, no. 155, 12 – (8) 160/1, choriste, no. 160, 11 (f. Ἀσκληπίδης ; peutêtre le même que 7) – (9) 162/3, père d’une choriste, no. 166, 23 (p. Ἐξαλλαγή) – (10) 163/4, père d’un choriste, no. 169, 17 (p. Σύνφορος ; peut-être le même que 9) – (11) 165/6, père d’un choriste, no. 179, 18 (p. Ζώσιμος ; peut-être parent de 6) – (12) 184/5, choriste, no. 246, 9 (f. Λογικός) Διονυσόδωρος (1) 172/3, père de choristes, no. 197, 10, 15 (p. Ἑρμόλαος, Ἐλπίς) Δίφιλος (1) 134/5, père de choristes, no. 44, 14 (p. Δίφιλος II, Ἐπαφρόδιτος) – (2) 134/5, choriste, no. 44, 13 (f. Δίφιλος I) Δόκιμος (1) 184/5, père d’un choriste, no. 246, 10 (p. Ἑλικωνιανός) Δόξα (1) 164/5, choriste, no. 246, 11 (f. Κάλος) Δωρόθεος (1) années 120, père de choriste(s), no. 23, 10–11 ; 24, 6–7 (p. Μητρόδωρος, probablement Πλάτων) – (2) années 120, père de choriste(s), no. 23, 11–12 (p. Τρύφων, peut-être Ζῆθος ; probablement pas le même que le no. 1) Εἰρήνη (1) 159/60, choriste, no. 155, 14 Ἑλικωνιανός (1) 184/5, choriste, no. 246, 10 (f. Δόκιμος) Ἐλπιδιανός (1) 184/5, choriste, no. 246, 6 (f. Σώζων) Ἐλπίς (1) 133/4, choriste, no. 42, 23 (f. Εὔτροπος) – (2) 157/8 ou 158/9, no. 146, 5 (f. Λεόκυμος) – (3) 159/60, choriste, no. 155, 13 (f. Σίλλιος) – (4) 172/3, choriste, no. 197, 15 (f. Διονυσόδωρος) – (5) 184/5, choriste, no. 246, 9 (f. Σώζων) Ἐπάγαθος (1) c. 110, choriste, no. 22, 9 (f. Εὔγραμμος) – (2*) années 120, idionyme ou patronyme d’un choriste, no. 28, 5 – (3) 133/4–137/8, père d’un choriste, no. 42, 16 ; 44, 10 ; 51, 5 (p. Ἐπάγαθος II) – (4) 133/4–137/8, choriste, no. 42, 16 ; 44, 10 ; 51, 5 (f. Ἐπάγαθος I) – (5) 134/5, père d’une choriste, no. 44, 12 (p. Συνερῶσα ; probablement le même que 3) – (6) 142/3, père d’un choriste, no. 68, 3 (p. Τρόφιμος) – (7) 142/3, choriste, no. 68, 5 (f. Προσδόκιμος) – (8) 165/6, chorège, no. 179, 3–4 (f. Φιμόμουσος, p. Ἐπάγαθος II) – (9) 165/6, choriste, no. 179, 16 (f. Ἐπάγαθος I) – (10) 165/6, choriste, no. 179, 20 (f. Φῆλιξ) – (11) 170/1, pédagogue, no. 190, 23 (f. Καικιλιανός) Ἐπαφρόδιτος (1*) début du 2ème siècle, choriste, no. 21, 3 (peut-être f. Κτησικλῆς) – (2) Ἐ. Ἡραῖος 133/4–142/3, stéphanéphore et chorège, père de choristes, no. 42, 9–10, 20, 22–3 ; 44, 15 ; 51, 6 ; 58, 10 ; 68, 3 (f. Ζήνων, p. Φίλητος, Ἐπαφρόδιτος II, Πῖνος, Εὐτυχία) – (3) 133/4–137/8, choriste, no. 42, 19 ; 44, 15 ; 51, 6 (f. Ἐπαφρόδιτος I) – (4) 134/5, choriste, no. 44, 13–14 (f. Δίφιλος) – (5) 139/40, grand-père de la femme du chorège, no. 58, 7 (p. Θεόπομπος) – (6) 141/2–142/3, pédagogue, no. 61, 3 ; 68, 6 (f. Ἔλπιστος) – (7) 142/3, grand-père d’un choriste, no. 68, 3–4 (p. Ἐπαφρόδιτος II) – (8) 142/3, père d’un choriste, no. 68, 3–4 (f. Ἐπαφρόδιτος I, p. Ἐπαφρόδιτος III) – (9) 142/3, choriste, no. 68, 3–4 (f. Ἐπαφρόδιτος II) – (10) 144/5 ou 143/4, choriste, no. 81, 4 (f. Ἥλιος) – (11) 147/8, choriste, no. 100, 4 (peut-être le même que 10) – (12) 159/60, choriste, no. 155, 12 – (13) 170/1, père d’un choriste, no. 190, 15 (p. Θάλλων) – (14) 170/1, choriste, no. 190, 17 (f. Ἀρίστων) – (15) 173/4, chorège, no. 200, 3, 5 (f. Εὐμένης, p. Ἄνθος) – (16) 184/5, père de choristes, no. 246, 8–10 (p. Πείσων, Σωτηρία, Τυχική, Πολιτική) Ἐπίκτητος (1) 171/2, choriste, no. 194, 12 (f. Φῆλιξ) – (2) 183/4, choriste, no. 237, 16 (f. Ἀπολλώνιος) Ἑρμέρως (1) c. 107, père d’un choriste, no. 3, 6 (p. Πτολεμαῖος)33 – (2) 173/4, choriste, no. 200, 8 (f. Θρέπτος) 33

  LGPN I (1).

L’apport

des mémoriaux de

Claros

31

Ἑρμόδωρος (1) 163/4, membre de la délégation, no. 169, 28 (f. Φίλιππος) Εὔνομος (4) 162/3–163/4, choriste, no. 166, 20 ; 169, 25 (f. Ἡρᾶς) Εὐστάθης (1) 184/5, père d’un choriste, no. 246, 7 (p. Εὐστάθης II) – (2) 184/5, choriste, no. 246, 7 (f. Εὐστάθης I) Εὔτροπος (1) 133/4, père d’une choriste, no. 42, 24 (p. Ἐλπίς) – (2) 183/4, chorège et père de choristes, no. 237, 7, 15 (f. Γραφικός, p. Εὔτροπος II, Γραφικός, Ἄπιστος) – (3) 183/4, choriste, no. 237, 13–14 (f. Εὔτροπος I) Εὐτύχης (1) 156/7, choriste, no. 144, 7 (f. Διονύσιος) – (2) 160/1, esclave public, no. 160, 21 – (3) 170/1, choriste, no. 190, 13–14 (f. Ζώσιμος) Εὐτυχίδης (1) c. 107, choriste, no. 3, 9 (f. Ἡρακλείδης)34 Εὔτυχος (1) c. 110, choriste, no. 22, 6 (f. Νάρκισσος) – (2) 141/2–160/1, père adoptif du héraut sacré, no. 61, 2 ; 68, 6 ; 160, 18 (p. adopt. Εὔτυχος II) – (3) 141/2–160/1, héraut sacré, no. 61, 2 ; 68, 6 ; 160, 18 ; 166, 9 (f. Τρύφων, f. adopt. Εὔτυχος I) – (4) 144/5 ou 143/4, père du chorège, no. 81, 3 (p. Πρῶτος) – (5) 171/2, père d’un choriste, no. 194, 14 (p. Φιλία) Ζῆνις (1) 171/2, père de choristes, no. 194, 14 (gén. Ζηνίου, p. Εὐφροσύνη, Ζῆνις, Ἀσκληπιάδης) – (2) 171/2, choriste, no. 194, 13 (f. Ζῆνις I) Ζήνων (1) 133/4, père du stéphanéphore et chorège, no. 42, 10 (p. Ἐπαφρόδιτος) (2) 134/5, choriste, no. 44, 13 (f. Δάφνος) Ζωΐλος (1) 159/60, choriste, no. 155, 10 – (2) 170/1 père d’un choriste, no. 190, 22 (p. Σόβαρος) – (3) 172/3, père d’une choriste, no. 197, 14 (p. Ζωσίμη ; peut-être le même que 2) Ζωσίμη (1) 142/3, choriste, no. 68, 5 (f. Περιγένης) – (2) 144/5 ou 143/4, choriste, no. 81, 5 (f. Ἀγαθόπους) – (3) 159/60, choriste, no. 155, 14 (f. Δημήτριος) – (2) 162/3, choriste, no. 166, 13 (f. Ζώσιμος) – (3) 170/1, choriste, no. 190, 17 (f. Ἀρίστων) Ζώσιμος (1) années 120, père d’un choriste, no. 23, 16 (p. Ματρέας) (2) 137/8 père du chorège, no. 51, 3 (p. Ζώσιμος II) – (3) 137/8, chorège, no. 51, 3 (f. Ζώσιμος I) – (4) 139/40–142/3, père de choristes, no. 58, 1235 ; 68, 4, 5 (p. Ζώσιμος II, Πίστος, Λαοδίκη) – (5) 139/40, choriste, no. 58, 12 (f. Ζώσιμος I) – (6) 144/5 ou 143/4, père d’un choriste, no. 81, 3 (p. Χαρίτων) – (7) 144/5 ou 143/4, choriste, no. 81, 4 (f. Πρῶτος) – (*8) 145/6, choriste, no. 92, 3 (f. Ποθουμενός) – (9) 147/8, choriste, no. 100, 5 (f. Ἀλέξανδρος) – (10) 156/7, choriste, no. 144, 7 (f. Διονύσιος) – (11) 159/60, choriste, no. 155, 9 (f. Γάμος) – (12) 160/1, chorège, no. 160, 7, 10 (f. Ἄμπελος, p. Φιλόδημος, Εὐτυχιανός, Ζώσιμος II) – (13) 160/1, choriste, no. 160, 10 (f. Ζώσιμος I) – (14) 160/1, choriste, no. 160, 17 (f. Φαῦστος) – (15) 162/3, chorège, no. 166, 6, 14, 26 (f. Ἀγαπωμενός, p. Προσδεξίς, Ζωσίμη et Ἰσίδωρος) – (16) 162/3, père d’un choriste, no. 166, 18 (p. Μηνόδωρος) – (17) 165/6, choriste, no. 179, 18 (f. Διονύσιος, peut-être parent de 10) – (18) 170/1, chorège, no. 190, 8, 14 (f. Ἀγαθάγγελος, p. Εὐτύχης, Ζωσίμη) – (19) 170/1, choriste, no. 190, 19 (f. Πίστος) – (20) 172/3, choriste, no. 197, 12 (f. Πατρόφιλος) – (21) 173/4, père de choristes, no. 200, 7 (p. Ἡρᾶς, Θεόδοτος) – (22) 173/4, père de choristes, no. 200, 9 (p. Ζώσιμος II et Τυράννιος ou ‑νίς ; peut-être le même que 21) – (23) 173/4, choriste, no. 200, 6 (f. Χαρμόσυνος) – (24) 173/4, choriste, no. 200, 7 (f. Καλλίτυχος) – (25) 173/4, choriste, no. 200, 8 (f. Μηνόδωρος) – (26) 173/4, choriste, no. 200, 9 (f. Ζώσιμος I) Ζωτίων (1) 171/2, père de choristes, no. 194, 9–10 (p. Στέφανος et Κλαυδιανός) Ἡλιόδωρος (1) c. 110, grand-père d’un choriste, no. 22, 8 (p. Ἡλιόδωρος II) – (2) c. 110 père d’un choriste, no. 22, 8 (f. Ἡλιόδωρος I, p. Ἡλιόδωρος III) – (3) c. 110, choriste, no. 22, 8 (f. Ἡλιόδωρος II) – (4) c. 110, père d’un choriste, no. 22, 9 (p. Ἀγαθόπους ; peut-être le même que 2)   LGPN I (4), considéré à tort comme un Εὐτυχίδης Κόϊντος.   Chronologiquement, on serait tenté d’identifier les no. 3 et 4, mais il serait surprenant que les fils du chorège n’aient pas participé au chœur l’année où leur père était chorège. 34 35

32

Jean-Louis Ferrary

Ἡραῖος (1) 133/4, nom d’usage du stéphanéphore et chorège Ἐπαφρόδιτος, no. 42, 10 – (2) 142/3, père du chorège, no. 68, 2 (p. Ἰσίων Πίστος) Ἡρακλείδης (1) c. 107, père de choristes, no. 3, 7–9 (p. Ἡρακλείδης II, Εὐτυχίδης) – (2) c. 107, choriste, no. 3, 7 (f. Ἡρακλείδης I)36 – (3) 144/5 ou 143/4, père d’un choriste, no. 81, 4 (p. Ἀντώνιος) – (4) 146/7, père d’un choriste, no. 94, 6 (p. Ἡρακλῆς) – (5) 159/60–164/5, choriste, no. 155, 11 ; 169, 20 ; 172, 15 (f. Πρῶτος) Ἡράκλειος (1) c. 107, choriste, no. 3, 5 (f. Νικόστρατος)37 Ἡρακλέων (1*) début du 2ème siècle, choriste, no. 21, 4 (f. Κτησικλῆς) – (2) 163/4, pédagogue, no. 169, 27 (f. Δαμίων) Ἡρᾶς (1) 157/8 ou 158/9, père d’une choriste, no. 146, 5 (p. Φοίβη) – (2) 162/3–163/4, père d’un choriste, no. 166, 20 ; 169, 25 (p. Εὔνομος) – (3) 173/4, choriste, no. 200, 7 (f. Ζώσιμος) – (4) 173/4, père d’un choriste, no. 200, 9 (p. Ἡρᾶς II) – (5) 173/4, choriste, no. 200, 9 (f. Ἡρᾶς I) Θεόδοτος (1) c. 110, choriste, no. 22, 5 (f. Μήτιχος) – (2) c. 110, père d’un choriste, no. 22, 7 (p. Μυρῖνος) – (3) 173/4, choriste, no. 200, 7 (f. Ζώσιμος) Θεόπομπος (1) 139/40, beau-père du chorège, no. 58, 7 (f. Ἐπαφρόδιτος, p. Ἰσίκλεια) Θεοφάνης (1*) 145/6, choriste, no. 92, 4 (f. Τρύφων) – (2) 157/8 ou 158/9, beau-père du chorège, no. 146, 6 (p. Φιλημάτιον) Θεόφιλος (1) années 120, choriste, no. 24, 5 – (2) 146/7, chorège, no. 94, 3 (f. Φιλήμων) – (3) 146/7, choriste, no. 94, 4 (f. Φιλήμων)38 – (4) 146/7, choriste, no. 94, 6 (f. Γάμος) Ἱερός (1) 134/5, choriste, no. 44, 9 (f. Εὐχάριστος) – (2) 184/5, père d’un choriste, no. 246, 7 (p. Ἀλέξανδρος Φῆλιξ) Ἴκαρος (1) c. 107, chorège, no. 3, 5 (f. Σεύθης, p. Ἴκαρος II)39 – (2) c. 107, choriste, no. 3, 5 (f. Ἴκαρος I) Ἰσιδώρα (1) 163/4, choriste, no. 169, 22 (f. Βρόμιος) Ἰσίδωρος (1) 142/3, choriste, no. 68, 4 (f. Ἀνδρόνικος) – (2) 162/3, choriste, no. 166, 13–14 (f. Ζώσιμος) Ἰσίων (1) c. 107, père d’un choriste, no. 3, 8 (p. Πίστος)40 – (2) Ἰσ. Πίστος 142/3, chorège, no. 68, 2 (f. Ἡραῖος, p. Ἰσίων II)41 – (3) 142/3, choriste, no. 68, 3 (f. Ἰσίων I) – (4) 144/5 ou 143/4, choriste, no. 81, 3 (f. Μόθων) – (5) 162/3, père de choristes, no. 166, 17 (p. Ἰσίων II, Τεχνικός) – (6) 162/3– 164/5, choriste, no. 166, 16 ; 172, 14 (f. Ἰσίων I) – (7) 184/5, choriste, no. 246, 6 (f. Σώζων) Κάλλιστος (1) c. 107, père d’un choriste, no. 3, 8 (p. Κάλλιστος II) – (2) c. 107, choriste, no. 3, 8 (f. Κάλλιστος I)42 – (3) 134/5, père d’un choriste, no. 44, 8 (p. Κάλλιστος III ; probablement le même que 2) – (4) 134/5, choriste, no. 44, 8 (f. Κάλλιστος II) – (5) 144/5 ou 143/4, membre de la délégation, no. 81, 6 (f. Μένανδρος) Καλλίστρατος (1) 139/40, nom d’usage du choriste Διονύσιος, no. 58, 9   LGPN I (8), considéré à tort comme un Ἀμφίμνηστος Ἡρακλείδης.   LGPN I (1), considéré à tort comme un Ἡράκλειος Νικόστρατος. 38   Il est surprenant que le premier des garçons ait l’idionyme et le patronyme du chorège, alors qu’on attendrait l’inverse s’il était son fils. S’agit-il de son neveu (ou de son petit-fils) ? Je supposerais plus volontiers l’omission d’un β´ entre Θεόφιλος et Φιλήμονος. 39   LGPN I (2). 40   LGPN I (4). 41   Sarikakis lui attribue le nom de Μενισίων (Sarikakis 1989, Μ 108), qui à ma connaissance n’est pas attesté. J. et L. Robert, dans leur texte préparé, ont corrigé, à juste titre, cette première lecture en μὲν Ἰσίων. 42   LGPN I (2), considéré à tort comme un Φιλογέρων Κάλλιστος. 36 37

L’apport

des mémoriaux de

Claros

33

Κάλος (1) années 120, choriste, no. 24, 7 – (2) 175/6, chorège, no. 208, 9 (f. Λεωνίδης, p. Ἰσιγένης, Ἀλέξανδρος) – (3) 184/5, père de choristes, no. 246, 9, 11 (p. Ἀντίοχος, Δόξα) Κατάπλους (1) 133/4, père d’un choriste, no. 42, 17 (p. Κατάπλους II) (2) 133/4, choriste, no. 42, 17 (f. Κατάπλους I). Κλεισθένης (1) 142/3, choriste, no. 68, 4 (f. Περιγένης)43 Κόϊντος (1) c. 107, père d’un choriste, no. 3, 9 (p. Κόϊντος II) – (2) c. 107, choriste, no. 3, 9 (f. Κόϊντος I)44 Κρίτων (1) c. 107, père d’un choriste, no. 3, 9 (p. Κρίτων II) – (2) c. 107, choriste, no. 3, 9 (f. Κρίτων I)45 – (3) 133/4, père d’un choriste, no. 42, 12 (p. Κρίτων III ; vraisemblablement le même que 2) – (4) 133/4, choriste, no. 42, 12 (f. Κρίτων II) – (5) 160/1–184/5, héraut sacré, no. 160, 19 ; 166, 10 ; 172, 11 ; 197, 6–7 ; 246, 6 (f. Μητρόδωρος, p. Κρίτων 6) – (6) 172/3, choriste, no. 197, 8 (f. Κρίτων 5) Λάμπρος (1) 146/7, choriste, no. 94, 6 (f. Γενναῖος) Λαοδίκη (1) 142/3, choriste, no. 68, 5 (f. Ζώσιμος) – (2) 184/5, choriste, no. 246, 10 (f. Πτολλᾶς) Λεωνίδης (1) 175/6, père du chorège, no. 208, 10 (p. Κάλος) Λογικός (1) 184/5, père d’un choriste, no. 246, 9 (p. Διονύσιος) Μᾶρκος (1) 139/40, père d’un choriste, no. 58, 11 (p. Μᾶρκος II) – (2) 139/40, choriste, no. 58, 10 (f. Μᾶρκος I ; peut-être M. Ἀπολλώνιος) Μεγήνωρ (1) 159/60, chorège, no. 155, 6 (Τι. Φλ. Στρατόνικος Μεγ.) Μένανδρος (1) 144/5 ou 143/4, père d’un membre de la délégation, no. 81, 6 (p. Κάλλιστος) – (2) 172/3, père d’un choriste, no. 197, 12 (p. Μένανδρος II) (3) 172/3, choriste, no. 197, 12 (f. Μένανδρος I) Μενεκράτης (1) c. 110, père d’un choriste, no. 22, 6 (p. Μενεκράτης II) – (2) c. 110, choriste, no. 22, 6 (f. Μενεκράτης I) – (3) 165/6, père de choristes, no. 179, 20, 24 (p. Μενεκράτης II, Κάρπος) – (4) 165/6, choriste, no. 179, 19–20 (f. Μενέκρατης I) – (5) 171/2, père de choristes, no. 194, 10–11 (p. Μενεκράτης II, Νικηφόρος, Φιλημάτιον ; pourrait être le même que 3) – (6) 171/2, choriste, no. 194, 10 (f. Μενεκράτης I ; pourrait être le même que 4) Μηνόδωρος (1) 162/3, choriste, no. 166, 17 (f. Ζώσιμος) – (2) 163/4–170/1, héraut sacré, no. 169, 12 ; 179, 10 ; 190, 10 (f. Ὀνησᾶς) – (3) 173/4, père d’un choriste, no. 200, 8 (p. Ζώσιμος) Μηνόφιλος (1) 172/3, père d’un choriste, no. 197, 9 (p. Σύμφορος) Μητρόδωρος (1) années 120, choriste, no. 23, 10 ; 24, 6 (f. Δωρόθεος ; peut-être Μ. Ζῆθος) – (2) 160/1–184/5, père d’un héraut sacré, no. 160, 20 ; 166, 10–11 ; 172, 11 ; 197, 7 ; 246, 6 (p. Κρίτων) – (3) 163/4–164/5, choriste, no. 169, 18 ; 172, 13 (f. Εὔτροπος) Μόσχος (1) 156/7, père de choristes, no. 144, 11 (p. Μόσχος II, Ἕλενος) – (2) 156/7, choriste, no. 144, 11 (f. Μόσχος I) Νηρεύς (1) 137/8, choriste, no. 51, 4 (f. Ἡγητορίδης) Νικαγόρας (1) 163/4, chorège, no. 169, 7–8, 15 (f. Ἀρίστανδρος, p. Τρόφιμος) Νίκη (1) 164/5, choriste, no. 172, 15–16 Νικήτης (1) 157/8 ou 158/9, père d’une choriste, no. 146, 5 (p. Νικοτύχη) – (2) 160/1–163/4, choriste, no. 160, 16 ; 166, 21 ; 169, 26 (f. Ἀγαθήμερος) Νικίας (1) 133/4, père de choristes, no. 42, 12 (p. Ἰσίδοτος, Νικίας II) – (2) 133/4, choriste, no. 42, 11 (f. Νικίας I) – (3) 160/1–162/3, père d’un héraut sacré, no. 160, 19 ; 166, 11 (p. Δημήτριος)   Sarikakis corrige en Πλεισθένης (Π 122), ne voyant pas que ΓΚ est tout à fait admissible si l’on comprend, non pas Γ(άϊος) Κλεισθένης, effectivement exclu, mais Ἐπαφρόδειτος γ´, Κλεισθένης Περιγένου ; et il fait d’Épaphroditos un frère du prétendu Pleisthénès et un fils de Périgénès. 44   LGPN I (1), considéré à tort comme un Εὐτυχίδης Κόϊντος. 45   LGPN I (9), considéré à tort comme un Πίστος Κρίτων. 43

34

Jean-Louis Ferrary

Νικόστρατος (1) c. 107, père de choristes, no. 3, 6 (p. Ἡράκλειος, Νικόστρατος II) (2) c. 107, choriste, no. 3, 6 (f. Νικόστρατος I)46 Ὀλύμπιχος (1) 146/7, choriste, no. 94, 5 (f. Διόδωρος) Παιδική (1) 184/5, choriste, no. 246, 11 (f. de Παιδικός) Παιδικός (1) 184/5, père d’une choriste, no. 246, 11 (p. Παιδική) Πάτρων (1) 157/8 ou 158/9, père d’un choriste, no. 146, 4 (p. Πάτρων II) (2) 157/8 ou 158/9, choriste, no. 146, 4 (f. Πάτρων I) Παυσανίας (1) 162/3, père d’une choriste, no. 166, 16 (p. Φιλίστης) – (2) 162/3, père d’un membre de la délégation, no. 166, 27 (p. Κλεόμβροτος) Πείσων (1) 184/5, choriste, no. 246, 8 (f. Ἐπαφρόδιτος) Περιγένης (1) 142/3, père de choristes, no. 68, 4–5 (p. Κλεισθένης, Ζωσίμη) – (2) 184/5, choriste, no. 246, 7 (f. Σώζων) Πίστος (1) c. 107, choriste, no. 3, 8 (f. Ἰσίων)47 – (2) 137/8, père d’un choriste, no. 51, 4 (p. Πίστος II ; pourrait être le même que le précédent) – (3) 137/8, choriste, no. 51, 4 (f. Πίστος I) – (4) 139/40, choriste, no. 58, 12 (f. Ζώσιμος) – (5) 142/3, nom d’usage du chorège Ἰσίων, no. 68, 2 – (6) 170/1, père de choristes, no. 190, 19–20 (p. Ζώσιμος, Σπατάλη, Ἐπίκτητος, Γλύκων) Πλάτων (1) années 120, choriste, no. 23, 9 (probablement f. Δωρόθεος) Πολέμαρχος (1) 139/40, choriste, no. 58, 13 (f. Δάφνος) – (2) 156/7, père de choristes, no. 144, 10 (p. Πολέμαρχος II, Ἐπιχαρίς) – (3) Πολ. Ἀντίοχος, 156/7, choriste, no. 144, 9 (f. Πολέμαρχος I) Πολιτική (1) 184/5, choriste, no. 246, 10 (f. Ἐπαφρόδιτος) Ποντικός (1) 134/5, choriste, no. 44, 14 (f. Ἀρτεμίσιος) Πουλυδάμας (1) c. 107, père d’un choriste, no. 3, 7 (p. Ἀμφίμνηστος)48 Πρότιμος (1) 184/5, père d’un choriste, no. 246, 8 (p. Πρότιμος II) – (2) 184/5, choriste, no. 246, 8 (f. Πρότιμος I) Πρῶτος (1) 144/5 ou 144/3, chorège, no. 81, 3 (f. Εὔτυχος) – (2) 144/5 ou 143/4, père de choristes, no. 81, 4–5 (p. Ζώσιμος, Δανάη, Τρύφαινα) – (3) 159/60–163/4, père de choristes, no. 155, 9, 11 ; 169, 20 (p. Παλλέας, Ἡρακλείδης) – (4) 172/3, chorège, no. 197, 5, 9 (f. Τελεσφόρος, p. Πρῶτος II, Ἀντίοχος) – (3) 172/3, choriste, no. 197, 8 (f. Πρῶτος I) Πτολεμαῖος (1) c. 107, choriste, no. 3, 6 (f. Ἑρμέρως)49 – (2) 139/40–144/5 ou 143/4, père de choristes, no. 58, 14 ; 81, 4 (p. Τύχη, Μονίμη) Πτολλᾶς (1) 184/5, père d’une choriste, no. 246, 10 (p. Λαοδίκη) Πύρρανδρος (1) 134/5, grand-père du chorège, no. 44, 7 (p. Δημήτριος) Πῶλλα (1) 139/40, choriste, no. 58, 15 (f. Ὀβριμόλαος) Σεύθης (1) c. 107, père du chorège, no. 3, 5 (p. Ἴκαρος)50 Στέφανος (3) 171/2, choriste, no. 194, 9 (f. Ζωτίων) Στρατόνικος (1) 159/60, chorège, no. 155, 6 (Τι. Φλ. Στρ. Μεγήνωρ) Στράτων (1*) années 120, idionyme ou patronyme d’un choriste, no. 28, 9 – (2) 165/6, père d’un choriste, no. 179, 19 (p. Στράτων II) – (3) 165/6, choriste, no. 179, 19 (f. Στράτων I) Σύμφορος (1) c. 110, père d’un choriste, no. 22, 3–4 (p. Διομήδης) – (2) 143/4 ou 144/5, père du chorège, no. 76, 3 (p. Ἀνδρόνικος) – (3) 157/8 ou 158/9, choriste, no. 146, 4 (f. Ἀσκληπίδης) – (4) 162/3, choriste, no. 166, 15 (f. Δημήτριος) – (5) 163/4, choriste, no. 169, 17 (f. Διονύσιος)   LGPN   LGPN 48   LGPN 49   LGPN 50   LGPN 46 47

I I I I I

(5) et (6) le second étant considéré à tort comme un Ἡράκλειος Νικόστρατος. (1), considéré à tort comme un Πίστος Κρίτων. (1). (2). (3).

L’apport

des mémoriaux de

Claros

35

– (6) 164/5, choriste, no. 172, 13 (f. Ζῆθος) – (7) 170/1, choriste, no. 190, 14 (f. Δημήτριος ; peutêtre parent de 4) – (8) 172/3, choriste, no. 197, 9 (f. Μηνόφιλος) – (9) 173/4, père d’un choriste, no. 200, 11 (p. Καλλίμαχος) – (10) 184/5, choriste, no. 246, 7 (f. Ἀρτεμίδωρος) Σώζων (1) 184/5, père du chorège, no. 246, 5 (p. Σώζων II) – (2) 184/5, chorège, no. 246, 5–7, 9 (f. Σώζων I, p. Ἰσίων, Ἐλπιδιανός, Περιγένης, Ἐλπίς) Σωσίβιος (1) 144/5 ou 143/4, chorège, no. 81, 3 (f. Τρύφων) Σωσιγένης (1) années 120, chorège, no. 23, 3–4 (f. Ἀπολλόδωρος, p. Σωσιγένης II) – (2) années 120, choriste, no. 23, 7–8 (f. Σωσιγένης I ; peut-être Σ. Ζῆθος) Σωσίπατρος (1) 171/2, choriste, no. 194, 12 (f. Φῆλιξ) Σωτηρία (1) 156/7–162/3, choriste, no. 144, 11 ; 160, 14 ; 166, 18 (f. Ἀγρίππας) – (2) 184/5, choriste, no. 246, 8 (f. Ἐπαφρόδιτος) Σωτήριχος (1) c. 107, père d’un choriste, no. 3, 9 (p. Σωτήριχος II) – (2) c. 107, choriste, no. 3, 9 (f. Σωτήριχος I)51 – (3) 162/3, choriste, no. 166, 19 (f. Ἀπολλώνιος) – (4) 163/4, père d’un choriste, no. 169, 24–5 (p. Τρόφιμος) Τρόφιμος (1) 142/3, choriste, no. 68, 3 (f. Ἐπάγαθος) – (2) 147/8, choriste, no. 100, 5 – (3) 163/4, choriste, no. 169, 14 (f. Νικαγόρας) – (4) 163/4–170/1, père de choristes, no. 169, 19–20 ; 190, 16 (p. Λόγος, Τροφίμη et Τρόφιμος II) – (5) 163/4, choriste, no. 169, 19 (f. Τρόφιμος I) – (6) 163/4, choriste, no. 169, 24 (f. Σωτήριχος) Τρύφων (1) années 120, choriste, no. 23, 11 (f. Δωρόθεος) – (2) 133/4, père d’un choriste, no. 42, 18 (p. Τρύφων II) – (3) 133/4, choriste, no. 42, 18 (f. Τρύφων I) – (4) 134/5 et 159/60, choriste et père de choriste, no. 44, 11 ; 155, 8 (f. Παλλέας, p. Τρύφων 10) – (5) 141/2–162/3, père d’un héraut sacré, no. 61, 2 ; 166, 10 (p. Εὔτυχος) – (6) 142/3, choriste, no. 68, 4 (f. Προσδόκιμος) – (7) 144/5 ou 143/4, père d’un choriste, no. 81, 3 (p. Σωσίβιος) – (8*) 145/6, père d’un choriste, no. 92, 4 (p. Θεοφάνης) – (9) 157/8 ou 158/9, père d’un choriste, no. 146, 4 (p. Νόστιμος) – (10) 159/60, choriste, no. 155, 8 (f. Τρύφων 4) – (11) 163/4, père d’une choriste en 163/4, no. 169, 18 (p. Καλλώ) – (12) 170/1–172/3, père de choristes, no. 190, 21 ; 197, 11, 13 (p. Πρωτᾶς, Ἀντίοχος, Τρύφαινα) – (13) 173/4, père d’un choriste, no. 200, 8 (p. Προσδόκιμος) Τυχική (1) 184/5, choriste, no. 246, 8 (f. Ἐπαφρόδιτος) Φαῦστος (1) 156/7, choriste, no. 144, 12 (f. Πόθος) – (2) 160/1 et 163/4, père de choristes, no. 160, 17 ; 169, 22 (p. Ζώσιμος, Ζωσίμη) (3) 171/2, choriste, no. 194, 11 (f. Ἀφροδίσιος) Φῆλιξ (1) 165/6, père d’un choriste, no. 179, 21 (p. Ἐπάγαθος) – (2) 170/1, père d’un choriste, no. 190, 21 (p. Φῆλιξ II ; peut-être le même que 1 et 4) – (3) 170/1, choriste, no. 190, 21 (f. Φῆλιξ I) – (4) 171/2, père de choristes, no. 194, 12 (p. Ἐπίκτητος, Σωσίπατρος) – (5) 184/5, nom d’usage du choriste Ἀλέξανδρος, no. 246, 7 Φησῖνος (1) 142/3, choriste, no. 68, 3 (f. Ἕρμων) Φιλήμων (1) 146/7, père du chorège, no. 94, 3 (p. Θεόφιλος) – (2) 146/7, père d’un choriste, no. 94, 4 (p. Θεόφιλος) – (3) 163/4, père d’une choriste, no. 169, 15 (p. Πειριθόη) Φίλιππος (1) 163/4, père d’un membre de la délégation, no. 169, 28 (p. Ἑρμόδωρος) Φιλίστης (1) 162/3, choriste, no. 166, 16 (f. Παυσανίας) Φιλογέρων (1) c. 107, choriste, no. 3, 8 (f. Βάσσος)52 Φιλόδημος (1) 160/1, choriste, no. 160, 9 (f. Ζώσιμος) Φοῖβος (1) c. 107, choriste, no. 3, 10 (Κλαύ(διος) Φοῖβος)53 – (2) 156/7 et 157/8 ou 158/9, père de choristes, no. 144, 9 ; 146, 4 (p. Φοῖβος II, Λούκιος) – (3) 156/7, choriste, no. 144, 8 (f. Φοῖβος I)   LGPN I (7).   LGPN I (2), considéré à tort comme un Φιλογέρων Κάλλιστος. 53   LGPN I (1). 51 52

36

Jean-Louis Ferrary

Noms non attestés pour Chios dans LGPN I Ἀβάσκαντος (1) 156/7, choriste, no. 144, 10 (f. Ἕλιξ) – (2) 160/1, choriste, no. 160, 15 (f. Ἰσιγένης) Ἀγαθάγγελος (1) 170/1, père du chorège, no. 190, 8 (p. Ζώσιμος) Ἀγαθέας (1*) 145/6, père d’une choriste, no. 92, 6 (p. Ζωΐς) – (2) 146/7, choriste, no. 94, 4 (f. Ἀγάθων) Ἀγαθήμερος (1) 160/1–163/4, père de choriste, no. 160, 16 ; 166, 21 ; 169, 26 (p. Νικήτης) – (2) 170/1, père d’un choriste, no. 190, 21 (p. Εὐτυχίων ; peut-être le même que 1) Ἀγαθόπους (1) c. 110, choriste, no. 22, 8–9 (f. Ἡλιόδωρος) – (2) 144/5 ou 143/4, père d’une choriste, no. 81, 5 (p. Ζωσίμη) – (3) 165/6, choriste, no. 179, 17 (f. Μοσχᾶς) Ἀγαθοφόρος (1) 163/4, père d’un choriste, no. 169, 21 (p. Ἀγαθοφόρος II) – (2) 163/4, choriste, no. 169, 20–1 (f. Ἀγαθοφόρος I) Ἀγρίππας (1) 156/7–162/3, père d’une choriste, no. 144, 11 ; 160, 14 ; 166, 19 (p. Σωτηρία) Ἀλεξάνδρα (1) 139/40, choriste, no. 58, 15 (f. Ἀγγελῆς) Ἀμμία (1) 133/4, choriste, no. 42, 23 (f. Ἕρμων) Ἄμπελος (1) 160/1, père du chorège, no. 160, 7 (p. Ζώσιμος) Ἀνατολή (1) 171/2, choriste, no. 194, 13 (f. Πόπλιος) Ἀντιοχίς (1) 160/1, choriste, no. 160, 12 (f. Ἀσκληπίδης) Ἄντυλλος (1) 137/8, père d’une choriste, no. 51, 8 (p. Ἐξόχη) Ἀντώνιος (1) 144/5 ou 143/4, choriste, no. 81, 4 (f. Ἡρακλείδης) Ἄπιστος (1) 183/4, choriste, no. 237, 14 (f. Εὔτροπος) Ἀπολλωνᾶς (1) 160/1–162/3, oikonomos, no. 160, 20 ; 166, 25 Ἀπολλωνία (1) 170/1, choriste, no. 190, 20 (f. Θέσμος) Ἀριστίων (1) 171/2, père d’un choriste, no. 194, 9 (p. Ἀριστίων II) – (2) 171/2, choriste, no. 194, 9 (f. Ἀριστίων I) – Ἀρτεμίσιος (1) 133/4, père de choriste, no. 42, 18 (p. Χρύσης) – (2) 134/5, père de choriste, no. 44, 14 (p. Ποντικός ; peut-être le même que 1) – (3) 165/6, père d’un choriste, no. 179, 23 (p. Ἀνδρόνικος) Ἀσιατικός (1) c. 110, choriste, no. 22, 8 (Λ. Οὐαλέριος Ἀσ.54) – (2) 139/40, choriste, no. 58, 13 (f. Χαρίτων) – (3) 142/3, choriste, no. 68, 4 (f. Ἀνδρόνικος) Ἀσκληπίδης (1) 157/8 ou 158/9, père d’un choriste, no. 146, 3 (p. Φωσφόρος) – (2) 157/8 ou 158/9, père d’un choriste, no. 146, 4 (p. Σύμφορος ; peut-être le même que 1) – (3) 160/1, père de choristes, no. 160, 13 (p. ∆ιονύσιος, Εὐπραξία, Ἀντιοχίς, Βαλέριος). Ἀσκλήπων (1) 156/7, choriste, no. 144, 12 (f. Προσήνης) Αὐγούσταλις (1) 144/5 ou 143/4, membre de la délégation, no. 81, 5 (Ἰούλιος Αὐγ.) Βαλέριος (1) 160/1, choriste, no. 160, 12 (f. Ἀσκληπίδης) Βρισηΐς (1) 137/8, choriste, no. 51, 7 (f. Χαρμόσυνος) Βρόμιος (1) 163/4, père d’une choriste, no. 169, 23 (p. Ἰσίδωρα) [Γ]αμικός (1) 173/4, choriste, no. 200, 9 (f. Γλύκων) Γάμος (1) 146/7, père d’un choriste, no. 94, 6 (p. Θεόφιλος) – (2) 157/8 ou 158/9, père du chorège, no. 146, 3 (p. Νικηφόρος) – (3) 159/60, père d’un choriste, no. 155, 9 (p. Ζώσιμος) Γέμελλος (1) 139/140, père d’un choriste, no. 58, 14 (p. Διονύσιος) – (2) 170/1, père d’un choriste, no. 190, 22 (p. Καλλιόπη) 54   Sarikakis 1989, Ο 47 : Σπέδ(ιος) Οὐαλέριος Ἀσιατικός repose sur une lecture inexacte du texte due à une ΤΟΥ ΝΕ Λ ΟΥΑΛΕΡΙΟΣ méconnaissance des sigles d’homonymie. Il faut lire ΗΛΙΟΔΩΡΟΣ ΑΣΙΑΤΙΚΟΣ (avec ΝΕ en ligature) et comprendre Ἡλιόδωρος (Ἡλιοδώρου) τοῦ (Ἡλιοδώρου) νε(ώτερος), Λ(ούκιος) Οὐαλέριος Ἀσιατικός.

L’apport

des mémoriaux de

Claros

37

Γενναῖος (1) 146/7, père d’un choriste, no. 94, 6 (p. Λάμπρος) – (2) 172/3, père de choristes, no. 197, 13–14 (p. Εὔδοξος, Γενναΐς) Γενναΐς (1) 172/3, choriste, no. 197, 14 (f. Γενναῖος) Δαμίων (1) 160/1–165/6, père d’un héraut sacré et épistate, no. 160, 8 ; 166, 8 ; 169, 9–10 ; 172, 10 ; 179, 6–7 (p. Ἀντίοχος) – (2) 163/4, père du pédagogue, no. 169, 27–8 (p. Ἡρακλέων) Δάμων (1*) début du 2ème siècle, père de choristes, no. 21, 5–6 (p. Ἡγητορίδης, Σαβίδιος) Δάφνος (1) 134/5, père d’une choriste, no. 44, 12 (p. Πασιθέα) – (2) 134/5–139/40, père de choristes, no. 44, 13 ; 58, 13 (p. Δάφνος II, Ζήνων, Πολέμαρχος ; peut-être le même que 1) – (3) 134/5–139/40, choriste, no. 44, 12 ; 58, 13 (f. Δάφνος I) – (4) 142/3, père d’un choriste, no. 68 (p. Μαρκιανός) – (5) 159/60, père d’un héraut sacré, no. 155, 8 (p. Ἀγγελῆς) – (5) 170/1, choriste, no. 190, 18 (Κλ. Δάφνος) Δήμαρχος (1) 133/4, père de choristes, no. 42, 15 (p. Ἄνθος, Δήμαρχος II) – (2) 133/4, choriste, no. 42, 14–15 (f. Δήμαρχος I) Διονυσογένης (1) 141/2, père d’un choriste, no. 61, 1 Δῖος (1) 144/5 ou 143/4, père de choristes, no. 8, 3–4 (p. Δῖος II, Καλλίτυχος) (2) 144/5 ou 143/4, choriste, no. 81, 3 (f. Δῖος I) – (3) 173/4, père de choristes, no. 200, 6 (p. Δῖος ΙΙ, Ὁμόνοια, Ἐπαφρόδιτον) – (4) 173/4, choriste, no. 200, 5 (f. Δῖος I) Ἐλάτη (1*) années 120, choriste, no. 28, 7 – (2) 165/6, choriste, no. 179, 27 (f. Ἀντίοχος) Ἕλενος (1) 156/7, choriste, no. 144, 11 (f. Μόσχος) Ἕλιξ (1) 156/7–162/3, père de choristes, no. 144, 11 ; 160, 14 ; 166, 18 (p. Ἀβάσκαντος, Βερενίκη) Ἔλπιστος (1) 141/2–142/3, père du pédagogue, no. 61, 3 ; 68, 6 (p. Ἐπαφρόδιτος) Ἐνιπεύς (1) 137/8, choriste, no. 51, 5 (f. Ἑρμαΐσκος) Ἐξαλλαγή (1) 162/3–164/5, choriste, no. 166, 23 ; 172, 16 (f. Διονύσιος) Ἐξόχη (1) 137/8, choriste, no. 51, 8 (f. Ἄντυλλος) Ἐπαφρόδιτον (1) 173/4, choriste, no. 200, 6 (f. Δῖος) Ἐπικαρπία (1) 160/1–162/3, choriste, no. 160, 11 ; 166, 14 (f. Ἀντίοχος) Ἐπίκτητος (1) 139/40, père d’une choriste, no. 58, 16 (p. Φαῦστα) – (2) 170/1, choriste, no. 190, 19 (f. Πίστος) – (3) 183/4, choriste, no. 237, 16 (f. Ἀπολλώνιος) Ἐπίνικος (1) 142/3, père d’une choriste, no. 68, 5 (p. Πιστική) Ἐπίχαρις (1) 156/7, choriste, no. 144, 9–10 (f. Πολέμαρχος) Ἐρασίστρατος (1) 164/5, choriste, no. 172, 15 Ἑρμαΐσκος (1) 137/8, père d’un choriste, no. 51, 5 (p. Ἐνιπεύς) Ἑρμίας (1) 133/4, choriste, no. 42, 17 (f. Ἕρμων) – (2) 142/3, choriste, no. 68, 3 (f. Ἕρμων ; peut-être le même) Ἑρμόλαος (1) 172/3, choriste, no. 197, 10 (f. Διονυσόδωρος) Ἕρμων (1) 133/4, père de choristes, no. 42, 17, 23 (p. Ἑρμίας, Ἀμμία) – (2) 142/3, père de choristes, no. 68, 3 (p. Ἑρμίας, Φησῖνος ; peut-être le même que 1) – (3) 157/8 ou 158/9, père d’un choriste, no. 146, 5 (p. Ἕρμων II) – (4) 157/8 ou 158/9, choriste, no. 146, 5 (f. Ἕρμων I) Ἔρως (1) années 120, chorège, no. 23, 12–14 ; 24, 2 (f. Πρύτανις, p. Πρύτανις et Ἔρως) – (2) années 120, nom d’usage du choriste Πρύτανις, no. 23, 13 ; 24, 4 (Πρότανις ὁ καλούμενος Ἔρως ; f. Ἔρως 1) – (3) années 120, choriste, no. 23, 14 ; 24, 4 (Ἔ. ὁ καλούμενος Πρότανις ; f. Ἔρως 1) Εὔγραμμος (1) c. 110, père d’un choriste, no. 22, 4 (p. Ῥοῦφος) – (2) c. 110, père d’un choriste, no. 22, 9 (p. Ἐπάγαθος ; peut-être le même que 1) Εὔδοξος (1) 172/3, choriste, no. 197, 13 (f. Γενναῖος) Εὐθυμία (1) 142/3, choriste, no. 68, 6 (f. Εὔθυμος) Εὔθυμος (1) 142/3, père d’une choriste, no. 68, 6 (p. Εὐθυμία)

38

Jean-Louis Ferrary

Εὐμένης (1) 173/4, père du chorège, no. 200, 4 (p. Ἐπαφρόδιτος) Εὐοδία (1) 133/4, choriste, no. 42, 22 (f. Ἰάκχος) – (2) 137/8, choriste, no. 51, 7 (f. Χαρμόσυνος) Εὐόδιον (1) 183/4, choriste, no. 237, 20 (f. Προ[ – ]) Εὔοδος (1) 137/8, choriste, no. 51, 6 (f. Χῖος) – (2) 146/7, choriste, no. 94, 7 (Εὔ. Νάρκισσος ; f. Φωσφόρος) Εὔπλους (1) 172/3, choriste, no. 197, 9–10 (f. Ἀντίοχος) Εὐπόριστος (1) 134/5, choriste, no. 44, 9 (f. Εὐφρόσυνος) Εὔπορος (1) 157/8 ou 158/9, père d’un choriste, no. 146, 5 (p. Σωτήρ) Εὐπραξία (1) 160/1, choriste, no. 160, 12 (f. Ἀσκληπίδης) – (2) 164/5, choriste, no. 172, 16 (peut-être la même que 1 ou 3) – (3) 165/6, choriste, no. 179, 28 (f. Ἀντίοχος) Εὐρυμέδων (1) c. 110, père d’un choriste, no. 22, 5 (p. Εὐρυμέδων II) – (2) c. 110, choriste, no. 22, 5 (f. Εὐρυμέδων I) Εὐσταθία (1) 159/60, choriste, no. 155, 15 ( ? nom d’usage de Εἰρήνη) Εὐσυνάλλακτος (1) 144/5 ou 143/4, père d’un choriste, no. 81, 3 (p. Εὐσυνάλλακτος II) – (2) 144/5 ou 143/4 et 163/4, choriste et père de choristes, no. 81, 3 ; 169, 24 (f. Εὐσυνάλλακτος I, p. Εὐσυνάλλακτος III, Νυμφικός) – (3) choriste en 163/4, no. 169, 23 (f. Εὐσυνάλλακτος II) Εὐσχήμων (1) 141/2–142/3, père d’un héraut sacré, no. 61, 2 ; 68, 6 (p. Εὐσχήμων II) – (2) 141/2–142/3, héraut sacré, no. 61, 2 ; 68, 6 (f. Εὐσχήμων I) Εὔτροπος (1) 133/4, père d’une choriste, no. 42, 24 – (2) 163/4, père d’un choriste, no. 169, 18 (p. Μητρόδωρος) – (3) 183/4, chorège, no. 237, 2, 10 (f. Γραφικός, p. Εὔτροπος II, Γραφικός, Ἄπιστος) – (4) 183/4, choriste, no. 237, 13–14 (f. Εὔτροπος I) Εὐτυχία (1) 133/4, choriste, no. 42, 22 (f. Ἐπαφρόδιτος) – (2) 172/3, choriste, no. 197, 13 (f. Πολυάρατος) Εὐτυχιανός (1) 160/1, choriste, no. 160, 10 (f. Ζώσιμος) Εὐτυχίων (1) 160/1, choriste, no. 160, 16 (f. Ἰσιγένης) – (2) 170/1, choriste, no. 190, 21 (f. Ἀγαθήμερος) Εὔφημος (1) 159/60, choriste, no. 155, 11 – (2) 162/3, choriste, no. 166, 20 (f. Εὔφρων ; peut-être le même que 1) – (3) 173/4, choriste, no. 200, 7 (f. Σμάραγδος) Εὐφροσύνη (1) 171/2, choriste, no. 194, 13 (f. Ζῆνις) Εὐφρόσυνος (1) 134/5, père de choristes, no. 44, 10 (p. Εὐπόριστος, Ἡρακλᾶς) Εὔφρων (1) 147/8, chorège, no. 100, 3 (f. Χρηστίων) – (2) 162/3, père d’un choriste, no. 166, 20 (p. Εὔφημος) Εὐχάριστος (1) 134/5–137/8, père de choristes, no. 44, 9 ; 51, 5 (p. Εὐχάριστος II, Ἱερός) – (2) 134/5– 137/8, choriste puis père d’un choriste, no. 44, 8 ; 51, 4–5 ; 190, 18 (f. Εὐχάριστος I, p. Εὐχάριστος III) – (4) 170/1, choriste, no. 190, 18 (f. Εὐχάριστος II) Ἔφηβος (1) 170/1, choriste, no. 190, 18 (f. Γλύκων) Ζῆθος (1*) début du 2ème siècle, père de choriste, no. 21, 3 (p. Γλύκων, peut-être aussi Ἡγεμονίδης, Ζῆθος) – (2) début du 2ème siècle, choriste, no. 21, 2 (peut-être f. Ζῆθος) – (3) c. 110, probablement nom d’usage du choriste Ἀρίστων, no. 22, 7 – (4) années 120, choriste, no. 23, 8 (peut-être Σωσιγένης Ζ.) – (5) années 120, choriste, no. 23, 11 (peut-être Μητρόδωρος Ζ.) – (6) 164/5, chorège, no. 172, 8, 13 (f. Πρύτανις, p. Σύνφορος) Ζηνᾶς (1) 160/1, père d’un choriste, no. 160, 13 (p. Μέγιστος) Ζωΐς (1*) 145/6, choriste, no. 92, 6 (f. Ἀγαθέας) Ζωσίμη (1) 162/3, choriste, no. 166, 13 (f. Ζώσιμος) – (2) 163/4, choriste, no. 169, 22 (f. Φαῦστος) – (3) 165/6, choriste, no. 179, 30 (f. Πόστομος) – (4) 170/1, choriste, no. 190, 14 (f. Ζώσιμος) – (5) 172/3, choriste, no. 197, 14 (f. Ζωΐλος)

L’apport

des mémoriaux de

Claros

39

Ἡγεμονίδης (1*) début du 2ème siècle, choriste, no. 21, 2 (peut-être f. Ζῆθος) Ἡγητορίδης (1*) début du 2ème siècle, choriste, no. 21, 4–5 (f. Δάμων) – (2) 137/8, père de choristes, no. 51, 4 (p. Νηρεύς, Ἡγητορίδης II) – (3) 137/8, choriste, no. 51, 4 (f. Ἡγητορίδης I). Ἡδύς (1) 137/8, père d’un choriste, no. 51, 5 (p. Ἡδύς II) – (2) 137/8, choriste, no. 51, 5 (f. Ἡδύς I) – (3) 139/40, probablement nom d’usage du choriste Πῖνος, no. 58, 10 – (4) 139/40–141/2, père d’une choriste, no. 58, 16 ; 67, 1 (p. Μικύθη) Ἥλιος (1) 144/5 ou 143/4, père d’un choriste, no. 81, 4 (p. Ἐπαφρόδιτος) – (2) 162/3, père d’un choriste, no. 166, 21 (p. Πρῖμος) Ἡρακλᾶς (1) 134/5, choriste, no. 44, 10 (f. Εὐφρόσυνος) – (2) 162/3–165/6, pédagogue, no. 166, 28, 29 ; 179, 31–2 (p. Κόρινθος) Ἡράκλεια (1) 173/4, choriste, no. 200, 9 (f. Ἀντίοχος) Ἡρακλῆς (1) 146/7, choriste, no. 94, 5 (f. Ἡρακλείδης) Θάλλων (1) 170/1, choriste, no. 190, 15 (f. Ἐπαφρόδιτος) Θεοφάνης (1) 173/4, choriste, no. 200, 9 (f. Θρέπτος) Θέσμος (1) 170/1, père d’une choriste, no. 190, 20 (p. Ἀπολλωνία) Θρέπτος (1) 171/2–173/4, père de choristes, no. 194, 14 ; 200, 8, 9 (p. Καλλώ, Μοῦσα, Ἑρμέρως, Θεοφάνης) Ἰάκχος (1) c. 110, choriste, no. 22, 5 (Τι. Κλ. Ἰάκχος) – (2) 133/4, père de choristes, no. 42, 14, 22 (p. Ἀφροδίσιος, Εὐοδία) Ἰανουαρία (1) 137/8, choriste, no. 51, 7 (f. Νεοπτόλεμος) Ἱεροῦς (1) 163/4, choriste, no. 169, 21 (f. Kτῆτος) Ἱλαρίων (1) 165/6, père d’un choriste, no. 179, 22 (p. Φορτοῦνος) Ἰσιγένεια (1) 165/6, choriste, no. 179, 26 (f. Ἰσιγένης) Ἰσιγένης (1) 160/1, père de choristes, no. 160, 16 (p. Ἀβάσκαντος, Εὐτυχίων) – (2) 165/6, père d’une choriste, no. 179, 26 (p. Ἰσιγένεια) – (3) 175/6, choriste, no. 208, 13 (f. Κάλος) Ἰσίδοτος (1) 133/4, choriste, no. 42, 11 (f. Νικίας) – (2) 172/3, père d’un choriste, no. 197, 11 (p. Τίτος) Ἰσίκλεια (1) 139/40, femme du chorège et stratège, no. 58, 7 (f. Θεόπομπος) Καικιλιανός (1) 170/1, père du pédagogue, no. 190, 23 (p. Ἐπάγαθος) Κάλη (1) 137/8, choriste, no. 51, 8 (f. Ἀριστείδης) Καλλίμαχος (1) 173/4, choriste, no. 200, 10 (f. Σύμφορος) Καλλίνικος (1) 183/4, choriste, no. 237, 17 (f. Μέροψ) Καλλιόπη (1) 170/1, choriste, no. 190, 22 (f. Γέμελλος) Καλλίτυχος (1) 144/5 ou 143/4, choriste, no. 81, 4 (f. Δῖος) – (2) 173/4, père d’un choriste, no. 200, 7 (p. Ζώσιμος) Καλλόνικος (1) 171/2, père d’une choriste, no. 194, 15 (p. Φιλημάτιον) Καλλώ (1) 163/4, choriste, no. 169, 17 (f. Τρύφων) – (2) 171/2, choriste, no. 194, 14 (f. Θρέπτος) Κάρπιμος (1) 142/3–144/5 ou 143/4, père d’un choriste, no. 68, 4 ; 81, 3 (p. Κάρπιμος II) – (2) 142/3– 144/5 ou 143/4, choriste, no. 68, 4 ; 81, 3 (f. Κάρπιμος I) Καρπῖνος (1) 147/8, choriste, no. 100, 4 Κάρπος (1) 133/4–139/40, choriste, no. 42, 16 ; 58, 10 (f. Πυλάδης) – (2*) 145/6, choriste, no. 92, 4 – (3*) 145/6, père d’un membre de la délégation, no. 92, 7 (p. Ἀρτέμων) – (4) 157/8 ou 158/9, père d’un choriste, no. 146, 3 (p. Κάρπος II ; pourrait être le même que 1) – (5) 157/8 ou 158/9, choriste, no. 146, 3 (f. Κάρπος I) – (6) 165/6, choriste, no. 179, 24 (f. Μενεκράτης)

40

Jean-Louis Ferrary

Κλαυδιανός (1) 171/2, choriste, no. 194, 9 (f. Ζωτίων) Κλεόμβροτος (1) 162/3, membre de la délégation, no. 166, 26–7 (f. Παυσάνιας) Κλεοπάτρα (1) 133/4, choriste, no. 42, 21 (f. Τελεσφόρος) Κόρινθος (1) 162/3, membre de la délégation, no. 166, 28 (f. Ἡρακλᾶς) Κόσμιος (1) c. 110, père d’un choriste, no. 22, 6 (p. Κόσμιος II) – (2) c. 110, choriste, no. 22, 5–6 (f. Κόσμιος I) – (3) 171/2, père du chorège, no. 194, 6 (peut-être f. Ἀριστείδης, p. Κόσμιος II) – (4) 171/2, chorège 2, no. 194, 6 (f. Κόσμιος I, peut-être Κόσμιος Ἀριστείδης) Κτησικλῆς (1*) début du 2ème siècle, père d’un choriste, no. 21, 4 (p. Ἡρακλέων) Κτῆτος (1) 160/1–163/4, père de choristes, no. 160, 17 ; 169, 22 (p. Χρήσιμος, Ἱεροῦς) Κυριλλώ (1) 133/4, choriste, no. 42, 24 (f. Πυλάδης) Λεμέριος55 (1) 157/8 ou 158/9, père d’une choriste, no. 146, 5 (p. Φιλουμένη) Λεόκυμος (1) 157/8 ou 158/9, père d’une choriste, no. 146, 6 (p. Ἐλπίς) Λόγος (1) 134/5, choriste, no. 44, 11 (f. Παλλέας) – (2) 163/4, choriste, no. 169, 19 (f. Τρόφιμος) Λούκιος (1) années 120, choriste, no. 23, 8 ; 24, 5 (f. Ἀντίοχος) – (2) 139/40–142/3, épistate et héraut sacré, no. 58, 17 ; 61, 2 ; 68, 5–6 (f. Ἀντίοχος, p. Μονίμη peut-être le même que 1) – (3*) 145/6, père d’un membre de la délégation, no. 92, 8 (p. [Νυμ]φικός) – (4) 156/7–157/8 ou 158/9, choriste, no. 144, 8–9 ; 146, 4 (f. Φοῖβος) – (5) 157/8 ou 158/9, père d’un choriste, no. 146, 5 (p. Νυμφικός) – (6) 183/4, père d’un choriste, no. 237, 9 (p. Λούκιος II) – (7) 183/4, choriste, no. 237, 9 (f. Λούκιος I) Λυδός (1) 133/4, père d’un choriste, no. 42, 11 (p. Λυδός II) – (2) 133/4, choriste, no. 42, 11 (Λ. Προύνικος, f. Λυδός I) Λυσίων (1) 171/2, père d’un choriste, no. 194, 11 (p. Πῖνος) Μαρκιανός (1) 142/3, choriste, no. 68, 3 (f. Δάφνος) Ματρέας (1) années 120, choriste, no. 23, 15–16 (f. Ζώσιμος) Μέγιστος (1) 160/1, choriste, no. 160, 13 (f. Ζηνᾶς) Μέθη (1) 137/8, choriste, no. 51, 6 (f. Ἀπολλώνιος) Μέροψ (1) 183/4, père d’un choriste, no. 237, 8 (p. Καλλίνικος) Μήτιχος (1) c. 110, père d’un choriste, no. 22, 5 (p. Θεόδοτος) Μικύθη (1) 139/40–141/2, choriste, no. 58, 16 ; 61, 1 (f. Ἡδύς) Μόθων (1) 144/5 ou 143/4, père d’un choriste, no. 81, 3 (p. Ἰσίων) Μονίμη (1) 139/40, nom d’usage de la choriste Τύχη, no. 58, 15 – (2) 142/3, choriste, no. 68, 5 (f. Λούκιος) – (3) 144/5 ou 143/4, choriste, no. 81, 4 (f. Πτολεμαῖος) Μοσχᾶς (1) 165/6, père d’un choriste, no. 179, 17 (p. Ἀγαθόπους) Μοῦσα (1) 173/4, choriste, no. 200, 8 (f. Θρέπτος) Μυρῖνος (1) c. 110, choriste, no. 22, 7 (f. Θεόδοτος) Νάρκισσος (1) c. 110, père d’un choriste, no. 22, 6 (p. Εὔτυχος) – (2) 141/2, père d’un choriste, no. 68, 5 (p. Νάρκισσος II) – (3) 141/2, choriste, no. 68, 5 (f. Νάρκισσος I) – (4) 146/7, nom d’usage du choriste Εὔοδος, no. 94, 7 Νεοπτόλεμος (1) 137/8, père d’une choriste, no. 51, 7 (p. Ἰανουαρία) Νικηφόρος (1) c. 110, père d’un choriste, no. 22, 7 (p. Ἀρίστων) – (2) c. 110, épistate, no. 22, 10 (f. Φωτῖνος ; peut-être le même que 1) – (3) 157/8 ou 158/9, chorège, no. 146, 3, 6 (f. Γάμος, p. Νικηφόρος 5) – (4) 157/8 ou 158/9, père d’un choriste, no. 146, 4 (p. Τυχικός) – (5) 157/8 ou 158/9, fils du chorège, no. 146, 6 (f. Νικηφόρος 3) – (6) 171/2, choriste, no. 194, 10 (f. Μενεκράτης)   Sarikakis 1989 (Λ 31) y reconnaît à juste titre la transcription d’un nom latin, avec peut-être une faute pour Νεμέριος.

55

L’apport

des mémoriaux de

Claros

41

Νικόμαχος (1) 159/60, choriste, no. 155, 12 Νικοτύχη (1) 157/8 ou 158/9, choriste, no. 146, 5 (f. Νικήτης) Νικῦς (1) 171/2, père d’une choriste, no. 194, 15 (p. Πρακτική) Νόστιμος (1) 157/8 ou 158/9, choriste, no. 146, 4 (f. Τρύφων) Νυμφικός (1*) 145/6, membre de la délégation, no. 92, 8 (f. Λούκιος) – (2) 147/8, choriste, no. 100, 4 – (3) 157/8 ou 158/9, choriste, no. 146, 4 (f. Λούκιος) – (4) 163/4, choriste, no. 169, 23 (f. Εὐσυνάλλακτος) Ὀβριμόλαος (1) 139/40, père d’une choriste, no. 58, 15 (p. Πῶλλα) – (2) 162/3, père de choristes, no. 166, 24 (p. Ὀβριμόλαος II, Πωλλίων) – (3) 162/3, choriste, no. 166, 23–4 (f. Ὀβριμόλαος I) Ὁμόνοια (1) 173/4, choriste, no. 200, 5 (f. Δῖος) Ὀνησᾶς (1) 163/4–170/1, père d’un héraut sacré, no. 169, 12 ; 179, 11 ; 190, 10 (p. Μηνόδωρος) Ὀνήσιμος (1) 170/1, choriste, no. 190, 14–15 (f. Δημήτριος) – (2) 183/4, choriste, no. 237, 19 Ὀνησιφόρος (1) 173/4, père de choristes, no. 200, 6 (p. Ὀνησιφόρος ΙΙ, Σωτηρίς) – (2) Ὀν. Ἀπελλᾶς 173/4, choriste, no. 200, 6 (f. Ὀνησιφόρος I) – (3) Ὀνησιφόρος ou ‑ρίς56 173/4, choriste, no. 200, 7 (f. Ἀπολλώνιος) Παλλέας (1) 134/5 et 159/60, père et grand-père de choristes, no. 44, 11 ; 155, 8 (p. Τρύφων, Λόγος) – (2) 159/60, choriste, no. 155, 9 (f. Πρῶτος) Παμφίλα (1) 162/3–165/6, choriste, no. 166, 22 ; 179, 29 (f. Τυράνιος) Πάνφορος (1) 146/7, père d’un choriste, no. 94, 6 (p. Ἀπολλώνιος) Πασιθέα (1) 124/5, choriste, no. 44, 12 (f. Δάφνος) Πατρόφιλος (1) 172/3, père de choristes, no. 197, 12 (p. Ζώσιμος, Πατρόφιλος II) – (2) 172/3, choriste, no. 197, 12 (f. Πατρόφιλος I) Πειριθόη (1) 163/4, choriste, no. 169, 15 (f. Φιλήμων) Πῖνος (1) 133/4–142/3, choriste, no. 42, 20 ; 44, 15 ; 51, 6 ; 58, 10 ; 68, 3 (f. Ἐπαφρόδιτος) – (2) 171/2, choriste, no. 194, 11 (f. Λυσίων) Πιστική (1) 142/3, choriste, no. 68, 5 (f. Ἐπίνικος) Πλουτέρως (1) 159/60, choriste, no. 155, 10 Πόθος (1) 156/7, père de choristes, no. 144, 12 (p. Φαῦστος, Διογένης) Ποθουμενός (1*) 145/6, père d’un choriste, no. 92, 3 (p. Ζώσιμος) – (2) 171/2, père d’un choriste, no. 194, 11 (p. Ποθουμενός II) – (3) 171/2, choriste, no. 194, 11 (f. Ποθουμενός I) Πολυάρατος (1) 172/3, père d’une choriste, no. 197, 14 (p. Εὐτυχία) Πολυβήα57 (1) 144/5 ou 143/4, choriste, no. 81, 5 (f. Ῥωμανός) Πολύβιος (1) 137/8, père d’une choriste, no. 51, 8 (p. Φαῦστα) Πόπλιος (1) 171/2, père d’une choriste, no. 194, 13 (p. Ἀνατολή) Πόστομος (1) 165/6, père d’une choriste, no. 179, 30 (p. Ζωσίμη) Ποτῖτος (1) 159/60, choriste, no. 155, 12 Πρακτική (1) 171/2, choriste, no. 194, 15 (f. Νικῦς) Πραξιτέλης (1) Π. Σεκοῦνδος, 139/40, choriste, no. 58, 8 (f. Διονύσιος) Πρῖμος (1) 159/60, choriste, no. 155, 11 – (2) 162/3, choriste, no. 166, 21 (f. Ἥλιος) – (3) 162/3–163/4, père d’un choriste, no. 166, 23 ; 169, 25 (p. Πρῖμος II) (4) 162/3–163/4, choriste, no. 166, 23 ; 169, 25 (f. Πρῖμος I) Προσδεξίς (1) 162/3, choriste, no. 166, 13 (f. Ζώσιμος) Προσδοκίμη (1) 170/1, choriste, no. 190, 16 (f. Προσδόκιμος) 56 57

  On a gravé à la fois le iota et l’omicron, sans qu’on puisse dire avec certitude quelle lettre a corrigé l’autre.   Πολυβήα me semble être une graphie de Πολυβία, nom féminin fait sur Πολύβιος (cf. Solin, GPR 262).

42

Jean-Louis Ferrary

Προσδόκιμος (1) 142/3, père d’un choriste, no. 68, 4 (p. Τρύφων) – (2) 142/3, père de choriste, no. 68, 5 (p. Ἐπάγαθος ; peut-être le même que 1) – (3) 159/60, choriste, no. 155, 10 – (4) 170/1, père d’une choriste, no. 190, 16 (p. Προσδοκίμη) – (5) 173/4, choriste, no. 200, 8 (f. Τρύφων) Προσήνης58 (1) 156/7, père d’un choriste, no. 144, 12 (p. Ἀσκλήπων) Προύνικος (1) 133/4, nom d’usage du choriste Λυδός, no. 42, 13 Πρύτανις (1) années 120, père d’un chorège, no. 24, 2 (p. Ἔρως) – (2) années 120, choriste, no. 23, 12 ; 24, 4 (Π. ὁ καλούμενος Ἔρως ; f. Ἔρως) – (3) années 120, nom d’usage du choriste Ἔρως, no. 23, 15 ; 24, 4–5 (f. Ἔρως) – (4) 164/5, père du chorège, no. 172, 8–9 (p. Ζῆθος) Πρωτᾶς (1) 172/3, choriste, no. 197, 10 (f. Τρύφων) Πρωτίων (1) 175/6–185/6, nom d’usage du héraut sacré Ἀπολλωνίδης, no. 208, 12 ; 237, 11 Πυλάδης (1) 133/4–139/40, père de choristes, no. 42, 16, 24 ; 58, 10 (p. Κάρπος) Πωλλίων (1) 162/3, choriste, no. 166, 24 (f. Ὀβριμόλαος) Ῥοῦφος (1) c. 110, choriste, no. 22, 4 (f. Εὔγραμμος) Ῥωμανός (1) 144/5 ou 143/4, père d’une choriste, no. 81, 5 (p. Πολυβήα) Σαβίδιος (1*) début du 2ème siècle, choriste, no. 21, 5 (f. Δάμων)59 Σαραπίων (1) 144/5 ou 143/4, membre de la délégation, no. 81, 6 Σάρβατος (1) 137/8, père d’un choriste, no. 51, 5 (p. Σάρβατος II) – (2) 137/8, choriste, no. 51, 5 (f. Σάρβατος I) Σεκοῦνδος (1) 139/40, nom d’usage du choriste Πραξιτέλης, no. 58, 8 Σίλλιος (1) 159/60, père d’une choriste, no. 155, 13 (p. Ἐλπίς) Σκηνικός (1) 164/5, choriste, no. 172, 17 Σμάραγδος (1) 173/4, père d’un choriste, no. 200, 7 (p. Εὔφημος) Σμύρνα (1) 156/7, choriste, no. 144, 8 (f. Σωτήρ) Σόβαρος (1) 170/1, choriste, no. 190, 22 (f. Ζωΐλος) Σπατάλη (1) 170/1, choriste, no. 190, 19 (f. de Πίστος) Συνερῶσα (1) 134/5, choriste, no. 44, 11 (f. Ἐπάγαθος)60 Σύντροφος (1) 164/5, choriste, no. 172, 14–15 – (2) 173/4, père d’un choriste, no. 200, 8 (p. Σύντροφος II) – (3) 173/4, choriste, no. 200, 8 (f. Σύντροφος I) Σωτήρ (1) 156/7, père de choristes, no. 144, 8 (p. Σωτήρ II, Σμύρνα) – (2) 156/7, choriste, no. 144, 8 (f. Σωτήρ I) – (3) 157/8 ou 158/9, choriste, no. 146, 5 (f. Εὔπορος) Σωτηρίς (1) 173/4, choriste, no. 200, 6 (f. Ὀνησιφόρος) Τατιανός (1) 160/1–164/5, choriste, no. 160, 11 ; 166, 14 ; 169, 15–16 ; 172, 14 (f. Ἀντίοχος) Τελεσφόρος (1) 133/4, père de choriste, no. 42, 21 (p. Κλεοπάτρα) – (2) 172/3, père du chorège, no. 197, 5–6 (p. Πρῶτος) Τεχνικός (1) 162/3–164/5, choriste, no. 166, 17 ; 172, 14 (f. Ἰσίων) Τίτος (1) 172/3, choriste, no. 197, 11 (f. Ἰσίδοτος) Τροφίμη (1) 163/4–170/1, choriste, no. 169, 19 ; 190, 16 (f. Τρόφιμος)   Lecture encore ignorée de Sarikakis 1989, Α 639 : Ἀσκ. Προγ...ς.   Sarikakis 1989, Α 8 : Σ(έξτος ?) Ἀβίδιος Δάμωνος. Mais nous sommes ici dans une onomastique grecque, avec idionyme et patronyme, et un Sex. Abidius citoyen romain aurait un cognomen. Nous devons supposer que le gentilice romain Sabidius est utilisé comme idionyme grec. On notera toutefois qu’une esclave affranchie sous le règne de Claude à Thèbes de Phthiotide par une Phérénika fille ou femme d’un Kebbas est appelée Sabidia (Kramolisch 1975, 338). 60   Sarikakis 1989, Σ 105 (Συνεργῶσα) reproduit une erreur de lecture. 58 59

L’apport

des mémoriaux de

Claros

43

Τρύφαινα (1) 144/5 ou 143/4, choriste, no. 81, 5 (f. Πρῶτος) – (2) 170/1–172/3, choriste, no. 190, 21 ; 197, 13 (f. Τρύφων) Τυράνιος (1) 162/3–165/6, père d’une choriste, no. 166, 22 ; 179, 29 (p. Παμφίλα) Τυραννί[ς (ou -άννι[ος) (1) 173/4, choriste, no. 200, 9 (f. Ζώσιμος) Τύχη (1) Τ. Μονίμη, 139/40, choriste, no. 58, 14 (f. Πτολεμαῖος) Τυχικός (1) 157/8 ou 158/9, choriste, no. 146, 4 (f. Νικηφόρος) Ὕλας (1) 147/8, choriste, no. 100, 4 Φαῦστα (1) 137/8, choriste, no. 51, 8 (f. Πολύβιος) – (2) 139/40, choriste, no. 58, 16 (f. Ἐπίκτητος) Φιλημάτιον (1) 157/8 ou 158/9, femme du chorège, no. 146, 6 (f. Θεοφάνης) – (2) 171/2, choriste, no. 194, 10 (f. Μενεκράτης) – (3) 171/2, choriste, no. 194, 14–15 (f. Καλλόνικος) Φίλητος (1) 133/4, choriste, no. 42, 19 (f. Ἐπαφρόδιτος) Φιλία (1) 171/2, choriste, no. 194, 14 (f. Εὔτυχος) Φιλόμουσος (1) 165/6, père du chorège, no. 179, 4 (p. Ἐπάγαθος) – (2) 173/4, père d’un choriste, no. 200, 8 (p. Φιλόμουσος II) – (3) 173/4, choriste, no. 200, 8 (f. Φιλόμουσος I) Φιλουμένη (1) 157/8 ou 158/9, choriste, no. 146, 5 (f. Λεμέριος) Φοίβη (1) 157/8 ou 158/9, choriste, no. 146, 5 (f. Ἡρᾶς) Φορτοῦνος (1) 165/6, choriste, no. 179, 21 (f. Ἱλαρίων) Φωσφόρος (1) 146/7, père d’un choriste, no. 94, 7 (p. Εὔοδος) – (2) 157/8 ou 158/9, choriste, no. 146, 3 (f. Ἀσκληπίδης) Φωτῖνος (1) c. 110, père d’un épistate, no. 22, 11 (p. Νικηφόρος) Χαρίτων (1) 139/40, père d’un choriste, no. 58, 13–14 (p. Ἀσιατικός) – (2) 144/5 ou 143/4, choriste, no. 81, 3 (f. Ζώσιμος) Χαρμόσυνος (1) 137/8, père de choristes, no. 51, 7 (p. Εὐοδία, Βρισηΐς) – (2) 173/4, père d’un choriste, no. 200, 6 (p. Ζώσιμος) Χῖος (1) 137/8, père de choristes, no. 51, 6 (p. Διονύσιος, Χῖος II, Εὔοδος) – (2) 137/8, choriste, no. 51, 6 (f. Χῖος I) Χρήσιμος (1) 160/1–163/4, choriste, no. 160, 17 ; 169, 21 (f. Κτῆτος) Χρηστίων (1) 147/8, père du chorège, no. 100, 3 (p. Εὔφρων) Χρῆστος (1) 146/7, choriste, no. 94, 5 (f. Ἀγάθων) Χρύσης (1) 133/4, choriste, no. 42, 18 (f. Ἀρτεμίσιος)

Références bibliographiques Ferrary, J.-L. (2005) ‘Les mémoriaux de délégations du sanctuaire oraculaire de Claros et leur chronologie’, Comptes-rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 719–765. Hatzopoulos, M. B. (1988) Actes de vente de la Chalcidique centrale. Athens. Koerner, R. (1961) Die Abkürzung der Homonymität in griechischen Inschriften. Berlin. Kramolisch, H. (1975) ‘Zur Ära des Kaisers Claudius in Thessalien’, Chiron 5, 337–347. Macridy, T. (1905) ‘Altertümer von Notion’, Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes in Wien 8, 155–173. Macridy, T. (1912) ‘Antiquités de Notion II’, Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes in Wien 15, 36–67. Mavrogordato, J. (1918) ‘Chronological Arrangement of the Coins of Chios; part V’, Numismatic Chronicle, 1–79.

44

Jean-Louis Ferrary

Papazoglou, F. (1988) Les Villes de Macédoine à l’époque romaine. Athens. Picard, C. (1922) Éphèse et Claros : recherches sur les sanctuaires et les cultes de l’Ionie du nord. Paris. Pouilloux, J. et Dunant, C. (1958) Recherches sur l’histoire et les cultes de Thasos. II, De 196 avant J.-C. jusqu’à la fin de l’antiquité. Paris. Robert, L. (1933) ‘Sur des inscriptions de Chios’, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 57, 505–543 (= OMS I, 473–511). Robert, L. (1954) Les fouilles de Claros. Limoges (= OMS VI, 523–549). Robert, L. (1974) ‘Une inscription de Périnthe à Claros’, Studii Clasice 16, 74–80 (= OMS VI, 296–302). Şahin, S. (1987) ‘Epigraphica Asiae Minoris neglecta et iacentia’, Epigraphica Anatolica 9, 47–72. Sarikakis, Th. (1989) Χιακὴ προσωπογραφία. Athens. Sherk, R. K. (1969) Roman Documents from the Greek East. Senatus Consulta and Epistulae to the Age of Augustus. Baltimore. Zolotas, G. I. (1908) ‘Ἐπιγραφαὶ τῆς Χίου’, Ἀθηνᾶ 20, 113–381. Zolotas-Sarou, A. (1909) ‘Ἐπιγραφαὶ τῆς Χίου’, Ἀθηνᾶ 21, 345–353.

CARIAN NAMES AND CRETE Richard Hitchman

Two long inscriptions from Miletos late in the third century BC list Cretan men and their families. Analysis of the names of the Cretans’ wives and their families suggests that many of the wives were Milesian. Names recorded on Crete in the subsequent period may show that some of the Cretan emigrants returned to Crete.

Carian names and the Cretans naturalized in Miletos Two long inscriptions from Miletos in Caria (Milet I (3) 176 ff.), of the later third century BC, record grants of citizenship to Cretan mercenaries and their families on two occasions five years apart. We know in all the names of some hundreds of men, women and children. The first group of emigrants came from Dreros and Milatos and the second from several Cretan cities, possibly including Kydonia and Olous. Some names from one section of the first inscription (Milet I (3) 34 e) are of particular interest. The text of the relevant section is as follows: Ἀβ̣-Τρ-Ἑρμ.......13......, γυνὴ Ἀβ̣ὰς Ἀρτεμι̣δ[̣ ώ]ρου, θυγάτηρ Ἀβ̣ὰς κ̣όρη ὑιὸς Ἀρισταγόρας ἄνηβ̣ος. Σωκλῆς Δαμασίλα,    I should like to thank Dr F. Marchand formerly of the Lexicon of Greek Personal Names (LGPN) for much help, including information on names in Caria from the so far unpublished part of the LGPN data-base. It should however be noted that not all these data have yet been fully edited by LGPN staff. Consequently the details regarding names reported for the relevant areas in this paper may differ slightly from those given in the completed version, when it is published. Dr Marchand and Mr R. Catling, to whom I am also very grateful, have been particularly helpful in suggesting male names attested for Cretans that may have connections with Miletos. I should also like to thank Dr T. Corsten, also formerly of the LGPN, Prof. A. Morpurgo Davies and Dr N. Sekunda for comments that have greatly improved the article, and Dr. Sekunda also for the appendix to this article that he has contributed.    Launey dates the migrations to 228/7 and 223/2 BC and Chaniotis to 234/3 BC and 229/8 BC. The precise dating is not important for our present purposes. See Launey 1949–50, 660 ff. and Chaniotis 2005, 104 ff. for discussions of these events and Wörrle 1988, 444 n. 86 regarding the dates.    Brulé 1978, 168.

46

Richard Hitchman γυνὴ Ἀρτεμισί[α] Ἐπι̣..., θυγάτηρ Μηνὼ κόρη. Εὐπέτης Μ̣ιμ ̣ ν̣ ο̣ πόλιος, γυνὴ Ε̣ἰρ̣ ήνη Μιννίωνος, θυγάτηρ Δημητρία κόρη. Κλέανδρος Σώσου, γυνὴ Νάννιον Βακχίου, θυγάτηρ Δημητρία κόρη

Clearly the text lists for each mercenary his name and patronymic followed by the name of his wife and her patronymic and the name of the couple’s children. Thus in the text given above we have in succession four women married to Cretans: Ἀβάς (daughter of Ἀρτεμίδωρος), Ἀρτεμισία (daughter of Ἐπι[--], with her daughter Μηνώ), Εἰρήνη (daughter of Μιννίων) and Νάννιον (daughter of Βάκχιος). In the first naturalization inscription we also find: Ἀρτεμισία, the wife of another Cretan (Milet I (3) 34 a, 8, daughter of Ἑρμίας) and Μητροδώρα daughter of Χάρις, if the text is correctly restored. It reads: [γυνὴ Μη]τ̣ροδώρα [Χ]άρι[ο]ς (Milet I (3) 34 h, 1). Some of these names are also found in the second naturalization inscription. These are, with selected names of relatives: Ἀβ(ά)ς daughter of Ἀριστεύς (Milet I (3) 38 u, 6) Ἀρτεμισία daughter of [--]ώνιος (Milet I (3) 38 x, 8) Μηνώ, daughter of Ἀρχωνίδας and his wife Μύστα (Milet I (3) 38 ff, 5–8) Μητροδώρα daughter of Σωκύδης (a Cretan) and his wife Ἡδεῖα, in turn daughter of Εὔανδρος (Milet I (3) 38 r, 5–8). Μητροδώρα had a brother named Παιθεμίδας. We also find in the first inscription the names: Νικαία Ἀττάλου (Milet I (3) 34 b, 10 and Milet I (3) 34 i, 4) Στρατονίκη Ἀσκληπιάδου (Milet I (3) 34 h, 8) γυν̣ὴ̣ [......Φ]ιλοχάρου / Ἑρ[μησί]λας ἄνηβος (Milet I (3) 34 d, 2–3) while in the second inscription the following names appear: Ἄρτεμις Λέοντος (Milet I (3) 38 q, 4) and Μηνιάς (Milet I (3) 38 t, 2). If we examine the names of the wives of the Cretans, and of the wives’ fathers, we find that Εἰρήνη, Βάκχιος, Εὔανδρος, Ἡδεῖα and Λέων are attested in Caria but are also very widely distributed names in the Greek world. However Ἀβάς, Ἄρτεμις, Ἀρτεμισία, Ἑρμησίλας (son of anonymous woman), Μηνιάς, Μιννίων (father of Εἰρήνη), Μητροδώρα and Νάννιον are names particularly characteristic of Caria and neighbouring regions, while the names of Ἄτταλος (father of Νικαία), Νικαία herself and Στρατονίκη were borne by members of the various Macedonian dynasties that ruled Asia Minor. I shall discuss in turn each of these names and, where relevant, the names of other relatives of the women in question.

Carian Names

and

Crete

47

Ἀβάς Apart from the three women named Ἀβάς in the naturalization inscriptions, I have found no attestations of this name at all apart from seven from Caria. Ἀβάς is a Carian name, one of several apparently derived from Lallnamen. The father of the first, as mentioned above, was named Ἀρτεμίδωρος. This is a very widely distributed name, but it is particularly often attested in Asia Minor (677 times in LGPN VA, covering coastal Asia Minor, Pontos to Ionia, out of 1318 in LGPN I–VA) and at least 255 times in Caria, where it is attested more than 30 times at Miletos alone. Given the regional importance of the cult of Artemis at Ephesos, this is not surprising. In case her son’s name, Ἀρισταγόρας, was passed down from his mother’s side of the family, we should note that it occurs no fewer than 12 times at Miletos alone, although it, too, is widely distributed. Ἀριστεύς, the name of the father of the second Cretan wife called Ἀβάς, occurs eight times in Caria, but is also widely distributed.

Ἄρτεμις This name is attested 26 times in Asia Minor (earliest attestation iii–ii BC), including seven times in Caria (earliest attestation Hell.). Elsewhere it is attested (besides our Cretan bride) three times on Crete (i BC/i AD Lato, Imp.? Axos?, ii AD Gortyn, Imp. unknown city), six times on Cyprus, twice on Astypalaia, once as the name of a freed slave on Delos, and once each on Andros, Kasos and Paros. The earliest attestation in the Aegean is from Kasos (iv–iii BC). The name is found eight times in Attica, but each time marked in LGPN as ‘Athens?’ or ‘Athens*’ (from iv BC onwards). It is attested once in Sparta (?ii–i BC) and twice in Italy (?i AD and Imp.), once each in Tanagra (?ii–i BC), Abai in Phokis (iv–iii BC) and Larisa (Imp.), once very early in Scythia (m. vi BC Olbia-Borysthenes*) and nine times in Macedonia, never before the second century AD. The case for the Cretan bride in Miletos being Carian is therefore not overwhelming, but as mentioned already the proximity of Caria to Ephesos may make plausible a Carian origin for this relatively early instance of the name. Λέων, the name of the father of our Cretan bride, is very widely distributed, with over 500 attestations in LGPN I–VA, but it is also widely attested in Caria: over 250 times in Caria, including, from 329/8 BC onwards, 28 times at Miletos.

Ἀρτεμισία Ἀρτεμισία is a Carian dynastic name. Perhaps the best-known bearers of the name were: 1) the daugher of Lygdamis, ruler of Halikarnassos, who contributed ships to the Persian fleet at the battle of Salamis and 2) the sister and wife of King Mausolos who ruled Caria after his death (353–351 BC). The name is widely distributed in the Greek world, with 91 attestations in LGPN I–IV, but it is naturally most common in and around Caria, with 30 attestations in LGPN VA and 24 in Caria. Ἑρμίας (the father of one of the women in the first inscription) is a common name in the Greek world, with 240 attestations in LGPN I–IV, but is more common in Asia Minor, with 105 attestations in LGPN VA and 142 in Caria alone, and another 25 men named Ἑρμείας in LGPN VA and a further nine in Caria, some of whom may be named Ἑρμίας in a variant    Or eight if a doubtful reading in an inscription from Lycia (SEG XVII 742 a) indeed gives the name of a woman named Ἀβάς. In addition we have another two people from Caria named Ἀβας, whose sex is uncertain.    Adiego 2007, 340.    As Mr. R. Catling of the LGPN pointed out to me.

48

Richard Hitchman

spelling. Μηνώ, the name of the daughter of the Ἀρτεμισία referred to above, is very rare: it is also attested twice in the second inscription. The first time (Milet I (3) 38 v, 10) the name is in partially restored form Μην[ὼ..], and we know of the name of no relations. The second time (Milet I (3) 38 ff, 8), the name belongs to the daughter of a Cretan and his wife Μύστα Μενο̣[ίτα]. The name Μύστα is found in small numbers of widely distributed attestations (25 times in LGPN I–VA), including Rhodes (238 BC), Macedonia (c. 223 BC), Smyrna (m. ii BC) and Lydia (ii–i BC), also Herakleia Pontike (Imp.) and in Caria three times, earliest at Halikarnassos (iii–ii BC) and twice at Miletos, with the earlier attestation being late Hellenistic. Μενοίτας and Μενοίτης are also quite widely distributed (42 Μενοίτας and 11 Μενοίτης in LGPN I–VA). Μενοίτης is found 10 times in Caria from c. 197 BC onwards and Μενοίτας seven times from c. 267 BC onwards. The only other attestation of Μηνώ is (once) in Herakleia Pontike (m. iv BC). Herakleia Pontike was founded from Megara, possibly with Boiotian participation, and the report in Strabo (xii 3. 4) that the city was a Milesian colony is apparently unfounded. However, four minor Milesian poleis were located nearby, synoecized under the name of Amastris c. 300–290 BC. Moreover another Carian name, Ἄδα is also found in Herakleia Pontike (see below). Names with the first element Μην- are attested widely in Asia Minor: 1261 times in LGPN VA, compared with 683 in vols. I–IV.

Ἑρμησίλας This name is restored, but no other known Greek name fits the pattern of the remaining letters and spaces. The mother’s name is unknown, but her father’s name Φιλοχάρης is not otherwise attested on Crete, though it is found at Athens, and the islands of Paros, Delos and Keos. Her son’s name is also not otherwise attested on Crete, but occurs five times in the Ionic form Ἑρμησίλεως on Chios, while the name (in all its variations) is attested four times in Asia Minor. Names beginning Ἑρμησι- are, in 45 out of 60 attestations, from East Greece. It is therefore possible that his mother was a Milesian bride.

Μηνιάς This name is found once in the second inscription (Milet I (3) 38 t, 4). No names of parents or children are recorded. The name is found four times in Athens (earliest iv/iii BC, IG II2 6318) where the woman concerned was daughter of Μενεσθεύς, and wife of Ἀρτεμίδωρος, a typically Carian name (see above). Μενεσθεύς is a name found predominantly in East Greece, with at least 47 attestations in Caria, including, from 282 BC, seven at Miletos. Μηνιάς is also once listed in LGPN as ‘Athens?’ (iv/iii BC). Μηνιάς is found once in Italy in the Imperial period and we have one Hellenistic Μηνιας at Tanagra in Boiotia. In Asia Minor Μηνιάς is attested once in Bithynia (i AD), once in the Hellenistic period at Ephesos and four times in Caria (earliest ?Hell. and i BC). Therefore, like Μηνώ, just discussed, Μηνιάς seems to appear in the Cretan Miletos inscriptions possibly, but not certainly, through a Carian connexion.

 

  Hansen–Nielsen, IACP 955.   On the distribution of these names see Catling 2010, 46–8 with table.

Carian Names

and

Crete

49

Μητροδώρα Μητροδώρα is attested once each on Chios (m. i AD) and Kalymnos (ii BC), and 37 times in LGPN VA, as well as six times in Caria. Besides this (and our Cretan wife and daughter) the name is listed in LGPN I–IV once each on Delos (i BC, but with no indication of the provenance of the person concerned), at Eretria (iii BC), at Demetrias (Thessaly, c. 293–168 BC), at Amphipolis (Macedonia, i BC) and at Abdera (Thrace, ii BC). It is found once in the Cimmerian Bosporos (Pantikapaion, iv BC, CIRB 206 – Μητροδώ[ρα], listed as Μητροδώ[ρη] in LGPN). Eretria took part in the Ionian Revolt to repay the Milesians for former military assistance (Hdt. v 99). Demetrias was founded c. 290 BC by Demetrios Poliorketes and had a population from many parts of the Greek world. Abdera was re-founded by the Ionian city of Teos (Hdt. i 168). Amphipolis was a garrison town under the period of Macedonian rule and contributed troops to the forces of Alexander the Great. Pantikapaion was a Milesian colony (founded c. 600 BC). The name is also found seven times in Attica. However three of these entries in LGPN are marked ‘Athens?’, and of the other four one is daughter of Μηνόφαντος, a name overwhelmingly from the east of the Greek world, with 95 entries in LGPN VA, though none in Caria, compared with only 11 in LGPN I–IV. Moreover the Athenian woman had (besides a son also called Μηνόφαντος) another son named Ἀθηνογένης. Is it too fanciful to suppose that his name reflected the loyalty of a recently-settled immigrant family to their new city, or its patron goddess? The alternative version of the name, Ματροδώρα, is much rarer, being found once in Thrace (Byzantion, i–ii AD) and twice in LGPN VA. The name is thus largely confined to Asia Minor and neighbouring islands, or to cities with a connection with Asia Minor. The male counterpart Μητρόδωρος does occur relatively early on Crete (Gortyn, m. iii BC, and Polyrrhenia?, 283–246 BC), and the dialect form Ματρόδωρος also occurs there in the Hellenistic period (Biannos?). However, by comparison the name Μητρόδωρος appears 28 times on Chios (v–iv BC onwards) and 13 times on Samos (c. 300 BC onwards), and the distribution of the name is overwhelmingly eastern, with 590 attestations in LGPN VA compared with 325 in LGPN I–IV. The name of the father of the first Μητροδώρα listed in the Miletos inscriptions is a puzzle. Χάρις is a rare name, with only 27 attestations in LGPN I–VA and although it does appear as a male name, there are no male attestations in Asia Minor or Crete. The name Χάρις is restored. As mentioned, above, the relevant part of the inscription is a genitive name [Χ]άρι[ο]ς. Of the alternative possible names (one letter followed by -αρις) only two occur on Crete or in Asia Minor at a comparable date. Βάρις is found once on Crete (271/0 or 219–217 BC, city unknown) and Λάρις is attested once in Aiolis (Hell.).10 We might perhaps consider restoring Πάριος, a genitive of Πάρις, instead of Χάριος. Πάρις is not a common name (41 attestations in LGPN I–VA) but it is attested three times in Asia Minor (Erythrai, Ionia c. 220–170 BC (?), Idebessos, Lycia Imp., and Pergamon f. i AD) though not in Caria. Πάρις is found once on Crete (Itanos, Imp.?). Μητροδώρα is also the name of the daughter of Ἡδεῖα, another Cretan wife. As mentioned, Ἡδεῖα is a widely distributed name, including 14 attestations in Caria (of which 11 at Miletos). We may conjecture that Ἡδεῖα was Carian, and gave her daughter a name from her Carian family. Her son’s name, Παιθεμίδας, has the Doric dialect markers [ai] for koine [a:si] and [a:] for koine [ε:], and we may suppose that this name descended from the family of his Cretan father.11   Masson 1980.   Μάρις is found several times in Asia Minor, but not before the 3rd cent. AD. 11   Bile 1988, 89, 109, 130. 

10

50

Richard Hitchman

Μιννίων The name Μιννίων (father of Εἰρήνη in the first inscription) is attested 18 times in LGPN I–IV, 51 times in Caria, Ionia and Lydia.12 Apart from the man named in our Miletos inscription the name appears in LGPN I–IV once in Macedonia (s. iii BC) and 16 times in the eastern Aegean islands (Kalymnos, Kos, Rhodes and Samos, from 268 BC onwards). The name of Εἰρήνη’s daughter, Δημητρία (also the name of Νάννιον’s daughter) is attested eight times in Caria, though it is also widely distributed in the Greek world.

Νάννιον Νάννιον is attested 13 times in LGPN I–IV. Besides our Cretan wife, six attestations are in Kos, Rhodes and Samos, close to Asia Minor, and the other six in Attica. All are marked as ‘Athens?’ or ‘Athens*’ in LGPN. The name is attested eight times in Ionia and six times in Caria. It appears to be one of a series of Carian names derived from Lallnamen.13 Adiego mentions only similar names, Νανα, Νανας, Νανη, Ναννη, Ναννος and Ναννω, but Bechtel long ago, no doubt correctly, suggested a connexion between Νάννιον and Anatolian Lallnamen.14

Νικαία Νικαία Ἀττάλου is found twice in the first inscription (Milet I (3) 34 b, 10 and i, 4), referring to two different women. The name Νικαία is not common, but is widely distributed. It is found in South Italy, Dalmatia, Epiros, Illyria, Lakonia, Achaia, Argolis, Aigina, Cyprus, Delos, Euboia, Samos and Thasos and twice in Athens (once marked ‘Athens?’). In Asia Minor the name is attested in Mysia (iii/ii BC), Lycia (Hell.–Imp.), Lydia (i AD) and Bithynia (Imp.). In view of the father’s name Ἄτταλος, this distribution might be expected. Ἄτταλος is found 285 times in LGPN VA, compared with 159 in LGPN I–IV. It is a Macedonian dynastic name and is attested in Macedonia (m. iv BC onwards) and was borne by three kings of Pergamon, from 241 BC onwards. It is attested 78 times in Caria, from the third century BC onwards. Νικαία is also a Macedonian dynastic name: it was borne by the daughter of Antipater, wife first of Perdikkas, then of Lysimachos (whose treasury was at Pergamon), who gave her name to a city in Bithynia.

Στρατονίκη Στρατονίκη Ἀσκληπιάδου appears in the first inscription (Milet I (3) 34 h, 8) as the wife of a Cretan. We may note a Milesian at Athens (? i AD), who was also daughter of Ἀσκληπιάδης (IG II2 9789, 1), as was a woman from Kyzikos or Miletoupolis, c. 70 BC (SEG XLII 1098a), and another Στρατονίκη (Kolophon, ? i BC–i AD) who was mother of an Ἀσκληπιάδης (JÖAI 8 (1905) 173 no. 9). The association may be chance: both names are widely attested. If the association of names is evidence that the names alternated in a family established in the region of Miletos, they could have been introduced into Crete before the Miletos naturalizations, and this could account for their presence on the Miletos inscription. Both names are, however, so much more common in Asia Minor than the rest of the Greek world that the odds are surely on the woman   See Fabienne Marchand’s article in this volume for more detail on this name.   Adiego 2007, 340. 14   Bechtel 1902, 116. 12 13

Carian Names

and

Crete

51

in the Miletos inscription being a local wife of a Cretan soldier. Στρατονίκη is the commonest feminine name in the regions covered in LGPN VA (attested 151 times), compared with 86 in LGPN I–IV and 13 in Caria, including five (from ii BC onwards) at Miletos. Στρατονίκη is a Macedonian dynastic name, an early bearer being the daughter of Demetrios Poliorketes, wife first of Seleukos I Nikator, then of Antiochos I Soter, who probably founded the city of Stratonikeia in Caria. The father’s name, Ἀσκληπιάδης, is attested 576 times in LGPN VA compared with 662 times in LGPN I–IV. The name is attested 56 times in Caria, from 268–260 BC, including 23 times at Miletos. We thus have fifteen wives of Cretans, whose name, or whose father’s or child’s name, is confined to or frequent in Caria or in neighbouring regions, while, if all my conjectures are correct, nine out of the 21 Cretan wives whose names we know in the first inscription have names characteristic of the region. Moreover, as we have seen, there is a grouping of several in the first naturalization inscription. If this is not coincidence, what is the reason? It could be that the women are Cretanborn, and that their names are the result of earlier contacts between Caria and Crete.15 However I have found no corresponding group of Carian men’s names among their husbands. For example, the father of the Carian queen Ἄδα was named Ἑκατόμνως, and whereas the name is attested six times on Rhodes, an island with close historic ties to Caria, it does not figure at all on Crete, and certainly not in the naturalization inscriptions. The most likely explanation therefore seems to me to be that the women who feature in the Miletos naturalization inscriptions with Carian names, or who have fathers or children with Carian names, are local women married to Cretans. Of course, since some of the women already have children this suggestion would be implausible if the Cretans had all sailed from Crete, and immediately had their naturalization recorded. The circumstances of the two recruitments may have differed. Brulé implies that the second group of Cretans were recruited in Crete and sailed with their families.16 It is, however, relevant in this connexion to cite the comment of Rehm (Milet I (3) 199): “Sich nach Milet zu wenden, wurden die Leute wahrscheinlich nicht nur durch ideale Erwägungen der Stammesverwandschaft veranlaßt; ich vermute, die Leute kamen gar nicht als Auswanderer, sondern sie befanden sich bereits in oder bei Milet und wollten nur nicht nach Kreta zurückkehren: es läßt sich nämlich wahrscheinlich machen, daß sie als Söldner im Dienste der Stadt standen (deshalb wurde n. 33c, 3 μισθοῦ ergänzt). Daß wenigstens die zuerst aufgenommenen Kreter bereits eine Zeitlang mit den Milesiern Verkehr hatten, geht hervor aus den Rechtshändeln, die n. 33c erwähnt werden.” (This reference is to an amnesty in respect of previous legal disputes specified in the first inscription.)

If this is correct, it is plausible that some Cretans could have married locally and founded families before their naturalization, at least those named in the first inscription. There is no firm evidence that I know of to show whether the Cretans and their families named in the second inscription were recruited in Asia Minor, on Crete or elsewhere. If they were recruited in Asia Minor, the Carian women’s names might be evidence for marriage between the Cretans and local women; 15   We are told of the Milesians’ οἰκειότης καὶ συγγένεια towards the Cretans in the second inscription (Milet I (3) 37 a, 1–2) and, if correctly restored, in the first inscription (Milet I (3) 33 b, 3). One example of earlier connections is the parentage of the Artemisia, referred to above, who was an ally of Xerxes. We are told that she was Cretan on her mother’s side (Hdt. vii 99). See also the description of alliances between Miletos and Cretan cities earlier in the 3rd cent. BC in Dr. Sekunda’s appendix to this article. 16   Brulé 1978, 168.

52

Richard Hitchman

if they were recruited on Crete, the Carian women’s names in the second inscription presumably belonged either to women born on Crete who owed their names to earlier contacts between Crete and Caria, or to women who were married in earlier campaigns in Asia Minor, accompanied their husbands to Crete and sailed from Crete to Miletos with their husbands. A possible objection is that, as Chaniotis has pointed out,17 the Cretans who emigrated to Miletos would have been reluctant to marry outside their home cities if to do so would have compromised the legitimacy of the marriage and consequently of any children, if they returned to their home city, as many no doubt hoped to. According to Chaniotis:18 “In many Hellenistic cities (e.g. on Crete) a marriage was only legitimate if husband and wife were both citizens, or if there was an appropriate interstate agreement (epigamia) in place”.

The Milesian Cretan men could, as Chaniotis mentions, have hoped to marry the daughters of Cretan fellow-emigrants. However, Brulé,19 to whom Chaniotis refers, believes that the relative numbers of girls to boys in the naturalization inscriptions constitute evidence of selective female infanticide on the part of the Cretan emigrants. If he is right, there was presumably a dearth of Cretan emigrant girls to marry, and the hypothesis of marriages between Cretans and Carian women is more plausible. Moreover, my conjecture that some of the Cretan brides were Carian women could still be correct if at least one of the following was the case: 1 Ogden,20 to whom Chaniotis refers, is right in thinking that a Greek in Hellenistic times could transmit his citizenship to his sons even if he married a foreign woman and even if there was no treaty of ‘epigamy’ between his city and that of the woman. 2 Even if Ogden is wrong, there were such treaties between the relevant Cretan cities and Miletos, even though no such treaty figures in the list of those known to us drawn up by Christophilopoulos, to whom Ogden refers.21 3 Even if neither 1) nor 2) is correct, the Cretan men involved attached more importance to the consolations of marriage than to the disadvantages that their children would suffer if the families one day returned to Crete.

Many Cretan wives’ names show Cretan dialect features, e.g. [a:] not [ε:] in Ἁδεῖα, (Milet I (3) 34 a, 3). However Μητροδώρα, a Greek (as opposed to Carian) woman’s name in the list of distinctive women’s names that I believe to be of local origin, has the koine dialect marker [ε:] instead of Cretan [a:]. It is tempting to take women’s names with non-Cretan dialect markers as evidence for the non-Cretan origin of the women concerned. If such tests were infallible shibboleths, we should expect to find names of Cretan men and their fathers in Cretan dialect, and koine markers in the names of the fathers of women with koine names and of some of their children, those whom we might believe to have names taken from their mothers’ families. This is indeed broadly the case, but there are too many exceptions for it to be a safe guide: in general the names of the Cretan heads of families and their fathers are in Cretan dialect – e.g. Εὐγενίδας Τέλω[νος] (Milet I (3) 34 i, 10) and Διοκλῆς Δαμονόμου (Milet I (3) 34 b, 8), but not invariably. For example we have Φιλέταιρος Δημαινέτου (Milet I (3) 34 a, 2) and Πόριμνος Ἀριστοδήμο[υ] (Milet I (3) 38 m, 2). It is possible that names in Cretan dialect were converted   Chaniotis 2005, 104 ff.   Chaniotis 2005, 104. 19   Brulé 1990, 243. 20   Ogden 1996, 291–3. 21   Christophilopoulos 1973, 71–3. 17 18

Carian Names

and

Crete

53

into koine either by the person reporting or recording the name for entry into the naturalization records. This would explain the occasional variation in dialect use. In any case the inconsistencies that I have mentioned show that the name of a wife in non-Cretan dialect is not a safe test for the non-Cretan origin of the woman.

Carian names on Crete We know that some of the Cretans who had emigrated to Miletos tried to return to Crete in about 200 BC, but that their attempts were rebuffed, at least in the case of men from Gortyn, Knossos, and possibly Kantana and Eleutherna, and, according to Launey, “après ce refus, qu’imitèrent sans aucun doute les autres cités, on ne sait quel fut le destin des malheureux Crétois de Milet”.22 We should not perhaps expect extensive evidence of returning Cretans in the form of new Carian names introduced into Cretan families through intermarriage at Miletos, but while there may well be more work to be done in investigating this question, for the present I suggest below evidence of at least a number of people on Crete with typically Carian names in the period soon after the unsuccessful attempt of some Milesian Cretans to return to Crete. It may be that other contacts with Caria than the emigration of which we happen to know were responsible for the presence of these names. However, the presence of Carian names on Crete that are certainly or possibly dated to the years after 200 BC may constitute circumstantial evidence that some Milesian Cretans did return to Crete. Again, I shall examine each name in turn.

Ἄδα LGPN I lists two women on Crete named Ἄδα, respectively from the Hellenistic period (Gortyn) and the later second century BC (Olous). The name is Carian and the most famous holder was the daughter (who herself ruled from 344/3 BC onwards) of the Carian dynast Ἑκατόμνως. This name is another of those apparently derived from Lallnamen.23 There is a preliminary question to be resolved. The LGPN entry for the first Cretan is followed by the comment ‘Ἄδας?’. Can we be sure that these two people are in fact women called Ἄδα and not men called Ἄδας? The first Cretan figures in an inscription (SEG XXIII 598) that reads: --| Ἄδα Χ̣------ ὑιός. Is Ἄδα the nominative or vocative of Ἄδα or instead the genitive of Ἄδας? The second person appears in an inscription (IC I 258 no. 18) that reads: Ἄδα Ἐξακέστα ἀνένκλητε χαῖρε Is the ambiguous vocative of the two-termination compound adjective masculine or feminine? Neither Ἄδα nor Ἄδας is of Greek origin, but each name could be given a Greek declension when used in a Greek context, although it is not clear that it always was (see note 24). Ἄδα would most naturally be assigned to the Greek first declension. We must see whether the evidence for the use of Ἄδας in other texts tells us whether the two Cretan references are to men or women. 22 23

  Launey 1949–50, 663–4.   Adiego 2007, 340.

54

Richard Hitchman

Apart from the possible Cretan instances, we know of four, or perhaps five men with the name Ἄδας, all from the Cimmerian Bosporos (modern eastern Crimea).24 The name of one Ἄδας (Nymphaion, f. iii BC, SEG XXXIX 701.2 and 701.5) is attested in the nominative. The names of the other three (Pantikapaion, dated respectively i AD, s. ii AD and 343 or 353 AD; CIRB 373, 688 and 744, 2) are in the genitive and the forms are: [Ἄ]δατος, Ἄδατος and Ἄδα. The first two point to a third declension consonant inflexion (though not standard Attic for masculine nouns), and the vocative ought presumably to be Ἄδας. If the vocative of the masculine name was always Ἄδας, then the Cretan vocative Ἄδα ἀνένκλητε must be feminine. Ἄδα in the first Cretan text could be a genitive masculine first declension in Cretan dialect.25 The genitive Ἄδα from Pantikapaion also occurs in the phrase Στοράνη γυνὴ Ἄδα Πάππου. If Πάππου is the genitive of Πάππος, the genitive Ἄδα ought to be *Ἄδου if it could be integrated into Greek as a first declension a-stem masculine, but first declension personal names in -ας started to form a genitive in -α well before the relevant date.26 We also have another name from Pantikapaion: Ἄδα Ἡλιοδώρου in the vocative (ii AD, CIRB 650). LGPN takes the name to be feminine, but in CIRB it is translated (in Russian) as “Ad (or Ada) son (or daughter) of Heliodorus”, and on this interpretation could be a first declension masculine vocative. These last two texts seem at least compatible with Cretan first declension masculine vocative and genitive forms Ἄδα. The linguistic evidence is therefore inconclusive. We may, however, note from the distribution of the names that (pace LGPN) no certain feminine forms are found in the Cimmerian Bosporos, and no certain masculine forms are found elsewhere. On the balance of probability it seems to me that both Cretan forms are feminine. If this is correct, the Cretans are among the few bearers of the name who are not known to be from Caria or its neighbours. Apart from our two Cretans (and the possible daughter of Heliodoros just referred to), women named Ἄδα fall into three categories: 1) those from or associated with Caria and its colonies or areas neighbouring these regions 2) those of unknown provenance, and 3) those from elsewhere. 1) We know of 12 women from Caria (iv BC onwards) and one woman each from:

Herakleia Pontike (iv BC) – close to Milesian colonies (see under Ἀρτεμισία above) Sinope (v–iv BC) – a Milesian foundation (probably late vii BC) Apollonia Pontike (Thrace, v/iv BC), founded by Milesians c. 610 BC Ephesos (ii–iii AD) Mytilene (Imp.) Samos (i/ii AD) Zone (Thrace, f. iv BC). Zone was in the Samothracian peraia and Samothrace was settled by Samians.

24   I wonder whether the genitive names Φλαβίας Ἄδα (Samos i/ii AD, IG XII (6) 333 and Ephesos ii–iii AD, CIG II 3007 = IEph 2260 A) could mean “of Flavia daughter of Adas” rather than “of Flavia Ada”, especially as first declension personal names in -ας started to form a genitive in -α before the date of the inscriptions (Horrocks 1997, 217–18); but the common opinion is that in both texts Ἄδα is a feminine genitive. If so, the name is not being treated as a Greek first declension word. 25   Bile 1988, 189. 26   Horrocks 1997, 217–18.

Carian Names

and

Crete

55

We have the following women recorded at Athens:

one (iv BC, IG II2 9738) is the wife of a Milesian the other (m. iv BC, IG II2 10575a + SEMA 1423) appears on the same funerary monument with a man from Sigeion in the Troad, founded from Mytilene.

2) Two women are listed as possibly Athenian (marked ‘Athens?’ in LGPN, respectively m. iv BC and c. 350 BC). Another is listed as attested at Athens (marked ‘Athens*’ in LGPN, iv BC). Yet another is a freedwoman from Thrace (Mesambria, iv BC), and a former slave might have originated from anywhere. I am not sure (as mentioned) that Ἄδα Ἡλιοδώρου, the person from the Cimmerian Bosporos referred to above, does not refer to a man called Ἄδας. 3) We have one woman from Oropos in Boiotia opposite Eretria (?204 BC) and one from Demetrias in Thessaly (c. 293–168 BC), where we also found a woman named Μητροδώρα (see above). As noted above, Demetrias was founded by Demetrios Poliorketes, whose daughter’s name Στρατονίκη we have already encountered. We do not of course know for certain the origin of either woman. They may not have been natives of their cities of residence. To sum up, if we exclude the Cretan brides, 21 of the women called Ἄδα are women from, or associated with Caria or its neighbouring areas and their colonies. The origin of four is unknown and it is unclear whether Ἄδα Ἡλιοδώρου refers to a man or woman. Only two appear certainly to lack an origin in or association with Caria and its neighbours (the women from Oropos and Demetrias). The presence of two women with the name Ἄδα on Crete is therefore distinctly unusual. It is not that the prestige of a dynastic name has spread it far and wide, as, say, the name of Alexander was spread. Can we account for it? It is tempting to guess that at least the Cretan woman dated to the later second century BC (Olous, IC I 258 no. 18) is connected in some way with the mass migrations to Miletos, especially as Ἐξακέστας, her father’s name, was also borne by one man who features in the inscription recording the first naturalization (Milet I (3) 34 h, 10). We know of seven Cretans with this name. We do not know the provenance of the man mentioned in the Miletos inscription. All the others come from Central Crete, and their dates range from the third century BC to the Imperial period (one in 195 AD). We might conjecture that the man recorded at Miletos, or a son or grandson with the same name, did return to Crete, perhaps with a wife or daughter called Ἄδα.

Ἄρτεμις As noted above, the name is attested on Crete three times: i BC/i AD Lato, Imp.? Axos?, ii AD Gortyn, unknown city, Imp. (Λαρκία Ἄρτεμεις).

Ἀρτεμισία We know of an Ἀρτεμισία recorded on Crete (Arbion, Central Crete, i/ii AD). This is the only other attestation of the name, besides those in the Miletos inscriptions, connected with Crete. Her father’s name is Ἐπαφρόδειτος, a name too widely distributed to tell us much (Ἐπαφρόδιτος has at least 26 entries in each of LGPN I–VA), and is not represented in the Miletos inscriptions (in any spelling) while the date is rather late to demonstrate a connexion with a returning Cretan.

56

Richard Hitchman

Νικαία This name is found only once later on Crete (Rhithymna, i AD). The woman concerned was mother of Σολπικία. Ἄτταλος, the name of the father of the Milesian bride, is found twice later on Crete (Chersonesos, i BC/i AD and Olous i/ii AD). There are also four men’s names whose distribution and date on Crete may give evidence that some Milesian emigrants or their descendants returned to Crete.

Ἄδραστος We know of three Cretans with this name, all from west Crete (Polyrrhenia iii/ii BC and ii BC) and Elyros (?ii AD). The name is extraordinarily common in Caria (98 attestations from 345 BC onwards) and neighbouring regions (16 listed in LGPN VA) compared with only 26 other attestations in LGPN I–IV, besides the Cretans.27

Ἀρτεμίδωρος We have an Ἀρτεμίδωρος in Itanos (iii–ii BC). It will be recalled that Ἀρτεμίδωρος was the name of the father of the woman named Ἀβάς in the first Miletos inscription, and that Ἀρτεμίδωρος is a name characteristic of the area surrounding Ephesos, including Caria. He had a daughter named Ῥόδα. This name (together with its koine counterpart Ῥόδη) is attested six times in Caria and a total of six times in Bithynia, Ionia, Lycia, Mysia and Lydia, compared with 37 times in LGPN I–IV (of which six in Attica marked ‘Athens?’ or ‘Athens*’). Ἀρτεμίδωρος (Axos, ? Imp.) had a daughter named Ῥαδώ, a name not found elsewhere. Yet another Ἀρτεμίδωρος is attested at Lyttos (later Roman period).28

Ἑρμασίων and Κράσιος A gravestone at Demetrias in Thessaly commemorates Ἑρμασίων Κρασίου, a Cretan from Dreros.29 Because Demetrias was a Macedonian garrison from the time of its foundation in 293 to the end of the kingdom in 168 BC, it may be safely assumed that he was a soldier. In LGPN the father’s name is given as Κρασίας, but this name is not otherwise attested, whereas Κράσιος occurs twice at Miletos: first (Milet VI (1) 249, 3 and 5) as the name of a man with an adult son, around 100 BC, and second (Milet VI (2) 422, 3) as the father-in-law of Antigonos, admiral of Alexander Balas, king of Syria who ruled from 150–145 BC. The name was therefore current at Miletos in the second century BC. Ἑρμασίων (also known in the forms Ἑρμησίων and Ἑρμασίουν) is a rare name, not otherwise attested on Crete or in the Aegean, but found twice in Asia Minor. Names beginning Ἑρμασι- or Ἑρμησι- (see above under Ἑρμησίλας) are found predominantly in East Greece. It seems likely therefore that our Ἑρμασίων owed his name to contacts with Caria. We know that some of the Cretans named in the first Miletos naturalization inscription came from Dreros. Our man may have been a descendant of a Cretan who married a Carian woman, and is perhaps to be dated to   See the article by R. van Bremen in this volume.   SEG XXXIV 92 & XXXIX 976. 29   Kougeas 1945–47, 108 no. 50. 27 28

Carian Names

and

Crete

57

the period during or soon after which some Milesian Cretans tried to return to Crete. However, if so, because he is attested in Thessaly rather than in Crete, it may be that neither he nor his family did actually return, but preserved their ethnic affiliation in exile.

Ἰατροκλῆς We have three attestations certainly or possibly from Olous in Central Crete (?ii BC, ii/i BC and hell?) and one or two30 from Polyrrhenia in western Crete (? ii BC). The name was extremely popular in Caria (at least 158 attestations, including several in the first half of the fourth century BC) and northern Ionia (15 in LGPN VA compared with only 66 in I–IV (including one Ἰατροκλεῖς).31

Πολίτης We know of three Cretans with this name (in various spellings): Πολίτας (Itanos, East Crete, ii/i BC, father of Ἐξάκων), Πολίτης (Lyttos, Central Crete, c. 150–200 AD)32 and Πολείτης (Lyttos, ? ii AD, son of Πίστος). Πολίτης is attested six times in the area covered by LGPN VA and at least 49 times in Caria (c. 267 BC onwards) and Ionia, compared with 55 men named Πολίτης and Πολίτας in LGPN I–IV. Ἐξάκων, the son of Πολίτας, shared a name with six men from the second Cretan naturalization, but the only one whose city we know was from Rhithymna, in western Crete. We know of seven others, three from Central, three from eastern and one from western Crete (fourteen Cretans in all). Only one other Cretan Πίστος is known (Gortyn ii BC). Ἐξάκων is a name primarily attested on Crete, while Πίστος is very widely distributed. Neither therefore suggests a Carian connection. It is of course possible that the names that are frequent in Caria but are derived from the Greek rather than the Carian language were popularized in Asia Minor by Cretan immigrants. However I regard this as unlikely in the cases cited, either because the names are derived from the name of Artemis, whose cult had its main centre at Ephesos, or were dynastic names in Asia Minor, or because of the predominance of numbers and relatively early attestations in and around Caria. In the case of Ἑρμασίων son of Κράσιος we know that the family came from Dreros, one of the places of origin of the men named in the first Miletos naturalization inscription, but I doubt that we can tell when the family left Crete, or how likely they are to be candidates for families returning from exile in Miletos to Crete. One of the women named Ἄδα (Hell.) came from Gortyn, which, as noted, refused, at least at first, to receive back Milesian emigrants; but if the woman concerned is to be dated towards the end of the Hellenistic period, the location of the name at Gortyn could have been the result of internal emigration on Crete long after the abortive efforts of Milesian Cretans to return to Crete. If we consider the other cities on Crete where names are attested that may have a Carian connexion, Arbion, Chersonesos, Itanos, Olous and Polyrrhenia do not figure in the list of Cretan cities appearing on the Miletos inscriptions, but Brulé (see above) deduced from onomastic evidence that Olous and Kydonia (near Polyrrhenia) 30   If the Ἰατροκλῆς who appears in IC II 264 no. 52 is not, as the editor Guarducci thought probable, the same person as the man mentioned in IC II 256 no. 27. 31   See F. Marchand’s article in this volume for more detail on this name. 32   See SEG XL 776.

58

Richard Hitchman

had supplied emigrants whose ethnics were not preserved. Axos, Lyttos and Rhithymna do, but names with a possible Carian connexion are attested there only relatively late (and not certainly in the case of Axos). However, if we list the names and cities of the people with names typical of Caria and surroundings who are attested relatively early we have: Ἄδα Olous s. ii BC and Gortyn Hell. Ἄδραστος Polyrrhenia iii/ii BC and ii BC Ἀρτεμίδωρος Itanos iii–ii BC Ἰατροκλῆς Olous ?ii BC, ii/i BC, hell.? , Polyrrhenia ? m. ii BC (one or two men) Πολίτης Itanos, ii/i BC Besides Gortyn (not attested before Hell.?), only three cities figure in the list, Itanos, Olous and Polyrrhenia, and each has two names attested. Could these cities have been more willing than others to receive back Milesian emigrants?

Conclusion I have presented evidence that some of the women named on the Miletos inscriptons were local Carian women, and that some Carian names on Crete may be linked to Milesian emigrants who returned to Crete. The Miletos inscriptions were published nearly a hundred years ago, and the last volume of Inscriptiones Creticae appeared in 1950, but it is only by considering the distribution of names from the whole of the Greek world that scholars can undertake the kind of investigation that I have presented here; and this is possible only now, with the compilation of LGPN, to which Elaine Matthews has made such a distinguished contribution.

Carian Names

and

Crete

59

Appendix The Historical Background to the Milesian Grants of Citizenship to Cretans in 234/3 and 229/8 BC

N. V. Sekunda In the Hellenistic period Cretans were greatly in demand as mercenaries because of their skill as archers. Companies of mercenaries, Cretans and non-Cretans alike, were recruited in two different ways.33 Some Hellenistic states, especially the Hellenistic kingdoms, retained companies of Cretan mercenaries recruited on a permanent basis by individual contract. A company such as this would be raised by a recruitment drive (xenologia) in those cities in Crete which had granted the recruiting state permission to operate on their territory, carried out by mercenary recruitment officers (xenologoi) sent out by the recruiting state. These troops would be clothed, equipped and paid by the state which had recruited them, and comprised an integral element of the foreign army. A mercenary company of this type might best be described as a ‘retained company’. Strabo (x 4.10; xii 3. 33) tells us that his great-great-grandfather Dorylaos was sent to Crete to recruit mercenaries in this way for the army of Mithridates VI Eupator. Alternatively a company of Cretan mercenaries might enter the service of a Hellenistic state by virtue of a treaty of alliance (symmachia) stipulating that on the outbreak of hostilities, one side had to send military aid to another. Although such a company would be paid by the hiring state, it would remain part of the armed forces of the sending state, detached for allied service. This second type of force might best be described as a ‘symmachic contingent’. The Cretans who applied for citizenship at Miletos, who are generally presumed to be mercenaries, must belong to one or other of these types of company. We are dealing with a single group of inscriptions (Milet I (3) 33 ff.), but which deal with two separate applications for citizenship. Both inscriptions are dated by the names of the annual eponymous Milesian stephanephoroi, whose sequence has been re-dated by Wörrle.34 The first request for citizenship (33) is now dated to 234/3. It is clear from a section of this inscription (33 f, 8) that the Cretan males all come from Dreros and Milatos. The next inscription (34) lists those individuals and their families granted citizenship as a result of the first request. The list is estimated to have originally contained more than 200 names.35 It is evident that this first company of Cretans who applied for Milesian citizenship, being exclusively Drerians and Milatians, belonged to a symmachic contingent, sent to aid one of the Hellenistic states in Asia Minor in time of war. One of the few things we know for certain about the internal history of Crete in the third century BC, is that the city of Lyttos was aggressively expanding its territory at the expense of its smaller neighbours. This resulted in the so-called ‘War of Lyttos’, described by Polybios (iv   Sekunda 2007, 344.   Wörrle 1988, 437, 444 n. 86. 35   Brulé 1978, 168. 33 34

60

N. V. Sekunda

53. 3–55. 6), which seems to have broken out in 221 BC or shortly before. The ‘War of Lyttos’ seems to be just one phase in a series of wars fought during the third century between Lyttos and its neighbours. At an unknown date in the third century, possibly shortly after 259 BC,36 Miletos, threatened by the activities of Cretan pirates, concluded three separate treaties, with Knossos, Gortyn and Phaistos, to prevent the purchase of Milesian citizens and slaves (Milet I (3) 140; trans. Austen 1981, no. 89). A separate list of other Cretan states who had taken a similar decision is appended to each decree, and it is safe to conclude that these three lists represent a part of the network of alliances in place in Crete in the middle of the third century BC. Some 19 states are in alliance with Knossos. Milatos and Dreros are both mentioned, as well as the neighbouring cities of Lato and Olous, all four overlooking the Bay of Mirabello. These four states, despite any local differences they may have had with each other, presumably relied on the protection of the Knossian alliance to prevent their annexation by Lyttos. Another inscription found at Dreros preserves an oath sworn by the ephebes (agelai) of Dreros to be friendly towards Dreros and Knossos, and to do whatever harm they could towards the Lyttians (IC I 84–6 no. 1; trans. Austen 1981, no. 91). This inscription need not be directly connected with the outbreak of the War of Lyttos, as it frequently is: it could be significantly earlier, and could date to any time after Dreros initially decided to enter into an alliance with the Knossians. Nor need the inscription necessarily record an emergency measure, and the fact that it contains a provision that the oath is to be repeated annually as each group of agelai enter manhood and citizenship argues against this interpretation. In fact, the best chronological point to place this inscription would be in the year Dreros first entered into an alliance with Knossos, which is unknown, but which must precede the treaty Knossos made with Miletos (at top). The oath does not provide us with a firm terminus post quem for Drerian loss of independence, but it does, however, underline the threat from Lyttos perceived by the ruling element of the city. On the other hand, the fact the agelai were forced to share an oath of loyalty, indicates that perhaps there was divided opinion among the Drerians about the alliance. However, this point cannot be pushed too much, for most Greek states obliged their citizens to swear oaths of loyalty. The second application by a group of Cretans for Milesian citizenship (36) has been dated to 229/8 BC, and concerns a second group of men. In the second list of Cretans (38), the ethnics, only sporadically preserved, are much more diverse, and they mention men of Arkades, Dreros, Eleutherna, Gortyn, Hierapytna, Hyrtakina, Knossos, Lappa, Lyttos, Axos, Phaistos, Priansos, Rhaukos, Rhithymna and possibly also Kydonia, Lato, Elyros, Olous, Herakleion and Malla. In the three treaties Miletos concluded with three groups of Cretan states the allies of the Knossians listed at the end of the treaty are (apart from the Milatians, Olountians, Drerians and Latians already mentioned) the Tylissians, Rhaukians, Chersonesians, Eltynians, Herakleotes, Priansians, Apolloniates, Petraians, Itanians, Praisians, Istronians, Eleuthernaians, Axians, Kydoniates and Phalasarnians. The allies of the Gortynians are listed as being the Lyttians, Arkadians, Ariaioi and Hyrtaioi, and the allies of the Phaistians are listed as being the Matalans and Polyrrhenians. Thus the second group of Cretans settled at Myous included citizens of Hierapytna, Hyrtakina, Lappa, Rhithymna, Elyros, Herakleion and Malla, which were all states lying outside the three alliance systems named in the Milesian inscription, including the 36

  Van Effenterre 1948, 250.

Carian Names

and

Crete

61

Knossian alliance. More significantly it also included citizens of Gortyn, Lyttos and Phaistos, who were from states actually opposed to the Knossian alliance. The two applications were, therefore, made by two separate groups of mercenaries. It is evident that the second group of Cretans belonged to a ‘retained company’, presumably in the service of the same state as the company of Milatian and Drerian symmachoi. It is to be noted that the majority of ethnics recorded in the second inscription belong to states in the Knossian alliance. It has been suggested that both groups of mercenaries had been contracted by the city of Miletos for a war against Magnesia, and that their settlement on the new border at Myous was an attempt to protect fresh conquests of Miletos from the Magnesians from whom these lands had been taken.37 It has also been suggested that the Cretans migrated directly to Miletos together with their families.38 These two historical explanations are both possible, but they do not explain why the first enfranchisement and settlement was made at the request of the Cretans themselves. If the Cretans had been recruited at the beginning to be settled on the border, why did they have to initiate the procedure? Also, this explanation does not take into account that we are dealing with two separate actions, separated by five years. Finally, even a city as wealthy as Miletos probably did not have the means to pay for a force of mercenaries for any extended period of time. This is why treaties of alliance providing for the dispatch of a symmachic contingent drawn up between Cretan cities and foreign powers in this period are nearly always with the wealthy and powerful Hellenistic monarchs. I consider it much more probable that the mercenary company of Drerians and Milatians initially travelled to Asia Minor by virtue of an alliance (symmachia) with a Hellenistic monarch, and that this happened some time prior to their Milesian enfranchisement and settlement at Myous in 234/3 BC. Some of the troops took their wives and families with them, if already married. The preceding article has demonstrated that some of these Cretans (a reasonable percentage) have acquired wives with Carian names, and have even had children by them. It is possible that they had already taken Carian wives (perhaps in a previous campaign in Asia Minor in which they had taken part), but it is perhaps more reasonable to think that, as young unmarried men, perhaps upon hearing of the fall of their city, they decided to take local wives when stationed in Caria, only very shortly before they applied for citizenship at Miletos. None of the children listed from marriages with Carian women are grown up. It has also been suggested that the Drerians and Milatians may have crossed over to Asia in the service of Antigonos Doson in the course of his little-known Carian Campaign (Plb. xx 5. 11). This monarch had considerable political connections with Crete; for example a symmachic treaty between Doson and Eleutherna has been preserved in an inscription (IC II 158–61 no. 20), and this has encouraged some historians to consider him the most suitable candidate. If, however, the date of this expedition was 227 BC,39 then it falls too late chronologically for either of the Cretan requests for enfranchisement and settlement at Miletos. Perhaps, however, the so-called ‘War of the Brothers’ and the wars of the ensuing period of anarchy (c. 239–228 BC), which involved Antiochos Hierax, Seleukos II and Attalos I, may have been the occasion on which one of the participants in the struggle called for help from   Brulé 1978, 165 n. 2, 166.   Chaniotis 2005, 105. 39   Walbank III 70–1. 37 38

62

N. V. Sekunda

his Cretan symmachoi.40 Although the historical details are scant and difficult to interpret, it seems that Hierax was finally expelled from Asia Minor by Attalos, following a decisive battle in the summer of 228 on the Harpasos, a tributary of the Maeander, leaving Attalos in control of most of western Asia Minor.41 Even before the end of the war Miletos, though politically independent, lay within the political sphere of Attalos, and it was perhaps Attalos’ influence which made the first application for Milesian citizenship possible. This does not necessarily mean, of course, that the Cretans had originally been under his command. They could have reverted to his command following the defeat of their original employer in the ‘War of the Brothers’. Is it possible to decide which one of the three monarchs involved in the war may most plausibly be regarded as the original employer of the Drerians and Milatians? A remarkable inscription from Lyttos (IC I 186 no. 8) records that in April 249 the Lyttians and their allies renewed the friendship and symmachy that had existed with Antiochos II and his father. We know nothing of any earlier relations between Lyttos and the Seleucids. The treaty is also supposedly valid for the descendants of Antiochos as well as Antiochos himself. This is little more than a diplomatic politesse, but the Lyttians and their allies may, in fact, have dispatched forces to help one of the Seleucid monarchs in the ‘War of the Brothers’. Given that the Lyttians and their allies were in alliance with the Seleucids, it would have been no more than common Cretan practice for the Knossians and their allies, including Dreros and Milatos, to have been in alliance with the local rivals of the Seleucids, the Attalids. This alliance may have been one of long standing. It is probably of considerable significance that two of the wives of the mercenaries in the first contingent are called Νικαία Ἀττάλου, both daughters of two separate individuals called Attalos (34 b, 10 and 34 i, 4). The name Attalos is otherwise attested only once in Crete, at Chersonasos, in an inscription (IC I 39 no. 12) dating to the end of the first century BC or the beginning of the first century AD, and so hardly relevant to the present discussion. It seems more probable that the two women called Nikaia were daughters of men born within the bounds of the newly-formed Attalid state a generation earlier, and who had been given a name in use in the royal family. Another of the mercenaries (34 a, 2) is called Philetairos, an Attalid name which is otherwise completely unattested for a Cretan, except for the name of a Cretan officer mentioned by Polyaenus (iv 17) as serving with Antiochos Hierax during the ‘War of the Brothers’! I suggest that both Milatos and Dreros lost their independence, due to Lyttian expansion, at some point between 239 and 234/3, while their young men in the symmachic contingent sent to Attalos were still serving in Asia. Whilst on service in Caria, some of the young unmarried Drerians and Milatians may have married Carian women. This may especially have taken place after news of the disaster which had overwhelmed their homelands reached them. Meanwhile the mercenaries of the other allied states serving in the symmachic contingent went home. These perhaps included soldiers from Olous and Lato. The soldiers of Dreros and Milatos, however, had no patris to which they could be repatriated. Needless to say, this suggestion is speculative, and it could be that the Milatians and Drerians decided not to return to their cities for other reasons. It has been argued that an inscription preserving the restored ethnic Μ]ι̣λάτι[οι dates to c. 206 BC (IMM 21), in which case the life of Milatos at least continued 40 41

  Launey 1949–50, 661.   Hansen 1971, 34–5; cf. Bevan 1902, 202.

Carian Names

and

Crete

63

after 234/3, but this is uncertain. Given the large numbers of settlers involved, the loss of independence of the two cities seems to be the best explanation available. The destruction of Milatos is mentioned by Strabo (x 4. 14), who tells us that the cities of Milatos and Lykastos no longer exist, and their territory was taken by the Lyttians and the Knossians (presumably respectively), but with no firm indication of date. We know that the territory of Lykastos was occupied by the Knossians at some time well before 184 BC, for in this year the Gortynians attempted to transfer the ‘Lykastion’ from the Knossians to the Rhaukians (Plb. xxii 15. 1; Walbank III 201). We have no information at all as to the date and circumstances of the Drerian loss of independence. Neither city, however, is listed in the treaty which Eumenes II made with the 31 cities of the Cretan koinon which had still managed to maintain their independence in 183 (IC IV 251 no. 179 with the corrections of Dunst42), so their loss of independence can presumably be placed before this date. The fact that, in the burgeoning industry of early Hellenistic pseudo-etymological myth creation, a tradition had arisen that Ionian Miletos had been founded from Cretan Milatos (e.g. Paus. x 30. 2; Str. xii 8. 5, xiv 1. 6), may have encouraged the Milatians, and the Drerians dependent upon them, to have dared to hope for this grant of citizenship and land, but it is quite possible that Attalos, the dominant power in the area, played an unrecorded part in the proceedings. Once this first group had settled and prospered, five years later a second group of Cretan former soldiers, also displaced by the political upheavals in Crete, which preceded or accompanied the outbreak of the War of Lyttos, appealed to Miletos to be settled alongside the Drerians and Milatians. These latter mercenaries presumably belonged to a ‘retained’ company of Cretan mercenaries in Attalid service. They may have been recruited on Crete specifically for the ‘War of the Brothers’, or might have been recruited into Attalid service considerably earlier. The second application for Milesian citizenship comes in 229/8 BC, either coinciding with or coming shortly before the final battle of the ‘War of the Brothers’ in the summer of 228. It could be argued that the application for citizenship came immediately after the end of hostilities, upon which the mercenaries’ employer Attalos wished to demobilize the company of mercenaries, and cease paying wages as quickly as possible. The diverse ethnic origin of this second group of Cretans has already been noted, as well as the fact that they belong to Cretan poleis both inside and outside the Knossian alliance. The unstable politics of Crete in the middle of the third century BC resulted in internal wars in several of the Cretan poleis. We hear of groups of young citizens (neoi) in open warfare with the political establishment. For example, Polybios (iv 53. 7) tells us that shortly after the Cretan settlements at Miletos, the citizens of Gortyn were in a state of civil war, with the older ones supporting Knossos, and the younger citizens Lyttos. As a result of these internecine conflicts many young men may have found themselves expelled from the polity of their own state, living in exile and poverty in foreign states still in conflict with their mother polis. Such young men may have regarded mercenary service with the Attalids in Asia Minor as a convenient path out of their current difficulties. In the winter of 201/200 Philip V, then campaigning in Caria, gave Myous to Magnesia. From a series of inscriptions, first re-assembled in order by Deiters,43 we know that Magnesia subsequently offered to arbitrate in the internal war then going on afresh in Crete, on condition 42 43

  Dunst 1956, 305–11.   Deiters 1904.

64

N. V. Sekunda

that Gortyn and Knossos took back their exiles or asked other cities to do so, but their requests to take back persons ‘who had fought against their mother-land’ were refused. This confirms that many among the Cretan mercenaries who applied for Milesian citizenship may have been mercenaries recruited from among political exiles. Myous lay in ‘no-man’s land’ between Miletos and Magnesia. This is why many modern historians have proposed that the Cretans were settled at Myous to defend it for Miletos against Magnesia. But when Philip V re-allocated Myous to Magnesia in 201/200, the Magnesians did not murder, dispossess, or expel the Cretans settled there: there is no evidence that the Magnesians viewed the Cretans in any hostile way. Rather, they used all their diplomatic skills to attempt to repatriate them. The fact that Myous lay, as I propose, in unoccupied land: in a sort of ‘no-man’s land’, which had not yet been divided up into kleroi and allocated to citizens of either Miletos or Magnesia, may be another factor which may have prompted the initial request of the Drerians and Milatians to be allowed to settle there.

References Adiego, I.-J. (2007) The Carian Language. Leiden. Austen, M. M. (1981) The Hellenistic world from Alexander to the Roman conquest. Cambridge. Bechtel, F. (1902) Die attischen Frauennamen nach ihrem Systeme dargestellt. Göttingen. Bevan, E. R. (1902) The House of Seleucus. 2 vols. London; repr. 1966.

Bile, M. (1988) Le dialecte crétois ancien. Étude de la langue des inscriptions, recueil des inscriptions postérieures aux IC. Paris.

Brulé, P. (1978) La piraterie crétoise hellénistique. Paris. Brulé, P. (1990) ‘Enquête démographique sur la famille grecque antique’, Revue des études anciennes 92, 238–258. Catling, R. W. V. (2010) ‘ΕΡΜΗΣΙΟΣ ΛΑΚΕΔΑΙΜΟΝΙΟΣ – a Spartan Craftsman of Ionian Origin?’, in N. Sekunda (ed.), Ergasteria: Works presented to John Ellis Jones on his 80th Birthday. Gdańsk, 44–55. Chaniotis, A. (2005) War in the Hellenistic world: a social and cultural history. Malden, MA. Christophilopoulos, A. P. (1973) Δίκαιον καὶ ἱστορία – Μικρὰ μελετήματα. Athens. Deiters, P. (1904) ‘Zwei kretische Inscriften aus Magnesia’, Rheinisches Museum für Philologie NS 59, 565–579. Dunst, G. (1956) ‘Die Bestimmungen des Vertrages zwischen Eumenes II. und dem kretischen Städten vom Jahre 183 v.Chr.’, Philologus 100, 305–311. Hansen, E. B. (1971) The Attalids of Pergamon. 2nd edn. Ithaca, N.Y. / London. Horrocks, G. (1997) Greek. A History of the Language and its Speakers. London. Kougeas, S. B. (1945–47) ‘Θεσσαλὸς στηλοκόπας πρὸ ἑκατὸν εἴκοσι πέντε ἐτῶν’, Ἀρχαιολογικὴ Ἐφημερίς 98–115. Launey, M. (1949–50) Recherches sur les armées hellénistiques. 2 vols. Paris. Masson, O (1980) ‘Pape-Benseleriana VII. Le nom Charis, feminin et masculin’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 37, 109–113 (= OGS II, 351–355). Ogden, D. (1996) Greek Bastardy in the Classical and Hellenistic Periods. Oxford. Sekunda, N. (2007) ‘Military Forces A. Land Forces’, in P. Sabin, H. van Wees and M. Whitby (eds), The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare. Vol. 1, Greece, the Hellenistic world and the rise of Rome. Cambridge, 325–357. Van Effenterre, H. (1968) La Crète et le monde grec, de Platon à Polybe. Paris. Wörrle, M. (1988) ‘Inschriften von Herakleia am Latmos I: Antiochos III., Zeuxis und Herakleia’, Chiron 18, 421–476.

MÉNÉDÈME DE PYRRHA, PROXÈNE DE DELPHES CONTRIBUTION ÉPIGRAPHIQUE À L’HISTOIRE D’UN PHILOSOPHE ET DE SA CITÉ Denis Knoepfler Le personnage honoré dans un décret de proxénie à Delphes n’a pas été enregistré jusqu’ici dans le LGPN, sans doute à cause de l’incertitude pesant sur l’identification de sa patrie : car Pyrrha a pu être tenue pour une ville de Phocide ou de Locride, d’Eubée ou de Lesbos. En réalité, il est certain que ce Ménédèmos Pyrrhaios était citoyen de Pyrrha dans l’île de Lesbos, tandis que la Pyrrha phocido-locrienne n’a jamais été qu’une obscure bourgade et que la Pyrrha eubéenne ne doit vraisemblablement son existence qu’à une confusion aisément explicable dans la tradition chorographique latine. D’autre part et surtout, la date assurée du décret de Delphes, soit 326/5, permet de reconnaître le philosophe Ménédèmos de Pyrrha, élève de Platon, qui, à la mort de Speusippos (339), fut très près de devenir scholarque de l’Académie. On montre que cette identification, ignorée de tous les historiens de la philosophie antique, n’est pas sans intérêt pour la biographie de ce penseur : l’inscription delphique est seule à fournir son patronyme, Eunikos, et elle établit que le philosophe ne mourut pas avant la fin du règne d’Alexandre le Grand (avec qui il fut en contact). À la lumière de ces résultats, on réexamine en appendice un témoignage papyrologique récemment publié ( POxy 3656), qui, contrairement à ce que donne à croire le ctétique Eretrikos, se rapporte également à ce Ménédèmos de Pyrrha et non pas à son homonyme d’Érétrie, avec qui il fut souvent confondu dès l’Antiquité. The honorand in a proxeny decree from Delphi has not, so far, been recorded in LGPN, probably because of the uncertainty regarding his fatherland: for Pyrrha could have been located in Phokis, Lokris, Euboia or Lesbos. In reality, it is certain that this Menedemos Pyrrhaios was a citizen of Pyrrha on the island of Lesbos, whereas the Phokian or Lokrian Pyrrha was an obscure little town and the Euboian Pyrrha owes its existence to a mistake in the Latin chorographic tradition. The secure date for the Delphic decree, 326/5, allows us to identify him with Menedemos of Pyrrha the philosopher, one of Plato’s pupils, who almost became scholarch of the Academy when Speusippos died in 339. This identification, unknown to all the historians of ancient philosophy, reveals the name of the philosopher’s father, Eunikos, and shows that he did not die before the end of the reign of Alexander the Great – with whom he was in contact. A recently published papyrus ( POxy 3656) is discussed in an appendix. Despite the misleading ktetic Eretrikos, this document refers to the same Menedemos of Pyrrha, and not to his homonym from Eretria, with whom he has been frequently confused since antiquity.

66

Denis Knoepfler

Si l’on fait abstraction, bien entendu, des inédits, les documents qui n’ont pas été exploités dans le Lexicon of Greek Personal Names (cinq volumes parus à ce jour) sont réellement l’exception, tant le travail a été systématiquement conduit, sous la direction du très regretté Peter M. Fraser, par tous les collaborateurs de cette grande et belle entreprise internationale, au premier rang desquels se place évidemment Elaine Matthews, à qui ce volume doit rendre le juste hommage de tout ce qu’elle y a apporté par ses connaissances à la fois scientifiques et techniques, par son travail acharné pendant plusieurs décennies, son dévouement allant jusqu’à l’abnégation et, last but not least, son sens des contacts humains inspiré par une authentique amitié. On pourrait donc juger fort mal approprié à la circonstance, voire franchement déplacé, un article où se trouve mise en évidence l’une des rares omissions épigraphiques qu’il m’ait été donné de déceler dans le LGPN, tous volumes confondus. En réalité, mon étude tendra à montrer que la responsabilité de cette omission – peut-être délibérée au surplus, dans la mesure où il est permis de penser que les deux personnages laissés de côté étaient destinés à figurer seulement dans le dernier volume, avec tous les ‘unassignable individuals’ sur le plan de l’origine géographique – n’incombe vraisemblablement pas aux rédacteurs, mais qu’elle est à chercher, bien plutôt, du côté des épigraphistes et des historiens, qui n’ont visiblement pas su tirer encore le bon parti d’un document rendu public il y a maintenant plus d’un demi-siècle. Dans une publication réunissant diverses Inscriptions de Delphes, parue en 1941, l’excellent Jean Bousquet faisait en effet connaître, sous la rubrique, peut-être trop restrictive, ‘Questions de chronologie’ et le sous-titre ‘L’archonte Charixénos’, un joli petit décret constitué de deux fragments jointifs trouvés par lui en 1938 dans un amas médiéval un peu à l’extérieur du sanctuaire : c’était une proxénie certes assez banale par laquelle les Delphiens octroyaient cette distinction – avec tous les privilèges qui s’y rattachent le plus souvent (promanteia, proedria, prodikia, ateleia pantôn et épitima) – à un certain Μενέδημος Εὐνίκου Πυρραῖος. Ce document pouvait être daté de façon relativement précise, puisque l’archonte sous lequel la proxénie fut votée était, au vu de l’écriture encore toute classique et de la disposition stoichédon du texte (Fig. 1), “clairement le Charixénos du IVe siècle”, et non pas l’un des deux éponymes de ce nom attestés dans la première moitié du siècle suivant, conclusion qui s’accordait avec le fait que les cinq bouleutes mentionnés à la fin du décret pouvaient très aisément être regardés comme membres du collège en activité durant le semestre d’automne de cet archontat, que J. Bousquet plaçait alors “avec sûreté” en 330/29. Bien qu’aux yeux de l’éditeur ce nouveau document    Bousquet 1940–41, 94 sqq., avec la fig. 4. Je remercie la direction de l’École française d’Athènes de m’avoir fourni un nouveau cliché du décret et de m’avoir autorisé à le publier ici.    Pour cette série de privilèges dans les proxénies de Delphes, voir notamment RE Suppl. XIII (1973) s.v. Proxenos, col. 710 sqq. (F. Gschnitzer) sous chacun des termes énumérés ; cf. aussi Marek 1984, 168, qui actualise mais ne remplace pas en tous points Monceaux 1885, 283 sq.    Cf. Daux 1943, F 32 pour le premier (alors placé très dubitativement au début du IIIe siècle) et G 3 pour le second (dont la date oscille entre 277/6 et 276/5 : voir maintenant la liste de Lefèvre 1995, 185, où l’ordre de ces archontes est inversé).    Quatre de ces personnages ont été enregistrés dans LGPN IIIB svv. Πυθόδωρος, Πάντανδρος, Μελισσίων, Κλεώνυμος avec renvoi à Bousquet, preuve que le décret en question n’a pas échappé au dépouillement ; seul le dernier, Θευτέλης, n’est pas expressément mentionné sous cette forme mais doit être cherché s.v. Θεοτέλης (14), lequel n’a pas à être distingué – puisque Bousquet les identifiait sans hésiter – du bouleute homonyme dans FD III (4) 418, complété par Bousquet 1940–41, 96 n. 4, qui attribue au même semestre le décret FD III (4) 28, réédité par lui à cette occasion.    Daux 1943, C 27, le mettait cependant dans une fourchette plus large (“329/8 à 326/5”). Pour la date adoptée aujourd’hui par les spécialistes de Delphes, voir ci-après p. 69–70.

Ménédème

de

Pyrrha,

proxène de

Delphes

Figure 1. Décret de Delphes pour Ménédèmos de Pyrrha. Musée de Delphes (cliché Jean-Yves Empereur, aimablement mis à disposition de l’auteur par l’École française d’Athènes)

67

68

Denis Knoepfler

contribuât avant tout à préciser un point de la chronologie delphique, l’intérêt qu’il pouvait offrir à d’autres points de vue ne lui échappa nullement. “L’ethnique du proxène est intéressant, parce qu’il est très rare”, relevait-il en particulier. Dans un premier temps, c’est-à-dire à l’époque de la publication, J. Bousquet fut fortement enclin à penser qu’il fallait chercher dans le massif du Parnasse, non loin de Delphes, la ville dont ce Ménédèmos Pyrrhaios était ressortissant : outre que l’implantation du mythe de Deucalion et Pyrrha dans cette région de Grèce lui paraissait favoriser une telle solution, il était évidemment impressionné par le fait qu’une cité de Pyrrha – certes non exactement localisée – avait apparemment existé aux confins de la Locride occidentale et de la Phocide, à en croire du moins une liste passablement désordonnée de Pline l’Ancien, nommant cette ville entre Antikyra et Amphissa (NH iv 7–8). C’est à cette obscure cité, d’autre part, que J. Bousquet était tenté de rapporter la mention possible du même ethnique dans une liste amphictionique mutilée du milieu du IIIe siècle, où un certain Eurydamos Pyrrh(aios ?) apparaît au nombre des hiéromnémons étoliens, entre un citoyen de Trichonion et un ‘Achéen’ (de Locride ?). Mais le moins que l’on puisse dire, c’est que cette solution n’a pas gagné en vraisemblance avec le temps, puisque les travaux récents ont, d’un côté, rendu tout à fait improbable que cette mystérieuse Pyrrha pût être une voisine immédiate de Delphes et, de l’autre, jeté le doute sur l’existence d’une cité ou d’un peuple de ‘Pyrrhéens’ parmi les poleis et ethnè annexés par le Koinon étolien10. Dès alors, cependant, l’éditeur du décret relevait l’existence d’autres localités ainsi dénommées, parmi lesquelles, notait-il justement, “la plus connue est celle de Lesbos”. Le décret de Delphes pour Ménédèmos de Pyrrha n’a pas trouvé chez les érudits un écho bien considérable. Certes, Jeanne et Louis Robert signalèrent dans le Bulletin épigraphique la publication d’une proxénie delphique pour un Πυρραῖος11, mais sans commenter ce peu banal ethnique, peut-être parce qu’ils eurent le projet de revenir là-dessus un jour prochain ; mais si tel fut le cas, je ne sache pas qu’ils en aient trouvé l’occasion12. L’inscription elle-même n’a été, sauf omission, reproduite nulle part : on ne la trouve en tout cas ni dans le Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum ni dans les derniers fascicules de la série des Fouilles de Delphes (ce qui ne surprend pas, compte tenu du fait que la stèle est, d’une certaine manière, une ‘pierre errante’ découverte hors des limites du hiéron) ; c’est seulement dans le volume qui doit réunir    Mais il suggérait une localisation en bordure de mer (à cause du mythe), plus précisément dans le golfe d’Antikyra (Bousquet 1940–41, 91 et n. 1). La question ne paraît pas avoir progressé depuis lors : cf. J. Oulhen in Hansen– Nielsen, IACP 403 : “The site is unlocated and unattested before the Hellenistic period” (et encore cela n’est-il vrai que si l’on admet le rapport très problématique avec l’ethnique ‘étolien’ mentionné ci-après).    Texte pour l’exégèse duquel Bousquet renvoyait justement à Robert, EEP 237 sqq., qui notait cependant que “Pyrrha est inconnue” (p. 238).    Flacelière 1937, App. I 51, liste reprise chez F. Lefèvre, CID IV 81, où cet ethnique amputé reste énigmatique. Cf. infra n. 19.    Comme il ressort de l’étude de Rousset 2001. 10   Pas de ‘Pyrrhéens’ en tout cas dans les pages consacrées à la représentation étolienne de la synthèse récente de Lefèvre 1998, ni chez Grainger 1999. 11  BE 1941, no. 80. Cette mention si intéressante de l’ethnique Πυρραῖος est malencontreusement omise dans l’Index du Bulletin épigraphique, 1ère partie, Les mots grecs, publié en 1972. 12   Rien en tout cas dans les recherches sur les antiquités de Lesbos continuées après la guerre par L. Robert dans le sillage de ses travaux de jeunesse (Robert 1925a et 1925b), dont on trouve un écho dans le résumé du cours au Collège de France en 1951 (OMS IV 115) avant la parution du gros mémoire dans Robert 1960, où ce savant évoque pourtant la ville de Pyrrha et son territoire (voir ci-après).

Ménédème

de

Pyrrha,

proxène de

Delphes

69

les proxénies du IVe et du IIIe siècle au sein du Corpus des Inscriptions de Delphes que, très certainement, l’inscription trouvera un jour sa place. Sans plus attendre, toutefois, il faut la tirer de l’oubli presque complet où elle a rapidement sombré, car, honorant très certainement un penseur connu par ailleurs, il serait regrettable qu’elle continue encore longtemps à être ignorée de tous les historiens de la philosophie. Pour ce qui est de l’origine géographique de ce proxène, la vérité a certes déjà a été entrevue depuis un certain temps : en effet, si Christian Marek, dans sa dissertation de 1984 sur l’institution de la proxénie, a émis l’hypothèse que “die Heimatstadt des Honoranden war vermutlich Pyrrha auf der Insel Lesbos”13 – hypothèse d’autant plus raisonnable qu’à cette date les Phocidiens ont été mis au ban du sanctuaire de Delphes –, il ne semble pas avoir exclu pour autant l’origine phocidienne à laquelle J. Bousquet donnait, on vient de le voir, la préférence. Cette hésitation, de la part d’un historien et épigraphiste expérimenté, pourrait bien être la cause même de la mise à l’écart de Μενέδημος Εὐνίκου Πυρραῖος du volume I (1987) du LGPN, où il eût dû figurer en tant qu’habitant de Lesbos14 ; de fait, on ne le voit pas apparaître davantage dans le volume IIIB (2000), où sa présence aurait pu, éventuellement, se réclamer de l’opinion exprimée par l’éditeur du décret. Il n’y a pas trace non plus de cette inscription de Delphes dans la récente synthèse de Guy Labarre sur Les cités de Lesbos aux époques hellénistique et impériale, bien que cet auteur y traite utilement de la ville de Pyrrha15 et que, surtout, il ait fait effort pour réunir les décrets de proxénie honorant des Lesbiens, au nombre desquels, assurément, se trouve cité un document de Delphes, mais qui n’est pas le nôtre16. Aucun des articles consacrés à cette cité de Lesbos dans les diverses éditions de l’encyclopédie de Pauly–Wissowa ne fait d’ailleurs la moindre mention de ce nouveau témoignage sur l’existence d’une cité pourtant bien mal connue17. C’est seulement dans le fort récent Inventory of Archaic and Classical Greek Poleis (2004) que M. H. Hansen, N. Spencer et H. Williams ont allégué la proxénie delphique pour Ménédèmos Pyrrhaios à propos de Pyrrha sur l’île de Lesbos18, en se bornant à renvoyer à l’édition princeps de J. Bousquet, d’où aussi, chez eux, une datation désormais caduque de l’archontat de Charixénos. Il semble bien, ainsi, qu’aient échappé à tout le monde les deutérai phrontides de l’épigraphiste français sur l’inscription publiée par lui en 1941. Certes, on ne les trouve pas sous sa signature, de sorte que même un recueil complet de ses articles ne ferait pas apparaître ce repentir. C’est 13   Marek 1984, 172, avec la n. 39 en p. 411 ; mais voir sa liste des proxénies de Delphes en p. 219 (“Phokis oder Lesbos ?”). 14   Le philosophe Ménédèmos y est certes enregistré avec un renvoi à l’article de K. von Fritz de la RE (1931) s.v. ; mais cette notice antérieure à la publication de l’inscription de Delphes ne pouvait pas faire état des nouvelles données qu’elle apporte, en particulier du patronyme du philosophe (qui, de fait, manque dans ce tome du LGPN : voir ci-après). 15   Labarre 1996, ch. II, en particulier 196–8, avec la carte reproduite ici. Sur ce travail, voir le compte rendu critique de Gauthier 1997. 16   Cf. p. 60 : il s’agit de FD III (4) 400, décret pour Hérôidas fils d’Apollonidas de Mytilène (cf. LGPN I s.vv.), avec renvoi à Bousquet 1959, 162–3. 17   Le gros article de M. Paraskevaidis, RE (1963) s.v. Pyrrha (17), 1403–20, est résumé par E. Meyer, Kleine Pauly (1968) s.v. Pyrrha (3) ; voir maintenant la notice en partie originale, mais toujours lacunaire sur ce point, dans Neue Pauly s.v. Pyrrha. Même chose aussi chez Schiering 1989, qui mentionne pourtant, p. 345–6, un épisode de la vie du philosophe Ménédèmos. 18   En p. 1030, une première fois en traitant de l’ethnique Pyrrhaios, et une seconde à propos du philosophe Ménédème, dont ils admettent que “in 330/29 he became proxenos of Delphi”, sans tirer d’autre conclusion, historique ou biographique, de ce décret.

70

Denis Knoepfler

presque le hasard – pas tout à fait cependant, puisque la Pyrrha proche de Delphes était censée confiner à la Locride Ozole – qui m’a fait découvrir la chose dans l’ouvrage classique de Lucien Lerat sur les Locriens de l’Ouest paru en 1952 où, à propos des Pyrrhaioi et d’autres peuples dont l’appartenance à cette région est encore douteuse, l’auteur écrit ceci (après avoir fait état de la proxénie mentionnant Μενέδημος Εὐνίκου Πυρραῖος)19 : “Mais J. Bousquet s’est aperçu ensuite que le personnage honoré de la proxénie n’était autre que le philosophe platonicien Ménédème, de Pyrrha en Eubée (cité connue par Pline, NH, IV 21, 64, et Pomponius Méla, II 7, 8)”. Quoique bien préférable à la première, la seconde opinion de J. Bousquet – telle du moins qu’elle s’exprime sous la plume du très rigoureux L. Lerat (donc peu suspect de l’avoir reproduite de manière inexacte) – ne laisse évidemment pas de surprendre un lecteur à qui l’histoire des philosophes grecs n’est pas totalement étrangère. Il faut certes donner pleinement raison au maître disparu de l’épigraphie de Delphes dans sa conviction d’avoir affaire ici à un témoignage sur le philosophe Ménédème de Pyrrha ; mais c’est, je crois, par suite d’une confusion manifeste que ce savant a été amené à faire du disciple de Platon un Eubéen de Pyrrha, erreur qui pourrait avoir son origine dans le fait que, vers 1950, il travaillait déjà sur la fameuse inscription sténographique de Delphes, attribuable hypothétiquement, selon lui, au philosophe Ménédème d’Érétrie20. Deux choses, au surplus, doivent l’avoir diaboliquement entraîné vers cette méprise. C’est d’abord – comme on en verra dans un instant un exemple flagrant (encore qu’étrangement méconnu) – que les deux philosophes homonymes ont été effectivement confondus dès l’Antiquité ; et bien des modernes, jusqu’à une date récente, sont tombés dans le même piège21. C’est ensuite qu’existerait effectivement en Eubée une ville de Pyrrha, si l’on en croire du moins les deux géographes latins allégués par l’éditeur ; ce qui explique d’ailleurs qu’un grand érudit d’autrefois, J.-J. Reiske, ait déjà pu être tenté de faire du philosophe Ménédème de Pyrrha un habitant de l’Eubée bien plutôt que de Lesbos22. Mais l’identification est à écarter catégoriquement, car on ne saurait admettre (et cela même si l’on croyait devoir accepter l’éventualité d’une Pyrrha eubéenne) que cette obscure bourgade ait été une cité autonome dans la seconde moitié du IVe siècle encore,   Lerat 1952, 62. L’auteur en concluait que l’obscure Pyrrha phocido-locrienne de Pline l’Ancien (cf. supra n. 6) n’était sans doute pas la patrie non plus du hiéromnémon étolien “de Pyrrha ( ?)” dans la liste amphictionique no. 51 Flacelière (cf. supra n. 8), d’autres localités ainsi nommées existant dans la Grèce du Nord-Est, région qui a pu faire partie du Koinon étolien à la date de la liste. On notera que, pour ce personnage, l’ouvrage de Lerat n’a pas échappé aux rédacteurs du vol. IIIB du LGPN (s.v. Εὐρύδαμος (2), avec un signe de doute pour Pyrrha) ; mais il était alors trop tard pour insérer Ménédèmos Eunikou Pyrrhaios dans le vol. I, en tant que Lesbien (ou, avec Bousquet, comme Eubéen). 20   Un fragment de cette stèle remarquable avait, de fait, été retrouvé dans le dallage de la Voie Sacrée en cette même année 1938 que la proxénie discutée ici. Il est vrai qu’alors cet important morceau – conservant une partie de l’épigramme pour un personnage dont le nom commençait par un M et un décret pris sans doute en 277/6 – n’avait pas été raccordé encore aux autres fragments : voir Bousquet 1956. 21   Du fait que Diogène Laërce (ii 125) fait de Ménédème d’Érétrie, suite à une confusion (ou peut-être à une mélecture : voir Knoepfler 1991, 171 ; cf. la notice de R. Goulet, DPhA M 116 [Ménédème d’Érétrie]), un auditeur de Platon : ainsi A. Desrousseaux, Athénée de Naucratis. Les Deipnosophistes I (CUF), 1958, p. 146 n. 4 ; Brun 1969, 276, etc. Cf. infra n. 34 (à propos de la mention de Ménédème chez Épikratès le Comique). 22   Cf. Baumeister 1864, 72 n. 98 (en p. 73) : “Das lesbische ist auch wahrscheinlich zu verstehen bei Plut. Adv. Colot. p. 1126, wo Reiske ohne Grund den fraglichen euboischen Ort annimmt, der aber doch nur klein gewesen sein kann”. En fait, ce n’était pas sans quelque raison que le grand philologue du XVIIIe s. avait dû faire cette hypothèse en marge d’une édition du Contre Colotès de Plutarque : c’est qu’il estimait que ce philosophe de Pyrrha n’était autre, justement, que le plus renommé Ménédème d’Érétrie, dont on admettait alors qu’il avait été l’auditeur de Platon. 19

Ménédème

de

Pyrrha,

proxène de

Delphes

71

quand l’Eubée était déjà, au témoignage unanime de nos sources, une tétrapolis23 : donc un Pyrrhaios à Delphes sous Alexandre ne saurait, en aucun cas, être un Eubéen de Pyrrha ! À quoi l’on peut ajouter que les plus grands doutes sont aujourd’hui permis quant à l’existence même d’une localité de ce nom en Eubée. Les deux attestations latines de ce toponyme demeurent, en effet, totalement isolées, malgré la relative abondance des textes et des documents relatifs à la géographie antique de l’île ; et il faut bien voir qu’ils ne se renforcent nullement l’un l’autre, puisqu’il est avéré que la liste eubéenne de Pline, si elle ne dépend sans doute pas directement, ici, de celle de Pomponius Méla, remonte en dernière analyse à la même source, pas antérieure au Ier siècle avant notre ère24. Or, à la réflexion, on s’expliquerait assez bien que le compilateur latin à qui est empruntée l’information ait pu créer une Pyrrha eubéenne en interprétant de travers – à cause de la renommée de l’Euripe eubéen25 – une expression telle que ὁ Πυρραῖος Εὔριπος (bien attestée chez Aristote26) ou εἰς τὸν Πυρραίων Εὔριπον (chez Strabon xii 2. 3 [C 617]), pour désigner le détroit ou golfe de Kalloni à Lesbos, au fond duquel était effectivement implantée la ville de Lesbos27 (carte Fig. 2). Voilà comment Pyrrha ad Euripum (vel simile) serait devenue une ville eubéenne : ne disait-on pas des gens de Chalcis d’Eubée, quand on jugeait devoir les distinguer d’autres Chalcidiens, qu’ils étaient οἱ Χαλκιδεῖς οἱ ἀπ’ Εὐρίπου28 ? Et il n’est pas exclu que la confusion entre les deux philosophes homonymes ait favorisé encore, sinon provoqué, l’émergence de cette bourgade eubéenne fantôme29. Quoi qu’il en soit de ce point, il ne fait à mes yeux aucun doute que Μενέδημος Εὐνίκου Πυρραῖος était un citoyen de Pyrrha dans l’île de Lesbos ; et je ne crois pas qu’il y ait la moindre raison non plus d’hésiter à l’identifier avec l’élève de Platon connu par un certain nombre de textes sous l’appellation de Μενέδημος Πυρραῖος. Ces témoignages, au nombre d’une petite dizaine seulement, ont été naguère réunis, traduits et commentés de façon exemplaire par l’helléniste de Lausanne François Lasserre (1919–1989)30. Certes, pas plus que ses devanciers immédiats dans l’étude des membres de l’Ancienne Académie31, ce savant n’a eu connaissance   Hansen–Nielsen, IACP 643, sur la base de mon mémoire publié dans la série des Actes du Copenhagen Polis Center (Knoepfler 1997). 24   Cf. A. Silberman, Pomponius Mela. Chorographie (CUF), 1988, p. xxxvi sqq., avec un bon aperçu de l’histoire de la question. Il est frappant en tout cas que les trois localités de Pyrrha, Nesos, Oechalia (Méla ii 108) se retrouvent dans le même ordre – mais avec d’autres toponymes insérés entre ces noms – chez Pline, NH iv 12. 64. Pour le toponyme Nesos, qui n’est sans doute qu’une erreur de plus dans ces deux listes, voir Knoepfler 1988, 404 et n. 94 : il paraît, en effet, très vraisemblable que, sous ce nom, se cache en réalité Amarynthos (dont l’absence est, de fait, surprenante chez les deux auteurs), car on voit par Stéphane de Byzance qu’Amarynthos était tenue pour une νῆσος τῆς Εὐβοίας, c’est-à-dire un cap de l’Eubée, comme cela ressort aussi, du reste, de la carte de Ptolémée. 25   Mentionné, de fait, en bonne place chez Pline comme chez Pomponius Méla, locc. citt. 26   HA v 12 (544a) ; 15 (548a) et viii 20 (603a) ; ix 37 (621b). 27   Pour le site, voir notamment Schiering 1989, 339 sqq. avec des vues de l’acropole dominant le golfe de Kalloni. 28   Ainsi dans le fameux décret de Samos pour Antiléon de Chalcis (IG XII (6) 41) : cf. Habicht 1957, 156 sqq. no. 1 (pour une nouvelle interprétation du document, voir ma contribution aux Écrits à la mémoire de D. M. Pippidi : Knoepfler 2007) ; chez Ptolémée il est ainsi question de Chalcis παρὰ τὸν Εὔριπον. 29   On notera que, dans le chapitre eubéen du répertoire de Hansen–Nielsen, IACP 643 sqq., cette localité n’a trouvé aucune place, pas même dans la liste des “pre-hellenistic Settlements not Attested as Poleis”, rejet que je ne puis qu’approuver. 30   Lasserre 1987, 91–6 (texte grec), 311–16 (traduction française) et 523–9 (commentaire). 31   Ainsi Taran 1981, 210 (chronologie) ; Isnardi Parente 1980 (bibliographie) ; Isnardi Parente 1982, 268 (cf. aussi Isnardi Parente 1981) ; Krämer 1983, 4, 45, et passim, etc. 23

72

Denis Knoepfler

Figure 2. Carte de l’île de Lesbos, d’après G. Labarre, Les cités de Lesbos aux époques hellénistique et impériale. Paris, 1996, fig. 1

de l’inscription de Delphes, ni non plus d’ailleurs (ce qui s’explique en l’occurrence par la date de la publication) du papyrus d’Oxyrhynchos qui sera discuté ci-après en appendice. Et il en va de même de la notice consacrée plus récemment encore à Ménédème de Pyrrha par le spécialiste de l’histoire des élèves de Platon qu’est Tiziano Dorandi dans le précieux Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques32, sans parler d’autres articles d’encyclopédie33. Mais la mise au point qui résulte de ces travaux pour la biographie de Ménédème devrait nous permettre de dégager assez rapidement le peu qui était connu jusqu’ici de la carrière d’un penseur sans doute injustement oublié, afin de mettre en évidence l’apport de la proxénie de Delphes, dans la mesure, bien sûr, où l’on nous accordera qu’elle concerne bel et bien le même personnage. Au vu de ces textes, Ménédème de Pyrrha fut l’un des principaux élèves directs de Platon ; plus jeune que Speusippe (né en 409) mais plus âgé qu’Aristoxène (né, lui, vers 375), il dut venir au monde vers 390 au plus tard. À la mort du fondateur de l’Académie (347), il avait   M 117 (Ménédème de Pyrrha) avec renvoi à l’ouvrage de Lasserre (voir aussi Dorandi 1992, 3766 sqq.). Cet article ne fait pas mention non plus (ce qui peut surprendre davantage de la part du distingué papyrologue qu’est son auteur) du fragment de papyrus concernant un Ménédème en qui il faut à l’évidence, selon moi, reconnaître l’élève de Platon : voir l’appendice ci-après p. 73–5. 33   En particulier celui de K.-H. Stanzel, Neue Pauly (1999) s.v. 32

Ménédème

de

Pyrrha,

proxène de

Delphes

73

ainsi, selon toute probabilité, un peu plus de quarante ans, ce qui permet de penser qu’il était demeuré à ses côtés pendant une quinzaine d’années, à partir de 360 environ. Un témoignage atteste sa familiarité avec le maître, en même que sa notoriété dès cette époque : il est en effet mis en scène avec Platon et Speusippe – figures de proue de la première Académie – dans un fragment du poète comique Épikratès cité par Athénée, qui montre ces trois philosophes agitant tout le jour, en sens contraire, les questions les plus diverses34. D’autre part, Plutarque, dans son pamphlet contre l’épicurien Colotès, le cite au nombre des trois disciples à qui Platon confia le soin de rédiger ou d’inspirer une ‘constitution politique’ (politeia) à leurs concitoyens respectifs : si Aristonymos fut envoyé en Arcadie et Phormion en Élide, Ménédème fut délégué auprès des gens de Pyrrha (sans autre précision, ce qui montre bien que, pour Plutarque, il n’y avait qu’une seule cité de ce nom, celle de Lesbos), Πλάτων δὲ τῶν ἑταίρων ἐξαπέστειλεν (…) Μενέδημον δὲ Πυρραίοις35. On a voulu naguère faire remonter cette mission jusque vers la fin des années 370, peu après que Pyrrha eut adhéré, dans le sillage des autres cités de Lesbos, à la Seconde ligue maritime36, mais cette chronologie paraît sensiblement trop haute : en réalité, c’est seulement après 355, peut-être seulement vers 350, que Ménédème dut rentrer temporairement dans sa patrie, alors détachée d’Athènes, car l’esprit de sa politeia devait être plus aristocratique que franchement démocratique37. Sans doute revint-il à Athènes dès avant le décès de son maître. En tout cas, il fut très présent à l’Académie sous la direction de Speusippe, puisque le précieux Index Academicorum de Philodème38 nous a appris, il y a longtemps déjà, qu’à la mort de ce dernier, en 339, il s’en fallut de peu qu’il ne lui succédât. Au témoignage de la même source, cet échec l’incita à acquérir son propre péripatos, où il entraîna, sans doute, d’autres élèves plus ou moins brouillés avec le nouveau scholarque, Xénocrate de Chalcédoine39. La dernière donnée biographique que nous fournit par ailleurs le recueil de Lasserre est un texte de Plutarque opposant Ménédème (sans autre précision d’origine), en même temps que Xénocrate et Éphore, à Aristote et à Callisthène dans leur attitude vis-à-vis d’Alexandre : en effet, si le Stagirite et son neveu acceptèrent, on le sait, de collaborer avec le jeune roi, les trois personnages nommés là étaient loués, à en croire le philosophe de Chéronée, par les Stoïciens pour avoir écarté son offre

  Ath. ii 54, (59 a) ; Epicrates fr. 11, 7 (Kock) = 8 T 4 Lasserre (maintenant PCG V Epicrates fr. 10) ; chez Edmonds, The Fragments of Attic Comedy II, p. 354 sq., il y a confusion regrettable entre Ménédème de Pyrrha, évidemment visé par le poète comique, et Ménédème d’Érétrie ; même chose déjà chez A. Desrousseaux dans son édition inachevée d’Athénée (cf. supra n. 26). 35   Adv. Colot. 32 = 9 T 6 Lasserre. Cf. Gaiser 1963, 456 no. 12 (non cité ici par L.). 36   Dušanić 1979, 324 ; cf. aussi Isnardi Parente 1979, 276–9. La mention des Pyrrhaioi dans la Charte de 378/7 n’est certes qu’une restitution (soit à la l. 90. soit à l. 100 du document), mais pratiquement assurée (en dépit d’un doute exprimé naguère), attendu que Mytilène et Méthymna furent parmi les premières cités à entrer dans la Ligue, bientôt suivies par Antissa et Érésos ; d’autre part, les Pyrrhéens apparaissent aux côtés des autres cités de Lesbos dans un décret attique de 369–367, IG II2 107, 26–30 (voir notamment Cargill 1981, 36 et 113). 37   Cf. Lasserre 1987 dans son commentaire à ce passage (T 6, p. 525) : “Il y a donc de bonnes raisons de penser que Ménédème quitte l’Académie en 355 pour collaborer au rétablissement du régime oligarchique dans sa ville natale, et qu’il retourne à Athènes à la chute de celui-ci, ou peut-être rappelé par Speusippe à la mort de Platon”. 38   Phld., Acad.Ind. vi 1–3 (liste des disciples) et surtout vi 41 – vii 9, p. 38–9 Mekler (= 1 T 1 et 7 Lasserre). L’œuvre a été rééditée, après réexamen du papyrus, par Dorandi 1991. 39   Jusqu’à une date très récente, on n’avait aucune information sur les noms de ses propres élèves : mais je crois qu’un fragment de papyrus publié en 1984 doit être mis en relation avec cet épisode : voir l’appendice p. 73–5. 34

74

Denis Knoepfler

de participation40. En ce qui concerne au moins les deux élèves de Platon, on peut désormais placer cet épisode, avec une confiance accrue, en 335, quand, à la veille de l’expédition, le jeune roi fut en relation avec les Athéniens, puisque le décret de Delphes montre que Ménédème était encore vivant dix ans plus tard. Rien n’est connu, en revanche, de la date et des circonstances de la mort du penseur de Pyrrha, qui dut survenir, peut-on penser, vers 320. On rapporte certes le plus souvent à ce personnage – ainsi encore Fr. Lasserre, tout en considérant qu’il y a là “au moins deux absurdités”41 – l’information fournie par les adaptateurs de la Chronique d’Eusèbe selon laquelle Ménédème et Speusippe “sont tenus pour des philosophes renommés” (Menedemus et Speusippus philosophi insigni habentur)42 lors de la 116e olympiade, soit vers 316–313, ce qui n’est évidemment pas admissible sur le plan chronologique et a suscité diverses tentatives d’explication. Il y a longtemps, toutefois, que j’ai acquis la conviction que le Ménédème mentionné ici pourrait bien, en réalité, être le philosophe érétrien (né effectivement vers 345–343 déjà, selon la chronologie qui découle d’un réexamen critique des données à disposition43), dont le nom devait côtoyer à l’origine, dans la source d’Eusèbe, celui d’un philosophe contemporain, qui ne saurait évidemment être Speusippe (mort alors depuis longtemps) et ne peut guère non plus être Xénocrate (comme cela fut suggéré autrefois par Wilamowitz et Jacoby)44, mais pourrait, en revanche, ne faire qu’un avec Philippe, philosophe Mégarique sans doute moins obscur de son temps que le donne à penser aujourd’hui notre ignorance à peu près totale de la carrière de ce personnage cité par Diogène Laërce aux côtés, précisément, de l’Érétrien45 ; à moins, bien sûr, que ce dernier n’ait été associé tout naturellement, dans la version primitive du texte, à son alter ego Asklépiadès de Phlionte, car c’est précisément vers 315 que les deux amis commencèrent à faire parler d’eux46. Un des intérêts majeurs du décret de Delphes pour Μενέδημος Εὐνίκου Πυρραῖος, c’est donc de fournir un nouveau terminus post quem, de dix ans postérieur au précédent, pour le décès du disciple de Platon. En effet, au vu de la nouvelle chronologie delphique du IVe siècle mise au point par P. de La Coste-Messelière et par J. Bousquet lui-même dans leurs travaux sur les comptes du Temple47, l’archontat de Charixénos ne tombe plus en 330/2948, mais seulement en 326/5.   Plu., Mor. 1043 D (9 T 8 Lasserre = FGrHist 124 T 20 pour Callisthène, et 70 T 6 pour Éphore ; fr. 30 Isnardi Parente 1982) : Ἔφορον δὲ καὶ Ξενοκράτην καὶ Μενέδημον ἐπαινοῦσι παραιτησαμένους τὸν Ἀλέξανδρον. Voir maintenant le commentaire très étoffé de D. Babut, Plutarque, Œuvres morales, Traité 70 (CUF), 2004, p. 204 n. 263, qui laisse le bénéfice du doute à Plutarque quant à la crédibilité historique de ce texte, souvent mise en question (probablement à tort) dans le cas d’Éphore – pour des raisons chronologiques – et dans celui de Xénocrate ; Babut ne se prononce pas sur le cas de Ménédème, dont il a bien vu cependant qu’il s’agissait ici du Pyrrhéen, et non pas de l’Érétrien comme un peu plus haut dans ce traité (1037 A), en renvoyant à l’édition de Cherniss dans la Coll. Loeb, p. 495. 41   Lasserre 1987, 523–4, à propos de T 3a–c (les trois versions connues de la Chronique). 42   Eus., Chron. ad ol. 116, 1 ap. Hieron. Chron. p. 126 Helm, Chron. arm. p. 198 Karst, Syncell. Chron. p. 274d (= 9 T 3ac Lasserre). 43   Knoepfler 1991, 205 sqq. 44   Wilamowitz 1881, 195 n. 7 ; Jacoby 1902, 314 et n. 2. Contra : Taran 1981, 210. 45   D.L. i 16. (Döring 1972, fr. 189). Pour ce philosophe qui, comme Socrate et Ménédème d’Érétrie lui-même, n’aurait laissé aucun écrit de doctrine, cf. K. von Fritz, RE (1938) s.v. Philippos 45, col. 2367. 46   L’historicité de ce personnage a été confirmée, si besoin était, par la trouvaille récente de son épitaphe à Érétrie même, comme pouvait le faire attendre la biographie de Ménédème : voir Knoepfler 2005, 28 sqq. et fig. 4 : cf. la notice de R. Goulet, DPhA M 116 (Ménédème d’Érétrie). 47   La Coste-Messelière 1949, 233–6 ; CID II p. 16 et passim. Cf. aussi Marchetti 1977, 144 ; Roux 1979, 234. On notera que, dès 1943, Daux (1943, 16 C 27), proposait la fourchette 329/8–326/5 plutôt qu’une date précise. 48   Comme on l’a écrit, tout récemment encore, à propos de notre décret cf. supra n. 18. 40

Ménédème

de

Pyrrha,

proxène de

Delphes

75

Ménédème, à cette date, était âgé de quelque soixante-cinq ans, ce qui n’a rien d’invraisemblable pour être honoré à Delphes. Se trouvait-il alors dans sa patrie ou s’était-il définitivement installé à Athènes ? Si l’on ne peut pas trancher ce point, il est permis, en revanche, d’inférer de l’emploi de l’ethnique Pyrrhaios qu’existait toujours à cette date une cité de Pyrrha, alors que bien des historiens, autrefois, croyaient devoir admettre sa disparition, au moins en tant que polis, dès après les événements de l’année 333 à Lesbos (prise des villes par Memnon de Rhodes pour le compte des Perses)49. En réalité, s’il est avéré que, vers le début du IIe siècle déjà – donc avant même qu’en 167 une autre cité de Lesbos, Antissa, ne soit à son tour rayée de la carte politique par une brutale décision romaine (Tite-Live xlv 31) –, Pyrrha ne comptait plus au nombre des cités formant la Confédération des Lesbiens50, son statut de polis est encore garanti à la haute époque hellénistique par la présence de plusieurs Pyrrhaioi dans une liste de proxènes d’Érésos51. Seules de nouvelles inscriptions permettront de préciser la date de la disparition de cette cité et les modalités du partage de son territoire entre ses voisines, avec cette montagne des Pyrrhaiens “dont la forêt de pins avait repoussé après un incendie”, comme le notait Théophraste52 (natif de la toute proche Érésos), et le sanctuaire de Méson, lieu de rencontre des gens de Lesbos depuis l’époque archaïque. La destruction de la ville paraît avoir été causée par une catastrophe naturelle bien plutôt que par un événement politico-militaire, car elle fut littéralement ‘renversée’ (Str. xiii 2. 4 [C 618] : Ἡ δὲ Πύρρα κατέστραπται53) ou ‘absorbée par la mer’ (Plin., NH v 139 : Pyrrha hausta est mari ; cf. ii 96 : Pyrrham et Antissam … pontus abstulit)54. Le fait qu’à la basse époque hellénistique déjà il n’existait plus de Pyrrhaiôn polis mais seulement un site largement déserté, rattaché sans doute dès alors à Mytilène, pourrait rendre compte de l’absence de Ménédème dans la liste que donne le Géographe des grands hommes de l’île de Lesbos (ibid.), de même que la confusion qui s’opère, à cette époque aussi, entre les deux philosophes homonymes explique sans doute le passage à la trappe de son nom dans l’œuvre de Diogène Laërce55 : le plus illustre citoyen de Pyrrha a ainsi joué doublement de malheur! Un autre apport du décret, c’est évidemment de livrer pour la première fois le patronyme de ce philosophe, puisqu’aucun des testimonia réunis par Fr. Lasserre ne fournissait d’indication   Pour l’exploration du site au début du XXe s., voir la mise au point de Schiering 1989.   Ainsi qu’il ressort, on le sait, d’un très important document exposé à Délos, IG XII Suppl. 42–3 no. 136 (édition fondée sur l’étude de Robert 1925a) ; reproduit maintenant chez Labarre 1996, no. 89, avec la bibliographie récente (cf. Schiering 1989, 345 n. 18). L’absence de Pyrrha dans ce document a paru “bemerkenswert” à H.-G. Buchholz (Buchholz 1975, 153), sans qu’il en trouve l’explication. 51   IG XII Suppl. 39 no. 127 C, 56 ; réédition du texte par Hodot 1976, 60–5 ; cf. Labarre 1996, 241. Un terminus ante quem pour la disparition de Pyrrha pourrait être tiré de l’absence d’une réponse de cette cité à l’invitation de Magnésie du Méandre en 207/6, alors qu’on a celles de Méthymna et Antissa associées en annexe à un décret émanant très probablement de Mytilène (cf. Asylia 101) ; mais le fait que l’on n’ait pas non plus la réponse d’Érésos (dont le nom a pu figurer après celui d’Antissa dans le décret en question) enlève à cet argument une partie de son poids. 52   Thphr., HP iii 9. 5 : ὥσπερ καὶ εἰς Λέσβον ἐμπρησθέντος τοῦ Πυρραίων ὄρους τοῦ πιτυώδους. Autre mention de Pyrrha en ii 2. 6, avec la n. 11 de S. Amigues, Théophraste. Recherches sur les Plantes, II (1989), ad loc. ; pour cette montagne entre Mytilène et Pyrrha, cf. Robert 1960, 306 et n. 2. 53   On n’a pas affaire ici à “καταστράπτω, terme peu clair” (Labarre 1996, 197), mais, bien sûr, au verbe parfaitement approprié καταστρέφω. 54   L’explication du phénomène ne paraît toutefois pas avoir été trouvée jusqu’ici : voir essentiellement M. Paraskevaïdis, RE (1963) s.v. Pyrrha, col. 1404 sqq. 55   Cf. Lasserre 1987, 523, commentant la liste des disciples de Platon dans D. L. iii 46 (= 1 T3b Lasserre), liste rapprochée par Lasserre de celle de Honain apud Ibn al-Quifti, où Menedemus porte l’ethnique Eretriensis dans la trad. de Casiri (l’original arabe portant ARATRS) corrigé en Pyrrhaeus par l’excellent Roeper au milieu du XIXe s. 49 50

76

Denis Knoepfler

à ce sujet. À première vue, le nom Eunikos – par ailleurs assez banal et, du reste, connu en Éolide d’Asie Mineure par quelques exemples56 – n’était pas encore attesté dans l’île de Lesbos. Mais on connaissait, en fait, sous son appellation latine, un toreute de ce nom que mentionne Pline l’Ancien à deux reprises : item Ariston et Eunicus Mitylenaei laudantur (NH xxxiii 156, cf. xxxiv 85). Je ne vois donc pas de raison à sa mise à l’écart du LGPN I57. Ce personnage avaitil quelque lien avec Eunikos Pyrrhaios, père de notre Ménédèmos ? La différence d’ethnique pourrait, en l’occurrence, n’être pas rédhibitoire, un artiste de Pyrrha ayant pu être considéré à l’étranger – et surtout après la disparition de sa patrie d’origine dès la fin du IIIe siècle – comme originaire de Mytilène, la plus grande cité de Lesbos (qui ira jusqu’à donner son nom, on le sait, à l’île tout entière). En tout cas, la chronologie de ce toreute est tout à fait incertaine, son attribution à l’époque hellénistique58 largement arbitraire. Il n’y aurait pas de difficulté non plus à donner pour père à un philosophe, donc à un ‘intellectuel’ du IVe siècle un artisan plus ou moins renommé et talentueux : c’était le cas non seulement de l’autre Ménédème, fils de ‘l’architecte et scénographe’ Kleisthénès d’Érétrie (D.L. ii 125), mais aussi et surtout, bien sûr, de Socrate lui-même, fils du lithourgos Sophroniskos. Et il est curieux de constater que le seul ‘fragment’ de Ménédème de Pyrrha qui soit parvenu jusqu’à nous est une citation chez Porphyre, Histoire philosophique59, qui, à propos du métier exercé par Socrate aux côtés de son père, allègue divers témoignages, mais repousse ceux d’Aristoxène et de Timée, donnant la préférence à celui de Ménédème de Pyrrha (Μενεδήμωι τῶι Πυρραίωι χρηστέον κτλ.) parce qu’il était l’élève direct de Platon et que, dans un ouvrage au titre incertain, il écrivait que Socrate ne cessait de parler de son père comme d’un ‘ouvrier de la pierre’ (lithourgos) : le Pyrrhéen aurait-il été, lui, le fils – ou éventuellement le père – d’un ‘ouvrier du bronze’ (chalkourgos) ? Ce qui est certain, c’est que le nom Εὔνικος doit absolument faire son entrée dans la prosopographie de Lesbos. Enfin, on ne saurait passer sous silence un troisième et dernier apport du document publié par J. Bousquet : c’est qu’il atteste évidemment l’existence de liens assez étroits noués par ce philosophe avec Delphes. Assurément, la sobriété du formulaire est ici particulièrement regrettable, nous privant de toute indication sur les motifs précis de la distinction dont Ménédème fut l’objet : aurait-il été envoyé par ses concitoyens, tel un théopropos, pour consulter Apollon en une circonstance grave, ou avait-il pris jadis l’initiative de soumettre au dieu – pour la rendre en quelque sorte pythochrèstos, ‘sanctionné par Pythô’ – la Pyrrhaiôn politeia rédigée par lui à l’initiative de son maître ? Revint-il à la charge, sous Alexandre précisément, pour remettre en vigueur cette constitution qui devait, dans son esprit, assurer l’homonoia dans sa cité après une période très difficile, marquée entre 334 et 332 par de constantes révolutions, comme le 56   Ainsi un Eunikos magistrat monétaire à Kymè d’après Münsterberg 76, une Eunika à Elaia d’après BE 1968, no. 443. 57   Puisqu’il est dit, dès l’introduction générale du tome I, que les noms grecs attestés seulement sous une forme latine ont été pris en considération, mais, il est vrai, avec la réserve de principe que “the names from Latin literary sources are also far from exhaustive” (p. ix). De fait, l’autre toreute de Mytilène nommé là par Pline, Aristôn, fait également défaut. 58   Cf. RE (1909) s.v. Eunikos 5, col. 1128 (C. Robert) ; W. Amelung, Thieme–Becker’s Lexikon (1921) s.v. ; M. Kadıoğlu, Künstlerlexikon s.v. Eunikos (“aus beiden Erwähnungen ergibt es nichts für die Datierung seines Werkes, aber am wahrscheinlichsten [ ?] ist es, dass er in der hellenistischen Zeit gelebt hat”) ; Muller-Dufeu 949 (“époque des Diadoques”). 59   Porph., Hist. Phil. fr. xi Nauck ap. Cyrill., Contra Julian. vi 208 (= 8 F 1 Lasserre, 95–6 et 308–9 pour la traduction).

Ménédème

de

Pyrrha,

proxène de

Delphes

77

mettent en lumière, pour Lesbos même, de célèbres inscriptions de Mytilène et d’Érésos60 ? On ne sait. Mais l’ignorance où nous laisse la proxénie de Delphes sur la motivation de ses auteurs ne peut en tout cas pas être un argument contre l’identification, pas plus que l’absence du titre de philosophos, encore très rare à cette date dans les inscriptions61 : on rappellera ici qu’Adolf Wilhelm62 avait su retrouver dans un décret de Délos pour un certain Praxiphanès fils de Dionysophanès – dont l’ethnique même n’était pas précisé – un témoignage passé jusque-là inaperçu sur le péripatéticien assez connu Praxiphanès de Mytilène63 ? Cela étant donc admis, il paraît légitime de supposer, vu la date du décret, que l’octroi de la proxénie à cet Académicien récompensait des services déjà anciens au sanctuaire d’Apollon et à son clergé. On n’en sera pas surpris quand on sait combien Socrate lui-même était attaché au dieu pythique, consulté par lui à maintes reprises. Et Platon ne fut pas en reste, lui qui prescrit de soumettre à l’approbation d’Apollon toutes les lois religieuses de sa cité idéale64, engageant par là ses disciples à suivre la même voie. Cette vénération n’est pas moins grande, on le sait, chez Aristote, honoré lui aussi à Delphes – mais cette fois par l’Amphictionie et en compagnie de son neveu l’historien Callisthène – pour avoir élaboré ensemble le Catalogue des Pythioniques65. Faut-il rappeler enfin l’extraordinaire témoignage de l’attachement d’un philosophe de cette époque à la sagesse delphique qu’est, dans la lointaine Aï Khanoum en Afghanistan, l’épigramme désormais fameuse de Cléarque, en qui Louis Robert, dans une étude qui a fait date, sut reconnaître l’un des plus actifs disciples du Stagirite, copiant lui-même dans Pythô les célèbres maximes66 ? Le décret pour Ménédème fils d’Eunikos, de Pyrrha en l’île de Lesbos, doit désormais entrer dans ce dossier des relations que les plus grands penseurs grecs du IVe siècle entretinrent avec le dieu de Delphes.

60   Voir Labarre 1996, 23 sqq. (“De la stasis à l’homonoia”) avec la bibliographie essentielle. Le décret de Mytilène sur la Concorde, publié vers 1980 seulement, est reproduit là sous le no. 1, avec une traduction française (sur laquelle voir les justes critiques de Gauthier 1997, 349), tandis que le décret sur le retour des bannis, no. 2, est connu depuis très longtemps. Sur la loi d’Érésos contre la tyrannie, voir maintenant Koch 2001 ; pour les deux grands dossiers lesbiens du règne d’Alexandre, voir surtout Bencivenni 2003, ch. 2 et 3. 61   Voir essentiellement Tod 1957, avec les compléments de J. et L. Robert, BE 1958, no. 84 (p. 197–200) ; Robert, Hellenica XI-XII 108 n. 1 ; cf. aussi C. Habicht in IAskl p. 162. Nombreuses références encore dans Index du Bulletin épigraphique 1987–2001. III, Les mots français, Athènes / Paris, 2006, s.v. 62   Wilhelm 1905, 1–5. Il s’agit du décret IG XI (3) 663, repris chez Durrbach, Choix 29. 63   Pour d’autres cas d’absence de l’ethnique, cf. Eretria XI 200, avec cet exemple remarquable. 64   Lg. viii 828a ; cf. R. iv 427b–c. Voir notamment Piérart 1974, 344–55 (“le rôle de Delphes”), avec une critique intéressante des opinions antérieures. 65   Décret repris en dernier lieu par Fr. Lefèvre (CID IV 10). Pour l’histoire de la recherche autour de cette question, voir l’étude exhaustive de Spoerri 1988. 66   Robert 1968, en particulier p. 451 sq. sur les rapports de Cléarque avec Delphes.

78

Denis Knoepfler

Appendice Ménédème élève de Platon dans un papyrus récemment publié Un témoignage passé jusqu’ici inaperçu, si je vois bien, sur Ménédème de Pyrrha a été fourni, il y a bientôt un quart de siècle, par un papyrus qu’a publié P. J. Parsons (POxy 3656)67, repris, peu après, dans le Corpus dei Papiri Filosofici I (1992), sous le no. 68. ‘Menedemus Eretrius 1T’ (cf. ibid. 23 1T et 61 1T). Il s’agit d’un extrait biographique – ou doxographique – dont le contexte montre que le sujet du verbe était de sexe féminin : διήκουσε δὲ μετὰ τὴν Πλάτωνος τελευτὴν καὶ Σπευσίππου καθὰ λέγει ὁ Ἱππόβοτος, αὖθις δὲ καὶ Μενεδήμου τοῦ Ἐρετρικοῦ. ἀφηγήσατο δὲ περὶ αὐτῆς καὶ Ἱερώνυμος ὁ Ῥόδιος ἐν τῶι Περὶ συνοχῆς συνγράμματι. On y apprend donc qu’une jeune femme (qualifiée effectivement de meirax à la fin du passage conservé) “suivit l’enseignement de Speusippe, comme le prétend Hippobotos, après la mort de Platon, puis encore celui de Ménédème l’Érétrique ; d’elle a parlé également de long en large Hiéronyme de Rhodes dans son traité Sur la suspension du jugement”68. On peut évidemment reconnaître en elle l’une des deux discipulae du fondateur de l’Académie, auditrices aussi de son successeur Speusippe d’après Diogène Laërce (iv 2), Axiothéa de Phlionte ou Lasthéneia de Mantinée. C’est la première fois, nous disent les commentateurs de ce texte, que l’une ou l’autre de ces femmes – entre lesquelles ils ne paraissent pas avoir pu trancher de manière décisive69 – est mise en relation avec Ménédème d’Érétrie. De prime abord, certes, l’identification au philosophe érétrien peut sembler incontestable, puisqu’elle est explicitement affirmée par l’auteur même du passage ; de fait, elle n’a pas été, à ma connaissance, sérieusement discutée. Mais comment admettre qu’une disciple de Platon, même très jeune encore à la mort du maître, ait pu passer de l’enseignement de Speusippe à celui de Ménédème d’Érétrie ? Il y a longtemps, en effet, que plus personne ne devrait prendre au sérieux l’affirmation de Diogène Laërce (ii 125) selon laquelle ce philosophe, à l’époque où il fit la connaissance de Stilpon de Mégare, aurait fait un stage à l’Académie pour y entendre Platon. La chronologie de l’Érétrien, telle qu’elle est établie dans ses grandes lignes depuis les travaux de K. J. Beloch et de K. von Fritz notamment, sur la base d’inscriptions et de repères irrécusables, l’interdit absolument, même si j’ai moi-même plaidé naguère – et plaide toujours – pour une date de naissance un peu plus haute que celle qui avait cours jusque-là70. Il paraît donc clair que le

  Sur ce texte, voir la réaction de Irigoin 1986, 195 ; cf. aussi Bernard 1985, 96 (“une jeune fille qui fut l’élève de Platon, puis de Speusippe et de Ménédème d’Érétrie”). 68   Si ce traité Péri sunokhès est bien le même que le Péri épokhès dont on connaît un fragment (fr. 24 Wehrli) ; Hiéronyme, philosophe péripatéticien, est à situer vers 300–240 av. J.-C. ; nettement plus tardif paraît être l’auteur mentionné juste après lui dans le papyrus, soit Ἀριστοφάνης ὁ Περιπατητικός, pratiquement inconnu par ailleurs (pour sa datation, cf. infra n. 76). 69   Gigante 1986, 59–60, donne la préférence à Lasthéneia – la plus charmante, sans contredit ! –, tandis que R. Goulet, DPhA A 517 (Axiothéa de Phlionte), y voit plutôt une mention de cette dernière. Cf. Dorandi 1989, 53–66, avec les témoignages antiques. 70   Soit vers 345–343, et non pas seulement 340–339 : voir ci-dessus p. 65 et n. 21. L’erreur dénoncée en D. L. ii 125 (quelle qu’en soit l’origine) est acceptée maintenant aussi par Haake 2007, 178 n. 16, qui, par ailleurs, ne traite pas de Ménédème de Pyrrha. 67

Ménédème

de

Pyrrha,

proxène de

Delphes

79

Ménédème cité dans le papyrus aux côtés de Platon et de Speusippe – exactement comme dans le fragment du comique Épikratès rappelé ci-dessus71 – est le philosophe de Lesbos. Les deux arguments allégués en faveur de l’Érétrien sont, en effet, sans valeur. En premier lieu, la référence à Hippobote ne saurait confirmer cette attribution, puisque le passage où Diogène cite Hippobote à propos de Ménédème ne concerne à l’évidence pas Ménédème d’Érétrie mais le philosophe cynique homonyme, élève de Colotès de Lampsaque72. Certes, l’ouvrage de cet érudit hellénistique faisait une place à la doctrine érétrique73, mais on ne sache pas qu’il ait traité de la vie du fondateur de la secte ; d’autre part, il est extrêmement douteux qu’il ait pu qualifier Ménédème de Eretrikos au lieu de Eretrieus. Les commentateurs du nouveau fragment papyrologique n’ont pas pris assez garde, en effet, au caractère singulier de cette désignation. Car, quand il ne définit pas la provenance ou l’appartenance d’une chose (cas le plus fréquent), le ctétique Ἐρετρικός ne peut, en principe, s’appliquer qu’à une personne qui n’a pas le statut de citoyen : une femme, un adolescent, un esclave ou un étranger domicilié74 ou encore, depuis l’époque hellénistique, un adhérent à l’école fondée par Μενέδημος ὁ Ἐρετριεύς. De fait, c’est seulement à partir de l’époque impériale que l’on voit des auteurs, et en tout petit nombre, utiliser le ctétique en lieu et place de l’ethnique : pour le philosophe érétrien, il n’y en avait, à ma connaissance, qu’un seul autre exemple, soit Dioklès de Magnésie, source importante – mais parmi les plus tardives – de Diogène Laërce75. Bref, il serait très surprenant qu’Hippobote, à l’époque hellénistique encore, ait déjà fait cet usage abusif – et pour tout dire fautif – du ctétique en lieu et place de l’ethnique. Dès lors, me semble-t-il, tout s’éclaire. Dans le texte qu’il a emprunté à sa source, l’auteur déjà assez tardif 76 du fragment transmis par le papyrus d’Oxyrhynchos, qui date lui-même des alentours de 200 après J.-C. seulement, avait dû trouver le nom de Ménédèmos sans ethnique ou qualificatif géographique aucun, exactement comme ceux de Platon et de Speusippe ; c’est donc lui, et lui seulement, qui, croyant reconnaître en ce personnage le fondateur de la secte Érétrique77 – encore relativement connue des doxographes de cette époque –, a ajouté le ctétique Eretrikos, commettant là une erreur devenue assez banale, puisque Ménédème de Pyrrha n’avait fait l’objet, 71   Ce rapprochement est fait, certes, par l’auteur des Papiri filosofici, loc. cit., qui en tire toutefois la curieuse conclusion que “prima di questo testo Ippoboto non risultava come fonte della notizia”. 72   D. L. vi 102 (= fr. 2, Gigante, Frammenti di Ippoboto). Cf. R. Goulet, DPhA M 119 (Ménédème le Cynique), p. 455 sq., qui ne laisse aucun doute à ce sujet. 73   Cf. D. L. i 19 (= fr. l Gigante). 74   Voir les attestations réunies par P. Charneux, BE 1987, no. 612 : “un Φενικός ne saurait d’aucune façon être un citoyen de Phénéos” (avec renvoi à W. Dittenberger, Syll2 587). Un exemple littéraire – remarquable par son ancienneté – concerne le pharmakopôlès Aristion le ‘Plataïque’ à Athènes chez Esch. iii 162, personnage dont le père – désigné de la même façon chez Thphr., HP ix 18. 4 – devait être originaire de Platées, mais avait sans doute perdu sa citoyenneté après 374 et s’était apparemment installé dans la clérouquie de Samos (pour le rapprochement fait là par S. Amigues entre ces deux personnages, cf. P. Bernard, CRAI 2006 p. 828). 75   Cité ici par Diogène à propos de Cratès de Thèbes (vi 91). Pour l’époque et les caractéristique de Dioklès, voir Mejer 1978, 42–5. Erreur semblable, à basse époque, dans le cas de Stilpon : voir Döring 1972, fr. 173 ; cf. ibid. p. 144 n. 7, pour un ‘Cyrénéen’ qualifié, sans doute à tort, de ‘Cyrénaïque’. 76   Cet auteur anonyme ne saurait guère être beaucoup antérieur au Ier siècle ap. J.-C. : il me semble un peu téméraire, en effet, d’y voir, avec Gigante 1986, 60, un contemporain ou presque d’Hippobote au IIe siècle av. J.-C., puisqu’Aristophane le Péripatéticien, cité dans le même passage (cf. supra n. 68), pourrait lui-même ne dater que du début de l’époque impériale (voir DPhA s.v.). 77   Un exemple de la même confusion est signalé supra n. 55, dans une liste des disciples de Platon connue seulement par la tradition arabe.

80

Denis Knoepfler

lui, d’aucune biographie particulière, comme ne le montre que trop, encore une fois, l’absence de toute mention de ce philosophe chez Diogène Laërce. Alors qu’elle s’avérait inutilisable, historiquement parlant, dans le cas du penseur érétrien, la nouvelle information s’intègre au mieux, je crois, dans la biographie du Pyrrhéen : au lendemain de la mort de Speusippe en 339, Ménédème, écarté du scholarcat par la victoire – à quelques suffrages près – de Xénocrate, attira à lui, dans l’école qu’il fonda alors au témoignage de l’Histoire des philosophes de Philodème dans le fameux papyrus d’Herculaneum78, un certain nombre de membres de l’Académie, y compris, on le voit maintenant par ce nouveau papyrus ‘philosophique’, l’une des rares femmes qui avaient suivi l’enseignement du fondateur et celui de son premier successeur.

Références bibliographiques Baumeister, A. (1864) Topographische Skizze der Insel Euboia. Lübeck. Bencivenni, A. (2003) Progetti di riforme costituzionali nelle epigrafi greche dei secoli IV–II a.C. Bologna. Bernard, P. (1985) ‘Les rhytons de Nisa. I. Poétesses grecques’, Journal des Savants 96, 25–118. Bousquet, J. (1940–41) ‘Inscriptions de Delphes, II’, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 64–65, 76–120. Bousquet, J. (1956) ‘L’inscription sténographique de Delphes’, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 80, 20–32. Bousquet, J. (1959) ‘Inscriptions de Delphes’, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 83, 146–192. Brun, J. (1969) ‘L’Académie’, in B. Parain (ed.), Histoire de la philosophie, I. Paris, 608–619. Buchholz, H.-G. (1975) Methymna. Mainz. Cargill, J. (1981) The Second Athenian League. Empire or Free Alliance ? Berkeley / London. Daux, G. (1943) Chronologie delphique. Paris. Dorandi, T. (1989) ‘Assiotea e Lastenia : due donne all’Accademia’, Atti e memorie dell’Accademia Toscana di scienze e lettere « La Colombaria » 54, 51–66. Dorandi, T. (1991) Filodemo. Storia dei Filosofi. Platone e l’Accademia (PHerc. 1021 e 164). Naples. Dorandi, T. (1992) ‘Il quarto libro di Diogene Laerzio : l’Accademia di Speusippo a Clitomaco’, in Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt II 36.5. Berlin / New York, 3761–3792. Döring, K. (1972) Die Megariker. Kommentierte Sammlung der Testimonien. Amsterdam. Dušanić, S. (1979) ‘L’Académie de Platon et la Paix commune de 371 av. J.-C.’, Revue des études grecques 92, 319–347. Flacelière, R. (1937) Les Aitoliens à Delphes. Contribution à l’histoire de la Grèce centrale au IIIe siècle av. J.-C. Paris. Fraser, P. M. (2009) Greek Ethnic Terminology. Oxford. Gaiser, K. (1963) Platons ungeschriebene Lehre. Stuttgart. Gauthier, P. (1997) compte rendu de G. Labarre, Les cités de Lesbos aux époques hellénistique et impériale, Topoi 7, 349–361. Gigante, M. (1986) ‘Biografia e dossografia in Diogene Laerzio’, Elenchos 7, 7–102. Grainger, J. D. (1999) The League of the Aitolians. Leiden. Haake, M. (2007) Der Philosoph in der Stadt. Untersuchungen zur öffentlichen Rede über Philosophien und Philosophie in der hellenistischen Poleis. Munich. Habicht, C. (1957) ‘Samische Volksbeschlüsse der hellenistischen Zeit’, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Athenische Abteilung 72, 152–274. Hodot, R. (1976) ‘Notes critiques sur le corpus de Lesbos’, Études d’archéologie classique 5, 17–81. Irigoin, J. (1986) compte rendu de The Oxyrhynchus Papyri. LXII, Revue des études grecques 99, 193–196. Isnardi Parente, M. (1979) Studi sull’Accademia platonica antica. Florence. Isnardi Parente, M. (1980) Speusippo. Frammenti. Naples.   Pour cette source en principe digne de foi, voir ci-dessus p. 8 et n. 38. Pour l’usage du ctétique, voir maintenant Fraser 2009, 35–53.

78

Ménédème

de

Pyrrha,

proxène de

Delphes

81

Isnardi Parente, M. (1981) ‘Per la biografia di Senocrate’, Rivista di filologia 109, 129–162. Isnardi Parente, M. (1982) Senocrate – Ermodoro. Frammenti. Naples. Jacoby, F. (1902) Apollodors Chronik : eine Sammlung der Fragmente. Berlin. Knoepfler, D. (1988) ‘Sur les traces de l’Artémision d’Amarynthos près d’Érétrie’, Comptes-rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 382–421. Knoepfler, D. (1991) La vie de Ménédème d’Érétrie de Diogène Laërce. Contribution à l’histoire et à la critique du texte des Vies des philosophes. Basel. Knoepfler, D. (1997) ‘Le territoire d’Érétrie et l’organisation politique de la cité (dêmoi, chôroi, phylai)’, in M. H. Hansen (ed.), The Polis as an Urban Centre and as a Political Community. Copenhagen, 352– 449. Knoepfler, D. (2005) L’apport des inscriptions grecques à l’histoire de l’Antiquité. Paris. Knoepfler, D. (2007) ‘Les honneurs décernés par Samos à Antiléon de Chalcis et à son fils Léontinos : une autre lecture’, Dacia 51, 161–170.  Koch, C. (2001) ‘Prozesse gegen die Tyrannis. Die Vorgänge in Eresos in der 2. Hälfte des 4. Jh. v. Chr.’, Dike. Rivista di storia del diritto greco ed ellenistico 4, 169–217. Krämer, H. J. (1983) ‘Erstes Kapitel. Die Ältere Akademie’, in H. Flashar (ed.), Ältere Akademie. Aristoteles, Peripatos. Basel, 1–165. Labarre, G. (1996) Les cités de Lesbos aux époques hellénistique et impériale. Paris. La Coste-Messelière, P. de (1949) ‘Listes amphictioniques du IVe siècle’, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 73, 201–247. Lasserre, F. (1987) De Léodamas de Thasos à Philippe d’Oponte : témoignages et fragments. Naples. Lefèvre, F. (1995) ‘La chronologie du IIIe siècle à Delphes, d’après les actes amphictioniques (280–200)’, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 119, 161–208. Lefèvre, F. (1998) L’Amphictionie pyléo-delphique : histoire et institutions. Paris. Lerat, L. (1952) Les Locriens de l’Ouest. Paris. Marchetti, P. (1977) ‘À propos des comptes de Delphes sous les archontats de Théon (324/3) et de Caphis (327/6)’, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 101, 133–164. Marek, C. (1984) Die Proxenie. Frankfurt / Bern / New York. Mejer, J. (1978) Diogenes Laertius and his Hellenistic Background. Wiesbaden. Monceaux, P. (1885) Les proxénies grecques. Paris. Piérart, M. (1974) Platon et la cité grecque. Théorie et réalité dans la Constitution des Lois. Brussels (repr. Paris, 2008). Robert, L. (1925a) ‘Lesbiaca I. Décret de Méthymna et d’Érésos en l’honneur de juges milésiens’, Revue des études grecques 38, 29–43 (= OMS II, 721–735). Robert, L. (1925b) ‘Lesbiaca II. Décret d’Érésos’, Revue des études grecques 38, 423–426 (= OMS II, 736–739). Robert, L. (1960) ‘Recherches épigraphiques’, Revue des études anciennes 62, 276–361 (= OMS II, 792–877). Robert, L. (1968) ‘De Delphes à l’Oxus’, Comptes-rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 416–467 (= OMS V, 510–551 ; Robert, Choix 533–565). Rousset, D. (2001) Le territoire de Delphes et la terre d’Apollon. Paris. Roux, G. (1979) L’Amphictionie, Delphes et le temple d’Apollon du IVe siècle. Paris / Lyon. Schiering, W. (1989) ‘Pyrrha auf Lesbos. Nachlese einer Grabung’, Archäologischer Anzeiger, 339–377. Spoerri W. (1988) ‘Épigraphie et littérature : à propos de la liste des Pythioniques à Delphes’, in Comptes et inventaires, 111–140. Taran, L. (1981) Speusippus of Athens. A Critical Study with a Collection of the Related Texts and Commentary. Leiden. Tod, M. N. (1957) ‘Sidelights on Greek Philosophers’, Journal of Hellenic Studies 77, 132–141. Wilamowitz, U. von (1881) Antigonos von Karystos. Berlin (repr. 1965). Wilhelm, A. (1905) ‘Praxiphanes’, Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes in Wien 8, 1–5 (= Kleine Schriften II 1, 219–224).

CYprus

Lykophron’s Alexandra and the Cypriote name Praxandros Simon Hornblower

This paper discusses the very rare name Praxandros, borne by one of five Greek oikists who settled on Cyprus, according to Lykophron’s Alexandra (line 586: Praxandros said to come from Lakonian Therapne). The name is attested on an archaic syllabic inscription from Paphos, and this strengthens the tradition of Spartan settlement on Cyprus. Lykophron should be taken seriously as evidence for such myths of foundation.

My tribute to Elaine Matthews, who has helpfully answered my inquiries about many a Greek personal name, and with whom I co-edited the Festschrift for P. M. Fraser (S. Hornblower and E. Matthews, Greek Personal Names. Their Value as Evidence. Oxford, 2000), takes the form of a discussion of just one very rare Greek name: Praxandros. It is attested on Cyprus, and otherwise only in a scholiast on Pindar, as the name of an otherwise unknown brother of Theron, tyrant of Sicilian Akragas and son of Ainesidamos; but this is a problematic mention. Volume I of LGPN, the ‘islands’ volume, gives only one attestation, a Cypriote inscription to which I shall return. But there is another in the Alexandra of the Hellenistic poet Lykophron, for whom Praxandros was one of five mythical oikists who led Greeks to Cyprus (line 586). This is a mini-nostos or story of a heroic return (from Troy) of the kind which takes up much of the poem; but ‘return’ is not quite the right word for stories of heroes who did not go home, as did Odysseus in the main Homeric narrative, but who set out to found new communities, in the way that Homer may hint at predictively for Odysseus (Od. xxiii 264–84). But that was after his return to Ithaka, whereas the point of Lykophron’s Greek oikists is, as we shall see, that they are unable to reach home, and so they are forced to settle elsewhere. The Lexicon does in fact include the oikist, but only in vol. IIIA, where he is registered as a    A much briefer version of the present paper formed part of an inaugural lecture (‘History from the “Dark Poet” Lykophron: in memoriam P. M. Fraser’) which I gave in November 2008 at University College London, and which Elaine attended. I am very grateful to Riet van Bremen for reading and improving this paper (see also n. 17 below), and to Richard Catling for editorial help and patience (and see n. 15 below).    Drachmann vol. 1 p. 84, Schol. Pi., O. ii, 89e (the relevant Pindar line is O. ii, 49 in modern numbering). The difficulty is that the unnamed brother is usually, for instance in commentaries on the poem, assumed to be the Xenokrates commemorated in P. vi and I. ii. LGPN IIIA, for whom the brother is Πράξανδρος (2), is evidently hesitant because it calls him ‘?s. Αἰνησίδαμος’.    So does Poralla 636.

Lykophron’s Alexandra

and the Cypriote name

Praxandros

85

Spartan, and is ascribed to the heroic age (‘her.’); the entry adds the doubting parenthesis ‘(and Cyprus Lapethos: oikist/dub.)’. He was lucky to get into the Lexicon at all, but logically he ought to have featured in both LGPN I and IIIA, or in neither. By a similar but converse illogicality, Agapenor, the Arkadian oikist of Cypriote Paphos and the third of Lykophron’s five, is included in LGPN I as a ‘her[oic]’ Paphian, but not in IIIA as an Arkadian. On the other hand Kepheus, with whom Praxandros is paired by Lykophron, is registered neither in vol. IIIA (as an Achaian), nor in vol. I (as a Cypriote). The epigraphic Praxandros, as I shall call him, has not, to my knowledge, featured in the modern literature on the poem. So the main aim of my paper is to draw attention to the link between the two attestations, artificially separated as they are by their placing in different volumes of the Lexicon. But I shall also, and more ambitiously, suggest that an onomastic argument, based on the epigraphic Praxandros, supports the idea – which I believe to be generally probable, and for which I shall be arguing in a full-length commentary on the whole 1474-line poem – that the Alexandra preserves genuine traditions about early Greek settlement of the Mediterranean. I shall not attempt a proper summary of the Alexandra here, but I must briefly contextualise the small detail which will be the subject of my paper. Almost all of the poem is presented as a speech-within-a-speech delivered before the Trojan War: the guard set by Priam to watch over his daughter Kassandra carries out his orders to “report truly all she says” (line 1). After the thirty-line prologue spoken by the guard in his own person, Kassandra’s enormous predictive speech begins; it will recount east-west conflict down to the time of L. Quinctius Flamininus. Her first 350 lines prophesy the fall of Troy to the Greeks, culminating in Ajax’s rape of Kassandra. The second and main section of the poem – the final section will not concern us here – lasts until line 1173. It tells of the unhappy future homecomings, nostoi, of the Greeks, whose miseries are presented as punishment for that “one man’s transgression” (line 365, ἑνὸς δὲ λώβης ἀντί). More important for the historian, it recounts, or rather ‘predicts’, their pan-Mediterranean wanderings and their foundation of new colonial cities when they cannot get home. One of the longest in this series is the Cyprus sub-section (lines 447–591), which features five Greek leaders – Teukros, Agapenor, Akamas, Praxandros and Kepheus – who came to “the horned island of Sphekeia” i.e. Cyprus. The late P. M. Fraser analysed this sub-section and concluded that Lykophron’s main sources for it were Eratosthenes and Philostephanos, writers of the second half of the third century BC. This, he argued, rules out a date for Lykophron in the early third century, when the known tragic poet Lykophron (I) was active. He therefore concluded that the whole poem dates from the early second century, the age of Flamininus, and must be pseudonymous, the work of a Lykophron II. The conclusion was not new – even in antiquity the prophecy of Roman “sceptre and monarchy over land and sea” (line 1229) had led to the hypothesis of a second-century Lykophron II – but it was reached by a new line of argument. I leave there the much-disputed question of dating; but it will be seen that with this line of reasoning the Cypriot material acquires an importance beyond itself. It affects our view of the whole work.   The Cypriote material in LGPN I was based on an onomastikon supplied by the late T. B. Mitford: LGPN I, x.   Sphekeia: FHG III p. 30, Philostephanos fr. 10 (cited by Tzetzes in his commentary on the relevant line of Lykophron) and EM s.v. Σφήκεια. For Philostephanos, see Rusten 1996. Κεραστία: Xenagoras FGrHist 240 F 26a and b.    Fraser 1979. Fraser did not discuss the name Praxandros.  

86

Simon Hornblower

The lines which concern us run as follows: Κηφεὺς δὲ καὶ Πράξανδρος, οὐ ναυκληρίας λαῶν ἄνακτες, ἀλλ ̓ ἀνώνυμοι σποραί, πέμπτοι τέταρτοι γαῖαν ἵξονται θεᾶς Γόλγων ἀνάσσης. ὧν ὁ μὲν Λάκων ὄ̓ χλον ἄγων Θεράπνης, θάτερος δ’ ἀπ’ Ὠλένου Δύμης τε Βουραίοισιν ἡγεμὼν στρατοῦ. Then Kepheus and Praxandros, not as leaders of naval contingents, but an anonymous stock, shall come as fifth and fourth to the land of the queen of Golgoi. The one shall bring a Lakonian troop from Therapne, the other [shall come as] leader of an army from Olenos, Dyme and Boura (lines 586–91). Here Kassandra predicts that Spartans from Lakonian Therapne, led by Praxandros, will settle in the “land of Golgoi’s queen”, that is, in Cyprus, so-called because of the story of Aphrodite’s birth at Paphos, and because Golgoi is a place in central Cyprus. The implications of Kepheus’ Achaian troop cannot be investigated here. These “fifth and fourth” Cypriote oikists are disposed of very summarily, compared with the far more elaborate and discursive treatment of nos. 1–3. Kassandra is evidently restless to move on: she will now (line 592) switch with typical abruptness to Diomedes’ foundation of Italian Argyrippa and the Boiotian settlement of the Balearic islands. This sets the tone for the predominantly western character of the long Odysseus section (lines 648–819). But for the moment we are in the far eastern Mediterranean. Kepheus and Praxandros are most unusual, in that Kassandra names them directly, rather than by her habitual periphrasis, the feature which, perhaps above all others, has earned the poem its reputation for obscurity. Thus Odysseus, who is never named at all, is “the man with the dolphin sign, the thief of the Phoenician goddess” (line 658, alluding to the dolphin who saved his son Telemachos from drowning, and to the theft of the Palladion by Odysseus and Diomedes). Similarly, Lykophron tends either to use periphrastic pseudo-ethnics (like ‘Mopsopian’ for Athenian at e.g. line 733), or else to make particular places stand synecdochically for entire regions (like the short list of toponyms at lines 644–7, which means, in effect ‘Boiotia’). But Kassandra does not obey iron rules: the people of Naples are called ‘Neapolitans’ without equivocation (line 736). In the six ‘Cypriote’ lines quoted above, we have both synecdochic expressions for regions (“land of Golgoi” = Cyprus, and three cities of Achaia stand for the whole), and also an ethnic given en clair, ‘Lakonian’. Two questions arise: Why are Kepheus and Praxandros named? And why does Kassandra use the emphatic technique of ‘presentation by negation’ (they are not leaders of naval contingents)? As for the first question, Kassandra tends to name only minor figures: on the whole, the more famous the figure, the more elaborate the periphrasis. As for the second question, an ancient scholiast supplies the answer: the implied reference is to the Homeric Catalogue of Ships in Iliad book ii. These two leaders are not in Homer, so that ‘not’ here means ‘not in the Catalogue, unlike most of the Greeks whose miseries I am foretelling’. They are thus ‘anonymous’ in the sense ‘obscure because non-Homeric’, carent quia vate sacro (Horace Odes iv 9, 28). Alexander Sens has well noticed the irony: Lykophron makes Kassandra call these two leaders ‘nameless’, although she actually breaks her usual rule by naming them!  

  Sistakou 2009, 249; Holzinger 1895 ad loc.   Sens 2009, 27; cf. Sistakou 2009, 248 f. and n. 33; Holzinger 1895, ad loc.

Lykophron’s Alexandra

and the Cypriote name

Praxandros

87

Spartans in Cyprus? This is a surprise, because Sparta sent out few distant colonies in reality. But the mythical evidence for the phenomenon is rich, and was explored a few years ago by Irad Malkin in an excellent book: Myth and Territory in the Spartan Mediterranean. Cambridge, 1994. The topic was a good one, in view of the persuasive power of mythical claims of kinship, which might be asserted by mother-city, or by daughter-city, or by both. But Malkin says nothing about Praxandros and virtually nothing about Spartans on Cyprus, despite the existence of corroborating evidence – I mean, for the belief, not necessarily for the reality, although we shall see that distinguished archaeologists take the tradition of a Spartan presence in Cyprus seriously. But let us look first at the literary tradition. Praxandros was supposedly the Greek oikist of the city of Lapethos in the north. In the fourth century BC, however, the geographer Skylax classified Lapethos as Phoenician; the truth is probably that the population was a mix.10 Strabo (xiv 6. 3) says that Lapethos has a harbour and dockyards, and is “a foundation of Lakonians and Praxandros” (Λακώνων κτίσμα καὶ Πραξάνδρου). In his commentary on Lykophron, Tzetzes confirms that Kepheus came to Cyprus from Achaia, and Praxandros from Lakedaimon. This tells us nothing we did not already know from Lykophron, but Tzetzes adds the precious information that it was said by Philostephanos, a figure whom we have met already: ὁ Κηφεὺς ἐξ Ἀχαίας, ὁ δὲ Πράξανδρος ἐξ Λακεδαίμονος παρεγένοντο εἰς Κύπρον, ὡς φησὶ Φιλοστέφανος.11 In 1940, Sir George Hill, author of what is still the standard history of Cyprus, noticed the Praxandros tradition, but cited only Strabo for it, and did so in language implying that Strabo was the sole authority, as indeed he is for Lapethos specifically.12 But this is misleading, because Strabo is two hundred years later than both Philostephanos and Lykophron (on any dating of the Alexandra), so we can push the general tradition of Lakonian settlement under Praxandros much further back. It is not clear whether Strabo drew on Lykophron or on Philostephanos, neither of whom he cites by name anywhere, though he might have used a learned poet like Lykophron, because he cites Philostephanos’ teacher Kallimachos several times across his seventeen books. Strabo’s specification of Lapethos as the Cypriote city founded by Praxandros is certainly not owed to Lykophron, but it might have been taken from Philostephanos, if Tzetzes was merely summarising the latter. But Fraser preferred to believe that Strabo’s source here, as for some other points in his Cyprus chapter, was Eratosthenes.13 We must now turn to the grounds for believing that there is some substance, if only at the level of ancient perception or propaganda, behind this tradition of ‘Lakonians and Praxandros’ in Cyprus. I deal first with the Lakonians, then with Praxandros himself. First, there is epigraphic evidence for a cult of Amyklaian Apollo in Cyprus at Idalion, south

   The exception is Malkin 1994, 72 n. 2, where he quotes Cartledge’s suggestion about Cypriote Amyklai (for this, see below n. 14). Malkin 1998 several times (pp. 3, 154, 210) notes in a general way that the origins of Cypriote cities were explained in terms of Greek nostoi. 10   See Reyes 1994, 148, who notes that Phoenician material at the site is substantial; similarly Maier 2004, 1227 no. 1017: “a kind of Graeco-Phoenician community”; D’Alessio 2005, 212 n. 156 (alternative tradition that Lapethos was founded by Belos). 11   FHG III p. 31, fr. 12. 12   Hill 1940, 99 n. 6: “Strabo is the authority [italics added] for the Laconian foundation”. Similarly Maier 2004, 1227 (no. 1017, ‘Lapethos’) cites only Strabo for the foundation by “Lakonians under Praxandros”. 13   Fraser 1979, 340.

88

Simon Hornblower

of Lapethos in the centre of the island.14 Amyklai was the Spartan village where Kassandra was worshipped as Alexandra (Paus. iii 19. 6). In Pindar’s version of the story, Agamemnon and Kassandra were murdered precisely at Amyklai (P. xi, 32). Second, there is supposed to have been a Lakedaimon in the interior of Cyprus. The evidence for this extraordinary fact is a single sentence of the long entry Λακεδαίμων in Stephanus of Byzantium.15 Third, there is the mention of Lapetheia, evidently an eponym of Lapethos, alongside Methone (another eponym), among Poseidon’s lovers, as listed in a new fragment of the Hesiodic Megalai Ehoiai (fr. 157, 2 Most, from Philodemos On Piety; Most regards the fragment as coming from the Catalogue of Women and classifies it accordingly).16 D’Alessio has recently argued, on other grounds, that the Megalai Ehoiai has a “possible Laconian perspective”;17 he then brilliantly explains the paired mentions of Lapitheia and Methone18 in terms of this perspective, and adduces in support of this the Cypriote activity of the Lakonians and Praxandros, as described by Lykophron and Strabo. The only regret here is that D’Alessio discusses Praxandros and Lapethos as if LGPN did not exist, merely citing19 a remark of Hill (on Prax-names as characteristic of Lapethos), to which I now turn. Fourth, finally, and above all there is the name Praxandros. Hill rightly remarked that it is a rare name; he also commented that “Greek names compounded with Prax- seem to be characteristic of the place [Lapethos]”.20 We can be more precise now, thanks to the Lexicon. It confirms, as we have seen, the extreme rarity of the name Praxandros throughout the Greek world; but it is time to introduce the epigraphic Praxandros from Cyprus. The name occurs as a one-word inscription from Paphos in sinistroverse Cypriote syllabic script on a rectangular limestone block; it was properly edited only in 1983, though first published (and misread) in 1911.21 It consists of the syllables pa-ra-ka-sa-to-ro, which represent Greek Πραξά(ν)δρω. Mitford and Masson duly noted that “the rare name Πράξανδρος is already known in Cyprus for the mythical founder of Lapethos”, and cited our passage of Lykophron. As for the form of the name, Hill’s other remark, about Πραξ- names generally in that part of the world, needs   Hill 1940, 87 and n. 3 citing the evidence, some of it bilingual, and suggesting that “there was at Idalium a local god, with a name (not necessarily Phoenician) which reminded the Greeks of Amyclae”; cf. also Gjerstad 1944, 112. Cartledge 2002, 94 [originally 1979, 109] suggests that Amyklai on Cyprus is, like Melos and Amyklaion near Gortyn in Crete (for which see Lane Fox 2008, 341 and 445 n. 16), “to be associated with a ninth- or eighthcentury rather than a twelfth-century emigration from Lakonia”. Note also Lipinski 1987, 98 (the Lakonian deity Amyklaian Apollo identified with Resheph). 15   This is ‘Lakedaimon’ no. 3 in RE. (Hill 1940, 88 mentions the fact, but not the source). Richard Catling (to whom I am indebted for the observation) points out to me that there is a possible example of the converse phenomenon: Paus. iii 20. 7 mentions a Lakonian place Lapithaion, named from a local man called Lapithos. The spelling of the Cypriote city Lapethos is unstable (Hansen–Nielsen, IACP 1227); Lapith- is an attested variant. 16   Most 2007, 241, cf. 201 ff. 17   D’Alessio 2005, 212. I am specially grateful to Riet van Bremen for drawing my attention to this study. 18   Most has “Lapethea [or] Methone”; the text he prints is Λαπηθε[ίαι ἢ ] Μηθώνηι. 19   D’Alessio 2005, 212 n. 196. 20   Hill 1940, 99 n. 6. Hill did not mention the epigraphic Praxandros; nor does D’Alessio, as we have seen. 21   Mitford–Masson 1983, 52 no. 30 (ICS 49 provided no drawing or photo); dated ‘vi BC’ in LGPN I. As Mitford and Masson note, the letters were originally and erroneously read dextroverse (Meister 1911, 639 no. 61), producing “a romantic Ῥοδοσκάρφα’ or ‘strewer of roses’”. This word then found its way into LSJ as ‘title of a deity in Cyprus’, but the 1996 supplement instructs us laconically: “delete the entry”. Sittig (1924) had already corrected the reading; cf. SEG VI 819. 14

Lykophron’s Alexandra

and the Cypriote name

Praxandros

89

qualifying in view of the statistics provided by LGPN. In vol. I alone, there are exactly fifty names formed in Πραξ‑, and 205 separate bearers. Nevertheless Hill was right to draw attention to the two fourth-century BC kings of, precisely, Lapethos called Πράξιππος,22 and he noted also the one or possibly two bearers of the name Πραξίδημος from, again, Lapethos. The Phoenician form of the latter name was Baalsillem, and his patronym was Σεσμᾶς.23 But, it may be objected, Lykophron’s story implies that the oikist Praxandros was originally a Spartan: as we have seen, it is as a Spartan that LGPN lists him, though with a gesture towards Lapethos. The name is not otherwise attested at Sparta. Oikists may, however, be thought of as possessing dual ethnics. The name, it might be conjectured, ‘migrated’ to Cyprus along with its original bearer: did a Paphian adopt the name of the Spartan oikist, perhaps alongside his own Phoenician one, if Phoenician he was and whatever that Phoenician name was? Or was there really just one Cypriote Praxandros; that is, does the syllabic inscription show that Praxandros of Lapethos received sixth-century hero-cult as oikist, in the form of a dedication made at Paphos, the island’s most famous sanctuary? We may think of the hero-cult paid to Onesilos of Cypriote Salamis in the 490s (Hdt. v 114. 2: not, however, oikist cult). It would be good to know more about the epigraphic Praxandros, but the reported find-spot, “in the cross-wall of the Greek temenos”, might be consistent with oikist cult. What are we to make of all this? Cyprus was a place of mixed settlement. It was ambiguously regarded by early Greeks, rather than seen as outright barbarian. The Catalogue of Ships in book ii of Homer’s Iliad lists no Cypriote contingent among the Greek allies who sailed against Troy; but Cyprus is not in his Trojan list either, unlike the Lykians, who were not far from Cyprus geographically, and were also of ambiguous ethnicity. Homer finally makes his mind up about Cyprus when he has Agamemnon put on a corselet of magnificent metal-work, sent him by king Kinyras of Cyprus when he heard of the Greek expedition to Troy (Il. xi, 19 ff.). So: no ships, but a friendly gift to the Greek side in the war. Another tradition, given by Eustathios, commenting on the Homer passage, held that Kinyras promised fifty ships, but sent model terracotta ones instead.24 This is the background of unstable ethnicity against which we should see these stories of Greek oikists on Cyprus. In conclusion, my thesis has been that the story of Lykophron’s Praxandros, the oikist from Sparta, may have left onomastic traces on Cyprus. I have also noted that there is other Cypriote evidence which hints at a perceived or asserted Spartan connection. We are fortunate in that on this point Lykophron receives corroboration from Philostephanos, who is likely to have been his source. Elsewhere, for instance over Diomedes and other western material, Lykophron displays evident closeness and probably indebtedness to Timaios (this aspect of Lykophron has been explored by, above all, Italian scholars). But not everything in Lykophron is western, and not everything can be traced to particular sources, good or bad. Philostephanos’ reputation does not stand as high as Timaios’, but I hope to have shown that the epigraphic Praxandros offers some onomastic support for the unexpected tradition of Spartans on Cyprus. Even where sources cannot   LGPN I Πράξιππος (2) has a wrong Diodoros ref.: for ‘xix 57. 4’ read ‘xix 79. 4’.   See LGPN I, where it is noted that Πραξίδημος (1) and (2) may be identical. 24   Fortin 1980, 36; Reyes 1994, 32. Apollodoros (Epit. iii 9) varies the story by having Kinyras send one real ship only, the rest made of terracotta. West 1997, 57, ingeniously suggests that Kinyras is really nothing other than the eponymous ancestor of the Kinyradai, a guild of temple musicians (name derived from the Phoenician for ‘sons of the lyre’). 22 23

90

Simon Hornblower

be identified and supported in this way, Lykophron’s Alexandra deserves to be taken seriously by historians interested in the traditions about early Greek overseas settlement; but to prove that, we will need to extend the inquiry far beyond the single intriguing figure of Praxandros.

References Cartledge, P. (2002) Sparta and Lakonia: A Regional History 1300 to 362 BC. 2nd edn. London. Cusset, C. and Prioux, E. (eds) (2009) Lycophron: éclats d’obscurité. Saint-Étienne. D’Alessio, G. B. (2005) ‘The Megalai Ehoiai: A Survey of the Fragments’, in R. Hunter (ed.), The Hesiodic Catalogue of Women: Constructions and Reconstructions. Cambridge, 176–216. Fortin, M. (1980) ‘Fondation de villes grecques à Chypre: légendes et découvertes archéologiques’, in J.-B. Caron, M. Fortin and G. Maloney (eds), Mélanges d’études anciennes offerts à Maurice Lebel. Quebec, 25–44. Fraser, P. M. (1979) ‘Lycophron on Cyprus’, Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus, 328–343. Gjerstad, E. (1944) ‘The Colonisation of Cyprus in Greek Legend’, Opuscula Atheniensia 3, 107–123. Hill, G. F. (1940) History of Cyprus, vol. 1. Cambridge. von Holzinger, C. (1895) Lykophron’s Alexandra. Leipzig. Lane Fox, R. (2008) Travelling Heroes. Greeks and their Myths in the Epic Age of Homer. London. Lipinski, E. (1987) ‘Resheph Amyklos’, in E. Lipinski (ed.), Phoenicia and the East Mediterranean in the First Millennium BC. Louvain, 87–99. Maier, F. G. (2004) ‘Cyprus’, in Hansen–Nielsen, IACP 1223–1232. Malkin, I. (1994) Myth and Territory in the Spartan Mediterranean. Cambridge. Malkin, I. (1998) The Returns of Odysseus: Colonization and Ethnicity. Berkeley / London. Meister, R. (1911) ‘Inschriften aus Rantidi in Kypros’, Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, phil.-hist. Kl., 630–650. Mitford, T. B. and Masson, O. (1983) The Syllabic Inscriptions of Rantidi-Paphos. Konstanz. Most, G. (2007) Hesiod: the Shield; Catalogue of Women; Other Fragments, (Loeb Classical Library). Cambridge, Mass. Reyes, A. T. (1994) Archaic Cyprus. A Study of the Textual and Archaeological Evidence. Oxford. Rusten, J. S. (1996) ‘Philostephanus’, in OCD3. Sens, A. (2009) ‘Lycophron’s Alexandra, the Catalog of Ships and Homeric Geography’, in Cusset–Prioux 2009, 19–37. Sistakou, E. (2009) ‘Breaking the Name Codes in Lycophron’s Alexandra’, in Cusset–Prioux 2009, 237– 257. Sittig, E. (1924) ‘Zur neugefundenen kyprischen Sprache’, Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete des Deutschen, Griechischen und Lateinischen, 194–202. West, M. L. (1997) The East Face of Helicon. West Asiatic Elements in Greek Poetry and Myth. Oxford.

CYrenaica

SUR QUELQUES NOMS NOUVEAUX DE CYRÉNAÏQUE Catherine Dobias-Lalou

Un petit choix de noms entrés dans le corpus de Cyrénaïque depuis la parution du LGPN I (1987), retenus pour leur rareté ou leur obscurité, est ici discuté. Ce sont les composés Βασιλοκρέων et Ὑπέρασις, les hypocoristiques de composés Ἄγωνις, Πρᾶξις, Φίληκις et Ἐρασώ, les sobriquets pris tels quels dans le lexique, comme Κριός, ou dérivés, comme Ἀρθμιάδας, Ἴθυλλις, Μύρτιλος, Νέβριχος. Le nom Ἴταγος, définitivement établi à Cyrène et en Égypte, est susceptible d’une analyse grecque. Outre quelques problèmes d’établissement du texte, l’étude propose des remarques sur des procédés de renouvellement du stock anthroponymique, par ‘mécoupure’ ou croisement de noms existants. Les affinités déjà remarquées entre les stocks onomastiques de Cyrénaïque et de Béotie se vérifient sur plusieurs de ces noms ou de leurs modes de formation. A small selection of names entered in the corpus of Cyrenaica since the publication of LGPN I (1987) is discussed. Chosen for their rarity or obscure meaning are the compounds Βασιλοκρέων and Ὑπέρασις, the hypocoristics from compound names Ἄγωνις, Πρᾶξις, Φίληκις and Ἐρασώ, the nicknames taken from the lexical repertoire, like Κριός, or derivations from them, such as Ἀρθμιάδας, Ἴθυλλις, Μύρτιλος, and Νέβριχος. The name Ἴταγος, known for certain at Cyrene and in Egypt, is likely to have a Greek derivation. Beside a few problems relating to the establishment of the text, this study remarks on the process of renewal of the onomastic repertoire through false word-breaks or the hybridisation of existing names. Similarities already noted between the onomastic repertoires of Cyrenaica and Boiotia are confirmed in several of these names or in the manner of their formation. Le travail des hellénistes, dans les domaines de l’épigraphie et de l’onomastique, s’est trouvé profondément transformé par le Lexicon of Greek Personal Names. Ceux qui s’intéressent à la Cyrénaïque ont bénéficié de cet irremplaçable outil de travail dès la parution du tome I, en 1987. Certes, pour cette région, le Lessico de S. M. Marengo, paru en 1991, peut être consulté en complément. Mais, de visée différente, cet ouvrage ne livre ni élément de datation ni regroupement prosopographique. D’autre part, il n’enregistre aucune donnée publiée après 1989, tandis que le LGPN I avait bénéficié de nombreuses lectures inédites de J. Reynolds. Aujourd’hui, le recul

Sur

quelques noms nouveaux de

Cyrénaïque

93

du temps permet de tenir compte de publications nouvelles et de vérifications effectuées sur place. Un supplément systématique dépasserait les limites imparties à chacun des contributeurs de l’offrande collective préparée pour Elaine Matthews. Je me contenterai donc de joindre à la corbeille commune, composée pour lui rendre hommage, quelques fleurs choisies pour leur nouveauté ou leur rareté.

Ἄγωνις Ce nom tout à fait nouveau, que j’accentue ainsi, est apparu pour deux Cyrénéens de la seconde moitié du IVe s. a.C. L’un est Ἄγωνις Τιμοκλεῦς, prêtre éponyme sous le contrôle de qui est dressée la comptabilité de divers dépôts monétaires (SEG XL 1596). L’autre est le père d’un défunt mentionné sur une base funéraire provenant de la nécropole Sud, Πρατομήδης Ἀγώνιος (SEG XLVII 2179B). En dépit de la rareté du nom, de l’appartenance des deux hommes à une même couche de la société et à une même époque, nous manquons d’appui formel pour établir un lien familial entre eux. Dans le commentaire linguistique de R. Arena joint à l’édition de la tablette comptable, deux origines sont proposées pour cet hypocoristique, répétant une distinction opérée par Bechtel : un composé du type Ἀγώνιππος ou l’adjectif Ἀγώνιος, épithète d’Hermès (Pi., I. i 60). Mais il n’existe aucun élément en faveur de la seconde interprétation à Cyrène, du moins si l’on considère l’épithète divine comme une épiclèse. En revanche, comme l’a bien noté l’éditrice de l’autre mention, J. Reynolds, des éléments du mobilier funéraire révèlent une famille attachée aux courses de char et la référence aux concours y serait sémantiquement motivée. Mais quelle voie emprunter morphologiquement ? Nous avons ici un des innombrables masculins en -ις (génitif -ιος) appréciés à Cyrène. Ce type de formation a produit de nombreux dérivés, dont l’origine n’est pas toujours dépourvue d’une ambiguïté qui mettait déjà Bechtel dans l’embarras. On distingue en principe deux types de bases de dérivation pour les hypocoristiques : d’une part celles qui résultent de la troncation d’un composé, dont subsiste en général au moins un élément consonantique du second membre. Ainsi ont été formés Ἄναξις, Κλεῦπις, Πάραιβις, Πόλυμνις, Εὖφρις, Ζῆνις, pour ne citer que quelques exemples cyrénéens les plus répandus. Et si le premier membre du composé était en -i-, notamment en -si-, la segmentation se faisait à ce point, ce qui renforçait l’étroitesse de la relation entre composé et hypocoristique : Πρᾶξις (voir ci-dessous), Ἴασις, Σῶσις. D’autre part, -ις peut aussi apparaître dans des dérivés de sobriquets. Dans le groupe qui nous intéresse ici, voici comment Bechtel classait les données : a) de composés à premier membre Ἀγων-, ou avec voyelle tampon Ἀγωνο- (Ἀγωνοχάρης, Ἀγώνιππος), il tirait l’hypocoristique Ἀγωνέας ; b) de l’épithète d’Hermès, il tirait un premier membre Ἀγωνι- qui lui permettait d’expliquer Ἀγωνικλῆς théréen ; c) enfin, il hésitait pour Ἀγώνιος entre un hypocoristique du type b) et un sobriquet marquant l’attachement à un dieu. Je ne suis pas convaincue du bien-fondé de la catégorie b), car les rares adjectifs en -io- ayant servi au premier membre d’un composé n’y perdent pas leur voyelle thématique, ainsi Ἀξιο-, Ἀντιο-. Je considère plus volontiers comme point de départ commun le composé Ἀγών-ιππος,   Arena 1990, 37.   Pi., I. i 60 pourrait, sans certitude, faire référence à une épiclèse, qui serait alors thébaine ou de l’Isthme. Par ailleurs, une dédicace de l’époque de Nerva présente cette épithète divine à Sparte (IG V (1) 658).    Respectivement Bechtel, HPN 21 et 617.  

94

Catherine Dobias-Lalou

maintenant connu en Cyrénaïque. La troncation normale a produit entre autres Ἄγων-ις, qui a probablement favorisé le phénomène de ‘mécoupure’, c’est-à-dire le déplacement de la frontière morphologique dans le composé et l’émergence d’un nouveau premier membre Ἀγωνι-. Que les témoignages proviennent justement de Cyrène et Thèra ne doit pas être trop vite attribué à leurs liens d’origine, car le composé théréen est relativement tardif. Au reste, un argument supplémentaire est fourni par Bechtel lui-même, qui acceptait un développement morphologique du même genre avec sa rubrique “Ξανθι- zu Ξάνθις aus Ξάνθιππος”. On connaît quelque chose du même genre avec Εὐφρ-, si répandu en Cyrénaïque.

Ἀρθμιάδας Presque simultanément sont apparus à Cyrène trois exemples de ce nom. Une base funéraire datable de fin IVe/début IIIe s. a.C. mentionne un Ἀρθμιάδας Ἀριστοφάνευς (SEG XLVII 2182). Sa provenance incertaine empêche un rapprochement prosopographique avec une autre base, bien localisée dans une sépulture familiale (tombe S 388) et concernant Ἀρθμιάδας Εὐφράνορος, vraisemblablement à la fin du IIIe s. a.C. (SEG XLVII 2170). Or dans une liste de souscripteurs des environs de 280 a.C. récemment complétée, deux souscripteurs successifs, dont les patronymes sont perdus, se nomment respectivement Ἀρθμιάδ[ας] et Εὐφράν[ωρ] (SEG XLVIII 2055, 16 et 17). La rencontre n’est probablement pas fortuite, les souscripteurs d’une même famille (père, fils, frères) se suivant souvent par deux ou trois dans la liste. Un rapport familial est donc assez probable, mais diverses configurations sont possibles : le premier souscripteur pourrait être le grand-père du défunt, qui serait ainsi le fils du second souscripteur. Mais les deux souscripteurs peuvent aussi être des frères. On se gardera d’être trop affirmatif. Quant au nom Ἀρθμιάδας, il reste rare. Comme personnages historiques, le LGPN recense un emploi de la forme à finale ionienne à Paros, auquel on joint un proxène d’origine inconnue à Dèlos. Plus intéressante pour nous, mais parfois mise en doute par la critique historique, est la piste laconienne : le bras droit de Lycurgue, selon Plutarque (Lyc. 5. 5), portait ce nom. De formation claire, c’est le dérivé du sobriquet Ἄρθμιος. Les deux noms sont enregistrés déjà par Bechtel.

Βασιλοκρέων Une base provenant de la même tombe que celle du fils d’Agônis porte la mention Ἀριστοτέλης Βασιλοκρέοντος (SEG XLVII 2179A). Le nom banal d’Aristotélès prend à Cyrène une résonance particulière, puisque c’était le premier nom du fondateur, mieux connu sous son surnom de Βάττος. Le patronyme, lui, est un composé inédit, mais qui pourrait avoir été puisé dans la tradition ancestrale, puisque les composés en Βασιλο- sont connus jusqu’ici presque exclusivement à Thèra (deux féminins -δίκα, -κλεια et deux masculins -γένης, -θεμις). Le seul exemple connu ailleurs serait Βασιλοκλῆς. Il existe en outre un peu partout, notamment dans les régions pontiques, une abondante série d’hypocoristiques. On peut citer pour la Cyrénaïque le féminin Βασιλώ   Stèle funéraire du début du Ve s. provenant de la chôra, incomplètement publiée, mais vérifiée et signalée, d’où SEG XLII 166.    Bechtel, HPN 338.    Ce sont les ‘dreistämmige Namen’ de Bechtel, HPN 77.    IG XI (4) 593. Voir aussi Masson, BE 1996, no. 311.    Bechtel, HPN 511. 

Sur

quelques noms nouveaux de

Cyrénaïque

95

dans une épigramme de Callimaque (Ep. 20) et Βασίλλη sur une tombe d’époque impériale à Taucheira (toutes les références dans le LGPN). Bechtel semble avoir songé, puis renoncé à l’idée que ces noms étaient motivés par une épiclèse divine. On remarque bien plutôt que tous les composés connus jusqu’ici font sens comme composés possessifs, dotant ceux qui les portent d’une naissance, une justice ou une gloire royales. Notre nouveau composé, lui aussi riche de sens, suppose entre les deux termes un rapport différent : avec un second membre -κρέων, qui dans le lexique est resté poétique, on pourrait le traduire ‘puissant comme un roi’. Il faut noter d’ailleurs que ces anthroponymes composés ont au premier membre un avatar βασιλο-, seul possible en composition, mais qui explique aussi certains dérivés injustifiables à partir du thème βασιληϝ-, tels βασίλισσα, βασίλιννα, βασιλικός, βασιλίσκος. C’est lui aussi qui est à l’origine de l’appellatif rare βασίλη, ce qui ferait des anthroponymes Βάσιλος, Βασίλη plutôt des sobriquets que des hypocoristiques de composés.

Ἐρασώ Cet hypocoristique féminin des composés en Ἐρασι- appartient maintenant à l’épigraphie de Cyrène, grâce à une plinthe inscrite où Erasô fille de Zènon est saluée comme héroïne (SEG XLVII 2198). En fait, on en possédait déjà un exemple dans l’épigraphie extérieure à la région : une dédicace métrique de Tauromenion signale une consécration faite par Karnéade fils d’Eukritos, de Barka, son épouse Pythias et leur fille Erasô (IG XIV 433 = Kaibel 1878, 824a).

Ἴθυλλις Telle est l’interprétation qui a ma préférence pour la séquence ΑΜΦΙΘΥΛΛΙΝ d’une tablette comptable du IVe s., plutôt que celle retenue par l’éditeur L. Gasperini et passée dans le SEG (XL 1596, 4) : ἀμφὶ Θῦλλιν10. On peut imaginer que cette lecture-ci a été favorisée par l’existence de trois noms en Θυλλι- dans le LGPN I, qui ont pesé plus lourd que le seul Ἴθυλλος du même fascicule. Mais la question doit être examinée de plus près. Pour Θύλλις l’éditeur bénéficiait, dans le même volume, d’une analyse linguistique par les soins de R. Arena, qui envisageait deux pistes11. La première, partant de la glose d’Hésychios θύλλα ‘feuillage’, corroborée par l’épiclèse de Dionysos Θυλλοφόρος à Cos, pourrait expliquer aussi l’hapax anthroponymique eubéen Θυλλῖνος, possible sobriquet fondé sur l’adjectif de matière dérivé de ce substantif. Mais Arena marquait sa préférence pour une autre explication, en rapport avec θύλακος ‘sac’, dont θυλλίς, de même sens, transmis par Hésychios, serait un diminutif en -ίδ- avec gémination expressive, conservé, selon lui, aussi dans l’anthroponyme chypriote Θυλλίς. On est plus sûr maintenant que ce dernier est un nom féminin, puisqu’un premier témoignage ambigu enregistré dans le LGPN I a été rejoint par un second quasiment assuré, toujours à Amathonte, où est spécifié le sexe de la défunte (SEG XLIV 1254). Telles sont les pistes proposées lors de l’édition de la tablette. Pour être complet sur le volet chypriote de la question, il faudrait préciser que les deux occurrences du nom féminin datent de l’époque sévérienne, de même que le masculin Θυλλικός, pour l’auteur    Fick–Bechtel 78 évoquait Zeus Basileus, dont J. Reynolds, l’éditrice de la base, remarque qu’il n’est pas attesté à Cyrène. Plus tard, Bechtel seul (1899, 87) penchait pour la Θεᾷ βασιλείᾳ bénéficiaire d’une dédicace au Ier s. a.C. à Thèra. Mais on ne trouve plus de trace de ces explications dans son manuel de 1917 (HPN 92). 10   Accentuation de l’editio princeps et du SEG, sans justification. 11   Arena 1990, 37.

96

Catherine Dobias-Lalou

d’une dédicace à Apollon Hylatès à Kourion. Il y a là une petite famille de noms bien localisés à Chypre et concentrés dans le temps. Revenons à Cyrène. Si séduisante que soit la démarche permettant de rapprocher des gloses et des anthroponymes rares, elle ne doit pas nécessairement primer sur l’insertion de l’anthroponyme nouveau dans un réseau régional ou transrégional, caractérisé non seulement par les bases lexicales qu’il recèle, mais aussi par les procédés morphologiques qui l’engendrent et par les micro-systèmes ainsi constitués. Aucune des deux analyses proposées par Arena n’est complètement impossible, mais la leçon Ἴθυλλις me paraît beaucoup plus proche du matériel connu en Cyrénaïque. On sait que les adjectifs grecs en -ύς ont fourni le premier membre de noms composés et que par ailleurs ce type assez archaïque a été concurrencé dans le lexique par des dérivés en -ύλο-, propres à fonctionner eux-mêmes comme sobriquets12. La Cyrénaïque offre ainsi d’une part Βαθυκλῆς, Εὐρυπτόλεμος, Πολύαρχος, d’autre part Αἰσχύλος, Ἡδύλος (vocalisme radical non dialectal!), auxquels il faut joindre l’hapax Τανύλος, connu comme patronyme d’un Euhespéritain, donateur à Delphes vers 33513. À partir de cette série, par dérivation en -ίων et gémination expressive, on obtient Θρασυλλίων, attesté dans le même document (l. 9), et déjà connu pour le père d’un officier d’infanterie vers 335 a.C. (SEG XLVI 2198, 43)14. De la même façon, l’on constate qu’autour de l’adjectif non-attique ἰθύς s’est développé un petit groupe comprenant l’Ἴθυλλος crétois15 et notre Ἴθυλλις cyrénéen. Le béotien a été plus productif encore, avec Ἰθύλλιχος, [Ἰ]θυλλίας16 et surtout Ἴθιουλλει, dont la formation est typiquement béotienne17.

Ιταγος Ce nom est porté dans une famille de notables qui a consacré dans le sanctuaire d’Apollon, à proximité immédiate du temple un petit édifice aujourd’hui couramment appelé ‘offrande des Carnéades’18. Le père porte le nom, fort banal à Cyrène, de Καρνήδας. Ses trois fils s’appellent respectivement Ἴασις, Ιταγος et Κριός. Ἴασις n’est pas nouveau à Cyrène et livre une piste pour l’identification prosopographique, car un Καρνήδας Ἰάσιος figure dans la liste de souscripteurs mentionnée plus haut, vers 280 a.C. (SEG XX 735D, 9). L’écriture du monument semble un peu plus ancienne que celle de la liste et évoque quelques autres inscriptions monumentales datées autour de 330 a.C. Dans ces conditions, le souscripteur pourrait être le petit-fils de notre Καρνήδας et la consécration du monument daterait du dernier tiers du IVe s. a.C.   Lamberterie 1990.   Sur les vestiges de l’adjectif *τανύς, voir Lamberterie 1990, 102–24. 14   Contrairement à ce qu’écrit Arena 1990, 38, la seconde moitié du patronyme de l’officier n’est pas restituée par les épigraphistes. Elle appartenait à un fragment aujourd’hui perdu, mais dûment photographié et copié par les premiers éditeurs. 15   La caractérisation dialectale du décret (IG XII (2) 17), exposé à Mytilène, conduit à l’attribuer à une cité indéterminée de Crète. 16   La voyelle initiale est restituée dans les deux exemples qui le présentent, mais dans l’un des deux une lacune d’une lettre est certaine. Vu la fréquence des noms en Ἰθυ- dans la région, ce complément s’impose. 17   Dans les listes de conscrits d’Hyettos (IG VII 2822 et 2818) on a deux fois Ἰθιούλλιος, qui peut être aussi bien le nominatif de l’adjectif patronymique que le génitif d’un nom en -εις ou en -ει (Vottéro 1997, 284–91). S’agissant d’un hypocoristique, je retiens cette forme épichorique de préférence à celle en -εις enregistrée dans le LGPN IIIB. 18   Publication du carnet de fouilles de Pernier en 1936 et réexamen épigraphique chez Catani 2007, 106–11, avec qui j’ai contrôlé les inscriptions en 2001. 12 13

Sur

quelques noms nouveaux de

Cyrénaïque

97

Le second fils mentionné porte un nom rare, dont l’existence a été longtemps mise en doute. À Cyrène, un exemple de ce nom est resté méconnu dans une liste fragmentaire de noms (Suppl. Cir. 71). Comme il arrive dans des listes de magistrats, notamment de prêtres, les noms sont consignés par plusieurs mains différentes et parfois sur un assez long intervalle de temps. Ici, sur treize mentions conservées, huit présentent des formes dialectales, mais quatre des cinq dernières sont conformes à la morphologie de la koinè. À la l. 2 Oliverio avait lu sans les interpréter les lettres […]Σ̣ΤΑΦΑΝΙΤΑΓ̣[.]. L’éditeur définitif, Pugliese Carratelli, qui avait revu la pierre, aujourd’hui introuvable, proposait deux pistes dont nous pouvons tirer profit. Le premier nom doit bien être, comme il l’a proposé, un nom libyque offrant la même finale que le déjà connu Αρταφαν, qui semble lui-même impossible ici en raison des dimensions de la lacune en début de ligne. Sur l’existence d’un sigma après cette lacune, l’éditeur était moins affirmatif et la photographie n’est pas claire. Nous retiendrons [4–5]ταφαν. Pour le patronyme, Pugliese Carratelli suggérait avec réserve Ἰταί̣[ω] ?, où nous pouvons désormais proposer Ιταγ[ω] en accord avec les éditeurs et la photographie. Car ces deux exemples cyrénéens lèvent l’ambiguïté du génitif Ιταγου attesté dans une inscription d’Égypte connue de longue date. On a là le patronyme de deux individus, probablement deux frères, dont les noms ont été ajoutés, avec quelques autres, à la liste des basilistes qui ont fait vers 143/2 a.C. une dédicace dans l’île de Satis, près de Syène (OGIS 130, 37 et 43). Bingen a mis un terme définitif aux tâtonnements de lecture, sans toutefois pouvoir se prononcer sur le nominatif, (-ος ou -ης ?)19. Il existe peut-être un second exemple, apparu récemment à Alexandrie, sur le col d’une hydrie de Hadra datée par les céramologues des environs de 220 a.C. (SEG LI 2108). Les éditeurs ne sont sûrs que des deux premières lettres ΙΤ, mais sur photographies G. Nachtergael pense pouvoir reconnaître Ιταγ̣[ου]20. Soulignant l’isolement de cet anthroponyme “déconcertant”, Bingen ajoutait : “Je ne crois pas qu’on puisse avec quelque chance de succès le rapprocher des noms cyrénéens du type Ἰτθαλλάμμων ou Ἰτθαννύρας”. Il n’y a en effet rien de commun avec ces noms, considérés comme libyques, dont la structure consonantique traduite par ΤΘ est un trait distinctif21. Qu’est donc cet Ιταγος, commun à la Cyrénaïque et à l’Égypte hellénisée ? Il ne ressemble en rien à un nom égyptien et l’on recherchera plutôt une formation d’origine grecque. Les échanges fréquents entre Alexandrie et Cyrène rendent possible une expansion dans un sens comme dans l’autre. J’évoquerai avec prudence des pistes, qui restent à confirmer. Il existe bien en grec deux bases lexicales ϝι-, l’une à i bref issue de la racine *wi- ‘séparation’, l’autre à i long reposant sur *wiH‘courber’, l’une et l’autre connues dans des formes rares suffixées en *-t- et *-tu-, respectivement ἴτυς ‘orphelin’ d’une part, ἴτυς ‘jante’ et ἰτέα ‘osier’ d’autre part22. Aucun d’eux ne se prête à la formation d’un composé en -αγός. En revanche, le grec a développé une suffixation dénominative en -αχος dans des mots du vocabulaire familier, zoonymes et phytonymes notamment. Il n’est pas interdit d’imaginer qu’une telle formation soit parvenue à Alexandrie et Cyrène sous la forme macédonienne -αγος, présentant la même altération que Μάγας, variante de Μάχας23. Bien   Bingen 1981.   Je remercie M.-F. Boussac de m’avoir fourni des précisions à ce sujet. 21   Sur ces noms, voir Masson 1976, 58–61. 22   Pour le premier, Bader 1977, 77–80 et 111–12 et Lamberterie 1990, 940 sq. ; pour les seconds Chantraine, DELG s.vv. 23   Masson 1984, 134–6 ; Hatzopoulos 2007. 19 20

98

Catherine Dobias-Lalou

qu’il soit impossible de s’avancer davantage, il ne paraît pas déraisonnable d’écrire à la grecque Ἴταγος.

Κριός Le nom du troisième frère d’Itagos ne pose, lui, aucun problème d’identification : nous sommes en présence du nom du ‘bélier’ employé comme anthroponyme. Un premier emploi, qui pourrait être mythique, nous fait remonter aux origines spartiates revendiquées par Cyrène, puisque tel fut le nom du devin achéen qui aida les Doriens à se rendre maîtres de Sparte (Paus. iii 13). En Cyrénaïque, il n’était attesté jusqu’à présent que pour un magistrat monétaire d’Euhespérides au IVe s. a.C.24. Plus qu’une simple allusion au monde pastoral, valeur recevable pour d’autres régions, ce nom doit, en Cyrénaïque comme à Sparte, être mis en rapport avec le culte d’Apollon Karneios, dont l’épiclèse est étymologiquement liée à cet animal25.

Μύρτιλος, Μύρσιλος Une épigramme funéraire de Taucheira (SEG XLVI 2222) fait connaître pour cette cité un second exemplaire de Μύρτιλος, déjà attesté comme patronyme dans la nécropole (SEG IX 478), les deux occurrences datant de l’époque impériale. Il n’y a donc pas lieu de prendre en considération une coloration dialectale pour la conservation de la syllabe -ti-. Le nom est surtout retenu comme nom héroïque, en souvenir du cocher d’Oinomaos. Il est resté particulièrement fréquent dans le Péloponnèse et la Grèce du Nord-Ouest, d’où il est passé en Italie. Mais à Taucheira le lien étymologique avec μύρτον était probablement prégnant, à en juger par la relative fréquence, à Taucheira et Ptolémaïs, du féminin Μυρτώ(ι), notamment en milieu juif. La situation est un plus diversifiée et les motivations différentes à Cyrène, où l’on trouve sur une stèle funéraire que je date du IVe s. le patronyme Μυρσίλω (Suppl. Cir. 290), alors qu’un souscripteur du début du IIIe s’appelle Μύρτιλος (SEG XX 735B II, 72). La forme conservatrice renvoie plutôt à la plante, qui, à Cyrène, avait une signification particulière, puisque la tradition littéraire plaçait sur la Μυρτοῦσσα, le ‘rocher des Myrtes’, l’union d’Apollon et de la nymphe Cyrène et qu’Apollon était Μυρτῷος à Cyrène26. Ainsi s’explique aussi l’hapax Μυρτώσιος27. La forme assibilée est extra-dialectale. Quoi qu’il en soit, Bechtel déjà signalait des interférences entre les deux variantes dans d’autres zones dialectales et éprouvait le besoin de les justifier28. Quant à l’explication du suffixe rarissime -ilo-, je n’en connais pas de meilleure que celle de Heubeck29, qui suppose des contacts préhistoriques entre le grec et une langue anatolienne.

Νέβριχος Ce nom se lit sur trois bases de la tombe S 388, déjà mentionnée pour Ἀρθμιάδας. Les trois mentions se rapportent probablement au même individu, qui aurait vécu dans la seconde moitié du IIIe s. a.C. (SEG XLVII 2166–68). Fondé sur le nom du ‘faon’, le sobriquet Νέβρος était   BMC Cyrenaica p. cxciv, n. 1. Voir aussi les remarques de Masson 1977, 84.   Cf. Chantraine, DELG s.v. κάρνος. Pour un exemple de bélier élevé en vue des Karneia, cf. Theoc. v 82–3. 26   Maffre 2007, 178–9 ; BMI 1156 ; CIG 5138. 27   Masson 1967, 227. 28   Bechtel, HPN 593–4. 29   Heubeck 1949–50, 271. 24 25

Sur

quelques noms nouveaux de

Cyrénaïque

99

déjà attesté à Cyrène (SEG XX 735b, 91). Tel quel ou sous forme dérivée, il se rencontre dans diverses régions. Νέβριχος, nouveau pour Cyrène, était déjà connu par un exemple de Naupacte. O. Masson a maintes fois souligné la fréquence particulière du suffixe -ιχος dans l’anthroponymie béotienne30. Comme la Cyrénaïque en compte aussi un bon nombre d’occurrences (cf. Λέντιχος), on pourrait voir là l’un des nombreux points communs entre les répertoires onomastiques de ces deux régions. Les ressources offertes par le LGPN permettent toutefois un point de vue plus large : par le lexique inverse du tome I, disponible sur la toile, on peut confronter des régions d’appartenances dialectales diverses et constater, à quelques réserves près, une distribution complémentaire entre ces deux suffixes sémantiquement équivalents, diminutifs et familiers, -ίσκος et -ιχος, le premier préféré en pays ionien, le second ailleurs. Quelques exceptions notables doivent pouvoir s’expliquer. Παρμενίσκος, maintenant aussi en Cyrénaïque (SEG XLIV 1542), se trouve partout, mais seulement à partir de l’époque hellénistique, à la faveur du succès exponentiel de Παρμένων et sa famille, sans lien avec une quelconque sensibilité dialectale. Εὐφανίσκος est fréquent à Rhodes, mais pas très ancien non plus. À Cyrène, seul Φιλίσκος est fréquent, et ceci à partir du Ve siècle. Peut-on voir dans le choix d’-ίσκος la prévention d’une forme présentant deux occlusives aspirées ? On relève en outre dans la région un unique exemple de Λυκίσκος31.

Πρᾶξις Un nouvel exemplaire de cet hypocoristique, déjà attesté une bonne quinzaine de fois, est apparu dans la tablette comptable mentionnée plus haut (SEG XL 1596). Ses l. 6 et 8 contiennent la même proposition relative : τοῖς Πρᾶξις ἔγραφε ‘ceux dont Praxis était le secrétaire’. C’est la seule lecture syntaxiquement possible : avec l’accusatif pluriel du nom d’action πρᾶξις, envisagé précédemment, le verbe n’aurait plus de sujet.

Ὑπέρασις Ce nom nouveau est récemment apparu dans une liste de prêtres dont l’écriture renvoie plutôt au IIe s. a.C. qu’au IIIe32. Pour résumer l’argumentation développée dans l’editio princeps, il s’agit d’une formation originale par préfixation de l’hypocoristique Ἔρασις, déjà attesté à Cyrène par deux exemples sûrs et flanqué maintenant de son répondant féminin Ἐρασώ (cf. ci-dessus). Les noms composés en Ὑπο- semblent inexistants, à la différence de ceux en Ὑπερ-, dont la valeur laudative répondait à un besoin de l’anthroponymie. Dans notre composé, le préfixe peut se comprendre comme modérateur de la passion qu’exprime le thème du verbe ἔραμαι. Le couple Ἐρασι- / Ἐρατο-, très productif dans l’onomastique, a donné en Cyrénaïque des composés assez originaux33. On peut rappeler ici le cas de la prêtresse d’Hèra Ἐρατασίλα, au nom totalement isolé. S’il ne s’agit pas d’une erreur, son nom, dont la lecture est certaine, pourrait résulter du croisement des deux noms clairement explicables ᾿Εράτα et Ἐρασίλα34.   Masson 1985, 112 et 1986, 255 ; 1995, 84 et 1996, 91.   Remplacer la référence du LGPN I par SEG XLVIII 2055 I, 36. En outre, deux Cyrénéens en Égypte, Ἑρμαΐσκος et Πανίσκος, ce dernier pouvant être un second nom, lié au culte de Pan. 32   Ali Mohamed–Reynolds–Dobias 2007, no. 2B, 9 33   Vu le décalage chronologique, il n’y a pas de raison de remanier pour autant le classement du nom archaïque de Thèra (h)υπέρας, qui peut reposer sur Ὑπεράνθης vel sim. 34   Voir déjà Dobias-Lalou 1995–96, 267–8, avec un autre composé rare, Ἐρατυδίκα à Thèra. 30 31

100

Catherine Dobias-Lalou

Φίληκις C’est le nom d’un prêtre mentionné dans la tablette comptable déjà évoquée (SEG XL 1596, 4). Il semble bien s’agir d’un hapax absolu. Arena esquisse un rapprochement avec Φίλακος, le nom le plus ressemblant, et évoque une variation suffixale -ακ/ηκ-35. Il faut d’abord rappeler l’énorme productivité des bases φιλο-, φιλησι-, φιλητο-. Cyrène n’est pas en reste sur ce point. À la recherche de formes originales, on a eu parfois recours à des suffixes rares. L’existence de -ηκ- panhellénique, donc indépendant de -ᾱκ-, est assez évanescente, mais non impossible. Pour le plus fréquent -ᾰκ-, l’adjonction d’autres suffixes, comme -ων ou -ος pour les masculins, -ώ (*-oy-) pour les féminins, est attestée36. Aussi pourrait-on peut-être imaginer, avec -ις si productif dans la région, une suffixation complexe -ηκις à partir de l’adjectif simple, donnant donc un sobriquet. Une autre piste consisterait à repérer un nom composé dont la base Φιληκ- serait le tronçon conservé en vue de la dérivation hypocoristique en -ις. Pour appuyer cette idée, on disposerait, selon LGPN IIIB de Φίληκος dans une liste de conscrits de Kopai (IG VII 2782, 6). À vrai dire, cette forme béotienne pose un double problème. Le secrétaire est indiqué au génitif : Κράτωνος Φιληκίω. L’adjectif patronymique peut, à cette époque (245/230 a.C.), renvoyer à un nom en -ος, en -ης, voire en -ει37. D’autre part, l’êta de la seconde syllabe, s’il était une graphie épichorique, devrait correspondre à ΑΙ des autres dialectes. Mais aucun thème αικ- ne s’offre à nous dans le lexique . Nous admettrons donc un nom conservant en Béotie la même base qu’en Cyrénaïque, Φιληκ-, mais sans pouvoir décider définitivement de sa finale. Le seul second membre de composé qui s’offre à nous dans cette perspective est -ήκης (famille d’ἄκρος), dont la forme dorienne attendue serait -άκης. Toutefois, dans le lexique, les formes épiques en -ήκης sont pratiquement les seules en usage, ce qui pourrait expliquer un vocalisme ionien à Cyrène et Kopai. Néanmoins, d’autres régions offrent quelques exemples d’Εὐάκης (Corcyre, Byzance) et Ἐξάκης (Arcadie). L’affaire est d’autant plus compliquée qu’il existait un risque de synonymie avec la famille d’ἄκος ‘remède’. Dans les composés du lexique, l’homonymie est évitée par une répartition entre -ήκης d’un côté, -άκεστος, voire -ήκεστος de l’autre. L’anthroponymie reflète aussi la seconde famille, avec Εὐάκεστος et Ἐξάκεστος (variante Ἐξήκεστος à Oropos et en Macédoine). Au nom de leur fréquence nettement supérieure à celle du premier groupe, c’est aussi à eux que l’on rapportera les nombreux hypocoristiques attestés (en -κος, -κις, -κων, -κίδας). En revanche, pour les deux noms qui nous occupent, il semble, tout compte fait, préférable de postuler *Φιλήκης, peut-être caché derrière la forme béotienne, à moins qu’elle ne dissimule un hypocoristique, ce qu’est à coup sûr le Φίληκις cyrénéen. Ces quelques exemples cyrénéens, rassemblés par les aléas des découvertes et l’arbitraire du choix, nous ont montré une anthroponymie vivante, prête à se renouveler par toutes sortes de procédés morphologiques, mais conservant aussi des mots devenus désuets dans leur emploi lexical. Nous avons pu vérifier sur certains exemples des analogies frappantes avec le développement de l’anthroponymie béotienne. Alors qu’Athènes fait figure de modèle pour la Cyrène républicaine, tant dans l’architecture que dans la vie politique, c’est en Béotie que l’on observe les meilleurs parallèles onomastiques, sans qu’entre ces deux régions soient connues de relations particulières.   Arena 1990, 37.   Chantraine, Noms 380–2 ; Schwyzer, GG I 497 ; Masson 1988 et 1990, 511. 37   Vottéro 1987, 217–21. 35 36

Sur

quelques noms nouveaux de

Cyrénaïque

101

Peut-être ce phénomène s’explique-t-il par la situation linguistique du dialecte cyrénéen, qui a résisté particulièrement longtemps à l’influence de l’attique, même quand celui-ci, transmué en koinè, fut le mode d’expression du pouvoir lagide, puis romain.

Références bibliographiques Ali Mohamed, F., Reynolds, J. and Dobias-Lalou, C. (2007) ‘Recently discovered inscriptions at Cyrene’, in L. Gasperini and S. M. Marengo (eds), Cirene e la Cirenaica nell’Antichità, Atti del convegno internazionale di Studi, Roma-Frascati, 18–21 dicembre 1996. Tivoli (Rome), 17–48. Arena, R. (1990) ‘Osservazioni sulla lingua delle due iscrizioni cirenaiche’, in Giornata Lincea sulla Archeologia Cirenaica (Roma, 3 novembre 1987). Rome, 35–40. Bader, F. (1977) ‘Emplois récessifs d’un suffixe indo-européen, *-tu-’, Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 77, 73–127. Bechtel, F. (1899) ‘Neue griechische Personennamen (aus I.G. XII 3)’, Hermes 34, 395–411 (= Kleine onomastische Studien. Aufsätze zur griechischen Eigennamenforschung. Königstein, 1981, 81–97). Bingen, J. (1981) ‘La dédicace OGIS I 130’, Chronique d’Égypte 56, 137–142 (= Pages d’épigraphie grecque, Attique – Égypte (1952–1982). Brussels, 1991, 103–107). Catani, E. (2007) ‘Les objets sacrés du sanctuaire d’Apollon à Cyrène dans les journaux de fouille de Luigi Pernier tenus de 1925 à 1936’, in Dobias-Lalou 2007, 103–129. Dobias-Lalou, C. (1995–96) ‘Sur quelques anthroponymes de Thèra et de Cyrénaïque’, Verbum 18, 265–270. Dobias-Lalou, C. (ed.) (2007) Questions de religion cyrénéenne, (Karthago, XXVII). Paris. Hatzopoulos, M. (2007) ‘La position dialectale du macédonien à la lumière des découvertes épigraphiques récentes’, in I. Hajnal (ed.), Die altgriechischen Dialekte, Wesen und Werden. Innsbruck, 157–176. Heubeck, A. (1949–50) ‘Smyrna, Myrina und Verwandtes’, Beiträge zur Namenforschung 1, 270–282. Kaibel, G. (1878) Epigrammata graeca ex lapidibus conlecta. Berlin. Lamberterie, C. de (1990) Les adjectifs grecs en –us, Sémantique et comparaison. Louvain-la-Neuve. Laronde, A. (1987) Cyrène et la Libye hellénistique, Libykai Historiai. Paris. Maffre, J.-J. (2007) ‘La dévotion à Apollon d’après les graffiti inscrits sur des fragments de céramique grecque trouvés à Cyrène’, in Dobias-Lalou 2007, 167–183. Marengo, S. M. (1991) Lessico delle iscrizioni greche della Cirenaica. Rome. Masson, O. (1967) ‘Remarques sur deux inscriptions de Cyrène et de Théra’, Revue de philologie 41, 225–231. Masson, O. (1976) ‘Grecs et Libyens en Cyrénaïque, d’après les témoignages de l’épigraphie’, Antiquités africaines 10, 49–62 (= OGS I, 285–298). Masson, O. (1977) ‘À propos de la réimpression des “Beamtennamen auf den griechischen Münzen” de Rudolf Münsterberg’, Revue de philologie 83–88 (= OGS III, 1–6). Masson, O. (1984) ‘Quelques noms de femmes en Macédoine’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 55, 133–136 (= OGS ΙΙ, 417–420). Masson, O. (1985) ‘Sur le nom de Bilistiché, favorite de Ptolémée II’, in Studia in honorem Iiro Kajanto. Helsinki, 109–112 (= OGS II, 467–470). Masson, O. (1986) ‘Onomastique et lexique. Les noms d’hommes et termes grecs pour « ver », « sauterelle », « cigale », etc.’, Museum Helveticum 43, 250–257 (= OGS II, 485–492). Masson, O. (1988) ‘Les anthroponymes grecs à Délos’, in Comptes et inventaires, 71–80 (= OGS III, 10–19). Masson, O. (1990) ‘À propos d’inscriptions grecques de Dalmatie’, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 114, 499–512 (= OGS III, 79–92). Masson, O. (1995) ‘Notes d’onomastique béotienne (Thespies)’, Études d’archéologie classique 8, 83–87 (= OGS III, 234–238). Masson, O. (1996) ‘Nouvelles notes d’anthroponymie grecque’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 110, 87–99 (= OGS III, 243–255). Vottéro, G. (1987) ‘L’expression de la filiation en béotien’, Verbum 10, 211–231. Vottéro, G. (1997) Recherches sur le dialecte béotien (7e–2e s. av. J.C). II, Le dialecte béotien. Étude phonétique et phonologique de la langue des inscriptions. Nancy (thèse).

A Catalogue of Officials of an association (?) in a Newly Discovered Inscription from Ptolemais in Cyrenaica Adam Łajtar The paper offers the editio princeps of a Greek inscription discovered recently by Polish archaeologists at Ptolemais in Cyrenaica. The inscription stands on two adjacent sides of a slab of local limestone, whose two other sides were deliberately cut away in antiquity. Assuming that these lost sides, as is likely, were inscribed across their entire surfaces, we possess only less than half of the original text. The inscription contains a catalogue of men arranged in entries of two or three persons, preceded by a heading of which only single letters have survived. In its present state the inscription has 27 entries, though the original number might have amounted to 70–75. Each entry was probably the work of a different mason. The oldest entries can be dated on palaeographic grounds to the middle of the third century BC, the latest to c. 100 BC, meaning that the entries were added at roughly two-yearly intervals. The beginning of the catalogue is likely to coincide with the foundation of the city of Ptolemais, while its end may be connected with Cyrenaica’s passing from Ptolemaic control to the Romans. The nature of the catalogue is not certain. The onomastics show that the persons listed were local citizens, apparently from the upper strata of society. They may tentatively be identified as officials of an association, perhaps connected with the cult of the royal house of the Ptolemies. During the 2005 season of the Archaeological Expedition of the Institute of Archaeology of Warsaw University at Ptolemais (modern Tolmeita) in Cyrenaica, an interesting epigraphic find The invitation to publish this inscription came from the late Professor Tomasz Mikocki, the initiator and first director of the Polish excavations at Ptolemais, and, on a less formal basis, a good colleague from Warsaw University. Mikocki was also the spiritus movens of my visit to Ptolemais in September–October 2006. I will always treasure the memory of his friendliness and the fruitful cooperation we enjoyed on this and other occasions. I thank Monika Muszyńska-Mikocka and Wiesław Małkowski, who found the inscription, for providing me with the necessary documentation and information concerning its discovery, as well as Benedetto Bravo for discussion. The basic text of the inscription was read from the photograph taken immediately after discovery, while details were checked on the original during my visit to Ptolemais. 1   For the results of Polish archaeological activites in Cyrenaica, see Mikocki 2001; Mikocki–Jaworski–Muszyńska 2003; Mikocki 2004; 2006a; Mikocki et al. 2006b, 60–73. The work of the Mission has two main goals: i) surveying the area of the ancient town with the use of modern techniques in order to prepare an improved new plan; ii) archaeological excavations to the south-east of the city centre (immediately to the east of the Palazzo delle Colonne) which brought to light an insula with domestic architecture of the Roman Imperial period.

A Catalogue

of

Officials

103

was made. It is a slab of local limestone inscribed with a catalogue of some 65 men, who most probably had an official function of some kind (Figs 1–4). The slab was found during surveying and measuring of the area of the ancient town, in its south-western part, more or less half way between the theatre and the Tocra Gate. It was embedded vertically in the earth, upside down, protruding only 40 cm (approximately one fifth of its original height) above ground level. The protruding part is extremely weathered, having been exposed to the effects of the elements for a considerable time. The slab was extracted from the ground by the Polish Mission with the help of the local authorities and was transported to the Mission’s house where it has been kept until now. During transport, the slab, which had been found intact, broke horizontally in two parts along the channel cut in its rear face, and the highly weathered bottom crumbled into several smaller fragments. The area where the slab had been discovered was not excavated. My own inspection of it in autumn 2006 has convinced me that the slab had been in secondary use in a building, perhaps as an element of a wall or a portico. The construction could be dated tentatively to the Roman Imperial or Late Antique periods. As mentioned above, the slab is made of the local limestone, white when freshly broken and assuming a greyish-pink patina. The stone is very soft and easily eroded, so as to produce irregular holes in the surface, some of them quite deep. In its present state, the slab measures 2.175 m. in height, 0.39 m in width, and 0.32 m in thickness. Of these only the first corresponds to the original dimensions. The width was obviously bigger by c. 0.10 m. as is shown by the lacunae on the right-hand side of the main face which amount to a maximum of four to five letters (lines 3, 4, 23, 29, 32, 35, 37). Here the slab has been cut intentionally, most probably in connection with its secondary use as an architectural element. The surface of the cut edge is regular though only roughly dressed. The back of the slab was also very likely cut away intentionally. As the lines of the text on the left-hand face preserve in part their initial letters (cf. lines 58 and 59), we may suppose that the part cut away was not very thick (c. 2–3 centimetres) unless we assume the existence of a wide left margin on this side. The back was less carefully dressed than the right-hand side. Additionally, a horizontal channel of unknown purpose was cut into the slab about 0.35 m. from its top. In the stone’s present state, the inscription occupies the entire main face of the slab and the upper part of its left-hand face. The text on the main face has 56 lines plus three free spaces for six further lines, while that on the left-hand face has 13 lines. It is almost certain that the inscription originally was considerably more extensive and covered all four faces of the slab, but that the text on the right-hand face and on the back were destroyed in its reworking for secondary use. The sequence of the faces must have been counter-clockwise (main face, right-hand face, back face, left-hand face), the most natural for a rectangular free-standing monument. This would mean that what we actually have is less than half of the original text, preserving its beginning and its very end. The original length of the text can be established    The present main face must have been also the main face of the original as is suggested by the existence of what seems to be a title (cf. below) and by the fact that the entries on the upper part of this face are the oldest from a palaeographical point of view.    This means that the main face could have theoretically carried 62 lines of text. The blank spaces were left either on account of its layout (between lines 2 and 3) or for technical reasons (between lines 10 and 11 as well as 30–31). For a detailed description see commentaries ad loc.

104

Adam Łajtar

at about 195 lines, assuming that the right-hand face and the back were, like the main face, inscribed over its entire height, so that they each carried about 60 lines of text. At the top of the main face of the slab there are four equal rows marked out by pairs of guidelines delimiting the top and the bottom of the letters (Fig. 1). Faint traces of guidelines of the same nature are also visible slightly below, especially on the blank space between lines 10 and 11. Obviously the upper part of the main face was prepared in advance for the inscribing of the text. Traces of guidelines also occur in the middle part of the main face (cf. lines 32, 33, 36, 37, 38), but they are of different character and should probably be considered auxiliary aids added by individual stonecutters. On the left-hand face, the whole upper part was divided by pairs of lines into 17 rows of which only the upper 13 were inscribed, indicating that the inscription ends abruptly at this point (Fig. 4). On the main surface a vertical incised line runs from the top of the slab at least as far as line 47 of the inscription, about 8 cm. from the right-hand edge (Figs 1–3). I am unable to explain the existence of this line. Perhaps it was added during the re-working of the slab as a marker for cutting the right-hand side but was later abandoned. The inscription was executed by numerous hands probably corresponding with particular entries of the catalogue (for details see below). For that reason I refrain from giving separate descriptions of the hands. The readers of this paper are asked to consult the photographs on questions of palaeography. In the following transcript of the inscription, the various entries are separated from one other by a horizontal stroke in the right-hand margin. Main face 4 8 12 16

v.[...].[-----] [ . ]ΑΣ[ . ]Σ[ . ]Σ[ . . . ] . . vacat vacat Νίκαιοvvς Κτησικλ[έους] Φίλιππος Δημητ[ρίου] Θεόφιλος Σωσίππο[υ] Δημήτριος Σεύθα Ἄριστις Φιλωνίδου̣ Χρήσιμος Νικα̣ [ - - - ] Νικάνωρ Καλλι[ - - - ] Ζώπυρος Χρησ[ - - - ] vacat vacat vacat Ἑρμοκράτης Θε . [ - - - ] Εὖφρις vv Ἡρακλε[ - - - ] Ἁγήτωρ vv Θευφάνο̣ [υς] εὐεργέτης καὶ ἱερεύς ̣ Δωρίων vvv Δωροθέου Μηνόδωρος v Ζωπύρου̣ Ὄρθων vv Ὄρθωνος

1

2



3



4



5

A Catalogue 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56

Ψάφων v Ψάφωνος Μάρων Μάρωνος Ἀρτεμίδωρος Αἰσχᾶ Πτολεμαῖος Ἀρχεπόλιος̣ Διοσκουρίδης Διοτ[ - - - ] Ὄρθων Ὄρθωνος νεώτ [̣ ερος] Σώστρατος Θεοδώρου Σκόπας Ξενολάου Πραξίας v [Π]ρ̣αξία Βαρκαῖος vv Φίλωνος Δόρκο[ς] vvv Φίλωνος Ἀριστέας Εὐφράν[ορος] Ζαιγ αῖ[ο]ς Διονυσίου vacat Δημοφῶν Δημοφῶντος ̣ Σωσίβιος Νόμου vv ἱε[ρεύς] Εὔνους vv Νίκωνος Σωσίβιος v Σαραφίωνο̣[ς] Εὐτυχίδης Εὐφ̣ρά̣ [νορος] Σωτάδας v Δαμ[ - - - ] Εὐφράνωρ Ἀρι[στέα] Διόδωρος Βίωνος Σφαῖρος Ἀπολλ̣[ - - - ] Δίσκος Ἀπολλ[ - - - ] Ὀνήσιμος Λυ . [ - - - ] vvvv Δίσκος v Δ[ - - - ] vvvv Σωτηρίχο[ς - - - ] vvv Πρώταρχος [ - - - ] Ὀνήσιμος Σωσιβίο[υ] Ἁγήσαρχος Δίσκ[ου] Νουμήνιος Καλλι . [ - - - ] Λ̣υσ ̣ α ̣ νίας v Ὀνησ̣ίμ̣ο υ̣ ̣ . . . ωνιος Εὐφράνο[ρος] Σώφρων Εὐδώρων̣[ος] . . . κ[ c. 4 ] . [ . ] . είδο̣[υ] Γ̣λα ̣ υ̣ κ ̣ --------Σπ̣ιν̣ - - - - - - - - - - ----------------------- - - - - - - - - - - -

of

Officials

105



6



7



8



9

10 11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

20



21

106

Adam Łajtar

Left-hand face [ . . . ] . ο̣δω . [ . ]ο̣ ς Ὑ . . [ - - - ] Ἀ̣πολλοφάνης Ἀλεξάνδρο̣υ ̣ Ἀ̣ρτεμίδωρος Διονυσίου 60 [ . ] . . . αις v Νίκωνος [ c. 3-4 ] . . ντος Ἕρμωνος [ c. 5-6 ]κρ̣ε ̣ . . . . . ρου̣ [ c. 5-6 ]αιος Φίλωνος 64 [ c. 5-6 ] . ανανων - - - [ c. 5-6 ]σ̣ιος Κράτιος [Πο]σ̣ει δώνιος Ἀριστίππου [Φι]λώτας v Φιλώτα [Ἄ]νταλλος 68 [Ἐ]πικράτης



22



23



24



25



26



27

[ - - - ]. 1) Nikaios son of Ktesikles, Philippos son of Demetrios. 2) Theophilos son of Sosippos, Demetrios son of Seuthas, Aristis son of Philonides. 3) Chresimos son of Nika [ - - - ], Nikanor son of Kalli[ - - - ], Zopyros son of Chres[ - - - ]. 4) Hermokrates son of The[ - - - ], Euphris son of Herakle[ - - - ], Hagetor son of Theuphanes benefactor and priest. 5) Dorion son of Dorotheos, Menodoros son of Zopyros. 6) Orthon son of Orthon, Psaphon son of Psaphon. 7) Maron son of Maron, Artemidoros son of Aischas. 8) Ptolemaios son of Archepolis, Dioskourides son of Diot[ - - - ]. 9) Orthon son of Orthon the younger, Sostratos son of Theodoros. 10) Skopas son of Xenolaos, Praxias son of Praxias. 11) Barkaios son of Philon, Dorkos son of Philon. 12) Aristeas son of Euphranor, Zaigaios son of Dionysios, Demophon son of Demophon. 13) Sosibios son of Nomos a priest, Eunous son of Nikon, Sosibios son of Saraphion. 14) Eutychides son of Euphranor, Sotadas son of Dam[ - - - ]. 15) Euphranor son of Aristeas, Diodoros son of Bion. 16) Sphairos son of Apoll[ - - - ], Diskos son of Apoll[ - - - ], Onesimos son of Ly[ - - - ]. 17) Diskos son of D[ - - - ], Soterichos son of [ - - - ], Protarchos son of [ - - - ]. 18) Onesimos son of Sosibios, Hagesarchos son of Diskos, Noumenios son of Kalli[ - - - ]. 19) Lysanias son of Onesimos, [ - - - - ]onios son of Euphranor, Sophron son of Eudoron. 20) [ - - - ] son of [ - - - ]eides, Glauk[ - - - ], Spin[ - - - ]. 21) [ - - - ]. 22) [ - - - ]odo[ . . ]os son of Hy[ - - - ], Apollophanes son of Alexandros. 23) Artemidoros son of Dionysios, [ - - - ]ais son of Nikon. 24) [ - - - ]ntos son of Hermon, [ - - - ]kre[ - - - ] son of [ - - - ]ros. 25) [ - - - ]aios son of Philon, [ - - - ]. 26) [ - - - ]sios son of Kratis, Poseidonios son of Aristippos, Philotas son of Philotas. 27) Antallos, Epikrates. 1–2. These lines were very lightly carved and have preserved very badly. They might have provided a title for the catalogue. This is suggested by a two-line vacat between lines 1–2 and the main body of the text starting at line 3. Another possibility is that lines 1–2 contained the first, two-element entry though the existence of a broad, blank space separating them from the rest of the text would be less easily explained. The first preserved letter in line 2 apparently has a vertical bar and a loop on the right-hand bottom side which suggests Β. It would probably be too far-fetched to read ‘ΒΑΣ’ and to suggest a connection with the word βασιλεύς, all the more so as the fifth letter, most probably Σ, does not fit with this reading (see, however, remarks at the end of this paper).

A Catalogue

of

Officials

Figure 1. Ptolemais Catalogue. Main face, lines 1–10. Photo: Wiesław Małkowski

Figure 2. Main face, lines 11–28. Photo: Wiesław Małkowski

107

108

Adam Łajtar

Figure 3. Main face, lines 29–56. Photo: Wiesław Małkowski

A Catalogue

of

Officials

109

Figure 4. Left face, lines 57–69. Photo: Wiesław Małkowski

3. The blank space equal to two letters in width is undoubtedly due to the hole cut in the stone, proof that the hole was present before the text was inscribed. A similar explanation probably accounts for the blank space between lines 10 and 11. 6. The name Σευθας, ‑α is not very common. LGPN I–IV list six attestations: one on Samos, one in the Rhodian Peraia, two in Arkadia, one in Korinthia, and one in Thessaly. To them, one may add two attestations in Egyptian papyri: PCairoGood 30, r, 23, 25 (Karanis, 191/2 AD: διὰ Σευθα), and PRyl IV 582, fr. 2, r, 22 (Oxyrrhynchites, 42 BC: Σευθας Ὀν( )). The accent of Σευθας is not obvious. When the name occurs in areas of Doric dialect and is of early date (fourth to third centuries BC), it probably should be considered as the Doric form of the well attested name Σεύθης and so should be accented paroxytone (Σεύθας). When it appears elsewhere and is of later date, we probably should accent it perispomenon (Σευθᾶς) considering it to belong to the large group of substantives containing, among others, hypocoristics, names of occupations, personal names of foreign origin, etc. The first option probably holds in our case. The name Σεύθης (Σεύθας) is of Thracian origin. It is rather improbable for the father of our man to have been Thracian himself. More probably, he was a Greek who was given the Thracian name Σευθας for familial or cultural reasons. 7. The name Ἄριστις is especially characteristic of Cyrenaica. It has been attested 40 times in Cyrenaican inscriptions while it is considerably less common elsewhere (23 attestations in LGPN I–IV). It belongs to the group of diminutives in ‑ι-ς (Ἄριστις, Δεῖνις, Κάλλις, Κάρνις, Νῖκις, etc.) widespread in Cyrenaican onomastics.  

  Cf. Detschew 434–7.   For this name see Masson 1974; 1987, esp. 245.

110

Adam Łajtar

10. Perhaps Χρησ[ίμου]. A Χρήσιμος Νικα̣[ - - - ] is mentioned in line 8 but the fact that the two men – Χρήσιμος Νικα̣[ - - - ] and Ζώπυρος Χρησ[ - - - ] – occur in the same entry rather speaks against seeing in them father and son. On the other hand Ζώπυρος Χρησ[ - - - ] mentioned here might have been the father of Μηνόδωρος Ζωπύρου of line 16. The three line vacat between lines 10 and 11 may be explained in one of two ways: i) the stonemason responsible for the next entry (ll. 11–14) avoided the hole in the surface of the stone near the left edge of the slab, assuming that the hole already existed when this entry was inscribed; ii) a single entry was omitted for some reason and never filled. 11. Most probably Θέω̣[νος]. Other names in Θε‑ are apparently too long for the space at our disposal. 12. The name Εὖφρις is specifically Cyrenaican. LGPN lists 21 attestations in Cyrenaica and only 3 elsewhere (one on Melos, two in Athens). Morphologically it is a compound of ευ‑ and ‑φρον‑ (abbreviated as ‑φρ‑), provided with the suffix ‑ις. Names in Ευ-φρ‑ are otherwise common in Cyrenaican onomastics; cf. the name Εὐφράνωρ which occurs no less than four times in the present inscription. 13–14. The names Ἁγήτωρ and Θευφάνης have Doric forms which are quite natural in Doric Cyrenaica. Contrast Θεόφιλος in line 5. The designations εὐεργέτης and ἱερεύς ascribed to Hagetor are interesting. As regards εὐεργέτης, the context suggests that this was an official title conferred on Hagetor by an appropriate body, if not the name of an office he held, and not just an honorific epithet. As for ἱερεύς, one is struck by the absence of any closer description of the office, especially the lack of reference to the god or goddess of which Hagetor was priest. This particularity can be explained only by the assumption that every reader of the catalogue knew exactly which priestly office was concerned. One possibility is that the priest Hagetor was the eponymous official of the city of Ptolemais. The catalogue of ephebes of Ptolemais of the year 4/3 BC indicates that the eponymous official of the city was indeed a priest (most probably of Apollo) and that his office was denoted without any more specific description in official documents. Another possibility is that the men listed in the catalogue were members of an association and that Hagetor was their priest and not a civic magistrate. This possibility which I consider to be the more probable is discussed in detail below. The above remarks hold also for Σωσίβιος Νόμου ἱε[ρεύς] mentioned in line 32. Lines 15–18 (entries 5–6) look as if they were executed by the same hand. 17. The name Ὄρθων is well attested without being common. It occurs with special frequency in the Greek West (14 attestations in South Italy and Sicily), but also in the Aegean Islands, the Peloponnese, and Central and Western Greece.10 The name has not been attested in Cyrenaica thus far. 18. The name Ψάφων is rare. It is attested mainly in Cyrenaica (four attestations in Cyrene, one in Marmarica).11 Outside Cyrenaica, it occurs once in Rhodes12 and once as the name of a visitor to the Royal tombs at Egyptian Thebes.13 Lines 19–22 (entries 7–8) look as if they were executed by the same hand. 20. As far as I am aware, the personal name Αἰσχᾶς is attested for the first time here. It is a hypocoristic of a name like Αἰσχίνης or Αἰσχύλος. 22. The most probable supplement is Διοτ[είμου] though other, more rarely attested names in Διοτ-, like Διοτέλης, also may be considered.   For the name Εὖφρις see especially Masson 1975a, 712–13.   For the construction see Masson 1987, 245.    For Θευ‑instead of Θεο‑ in the Cyrenaican variant of the Doric dialect, see Buck 40–1.    For this inscription see Reynolds–Masson 1976. The inscription is dated to the year 28 which can only be the 28th year of Augustus. 10   For references, see LGPN I, III A–B. 11   For references, see LGPN I. 12   Cf. LGPN I. 13   Cf. Baillet, Syringes no. 924, 2.  

A Catalogue

of

Officials

111

23. Ὄρθων Ὄρθωνος νεώτ̣[ερος] mentioned here was a son or, less probably, a brother of the man occurring in line 17. 25. The name Ξενόλαος is rather rare. LGPN I–IV knows only one attestation in Athens, two in Epiros and one on Kephallenia. It has not been attested in Cyrenaica thus far. 27–28. The two men mentioned in these lines were most probably brothers. Βαρκαῖος is an epichoric name. It is the ethnic of Barka, the city founded from Cyrene in the sixth century BC, which flourished in the fifth and fourth centuries, but was later overshadowed by the newly founded Ptolemais and reduced to a village within the territory of the latter. The name Δόρκος is rare. According to LGPN I–IV it has been attested once each on Crete, on Paros, at Athens, in Arkadia, Lakonia and Thrace. It is hitherto unknown in Cyrenaica. 29–31. It seems that these lines constitute a single entry even if there is a blank space between lines 30 and 31. This space may be due to the damaged surface observable in the middle of the slab. If so, it must have existed before the inscription was cut. 29. The son of the man mentioned in this line probably occurs in line 37: Εὐφράνωρ Ἀρι[στέα]. The name Εὐφράνωρ was very popular in Cyrenaica.14 It is attested four times in this very inscription. 30. The reading Ζαι̣γα ̣ ῖ̣[ο]ς seems to be certain. As far as I have been able to establish, the personal name Ζαιγαῖος is attested for the first time here. Its etymology is unknown to me (presumably of non-Greek origin). Lines 35–38 were probably done by one hand. The letters in line 38 are smaller than in lines 35–37, but their shape and the dynamic of writing seems to be identical in both. As the catalogue apparently does not contain entries with four elements but only those with two or three elements, I consider these lines to be composed of two entries (entries 14–15). 34. Σαραφίωνο̣[ς] stands for Σαραπίωνος. Although the change of the voiceless /p/ for aspirated /ph/ is a common phenomenon in post-Classical Greek,15 it does not normally affect the divine name Σάραπις/ Σέραπις and its derivatives. In this context it is interesting to observe that the variant Σεραφίων is attested precisely in Cyrenaica, once in Ptolemais itself, in an inscription on the Tocra gate,16 and once at Tocra on a familial epitaph.17 36. Δαμ[ - - - ] may be the Doric form of a name beginning in Δημο‑ or Δημη‑. 37. Εὐφράνωρ Ἀρι[στέα] from this line most probably was son of Ἀριστέας Εὐφράν[ορος] who is mentioned in line 29. 39–40. The two men mentioned in these lines – Σφαῖρος Ἀπολλ̣[ - - - ] and Δίσκος Ἀπολλ[ - - - ] – most probably were brothers. This is suggested not only by the patronymic which in both reads Ἀπολλ[ - - - ], but also by the fact that the names of the two men are close to each other semantically as both of them allude to the sphere of sport, one of the main cultural and social activities of the upper classes of Greek cities: Σφαῖρος is derived from σφαῖρα = ‘ball’, and Δίσκος is the word for ‘discus’. Obviously the father of the two men was a sporting enthusiast. The name Σφαῖρος is quite common (24 attestations in LGPN I–IV), Δίσκος somewhat rarer (11 attestations in LGPN I–IV). 41. The third letter of the patronymic looks like Σ. This speaks strongly in favour of the supplement Λυσ̣[ανίου] and the identification of this man with the father of Λ̣υσ ̣ α ̣ νίας Ὀνησ̣ίμ̣ου̣ ̣ from line 48. A blank at the beginning of lines 41–43 results from the necessity to avoid the large hole in the stone’s surface near the left edge of the slab. 42. Perhaps Δίσκος Δ[ίσκου] following the well-known pattern whereby a son is frequently given the name of his father. If so, the man mentioned in this line might have been son of Δίσκος Ἀπολλ[ - - - ] from the preceding entry.   Cf. e.g. Marengo 1991, 134 and 425.   See e.g. Gignac 1976, 86–98. 16   Oliverio 1936, 248 no. 495 = SEG IX 379. 17   SEG XVI 909; Corp. jüd. Cyr. 102 no. 53b. 14 15

112

Adam Łajtar

45. Ὀνήσιμος Σωσιβίο[υ] in this line might have been son of Σωσίβιος Νόμου ἱε[ρεύς] occurring in line 32 or Σωσίβιος Σαραφίωνο̣[ς] mentioned in line 34 (both men belong to the same entry). 46. Ἁγήσαρχος Δίσκ[ου] has a good chance to be a son of Δίσκος Ἀπολλ[ - - - ] from line 40 or, less probably, of Δίσκος Δ[ - - - ] on record in line 42. The latter could in fact have been the brother of Ἁγήσαρχος assuming that his patronymic is to be restored as Δ[ίσκου]. Providing this is correct, the familial stemma should be reconstructed as follows:

47. The partly preserved letter immediately before the lacuna looks like Ν which suggests the reading Καλλιν̣[ίκου] though one cannot totally exclude the possibility of reading Καλλιμ̣[άχου]. 48. The man mentioned here has a good chance to be son of Ὀνήσιμος Λυ.[ - - - ] from line 41. 49. The reading Ἀ̣μμ ̣ ώ ̣ νιος is not excluded, the more so as the first letter looks like Α. 50. As far as I could ascertain, the personal name Εὐδώρων is attested for the first time here though we know of similar names Εὔδωρος, Εὐδωρίδης/δας, and Εὐδώρα. Lines 51–56 contained either two entries with three elements or three entries with two elements. 51. Perhaps [Ἡρ]α̣[κ]λ̣είδ[ου]. 53. Personal names in Σπιν‑ are not very common. I note only Σπίνθων (Σπίνθον), Σπίνθαρος, Σπινθερᾶς, Σπίνθηρ (Σπίνθερ), and Σπινικίδας. The most frequent among them was Σπίνθηρ, the word for ‘spark’. Perhaps it also should be supplemented here. 57. Something like Ὑρ̣α̣ - - - ], so perhaps Ὕρατθις, a typically Cyrenaican name (according to LGPN I one attestation in Barka-Ptolemais, one in Cyrene, one in Marmarica, and one in Teucheira). 63. Perhaps [Βαρκ]αῖος Φίλωνος on account of line 27 where Βαρκαῖος Φίλωνος is mentioned (possibly a forefather of the man in this line). But the supplement [Βαρκ]αῖος seems to be slightly too short for the lacuna, whose width can be estimated as 5–6 letters. 64. I do not know where to place the division between the name of the man and his patronymic. Perhaps we should read: [ c. 5–6 ] α ̣ ν Ἀνων - - - . If so the man mentioned here would have had a name of Libyan origin ending in -αν.18 The problem with the reading [ c. 5–6 ] α ̣ ν Ἀνων - - - is that personal names in Ἀνων- are extremely rare. LGPN I–IV list only Ἄνων (Olbia, ii AD). 65. The personal name Κράτις is relatively rare. LGPN I–IV list only three attestations: one each on Thasos, in South Italy, and in Phokis (not counting dubious cases where it is impossible to determine whether the name refers to a man, Κράτις, or to a woman, Κρατίς).

The inscription starts with two lines possibly containing some kind of heading which explained the nature of its contents (but see above, commentary ad loc.). After a blank space two lines wide, the text continues in lines 3–69 with a catalogue of persons. The letter forms and the technique of letter-cutting clearly show that the catalogue was not executed on a single occasion but was the product of incremental growth, through the addition of consecutive entries starting from the top of the main face and ending on the left-hand face. It seems that each entry was the work of an individual stonemason though some adjacent entries, such as   For these names which were widespread in the Cyrenaican onomastic repertoire see Masson 1976, 55–8; 1975a, 713–15; 1975b, 81–5; Reynolds–Masson 1976, 91–2 and 97. 18

A Catalogue

of

Officials

113

5–6 (lines 15–18), 7–8 (lines 19–22), and 14–15 (lines 34–38) might have been executed by the same lapicides. The entries have either two or three elements. No strict rule is observable in the occurrence of either of the two types of entry, though the entries of a given type tend to be consecutive to one another. Thus the entries from 5 to 11 all contain two elements, as do the entries 14–15 and 22–25. The three-element entries occur in positions 2–4, 12–13, and 16–20. In its present state the stone contains 27 or 28 entries: 21 or 22 entries on the main face, depending on how many were inscribed on its lower, highly damaged section (ll. 50–56),19 and 6 entries on the left-hand face. If the supposition is correct that the inscription continued on the right-hand and back faces of the slab and assuming that these, like the main face, were inscribed over their entire length, the total number of entries must have amounted to about 71 to 74 (21 to 22 on the main face + 22 to 23 on the right-hand face + 22 to 23 on the back face + 6 on the left-hand face).20 The earliest entries in the upper part of the main face can be dated palaeographically to the early Hellenistic period (mid-third century BC), the latest, on the left-hand face, to the late second to early first century BC. So the catalogue covered a period of about 150 years. Considering that the entries were 71 to 74 in number (see above), the conclusion is reached that additions to the catalogue were made at intervals of roughly two years. The chronological span of the catalogue indicated above on palaeographic grounds is interesting. The beginning of the catalogue is likely to correspond with the foundation of the city of Ptolemais, an event that took place some time in the third century BC. The exact date of its foundation is a matter of controversy.21 According to one view, Ptolemais was founded by Ptolemy I Soter in the period between the reconquest of Cyrenaica in 300 BC by Soter’s son-in-law Magas and the revolt of the latter against Ptolemy II Philadelphos after Soter’s death in 283 BC.22 Another view sees Ptolemais as a foundation of Ptolemy III Euergetes brought about after Cyrenaica was recovered for the Egyptian crown thanks to the dowry of Magas’ daughter Berenike III.23 This latter view is definitely false for it does not take into consideration the fact that the ethnic Πτολεμαιεὺς ἀπὸ Βάρκης is already attested in 252/1 BC in PLond VII 1986. In his monograph on Cyrenaica in the Hellenistic period, André Laronde, the master of Cyrenaican studies, dates the foundation of Ptolemais to the last years of Ptolemy II Philadelphos, after his reconciliation with Magas around 260 BC.24 Our inscription would seem to confirm this date. The oldest entries of the catalogue are definitely earlier than the reign of Ptolemy III Euergetes but apparently later than the first twenty years of the third century BC. As for the end of the catalogue, it is tempting to connect it with the transfer of Cyrenaica from Ptolemaic control to Rome in 96 BC in accordance with the testament of Ptolemy Apion. However, although a plausible hypothesis, this cannot be proven positively as a non-political explanation for the abrupt end to the catalogue is equally possible (e.g. the overturning of the slab following a natural catastrophe).   If the entries in this part had two elements they were three in number, if three elements, they were two in number. For the sake of clarity I have divided the text of the main face so that in the present edition it has 21 entries. 20   One should note that the number of entries on the right-hand and back faces must have been greater by one or two compared with the number on the main face because the former most likely had no title. 21   For the most recent discussion see Cohen 2006, 393–6. 22   Thus for example Swinnen 1973, 124–5. 23   This was the opinion of Kraeling 1962, 6. 24   Laronde 1987, 398; see also Mueller 2004, 2–7. 19

114

Adam Łajtar

Each element of the catalogue gives the name of a man with his patronymic. This rule is abandoned only in the last entry (27, lines 68–69), which contains the names of two men without their patronymics. Additionally, one man is designated as εὐεργέτης καὶ ἱερεύς (ll. 12–13), one as ἱερεύς (l. 32), and one as νεώτερος (l. 23), no doubt in order to distinguish him from his namesake mentioned in line 17. The names of the persons listed in the catalogue are almost entirely Greek. Only one person has a patronymic of Thracian origin, but one already hellenized (Σευθας, l. 6), and one man bears a name of unknown origin (Ζαιγαῖος in l. 30, where it should be noted that the reading is not entirely certain). Except for one uncertain case ([ c. 5–6 ] ̣αν in l. 64 and commentary ad loc.) we observe a total absence of Libyan names. This is obviously due to the high social status of the people listed in the catalogue,25 and to the early date of the inscription which ends c. 100 BC. The catalogue of ephebes of Ptolemais from the year 4/3 BC contains a substantial number of Libyan names even if it apparently emanates from the same social circles as our text.26 It may be observed that the personal names have a clear Cyrenaican overtone. It is seen first of all in the occurrence of names such as Ἄριστις (l. 9), Εὖφρις (l. 12), Ψάφων (l. 18), and Βαρκαῖος (l. 27), which hitherto have been attested mainly if not exclusively in Cyrenaica. The last of these names is especially characteristic in the present context, being the ethnic of the city of Barka, the predecessor of Ptolemais. Another Cyrenaican trait is the frequent appearance of names in Εὐ-φρ-, extremely popular in this part of the Greek world. In addition to Εὖφρις already mentioned above, we have the name Εὐφράνωρ borne by no fewer than four individuals (ll. 29, 34, 37, 49). The use of Doric forms of common Greek names such as Ἁγήτωρ (l. 13) and Θευφάνης (l. 13), perhaps also Δαμ[ - - - ] (l. 36) also contributes to the Cyrenaican flavour of the onomastics.27 All this suggests that the persons mentioned in the catalogue were of Cyrenaican origin, and the find-spot of the inscription indicates Ptolemais as their home. The way in which the individuals recorded in the catalogue are presented leaves no doubt that they were free men. The noble characteristics of names like Ἁγήσαρχος, Ἁγήτωρ, Ἀλέξανδρος, Ἀριστέας, Ἀρίστιππος, Ἄριστις, Ἀρχέπολις, Νίκαιος, Νικάνωρ, Νίκων, Νόμος, Ξενόλαος, Πρώταρχος, Σώσιππος, Σώφρων, Φίλιππος, etc., allow us to see in them members of the upper strata of society at Ptolemais, representatives of the gymnasial class if not the aristocracy. References to gymnasium and athletic activity are transparent in the names Δίσκος and Σφαῖρος, of which the former, otherwise uncommon in the Greek world, is attested here no less than three times (ll. 40, 42, 46). An interesting feature of the catalogue is the frequency of people who apparently were members of the same families. Thus Ὄρθων Ὄρθωνος from line 17 and Ὄρθων Ὄρθωνος νεώτ̣[ερος] mentioned in line 23 must have been father and son. The same is most probably true for Ἀριστέας Εὐφράν[ορος] (l. 29) and Εὐφράνωρ Ἀρι[στέα] (l. 37), as well as, but   For this, see below.   See Reynolds–Masson 1976. 27   One should note that except for these two (or three) Doric features in the phonetics and one in morphology (genitive Ἀρχεπόλιος in l. 21) we have no other elements of the Doric dialect, not even a single genitive in ‑ω which was a constant phenomenon of the language spoken in Cyrene down to the Roman Imperial period as attested in numerous inscriptions found there. Obviously the cultural patterns prevalent in a ‘new’ Ptolemaic foundation such as Ptolemais were much more modern by comparison with those in the ‘old’ Doric colony of Cyrene. 25 26

A Catalogue

of

Officials

115

less certainly, for Ὀνήσιμος Λυ ̣[ - - - ] (l. 41) and Λ̣υ̣σ̣ανίας Ὀνησ̣ίμ̣ο̣υ̣ (l. 48). Ἁγήσαρχος Δίσκ[ου] from line 46 has a good chance to be a son of Δίσκος Ἀπολλ[ - - - ] from line 40 or, less probably, Δίσκος Δ[ - - - ] on record in line 42. The latter could in fact have been a brother of Ἁγήσαρχος assuming that his patronymic is to be read Δ[ίσκου]. Βαρκαῖος Φίλωνος and Δόρκο[ς] Φίλωνος listed in successive lines in entry 11 (ll. 27–28) were, in all likelihood, brothers, as were also Σφαῖρος Ἀπολλ̣[ - - - ] and Δίσκος Ἀπολλ[ - - - ] who occur together in entry 16 (ll. 39–40). There are also less obvious cases. Ζώπυρος Χρησ[ - - - ] mentioned in line 10 might have been the father of Μηνόδωρος Ζωπύρου from line 16. Ὀνήσιμος Σωσιβίο[υ] occurring in line 45 possibly was son of Σωσίβιος Νόμου ἱε[ρεύς] from line 32 or Σωσίβιος Σαραφίωνο̣[ς] mentioned in line 34 (both men belong to the same entry). The man listed in line 63 ([ c. 5–6 ]αιος Φίλωνος) could have been a descendant of Βαρκαῖος Φίλωνος from line 27; in this case his name should be supplemented [Βαρκ]αῖος. The frequent appearance of members of the same families may suggest that we are dealing with representatives of a rather closed group among the citizens of Ptolemais and not of the whole citizen-body. The question arises regarding the nature of the catalogue presented here or, in other words, who were the men mentioned in it. The first idea that comes to mind is that we are dealing with city magistrates. This view finds corroboration in the fact that the men recorded in the catalogue were drawn from the highest strata of local society. Unfortunately we know next to nothing about the institutions of the city of Ptolemais in the Hellenistic period and for that reason are not in a position to give a positive answer as to what magistracies might have been involved here. We can, with virtual certainty, exclude the eponymous office, for, as a rule in Greek cities, it was held by a single person and not in groups of two or three as is the case here. Luckily we are aware of a magistracy, or rather an office, at Ptolemais that was held simultaneously by three persons. A catalogue of ephebes of the year 4/3 BC, to which reference has already been made, mentions in the protocol a priest (most probably an eponymous official), three ephebarchs, three gymnasiarchs and a hyperetes.28 Based on this inscription we could hypothesize that our inscription is a catalogue of men who were either gymnasiarchs or, less probably, ephebarchs at Ptolemais. The variation in their number over time – either two or three – could be explained by changes in the number of gymnasia operating in the city. However, in spite of points in its favour, the hypothesis that we are dealing with a list of gymnasiarchs (or other unidentified city magistrates) raises important objections. Firstly, the office of gymnasiarch or any other civic magistracy was fundamentally incompatible with the simultaneous holding of a priesthood, itself a civic office. Secondly, an explanation is needed for the frequent recruitment of these supposed gymnasiarchs (or other civic magistrates) from the same families, to the extent that the office could be held simultaneously by brothers. Thirdly, it was highly unusual in the Greek world for a city magistracy or office to be held for a period longer than one year, whereas the entries in our catalogue were added no more often than every other year. Finally, our hypothesis does not tie in well with the abrupt ending of the catalogue around 100 BC. The transfer of Cyrenaica into the hands of the Romans in 96 BC cannot be an adequate explanation as this event was of secondary importance as regards the internal affairs of the cities of Cyrenaica, Ptolemais included. They continued to function without interruption from the Ptolemies to the Romans and their most important magistracies and liturgies, the gymnasiarchia among them, must have survived throughout this period. In 28

  Reynolds–Masson, 1976.

116

Adam Łajtar

order to accept the hypothesis that the inscription records a list of city magistrates, one has to assume that its abrupt end was caused by something other than the abolition of the magistracy in question. Another possible explanation is that the inscription lists the names of victors in local games, which would suit well the biennial additions to the catalogue; by this reckoning the games would have been trieteric. It also creates no problems for the abrupt cessation of the catalogue around 100 BC as the games, especially local ones, were frequently a temporary phenomenon. The variation in the volume of the entries may reflect the variation in the composition of the events contested during the games: sometimes they were two, sometimes three. But we also need to explain why the hypothetical victors came only from Ptolemais and, apparently, from a rather narrow segment of the civic body, perhaps restricted to certain families, and furthermore why some victors are designated ‘priest’ and ‘benefactor and priest’. The occupations and activities of the victors unrelated to the competition would have been of no relevance in such a catalogue.29 As none of the explanations given so far is entirely satisfactory, I would like to suggest another, a variant of the first explanation. The catalogue under discussion does indeed give the names of officials, not of the city itself but of an association composed of its citizens. Private associations are known to have been a widespread phenomenon in the Greek world of the Classical, Hellenistic and Roman periods.30 Two general types of association can be distinguished, those united by occupation and those centred on a cult, though the occupational associations often functioned under the patronage of a particular deity and practised a special cult of this deity while the cultic associations could be composed of persons of the same or similar occupations. Membership of the association was often hereditary, especially if the son continued the profession of the father. The associations were headed by presidents accompanied by other officials whose number and title varied depending on circumstances. One of these was the priest (ἱερεύς) without any further qualification, at least in documents issued for the internal workings of the association. The associations had their own εὐεργέται who were recruited mainly if not exclusively from among their own members.31 The benefactor of the association could have been one of its officials including the priest. Such a situation is attested in a dedication from Teos set up by the Dionysiac technitai in honour of their benefactor:32 οἱ περὶ τὸν Διόνυσον τεχνῖται Πείσανδρον Αογένους τν ἑαυτῶν εὐεργέτην καὶ ἱερέα τῆς συνόδου, Διονύσῳ. Another example is an inscription from Delos erected by [τὸ κοινόν Βηρυτίων ἐμ]πόρων καὶ ναυκλή[ρων καὶ] ἐγδοχέων which is dated ἐπὶ ἱερέως Ἀπολ[λοδώρου τοῦ Ἀπολ]λοφάνου εὐε[ργέτου].33 Something similar occurred in the association of melanephoroi (‘bearers of black garments’), also active on Delos, as revealed in a dedication to the Egyptian   It should be observed that the designations ‘priest’ and ‘benefactor and priest’ actually restrict the contests to horse and chariot racing. It is scarcely conceivable that a priest was victorious in an athletic competition or a musical contest. 30   For Greek associations see e.g. Poland 1909; San Nicolò 1972; Muszynski 1977; van Nijf 1997; Jones 1999; Dittmann-Schöne 2001; Le Guen 2001; Zimmermann 2002. 31   In some associations of the Roman Imperial period, εὐεργέτης was no longer an honorific title but actually the name of an office. Thus, for example, in the thiasos of Dionysos Parabolos in Byzantion in the time of Hadrian; cf. IByz 37. 32   CIG 3072. 33   ID 1780, dated to the period after 166 BC. The same text is also found in ID 1796. 29

A Catalogue

of

Officials

117

gods found in Serapieion C:34 ἡ σύνοδος ἡ τῶν μελανηφόρων τὸν ἑαυτῆς εὐεργέτην Δημήτριον Ἑρμησίωνος Μαραθώνιον, ἱερέα γενόμενον ἐν τῷ ἐπὶ Εἰσιγένου ἄρχοντος ἐνιαυτῶι, Σαράπιδι, Ἴσιδι, Ἀνούβιδι. The epigraphic material from Delos yields further attestations for ἱερεῖς being εὐεργέται, as well as for presidents of the associations being εὐεργέται.35 Based on our general knowledge about the functioning of Greek associations we may surmise that the catalogue of personal names contained in the inscription from Ptolemais lists the heads of the association, no matter what the exact titles of their offices. The leadership of this body was exercised by two or three persons. The reasons for such variation are unknown, perhaps dependent on informal regulations concerning this matter. The association had its priest who did not count among its head members. On the other hand, the priest could have simultaneously exercised the office of the president.36 The members of the association were drawn from the upper strata of the city of Ptolemais and frequently from a close circle of several families. As for the character of the association, we have no firm data. The only indication we possess may be its abrupt cessation around 100 BC. If, as suggested above, it was connected with the transfer of Ptolemais from the Ptolemies to Rome, the association under consideration could have been one concerned with the cult of the Ptolemaic royal house. Cult associations for the worship of the Ptolemies (associated with local gods) are attested by inscriptions and papyri both in Egypt and Ptolemaic possessions overseas. They functioned under the names of βασιλισταί,37 φιλοβασιλισταί38 and συνβασιλισταί.39 They are known to have been composed mainly of military personnel but there is nothing to suggest that similar associations could not also have existed in the civilian milieu. Our inscription may be testimony of such an association among the citizens of Ptolemais in Cyrenaica. Originally it could have been set up on the premises of the association and after its dissolution under the Romans it was reworked and reused in a secondary context.

References Cohen, G. M. (2006) The Hellenistic Settlements in Syria, the Red Sea Basin, and North Africa. Berkeley / London. D ittmann -S chöne , I. (2001) Die Berufsvereine in den Städten des kaiserzeitlichen Kleinasiens. Regensburg.   ID 2075, dated to 124/3 BC.   Cf. e.g. ID 1778 (ἀρχιθιασιτεύοντος τὸ δεύτερον Μνασέου τοῦ Διονυσίου εὐεργέτου); 1791 ([ὁ δεῖνα τοῦ δεῖνος τ]οῦ Ἱέρωνος εὐε[ρ]γ̣έτης τοῦ κοι[ν]οῦ . . . ἀρχιθιασίτης γενόμενος); 1796 (ἀ̣ρ̣χι ̣θι̣ ̣α̣σι̣ ̣τ ̣ε̣ύοντος Δημοκλέους τοῦ Δημοφῶντος εὐεργέτου). 36   This may suggest that the priesthood in this association was not a temporary office but a more permanent function. 37   Βασιλισταί are known on the island of Sehel in the time of Ptolemy VIII (Bernand, Thèbes 303), at Paphos on Cyprus (Oberhummer 1888, 324 no. 11), and on the island of Thera in the first half of the 3rd cent. BC (IG XII (3) 443). 38   Φιλοβασιλισταί are mentioned in two papyri from the last quarter of the 2nd cent. BC, both originating from the Theban area: PTorChoachiti 11bis, 4 (Thebes, 119 BC), and Van ’t Dack et al. 1989, 39–49 no. 1, address on the verso (Hermonthis, 103 BC). 39   Attested by an inscription of Egyptian provenance, now in the National Museum in Warsaw, dated to 246–221 BC. The most recent publication of the inscription is IVarsovie 44. 34 35

118

Adam Łajtar

Gignac, F. T. (1976) A Grammar of the Greek Papyri of the Roman and Byzantine Periods. I, Phonology. Milan. Jones, N. F. (1999) Associations of Classical Athens. Oxford. Kraeling, C. H. (1962) Ptolemais, City of the Libyan Pentapolis. Chicago. Laronde, A. (1987) Cyrène et la Libye hellénistique. Libykai Historiai de l’époque républicaine au principat d’Auguste. Paris. Le Guen, B. (2001) Les associations de technites dionysiaques à l’époque hellénistique. Nancy. Marengo, M. (1991) Lessico delle iscrizioni greche della Cirenaica. Rome. Masson, O. (1974) ‘Pape-Benseleriana, I. Les malheurs d’Aristis’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 14, 179–183 (= OGS I, 205–209). Masson, O. (1975a) ‘Quelques noms de Cyrénéens dans l’Égypte ptolémaïque’, in J. Bingen, G. Cambier and G. Nachtergael (eds), Le monde grec: pensée, littérature, histoire, documents. Hommages à Claire Préaux. Brussels, 709–715 (= OGS I, 233–239). Masson, O. (1975b) ‘Libyca’, Semitica 25, 75–85. Masson, O. (1976) ‘Grecs et Libyens en Cyrénaïque d’après les témoignages de l’épigraphie’, Antiquités africaines 10, 49–62 (= OGS I, 285–288). Masson, O. (1987) ‘Remarques d’onomastique cyrénéenne: quelques noms masculins en -ις’, Quaderni di archeologia della Libya 12, 245–247 (= OGS II, 613–616). Mikocki, T. (2001) ‘Polskie wykopaliska archeologiczne w Libii. Wykopaliska Instytutu Archeologii Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego w Ptolemais (Tolmeita). Sondaże 2001’, Światowit NS 3, fasc. A, 101– 120. Mikocki, T. (2004) ‘New Mosaics from Ptolemais in Libya’, Archeologia (Warsaw) 55, 19–30 Mikocki, T. (2006a) ‘Ptolemais in Libya. Excavations conducted by the Mission of the Institute of Archaeology, Warsaw University in 2004 and 2005. Report on two seasons of excavations’, Światowit NS 6, 93–97. Mikocki, T. et al. (2006b), Ptolemais. Archaeological Tourist Guide. Warsaw. Mikocki, T., Jaworski, P. and Muszyńska, M. (2003) ‘Ptolemais in Libya. Excavations conducted by the Mission of the Institute of Archaeology, Warsaw University, in 2002 and 2003. Report of two seasons of excavations’, Światowit NS 5, fasc A, 107–118. Mueller, K. (2004) ‘Dating the Ptolemaic city-foundations in Cyrenaica. A brief note’, Libyan Studies 35, 1–10. Muszynski, M. (1977) ‘Les ‘associations religieuses’ en Égypte d’après les sources hiéroglyphiques, démotiques et grecques’, Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 8, 145–174. Nijf, O. M. van (1997) The Civic World of Professional Associations in the Roman East. Amsterdam. Oberhummer, E. (1888) ‘Griechische Inschriften aus Cypern’, Sitzungsberichte der Königlichen Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 305–348. Oliverio, G. (1936) Documenti antichi dell’ Africa italiana, II. 2. Bergamo. Poland, F. (1909) Geschichte des griechischen Vereinswesens. Leipzig. Reynolds, J. and Masson, O. (1976) ‘Une inscription éphébique de Ptolémaïs (Cyrénaïque)’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 20, 87–100. San Nicolò, M. (1972) Ägyptisches Vereinswesen zur Zeit der Ptolemäer und Römer. 2 vols. 2nd edn. Munich. Swinnen, W. (1973) ‘La politique religieuse de Ptolémée Ier’, in Les syncrétismes dans les religions grecque et romaine. Colloque de Strasbourg (9–11 juin, 1971). Paris. Van ’t Dack, E. et al. (1989) The Judean-Syrian-Egyptian Conflict of 103–101 BC. A multilingual dossier concerning a “war of sceptres”. Brussels. Zimmermann, C. (2002) Handwerkvereine im griechischen Osten des Imperium Romanum. Mainz.

A new inscription from Ptolemais in Libya Joyce Reynolds

An unpublished inscription from Ptolemais in Cyrenaica contains a name (possibly two names) which seems to be new, possibly, but not certainly, Cyrenaican. Names in ancient Cyrenaica have been most seriously discussed by Professor Olivier Masson, who listed and organized the Libyan names then known, and commented on several of the Greek ones. More have been found since then which need to be added to his collections, but are not yet all published. I offer Elaine one of these from the city of Ptolemais, an inadequate offering, but made in respect as well as in gratitude for much kindness. I must apologise for the absence of illustration, but my photograph was unsuccessful. The text is cut on a limestone stele, measuring 0.40 m. in width, 0.59 in height and 0.24 in depth; it is broken away above and below, and, while it is clear that the text is complete below, it could be that there was another line above, although a dowel hole above the first line suggests not. Its letters are uneven in height, between 4 and 5 cm, include a diamond shape for theta and omikron, with serifs at all four points, and for sigma, while in l. 4 theta and eta appear to be ligatured. They look to be of the early third century AD, which is a date in accord with the implications of the subject’s name, since his praenomen and nomen, taken with the absence of a patronymic, suggest Roman citizenship received as a result of the Edict of Caracalla on Roman Citizenship (212 AD), and as both are written out in full, perhaps quite soon after, before they were perceived to be too common to cause much pride. It was found on the seashore, near the modern lighthouse, outside the city walls. The record does not mention any ancient building in the vicinity and the stone could have been brought there from within the walls as part of a modern building project; but it could also have been dedicated in a sacred precinct beside the sea; one not, as yet, recognised. The text reads: Μᾶρκος Αὐρήλιος ΓΟΥΝΘΑΣΣΟΣ ἀντισωθ[εὶς] ἀνέθηκα vac. vacat 

  Note especially Masson 1976.

120

Joyce Reynolds

Clearly the dedicant was grateful to a deity for being saved, although that does not seem to be precisely what he said, since ἀντισώζω means ‘save in return’. I wonder if his point was that he had been afraid, and so promised an offering. Then, having been saved from what he feared in return for his promise (ἀντισωθείς), he made the offering in gratitude. This is very condensed, of course, but I think possible in a short inscription. Alternatively, do we have, as often in inscriptions, a development of the meaning of the word in everyday use, to give ‘in return for being saved’? If the stone came from an undiscovered precinct by the seashore, one might rationally guess that he was saved from drowning at sea. If that were so, there would be the further possibility that he was not a Cyrenaican but a foreigner to the area; or, if a Cyrenaican, not a Ptolemaian. But in essence all we know about him is his name; and it is his cognomen, Γουνθασσος, (or is it two cognomina, Γουν [an abbreviation?] and Θασσος?) that puzzles me. As far as I can see, there is no connection here with what we know of Libyan onomastics, and I have not found anything seriously helpful elsewhere. Pape–Benseler offer Γουνδουβάλης from John of Antioch, fr. 209, and Γουνευς in Lycophron 128 (for an Arab); while LGPN IIIB has Γούνιππος in Thessaly, LGPN I a possible Θασσα in Cyrenaica, this actually in Ptolemais, but based on an unpublished rereading of the published texts on which I would not build very confidently. If we have a name or names based on Greek, I suppose that ΓΟΥΝ could have something to do with knees and ΘΑΣΣΟΣ with speed (a fast runner?); but I don’t find myself convinced by this. So what I am offering Elaine and her team is a puzzle, which I hope they will solve for me. References

Masson, O. (1976) ‘Grecs et Libyens en Cyrénaïque, d’après les témoignages de l’épigraphie’, Antiquités africaines 10, 49–62 (= OGS I, 285–298).

ATHENS

SOME PEOPLE IN THIRD-CENTURY ATHENIAN DECREES Sean G. Byrne

The first part of this paper considers some names that study of third-century inscribed Athenian decrees shows should be removed from the Attic onomasticon, as well as a pair of ambiguous cases and one which prompts the creation of a new name. The second part presents arguments to suggest that three instances of identification of homonyms from the same set of decrees should be abandoned. The following notes arise from a study of the Athenian decrees of the period 300–229 BC. The first section deals with six names which, after autopsy of the relevant inscriptions, I contend should be abolished from LGPN II (Attica). The next items in this section consider in turn (no. 7) cases where the evidence seems contrived to be ambiguous, and (no. 8) an instance of partial remains where deduction of an otherwise unrecorded name seems warranted. In the second section, I discuss three issues of identification.

I. Some names abolished from LGPN II Systematic study of a body of inscriptions inevitably throws up new readings, no matter how well perused, or even well preserved, the stones in question. Readings of names are no exception. A case in point is Agora Inv. I 6664 (Agora XVI 187), a well preserved stele that bears a decree of the year 271/0 BC honouring the taxiarchs of the previous year. Essentially it lacks only the bottom left corner, costing the names of the last six taxiarchs, and has three chips along the left edge which the text of the first edition indicates have removed letters respectively from lines 7–11, 25–27, and 40. In fact, the first letter of line 38, where the name of the first taxiarch is given as Λυσικράτης Ναυσιφάνου Κυθήρριος, is also a casualty of the third chip, as the alignment of the remaining letters with subsequent lines clearly shows, and, moreover, the first surviving letter is not lambda but alpha. The taxiarch’s name is to be restored [Ν]αυσικράτης, and he shares the Ναυσι‑ element of his name with his father. Liability to confuse Λυσ‑ and Ναυσ‑ names is a hazard not only for moderns reading from damaged surfaces. Πολυάρκης Λυσιμέδοντος, member of the Pythaïs to Delphi in 128/7 BC (FD III (2) 47, 13), is surely to be identified with Πολύαρχος who was father of Ναυ[σι]μέδων of deme Poros, ephebe in 119/18 BC (IG II² 1008 II, 113 with Dow   Dinsmoor 1954, 288–9, with photograph pl. 63. For the restoration of [Χαρ]ιδήμου instead of [Λυσ]ιδήμου at the start of line 9, see Byrne 2004, 318–19. 

Some People

in

Third-century Athenian Decrees

123

1934, 189 for the demotic). Equally surely one of the names Λυσιμέδων and Ναυσιμέδων will have been shared by the ephebe and his grandfather, with the other a misinscription, although since either will represent a unique occurrence it is impossible to say which. Small gains such as these in themselves only occasionally have more than nugatory significance, but the cumulative weight of the great many reported since 1994, the publication year of LGPN II, is great. Indeed, the addenda and corrigenda constitute an index to the impressive progress of Attic epigraphy over the past decade and a half. Also to be taken into account is the improved knowledge of Athenian onomastics enabled by the appearance of LGPN itself, which bears out the suggestion “that LGPN II has the potential to facilitate its own amendment”. An intrinsically interesting subset of the corrigenda, whether the product of new or revised reading or of improved general onomastic knowledge, is that entailing the abolition of names from the Athenian onomasticon altogether. In all so far, over 200 names have been removed from the LGPN II database: 109 misread or misrestored names, 32 names that are inherently dubious or over-restored, 26 ‘ghosts’ (i.e. purported names that turn out to be no such thing), 34 people repatriated to a homeland beyond Attica, and 11 sundry others. I add to these the following six abolitions of names from LGPN II from third century decrees: 1. Κρατόξενος. Thus was read by Köhler the name of a prytanis in the thirteenth line of IG II 1001, and accepted in subsequent editions (IG II² 2382; Agora XV 74, with the first four letters dotted). Consultation of the stone (EM 8654) reveals that, of the initial letter, there remain the ends of an upper and lower horizontal, correctly positioned to be consonant with epsilon; the other letters are certain. The name is Ἐρατόξενος. 2. Πυθόδημος. The two people listed under this name in LGPN II are respectively the father and ephebe son of one Πυθόδωρος of Kedoi, a councillor in the middle of the century. For the father’s name, however, the stone (Ag. Inv. I 1024, the lower part of a stele displayed in its original base on the lower portico of the Stoa of Attalos) attests the abbreviated patronym ΠΥΘΟΔΗΛ, not the Πυθοδήμ of Dow 1937, no. 9, 66 (= Agora XV 86, 69). Likewise, the stele fragment with part of the ephebic roster for 250/49 BC (EM 7423 b) plainly bears the name Πυθόδηλος for the ephebe son, despite Köhler’s [Π]υθόδημος (IG II 324 = IG II² 681 I, 19). So Πυθόδηλος, already reasonably well attested in Athens, gains two individuals, and Πυθόδημος vanishes. Or perhaps not quite, since a freedman Πυθόδημος, not included in LGPN or PAA, is recorded at Lys. fr. cix as the subject of a δικὴ ἀποστασίου. Be that as it may, Πυθόδημος / Πυθόδαμος    See the addenda and corrigenda to LGPN II listed on the LGPN website: www.lgpn.ox.ac.uk/online/downloads/ index html.    One may point to A. Woodhead’s Agora XVI (1997), E. Sironen’s The Late Roman and Early Byzantine Inscriptions of Athens and Attica (1997) [see now his IG II² Pars VI fasc. 1 (2009)], V. Petrakos’ Ὁ δῆμος τοῦ Ῥαμνοῦντος. II, Οἱ ἐπιγραφές (1999), K. Clinton’s Eleusis. The Inscriptions on Stone (2005), V. Bardani’s and G. Papadopoulos’ Συμπλήρωμα τῶν ἐπιτυμβίων μνημείων τῆς Ἀττικῆς (2006) and J. Traill’s Persons of Ancient Athens (continuing), not to mention the numerous published epigraphic conference proceedings, monographs and papers that have appeared in this time.    Lambert 2001, Appendix, with a demonstration of the application of his methodology at Lambert 2004. Lambert 2001 goes on to claim that LGPN II, more than the other volumes, “contains within itself the seeds of its own, fairly swift, obsolescence”. To the extent that this is true, the on-going initiatives of Elaine Matthews to make up-to-date LGPN II data available on-line are especially important.    In l. 13 of the same inscription, for the name Köhler had read correctly as Εὐφυλίδης, Kirchner at IG II² 681 misprinted Εὐφιλίδης, unfortunately followed in LGPN II and to be emended.

124

Sean G. Byrne

is an exceedingly rare name outside Attica as well, with one instance known from Euboia (IG XII (9) 56. 212), one from Phokis (IG IX (1) 202), and one from Magnesia on the Maeander (IMM 55; 57). Theophoric names ending ‑δημος in general are seldom met with, according to the data of LGPN I–VA. In Attica, besides Θεόδημος / Θεόδαμος / Θούδημος (six individuals) and Κηφισόδημος (four) and Πυθόδημος itself, only Ἡφαιστόδημος and Ἀπολλόδημος are of this type, each attested for single individuals. The latter is itself, in fact, highly dubious: the name is restored from three separate citations, viz. [Ἀπολ]λ̣όδ[η]μο[ς], [Ἀπολ]λοδή[μου] and [Ἀπολ]λ̣οδήμ[ο] (respectively IRhamnous 222, 1, 7 and 170, 2). There is no obstacle to restoring the common Φιλόδημος instead. 3. Σθενοκλῆς. In formal terms there is nothing inherently unlikely with this name – compare the three instances of Σθενοκράτης listed in LGPN II. But it is reported only once, as [Σ]θενοκλῆς, for the name of the third prytanis of a roster appended to a decree of 279/8 BC (Meritt 1948, 1–2 no. 1 = Agora XV 76, 24). On the stone (Ag. Inv. I 5998), after a broken area of about two letters’ extent, the surface is intact, and is inscribed with ΕΙΝΟΚΛΗΣ, to be restored [Ἀμ]εινοκλῆς. 4. Καλλιστόκλεια. Given as Καλλ[ι]στόκλ[εια] by Kirchner (IG II² 1534 A, 58), Καλλιστοκλ[-] at Aleshire 1989 (Inv. IV, 81), with Kirchner’s feminine accepted at LGPN II on account of the nature of the ex voto. On the stone I read Καλλιστομάχ̣[η], with the right side of mu clear, and parts of the lower diagonals of chi visible. There are now 27 occurrences of Καλλιστομάχη in Athens, and 10 of Καλλιστόμαχος (the masculine mostly in the Imperial period). Neither has turned up outside Attica for a non-Athenian. ̣ ρες, Λυ̣[σί]δης as given by Aleshire (Inv. 5. Λυσίδη. From the dedication and name δραχμαὶ τέτ̣τα V, 84) the name extrapolated at LGPN II was Λυσίδη on the grounds that a genitive following the dedication is standard on this document. However, after the lacuna lambda is clearly inscribed on the stone, not delta, and the lacuna is large enough for three letters. These data are in concurrence with those recorded by Köhler, who restored Λυ[σικ]λῆς (IG II 836, 23 = IG II² 1534 B, 209). It remains the case that the name should be in the genitive, and the one name that conforms to the requirements is Λύσιλλα (i.e. Λυ[σίλ]λης to be restored to the text). 6. Μένη. The name is derived thus from the entry ποτήριο παιδι[κὸν] Μένης Δ󰁰󰁰󰁰 given by Aleshire with the translation “Child’s drinking cup from Mene 10 dr. 3 ob.” (Aleshire 1989, Inv. V, 110), and so rejecting the version πα[ι]δι[κὸν Tη]μένης of Preuner (IG II² 1534 B, 235) in favour of that of Köhler (IG II 836, 49) on the grounds of available space. Yet, Preuner’s comparandum for his restoration, the dedication made four years later [ποτη]ρίδιον παιδικὸν Τημένη ὑπὲρ   Perhaps another is [Πυ]θόδαμος of Cilician Tarsos whose son was buried in Athens (IG II² 10432), but [Ὀρ]θόδαμος, e.g., is as likely a restoration.    As established by consultation of the online name search tool at http://www.lgpn.ox.ac.uk/database/lgpn.php (LGPN VA still in preparation at the time of writing).    This and the following three items concern names recorded in IG II² 1534 A and B = Aleshire 1989, Inventories IV and V, the inventories of offerings at the Asklepieion with the authorising decrees. See Masson 1997 for discussion of some of the feminine names recorded on these inventories. At 90–1 he argues that Μεγαλοπολῖτις (IG II² 1534 B, 253 = Aleshire 1989, Inv. V, 128) is almost certainly the ethnic and should be deleted as well.    It may be that the name intended was Λυ̣[σιά]δης, as suggested at PAA 613275, with the remark “NB: alpha surely accidentally omitted from restoration, IAS squeeze indicates space for 2 & half letters”. Even so, a name in the nominative is not expected here. 

Some People

in

Third-century Athenian Decrees

125

Ἀπολλοδώρου 𐅃𐅂𐅂𐅂󰁰󰁰󰁰 (IG II² 1534 B, 258 = Aleshire 1989, Inv. V, 133) is compelling, especially since such children’s drinking cups are very rare offerings (one other at IG II² 1534 B, 217 = Inv. V, 91). The space available is constrained, it is true; I estimated only about four letters could be accommodated in the lacuna. Yet it is more likely that the word παιδικόν was abbreviated, exactly as δέκα had been to δέκ. earlier in the same line, and we have another offering of Τημένη, than we have the unlikely name Μένη.10 The first five of these abolitions from LGPN II are straightforward, based on the evidence of the stones that I regard to be directly verifiable. Before considering three matters of identification that by contrast depend upon subjective judgment, I look at two cases where clear readings of the stones raise problems of interpretation for LGPN. 7. Προφάνης or Ἡροφάνης. The name was given as Ἡροφάνης in the editio princeps of the Asklepieion inventory of 248/7 BC (Girard–Martha 1878, 435 l. 70) and by Kirchner (IG II² 1534 B, 256); [Ἡ]ροφάνης by Köhler, whose transcript indicates acknowledgment of the problem (IG II 836, 70); Aleshire did not doubt Προφάνης (Inv. V, 131) and this was accepted at LGPN II.11 In fact the evidence of the stone is at once clear and inconclusive. The first letter consists of two vertical strokes linked by two horizontals, the first at the top in the manner of pi, the second at mid-point, in the manner of eta, both firm and deliberate. The right vertical is a little shorter than the left one, perhaps suggesting pi was cut first, but really there is no way of knowing which horizontal (if either) was a mistake and which was ultimately intended. The name Προφάνης is attested at Athens on a fourth-century funerary lekythos (IG II² 11156 a), just enough to justify its inclusion in LGPN II as such. But, while Ἡροφάνης is not known there, it is a likely enough compound, and does occur in Samos and Thasos (LGPN I s.v.). A similar onomastic dilemma is posed by LGPN II Θεόδωρος (127), the name of a prytanis of Kephisia of c. 270 BC recorded on Ag. Inv. I 7201 (SEG XXXII 207, 10). The letters ΟΔ have been erased deliberately (but not so thoroughly as to render them illegible), so as to leave Θεv vωρος. The question is whether to adopt an agnostic stance regarding the erasure and to accept the name originally inscribed, as did the inscription’s editor and LGPN II, or to consider this a correctional erasure, with the intended name being Θέωρος. My inclination is towards the latter. 8. *Τιμοναύτης. Not a name to be abolished, but a name to be added, even though, it seems, it is attested in full nowhere. On the fragment of a mid-century prytany roster Ag. Inv. I 966, the name of the second prytanis of deme Sphettos survives as ΤΙΜΟΝΑΥ[--] (Agora XV 97, 6). In the editio princeps, Dow (1937, 59–60 no. 17) rendered the name Τίμ(ω)ν Αὐ[--], comparing Τίμων of Sphettos, donor to the epidosis of 248/7 BC (IG II² 791 = Agora XVI 213, 67; cf. LGPN II Τίμων (41)). Such an assumption of a cutter’s error so close to a lacuna does not seem justified, however, and it is better to accept the evidence of the stone at face value. 12 On the other hand, it seldom is a good idea to postulate from incomplete testimony restoration of a name that is otherwise unattested. In this case, however, the circumstantial evidence is sufficient to justify restoration of Τιμοναύ[της]. Firstly, since there is no reason to disbelieve 10   Τημένη is recorded a first time at IG II² 1534 B, 200 = Inv. V, 75, giving a timespan for her three offerings of eleven years. For the name, recorded in the feminine form only here, see Masson 1997, 92–3. 11   “But the Π stands clearly legible on the stone”, Aleshire 1989, 275. 12   “Iuxta lacunam ne mutaveris”; cf. most recently Gonis 2005.

126

Sean G. Byrne

that the letters inscribed were the letters intended, ΤΙΜΟΝΑΥ must be considered to belong to a single name. Secondly, virtually all names in the Athenian onomasticon that contain the letter combination ΝΑΥ either are names beginning Ναυ- or names ending ‑ναύτης (300 out of 304 names, the sole exceptions being Σωναυτίδης and Σωναύτιος, both derived from Σωναύτης, and two third-century AD instances of Βάναυσος). From a statistical standpoint, Τιμοναύτης is overwhelmingly likely, and should join the ‑ναύτης names that have a level of popularity in Athens but are rare elsewhere.

II. Three Questionable Identifications The first of the three following cases questions an identification that hitherto has been taken for granted, the second argues for an identification hitherto denied, and the third seeks to subvert a generally accepted link between inscriptions via homonymity altogether. Ameinias of Xypete Agora XVI 129 is a decree dated securely to the period 301–295 BC by the presence of the exetastes and trittyarchs as paymasters for the inscription. Two sets of honours are granted. The first set is preserved too scantily to know anything of it beyond its existence. The subsidiary honours (ll. 3 ff.) are for three individuals, as well as the crews and soldiers who performed a service (l. 7) alongside them: 5



... ἐπαι]νέσαι δὲ καὶ Ὑ [. . . . . . . .17. . . . . . . . . Ἀ]μεινίαν Ξυπετ– [αιόνα . . . . .11. . . . . .]έ̣α κ[α]ὶ τὰς ὑπηρεσ– [ίας καὶ τοὺς στρατι]ώτας τοὺς μετ᾿ αὐτ– [ῶν οἵ . . . . . .12. . . . . .]σαν τὴν ἐν Τορνέα [ι καὶ στεφανῶσαι θα]λλοῦ στεφάνωι ...

Of the individualized honorands, only the name of the second, Ameinias of Xypete (ll. 4–5), survives (I could not verify the upsilon that has been alleged as the initial letter of the first name). Ameinias happens also to be the name of a member of the group led by the hoplite general Charias which around this time was involved in a calamitous power struggle with Lachares (POxy 2082 fr. 2). The coincidence of name, date and perceived military connectedness led B. D. Meritt in the editio princeps of the decree to identify the two men.13 This tied in neatly with Meritt’s explication of the service performed by the crews and soldiers, the details of which are lost from l. 7: it was a military campaign carried out at a place called Tornea, apparently the very στρατ〈ε〉ία mentioned in POxy 2082 fr. 1 as a precursor to the seizure of the Acropolis by the hoplite general Charias. As such the decree stands as a rare document from the brief interval between the Athenians’ break with Demetrios Poliorketes after Ipsos and Lachares’ falling out with Charias, and moreover one loaded with tantalising, if fragmented, allusion to important persons and events. A blow to this interpretation has been delivered by the new reading of POxy 2082 fr. 1 by   The identification has been broadly accepted: see e.g. Habicht 1979, 20–1 and 1997, 83–4 n. 60; Woodhead, Agora XVI 129 comm.; Dreyer 1999, 61–73.

13

Some People

in

Third-century Athenian Decrees

127

Peter Thonemann, which shows that Charias seized the Acropolis not μετὰ [τὴν] στρατ〈ε〉ίαν, but μετὰ [τῶν] στρατιῶν (or στρατι〈ωτ〉ῶν): “The ‘campaign’ which preceded Charias’ seizure of the Acropolis is a ghost; he simply seized it ‘with his troops’.” 14 So the military campaign that motivated the subsidiary honours of Agora XVI 129 is not to be connected with anything that is known of the Charias affair after all. But is this military campaign itself a ghost? Because no restoration for line 7 has been proffered, it is difficult to see how the assumed military exploit “in Tornea” is to be construed. The letters -]σαν that follow the unrestored lacuna evidently are the end of an aorist verb whose subject is the restored relative οἵ – perhaps one might think along the lines of οἵ . . . . συνεμάχη]σαν τὴν ἐν Τορνέα|[ι] (cf. συνεμάχησαν δὲ τὴμ μάχην τὴμ Μονιχίασιν, IG II² 10 = Rhodes–Osborne 4, 7). But whatever the verb, it needs for its object a substantive that is the referent of the phrase τὴν ἐν Τορνέα|[ι], e.g. μάχην, and there is no room for one, certainly not after Τορνέα[ι] where the στεφανῶσαι formula is mandatory, and not before, where it would have to precede the verb and be very short as well. Moreover, τὴν ἐν Τορνέα[ι] as a substantive in its own right is too terse to be countenanced.15 It is, however, possible to dispense with the notion of reference to a military event altogether. I suggest that what we have at the end of line 7 is the word ἐντορνέα|[ν], a variant of ἐντορνεία (‘the defensive breastwork of a ship’, LSJ Revised Supplement, s.v.). In this case, the verb in this line may be, or be synonymous with, συμπαρεσκευά]σαν, and we may have to do with the three named honorands supervising the crews and soldiers in the preparation of the ship’s breastwork (for ceremonial purposes?), for the completion of which they were honoured. If such a scenario seems somewhat vague and mysterious, it should be remembered that this is only the subsidiary set of honours; presumably the first set conveyed the context in dealing with the primary honorand(s). As for Ameinias, it is not improbable that his connection with the “crews and soldiers” indicates a military office, although in this particular decree his position does not seem to be particularly elevated, nor to involve active campaign service. That he is to be identified with the Ameinias who was put to death for being a member of the anti-Lachares faction is encouraged only by chronological proximity, but with the name reasonably common (54 instances in Athens, so far), to assume identity of the two, as has hitherto been the rule, to my mind is not justified. Allotting them separate entries, linked with the ?= device, as is the case in the published LGPN II, seems best (cf. LGPN II Ἀμεινίας (8) ?= (42)). Demades of Paiania There have been three significant events in the scholarship on the decrees of IG II² 713 = Wilhelm 1916. The first was with the editio princeps of Koumanoudes (1876, 176–7 no. 6). Although Koumanoudes was not able to throw light on the subject matter of the inscription, he demonstrated conclusively what remains its salient point, that it consists of two separate decrees inscribed at the same time, with the tail end of the first, including the instructions for the inscribing and payment of the stelai, encompassing ll. 1–8, and with a second decree, abruptly beginning with the name of its proposer, [Δ]ημάδης Δημέου Παι[ανιεύς], whom Koumanoudes naturally identified with the famous orator (LGPN II Δημάδης (4)). The second event was Köhler’s Corpus edition, IG   Thonemann 2003, 123.   Cf. νικήσαντος Λυσιμάχου τοῦ βασιλέως [τὴ]ν μάχην τὴν Ἰψῶι γενομένην (IG II² 657, 16–18 of 283/2 BC); one could not contemplate a bare νικήσαντος Λυσιμάχου τοῦ βασιλέως τὴν Ἰψῶι γενομένην. 14

15

128

Sean G. Byrne

II Add. 302 b. Here Köhler noted the fact that since the plural board of administration ([τοὺς ἐπὶ τῆι δι]οικήσει, restoration mandated by the stoichedon order) was named as paymasters for the first decree, it must date to the first part of the third century; he accordingly decided that Demades, the proposer of the second decree, was not the fourth-century orator who was put to death in 319 BC, but a grandson of the same name, otherwise unknown. The third event was Wilhelm’s 1916 re-edition (summarised at IG II² Add. p. 666), where the definitive version of the text was established. Wilhelm recovered the name of the honorand of the second decree ([Ἀρίσ]τ̣ων Ἐχθατ[ί]ου Θη[βαῖος]), the reason for his honours (participation in the Dionysia), and his likely profession (auletes). As importantly, he also clarified the nature of the link between the two decrees with his convincing restoration of lines 3–4: in the first decree it was decided to inscribe the decree according to which Ariston received his honours ([ἀνα]γράψαι δὲ τὸ [ψήφισμα καθ’ ὃ Ἀρίστων ἔλ]αβε τὴν δωρεὰ[ν]). The second decree on the stone, proposed by one Demades of Paiania, is that earlier decree. The first decree dates to the period of the plural board of administration, so 286–262 BC. How much earlier was Demades’ decree is unknown, since the dating preamble is omitted, but there is no reason to assume it cannot be substantially earlier, perhaps as early as the lifetime of Demades the orator. And this being the case, it seems unnecessary to conjure a homonymous grandson for Demades as the proposer when Demades himself will do just as well. A likely enough scenario is that Ariston as an old man soon after 287 BC, or a descendant, requested the reaffirmation of his honours voted some 35 years beforehand. Of the 18 surviving inscribed decrees proposed by Demades the orator, two were passed at the assembly held at the theatre of Dionysos after the Dionysia and so concerned that festival.16 I contend that the second, earlier, decree of IG II² 713 = Wilhelm 1916 is a third. Artemidoros of Perinthos A longstanding orthodoxy has held that IG II² 663, a decree granting Athenian citizenship to Artemidoros of Perinthos, is a copy of of IG II² 662.17 This judgment was expressed as a strong possibility by its first editor because, as far as could be told from the fragmentary states of both, the wording seemed to be exactly the same,18 and had been accepted as fact already in the same year by Kirchner (IG) and Wilhelm.19 There are, however, difficulties with this viewpoint that are serious enough, I believe, to make it untenable. Firstly, the publication requirements set out on IG II² 663 specify that only one stele be inscribed ([ἀναγρ]άψαι δὲ τόδε τό ψήφ̣[ισ]μα [τὸν γραμματέ]α τὸν κατὰ πρυτανε[ία]ν ἐ[ν στήλει λιθί]νει, ll. 33–35), an anomaly that has led to speculation that one of the copies of the decree was erected on private initiative.20 Yet in the case of Artemidoros, such an initiative seems highly unlikely. From the consideration section of the decree, it is apparent that the honorand (assuming   For the inscribed decrees proposed by Demades see Oikonomides 1956 and Brun 2000, 177–8. For Demades’ decrees concerning the Dionysia, see Lambert 2008, 58, with new editions of the decrees 68–70 no. 3 (IG II² 346) and 78–79 no. 7 (IG II² 372). 17   The two decrees are published together as Osborne, Naturalization D74 Copies A and B (for the sake of convenience I refer throughout simply to the Corpus numbers). The most recent edition of IG II² 662 with added fragments is Agora XVI 172. 18   Johnson 1914, 169–70. 19   Wilhelm 1914, 293. 20   Johnson 1914, 170; Tracy 2003, 52–5. 16

Some People

in

Third-century Athenian Decrees

129

for the moment that there was only one decree and one honorand) was sent to Athens by king Lysimachos, and on his return to the king continued to act in the Athenian interest (IG II² 662, 7–14 = 663, 1–10). Who would have gone to the trouble of perpetrating an unofficial copy of a decree for a benefactor whose sojourn in Athens can only have been brief and who probably never returned, and why they would have done so, is not at all clear. Further, the other instances of copies of decrees to have been set up in this period (IG II² 672 with SEG XXXVIII 74, and IG II² 666 and 667, cited by Tracy 2003, 54–5) are not decisive comparanda: (1) provision for the inscription of two stelai is in fact found in IG II² 672, as the addition of the fragment EM 12925 shows, which means that SEG XXXVIII 74 is an official, not a privately commissioned, copy;21 (2) the section with the publication requirements has been lost from both IG II² 666 and 667, and there is no reason to assume that both were not officially mandated. In sum, convincing evidence for copies of decrees set up on private initiative in this period seems to be lacking. The location where the stelai were set up is the source of another difficulty for the theory that they are inscribed with copies of the same decree. Two of the three fragments of IG II² 662 were found on the Acropolis, as was the single fragment that comprises IG II² 663, a fact that normally would lead to a confident expectation that this is where they were erected, for although fragments of decree stelai set up on the Acropolis often are found on the slopes beneath and beyond, it is exceedingly rare for decree stelai fragments erected in the lower city to be discovered on the Acropolis.22 Their placement on the Acropolis would hardly be surprising, since the Acropolis almost without exception was the site for the placement of decrees honouring foreigners until 229 BC.23 That this is not the case here, however, seems to be demonstrated by the setting-up location specified on IG II² 663, according to the reading and restoration of Johnson: στῆσαι ἐν Ἀγλ[αύρου] (ll. 35–36). Nevertheless, before accepting that a decree for a foreigner was set up counter to all known precedent in the sanctuary of Aglauros, and that this one decree, equally as extraordinarily, happened to make its way from the lower eastern slope to join company on the Acropolis with all the other decrees for foreigners, it is worth remembering that the Ἀγλ[αύρου] reading is not certain. At autopsy I could see only the gamma, the spaces before and after being badly abraded.24 In such circumstances it is perhaps pardonable to seek another solution. I wonder if what was inscribed was ΑΓΡΟΠΟΛΕ (omission of final iota, as occurred in l. 15 with [ξυ]μβάλλεσθα, required by the stoichedon order): ἀγροπόλει is an attested form, found at IG II² 508, 11 (cf. Threatte I 556). Perhaps far-fetched, but, on the other hand, ἐν Ἀγλ[αύρου] 21   The text at the relevant point (IG II² 672, 15–16) is set to become ἐν ἀκροπόλει [καὶ ἐ]ν τ[. . . .9. . . . .], with the formula ἐν στήλει λιθίνει omitted. For some ramifications of the addition of the fragments EM 12909 and 12925 to IG II² 672 (the joins still unpublished), see Byrne 2006–7, 174–5. 22   Of decrees found on the Acropolis, the only ones I am aware of that are known to have been set up elsewhere are IG II² 863, which was directed to be set up in ‘the temple of Demeter’, a fragment of IG II² 689 (cf. SEG XLVI 134) which was copied in the Acropolis apotheke (although it was not necessarily discovered on the Acropolis), and one of four fragments of IG II² 700 (the last two were set up in the Agora). 23   The one genuine exception is readily explicable: IG II² 212, for members of the Spartokid royal family, was set up in the Peiraieus ‘near the (stele) of Satyros and Leukon’, that is a place of special significance to their relationship with Athens; cf. Oliver 2007, 35–6. Otherwise we have just IG II² 648, for which two copies were mandated, one on the Acropolis and one in the Dionysion, so probably for a poet (cf. Habicht 1979, 13–15). After 229, the temenos of Demos and the Graces becomes a sanctioned location for these decrees. For the placement of inscribed decrees in general, see Liddel 2003. 24   Johnson reported reading the alpha in full, all of gamma, and the first diagonal of the following letter. Osborne (Naturalization D74 Copy 2) reported a single diagonal for each of the letters on either side of gamma.

130

Sean G. Byrne

is to my mind beyond credibility. I think it close to certain that both IG II² 662 and 663 were set up on the Acropolis, and contend that this is another reason to think it unlikely that one is a copy of the other. The third difficulty arose with the publication of the fragment bearing the upper left side of IG II² 662.25 The new fragment showed that tau was the fourth letter of the honorand’s name; if the name was Artemidoros, as on 663, the name must have been inscribed ἐπειδὴ [v Ἀρ]τ[εμίδωρος], that is with a vacat inserted before the name. Such a vacat is possible; others serving as punctuation exist on the same document (see the Agora XVI 172 text, where one is clear on the fragment incorporated by Tracy; others are necessarily restored). But the vacat that separates ἐπειδὴ from the honorand’s name cannot be said to be for the purposes of punctuation, and is at best incongruous. With this in mind, and since there are other reasons to doubt that the two inscriptions are copies of the same decree, it is better to leave the name of the honorand unrestored as [. . .]τ[. . . .8. . . .], and consider him as a separate individual from Artemidoros of Perinthos. The two men will have been members of an embassy from Lysimachos that visited Athens soon after the liberation of 287 BC, and who continued to act in the interests of the Athenians when back in the retinue of the king. For this they were awarded citizenship, doubtless on the proposal of the same man at the same assembly, and in identical terms.26

References Aleshire, S. B. (1989) The Athenian Asklepieion: the People, their Dedications and the Inventories. Amsterdam. Brun, P. (2000) L’orateur Démade: essai d’histoire et d’historiographie. Bordeaux. Byrne, S. G. (2004) ‘Proposers of Athenian State Decrees 286–261 B.C.’, in Matthaiou–Malouchou 2004, 313–325. Byrne, S. G. (2006–7) ‘Four Athenian Archons’, Mediterranean Archaeology 19–20, 169–179. Dinsmoor, W. B. (1954) ‘The Archonship of Pytharatos’, Hesperia 23, 284–316. Dow, S. (1937) Prytaneis: A Study of the Inscriptions Honoring the Athenian Councillors. Princeton. Dreyer, B. (1999) Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des spätklassischen Athen. Stuttgart. Girard, P. F. and Martha, J. (1878) ‘Inventaires de l’Asklépieion’, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 2, 419–445. Gonis, N. (2005) ‘A. S. Hunt and ‘Youtie’s Law’’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 151, 166. Habicht, C. (1972) ‘Beiträge zur Prosopographie der altgriechischen Welt’, Chiron 2, 103–134. Habicht, C. (1979) Untersuchungen zur politischen Geschichte Athens im 3. Jahrhundert v. Chr.. Munich. Habicht, C. (1997) Athens from Alexander to Antony. Cambridge, Mass. Johnson, A. C. (1914) ‘A Decree in Honor of Artemidorus’, American Journal of Archaeology 18, 165– 184. Koumanoudes, S. A. (1876) ‘Ἀττικὰ ψηφίσματα’, Ἀθηναῖον 5, 164–191. Lambert, S. D. (2001) Review of S. Hornblower and E. Matthews (eds), Greek Personal Names: Their Value as Evidence in Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2001.08.22. Lambert, S. D. (2004) ‘Restoring Athenian Names’, in Matthaiou–Malouchou 2004, 327–341. Lambert, S. D. (2008) ‘Polis and theatre in Lykourgan Athens: the honorific decrees’, in A. P. Matthaiou and   Stamires 1957, 29–30 no. 2.   Michael Osborne points out to me the precise parallel of IG II² 495 and 496 + 507 (Osborne, Naturalization D60 and D61), where Stratokles of Diomeia proposed citizenship decrees in identical terms for courtiers of Demetrios Poliorketes. 25 26

Some People

in

Third-century Athenian Decrees

131

I. Polinskaya (eds), Μικρὸς Ἱερομνήμων. Μελετὲς εἰς μνήμην Michael H. Jameson. Athens, 53–85. Liddel, P. (2003) ‘The Places of Publication of Athenian State Decrees from the 5th century BC to the 3rd century AD’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 143, 79–93. Masson, O. (1997) ‘Femmes donatrices à l’Asklepieion d’Athènes’, in P. Brulé and J. Oulhen (eds), Esclavage, guerre, économie en Grèce ancienne: hommages à Yvon Garlan. Rennes, 87–93 (= OGS III, 285–291). Matthaiou, A. P. and Malouchou, G. E. (eds) (2004) ΑΤΤΙΚΑΙ ΕΠΙΓΡΑΦΑΙ. Proceedings of a Symposium in Memory of Adolf Wilhelm. Athens. Meritt, B. D. (1942) ‘Greek Inscriptions’, Hesperia 11, 275–298. Meritt, B. D. (1948) ‘Greek Inscriptions’, Hesperia 17, 1–53. Oikonomides, A. N. (1956) ‘Δημάδου τοῦ Παιανιέως Ψηφίσματα’, Πλάτων 8, 105–129. Oliver, G. J. (2007) War, Food, and Politics in Early Hellenistic Athens. Oxford. Stamires, G. A. (1957) ‘Greek Inscriptions II: Attic Decrees’, Hesperia 26, 29–51. Thonemann, P. J. (2003) ‘Charias on the Acropolis’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 144, 123–124. Tracy, S. V. (2003) Athens and Macedon. Attic Letter-Cutters of 300 to 229 B.C. Berkeley / London. Wilhelm, A. (1914) ‘Bürgerrechtsverleihungen der Athener’, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung 39, 257–315. Wilhelm, A. (1916) Attische Urkunden II. Vienna.

Revising Athenian Propertied Families progress and problems John Davies

This paper reports on the progress made so far in compiling a much revised and expanded 2nd edition of APF. After a brief summary of the project as formulated, it describes some of the relevant changes in the scholarly landscape (and in the author) since 1971, and then sketches the 18 principal issues which the process of revision has generated. Some concern format (e.g. the medium of publication, or the results of the appearance of LGPN and PAA), while others concern content, especially in view of the decision to include full biographical details for all entrants, and note the consequences of the near-unmanageable expansion of primary and secondary material. This paper pays a debt and exploits an opportunity. The debt is to the honorand of this volume, for I more than most owe to her, to Peter Fraser, and to all the members past and present of the LGPN team, an open expression of gratitude for their productive and scholarly labours. Having been myself briefly an early member of the équipe, and having watched with admiration both the professionalism of its compilation and the elegance with which successive electronic migrations were carried out, I am well aware how much effort has underlain the production of LGPN, volume II of which sits permanently open on my desk. The opportunity is that provided by the editors, for the pace of change in both scholarship and technology since 1971 has been so dramatic that reflections on a process of revision may both lighten the text of the eventual volume and have some value for future historians of scholarship as a craft.

I The background of the revision process is transparent enough. As an Oxford D.Phil. thesis, Athenian Propertied Families 600–300 BC (hereafter APF), begun in autumn 1959, was submitted   Earlier versions were given to audiences in St Andrews (in February 1999) and at a commemoration of Adolf Wilhelm in Athens in November 2000. I am most grateful to those who facilitated each occasion, respectively Stephen Halliwell and Angelos Matthaiou, and offer my regrets that renewed teaching and administrative obligations gave me no opportunity to revise it for publication in Matthaiou 2004. Detailed comments and suggestions constructively offered by Stephen Lambert and Graham Oliver, to whom I am deeply grateful, have in any case made this a much fuller and more satisfactory account. In the texts and notes which follow, JKD = myself, GJO = Dr G. J. Oliver. 

Revising Athenian Propertied Families: Progress

and

Problems

133

(in three volumes) in summer 1965 and approved late in that year. On advice from David Lewis and Tony Andrewes, volume I was set aside, achieving publication much later as Wealth and the Power of Wealth in Classical Athens (New York, 1981). After minor revision, volumes II and III, containing the alphabetic Register, were accepted by the Clarendon Press and finally published in 1971. It became a standard work of reference, the 1500 printed copies speedily vanished, and it has remained virtually unobtainable: only once have I seen a second-hand copy advertised. Correspondence with the Press about a re-issue or an update began as long ago as late 1984, but already the list of addenda and corrigenda was making a new edition inescapable, while from summer 1986 till summer 1995 JKD’s full-time engagement first as Pro-Vice-Chancellor and then as Head of a newly-created School rendered serious research work impossible. However, the one-year appointment of Graham Oliver in October 1994 as a Research Assistant allowed a fresh start, in the form of a University-funded Workshop in Liverpool in December 1994 which agreed a draft protocol for an entirely new edition. The salient decisions were: 1. to add service in the cavalry as a criterion for membership of the ‘propertied class’; 2. to accommodate the new evidence for the cavalry by extending the lower chronological limit to 200 BC [subsequently modified: see below]; 3. to attempt to provide full source-based information about each person, instead of confining the content of entries to genealogical and financial matters; 4. to use the Roman alphabet for all lemmata, and to transliterate or translate all citations in Greek; 5. to update all epigraphic references; and 6. to provide a much more detailed range of indices, tables, and lists.

Two subsequent developments allowed real progress to be made. First, the Press commissioned a professional firm to scan the printed text of the Register and produce a file in both MS Word and MS Word RTF formats. This was made available to GJO and JKD in summer 1995, and was the most significant single contribution towards the task. It is appropriate here to acknowledge with warmest thanks both the willingness of the Press to meet the necessary costs and the professionalism of the firm involved. The second development was the award to JKD by the Leverhulme Trust of a Leverhulme Research Professorship for 1995–2000, an award which deserves equally warm acknowledgement, since it bought time for much revision and reformatting. However, JKD’s need to reduce a huge backlog of other academic commitments, GJO’s preoccupations with teaching, administration, and a different research project (IG II3) after 1996, JKD’s re-immersion in more than full-time teaching and administration in 2000–03, and the involvement of both JKD and GJO in Liverpool’s Hellenistic Economies initiative, were and have remained significant distractions.

II So much for a review of personal circumstances. Even more pervasive in their impact on the project have been changes in the scholarly landscape, in the envisaged and actual readership, and in authorial attitudes since 1971. I sketch each briefly in turn, leaving aside for separate review the extent to which the basic interpretative argument needs revision or reformulation.   Briefly set out in Oliver–Davies 1996.   Data Management Services, Frome.    Davies (forthcoming).  

134

John Davies

First, various changes in the landscape need mention. APF was written and published in an era (1) of typewriters and hot-metal printing, (2) of IG I2, IG II2, Athenische Mitteilungen, Archaiologike Ephemeris, and Hesperia as the near-exclusive repositories of Athenian epigraphic material, (3) of a limited array of well-established relevant periodicals, and (4) of a rate of worldwide monograph publication which reflected wide-ranging constructive activity in the field but did not overwhelm. For the first head, the scale of technological transformation since the late 1960s needs no emphasis. It suffices to report that the scanned text lives on the hard disk of a laptop, on a memory stick, and on the University’s M-drive, will probably migrate to a CD or even an e-book, and may never see publication in paper form. Change under the third and fourth heads, periodicals and monographs, has been as far-reaching if less dramatic: the proliferation of titles since the late 1960s has eliminated all confidence that all relevant contributions to the biography of this or that individual Athenian have been captured. Since with all goodwill L’Année Philologique cannot report such contributions in sufficient detail, there has been no substitute for autopsy of the run of each and every relevant monograph and periodical publication since 1968. Even so, however, it is the challenge of mastering epigraphic publication since then which has proved the most intractable. That is not because of difficulty in tracing individual units of prosopographical information, for LGPN II and Traill’s Persons of Ancient Athens (PAA) between them provide all that one could need, and more (see below). It stems rather from the degree of fragmentation which a generation of devoted work on individual documents has inflicted on IG format. That comment may seem ungracious, for pre-403 inscriptions are indeed now entirely republished in IG I3 (though all of course continue to be re-visited and to be joined by new material), while the group of post-403 Attic inscriptions which has been most affected by revision and enlargement, the decrees and laws (IG II2 1–1369), are undergoing a process of thorough restudy and republication by a linked team of international scholars. It is otherwise, however, with the remainder, for full re-editions of all the documents in a group are sadly rare, while several other major publications re-edit the inscriptions found in a specific sanctuary or locality and therefore cut across the classification used in IG II2. In consequence, the time-consuming creation of full dossiers of SEG entries for each group has been unavoidable, and even so it is only via an unending process of cross-checking that one can gain some confidence that no salient document, new reading, or emendation has been missed. Yet the greatest change in the landscape lies elsewhere. In the 1960s Kirchner’s Prosopographia Attica (PA) of 1901–03, supplemented by Sundwall’s Nachträge of 1910 and by the Indexes of Hesperia I–X and XI–XX, still provided a nearly-full guide to the primary material. Indeed, as late as 1966 De Gruyter reckoned it was appropriate to reprint PA, albeit enlarged by Lauffer’s very valuable concordance of IG I–III numbers with those of IG I2 and II2. Scholarship, however, has moved on: all readers of this report will be aware that the advent of LGPN and PAA has transformed prosopographical work on ancient Athens out of all recognition: they are now the starting point. In one sense that set APF2 a challenge. Though LGPN as a whole was planned    In chronological order of fascicle: (1) Dr A. Matthaiou; (2) Dr S. D. Lambert; (3) Dr G. J. Oliver; (4) Dr S. Byrne and Prof. M. J. Osborne; (5) Prof. S. V. Tracy , Dr V. Bardani, and Dr A. Makris; (6) Dr E. Perrin; (7) Prof. S. Follet; (8) (deme decrees) Prof. K. Clinton.    Lambert 1997, a full re-edition of all the hekatostai inscriptions (IG II2 1594–1603, with additions), is a welcome exception.    IOropos; IRhamnous; IEleusis. Likewise, of course, the Agora and Kerameikos volumes.

Revising Athenian Propertied Families: Progress

and

Problems

135

purely as an onomasticon, the labours of Michael Osborne, Sean Byrne, and their immediate colleagues on LGPN II, as well as of all those collaborators who ransacked texts and publications, have provided a resource which is – and consciously – far more than purely onomastic: planned before PAA began to appear, and published in the same year as its first volume, LGPN II was shaped in part as a prosopography, will continue in that format, and via its periodic update reports countless items of new or corrected information on persons and identities as much as on names as such. Likewise with PAA, the product of equally devoted and meticulous scholarship by John Traill as the scholarly heir of the Princeton card-index, for it is explicitly an all-embracing prosopography and is in welcome prospect of speedy completion.10 It goes well beyond PA and even beyond LGPN II by bidding fair to encompass all known information about every person recorded as having been in Athenian space, irrespective of legal or ethnic status. The two complementary compilations might seem to leave little need for an APF2. Fortunately, this is not so: they leave ample room. First, they report names and persons, but cannot embrace personalities, contexts, and connections. Secondly, their formats, alike telegraphic, filled with laconic references to (mostly epigraphic) texts, and relentless in their use of undiluted Greek, need skills and knowledge which fledging readers may well lack. Thirdly, of set purpose they eschew all but the bare minimum of citation of modern literature. Fourthly, APF had and retains a different agenda, focussing imprimis on the acquisition and deployment of resources, on tracing families and their economic (in)stability as much as individuals, and on attempting thereby to paint a pointilliste collective portrait of a society. An initial sense of dismay was succeeded by a determination to continue. Moreover, the process of engagement with ongoing scholarly publication has provided some useful (though nebulous) indications of how the interests and needs of users of APF have been changing but nonetheless subsist. Three items must suffice. First, since the fact that most major Athenian figures have been the subject of at least one biographical book or essay is some earnest that the passion for biography per se does not just embrace Alexander, the decision of 1994 to include all biographical information was clearly correct. Furthermore, it opens the way for sections on Nachleben, which in turn will both feed the current appetite for reception studies and provide a home for explicit pointers, whether toward portraits and monuments or toward Plutarch or Nepos. A second and very welcome shift has been the increasing acceptance that intelligent life in Athens did not end in 338, or 322, or 301, or even 262,11 so that the propertied families of the third century BC deserve equal billing. Third and far less welcome has been the decline, noted and widely deplored, in students’ linguistic skills, not just in classical languages but in all modern languages other than English. The decision to give all lemmata in Roman script was therefore inescapable, though it and the associated problems of transliteration are making migration to a different alphabetic order a distinctly untidy process.   For details see LGPN II, xi–xii.   To the text of LGPN II, published in 1994, an on-going list of Addenda and Corrigenda (LGPN IIA), accessible via the LGPN web-site at [email protected]/online/downloads/index html, currently (version of September 2008) occupies 186 pp.: subsequent updates will no doubt enlarge it still more. 10   Its genesis in the Princeton card index and its subsequent development are sketched in PAA I vii–xii. 11   It is appropriate in this regard to salute above all the volumes which reflect Christian Habicht’s devoted study of Hellenistic Athens over many decades: Habicht 1979; 1982; 1994; 1995/1997. Epigraphically, they are complemented by Tracy 1990, 1995, and 2003, and historically by Shear 1978, Faraguna 1992, Dreyer 1999, Oliver 2007a and by the papers in Frösén 1997, Hoff–Rotroff 1997, Palagia–Tracy 2003.  

136

John Davies

Lastly, γνῶθι σεαυτόν: one should try to acknowledge changes in personal views and sensibilities, for age and a much wider gamut of teaching, research publication, and administrative experience inevitably alter perspectives. Partly because they have engendered an even more sceptical attitude towards biographical traditions as literary constructs and towards indirectly transmitted documents than was visible in 1971, partly in reaction to ancient and modern Athenophilia, F 153 of Theopompos resonates rather more sympathetically than it once did, with its caustic note of “all the other things which the city of Athenians boasts about and bamboozles the Greeks”. All the same, as Arnaldo Momigliano once drily observed, “Songs of innocence cannot be turned into songs of experience”,12 and in any case the matter-of-factness of the subject matter precludes much in the way of interpretation or variatio: indeed the stylistic challenge of inserting new matter seamlessly has proved surprisingly unproblematic.

III More immediate has been the challenge of practicality, in applying or modifying the guidelines set in 1994. No fewer than eighteen principal issues have appeared, and are sketched here: even at this advanced stage others may yet present themselves. The focus is first on format, and then on content, though no sequence can be fully tidy or logical. 1. The size of APF1, at xvi + 654 printed pages in crown octavo format, was then deemed to be at the upper limit for a single comfortably usable volume. The envisaged increases in scope for APF2 will either render multi-volume format necessary for any paper-based publication, or will require a much smaller fount and double-column format. The format adopted by OUP for M. H. Hansen and T. H. Nielsen (eds), Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis (2004) shows what can be achieved in the latter direction, and will be much preferable if it proves practicable. Otherwise either alphabetical or chronological division will be needed: neither is attractive. Alphabetical division will as like as not involve the reader in having to pursue a cross-reference from one volume to another. Chronological division, in the scheme initially suggested by myself and approved by the Press, will require three volumes, I for families attested before 433, II for families first attested in the period 433–350s, and III for the remainder: overlaps and crossreferences will abound, and the ensemble will not be user-friendly. However, in any format variation in fount size should be able to gentle the unattractive sight of pages which consist entirely of cross-references (e.g. APF1 pp. 244–5). 2. The assumption of paper-based publication can therefore be challenged (though the price which the Press can legitimately set for paper format offers their best chance of recouping their investment). Alternatives include CD-ROM, e-book, or on-line. The first is now practical world-wide and highly convenient, but will either date (as with APF1) or require a system of subscription-based updates or replacements. The second depends on the widespread adoption of hardware which is still in the development phase. The third will require a radical migration of the whole project from singleton monograph status to that of an undertaking supported by an ongoing institutional framework. Whether LGPN provides an appropriate model, and whether financial support can be provided, are open questions. In any case, the published text-format will need to allow electronic word-searches. 12

  Momigliano 1961, viii.

Revising Athenian Propertied Families: Progress

and

Problems

137

3. The transliteration of Greek for lemmata plays havoc with the existing alphabetical order, a problem compounded by the need to decide whether ‘χ’ is to be transliterated as Kh or Ch. The issue is broader than appears at first sight, since its resolution will help to decide whether the eventual volume/text looks more like a specialist companion of LGPN II or PAA, or instead more like a student-accessible congener of the Oxford Classical Dictionary. 4. The choice of reference numbers for individual persons presented a major problem. Given the existence of LGPN II and the progress of PAA towards completion, the question has been whether to retain PA numbers at all, especially since a volume compiled (as was PA) in Latin is now a closed book to most potential users. True, LGPN II cites them, as PA/APF when appropriate, so that the user’s convenience is probably best served by retention, even at the cost of number-infestation. The consequences are visible via a simple example, a three-line entry which in APF1 read: 10651 Νεοπτόλεμοϲ Δεκελε(ιεύϲ). Sole trierarch before 325/4 on tetreres Seiren Aristokratous (ii.2 1629, lines 684 f.).

After transliterating, inserting the appropriate number from LGPN and PAA, preserving the older number from PA and APF1, and capitalizing the nomen to signify that he qualifies for the Register on his own account, the entry will present as: NEOPTOLEMOS 7 of Dekeleia {706655/10651}. Sole trierarch before 325/4 on tetreres Seiren Aristokratous (ii.2 1629.684 f.).

5. That example retains the citation from IG ΙΙ2 unchanged. It will be in a minority. More typical is the following draft entry for APF2: EUAGIDES 1 son of Ktesias 32 of Philaidai {425430/5232}. Deinia[s] 44 son of Euages 2 of Ph[i]laidai, secretary to the tamiai of Athene in 445/4 or 444/3 (i.3 455.8–9), is the first known member of the family. The recurrence of the name-root Euag[-] suggests that Ktesias 32 son of Euagides 2 [of Philaidai], lessee of a mining concession near Laureion in 346/5 (Agora XIX P19.25), is a descendant of Euages 2. Since Ktesias’ son Euagides 1 was victorious choregos for Aigeis in men’s dithyramb at the Dionysia in 328/7 (ii.2 3052), it looks as if mining profits may have raised the family into the liturgical class in the third quarter of the fourth century. Euagides 3 of Philaidai, himself in the propertied class as a subscriber of 200 dr. to an epidosis in 248/7 (Diomedon) (ii.2 791= SEG XXXII 118, II.59), could easily be a grandson of Euagides 1. Raubitschek’s attempt (Hesperia, Index I–X, 57) to emend to Eua{i}es the name of a councillor from Philaidai who served in the early 250s (Euboulos) has not found favour in the republication of the lost text (Agora XV 85.60: details s.v. Athenians [= PAA] 425420), though the name of the councillor’s father D[e]inias 45 recalls that of the father of Euages 2.

Four references (underlined) reflect republications, while one alone survives unchanged. That ratio, of 4:1, has proved to be typical throughout, and will undoubtedly tip still further when it becomes possible to incorporate the numbers newly assigned to decrees and laws in the forthcoming fascicles of IG II3. 6. In the example quoted above, the phrase “details s.v. Athenians [= PAA] 425420” reflects a decision, effectively forced upon the re-edition by transliteration but thankfully enabled by the extreme detail of PAA, to be less meticulous about recording dotted letters than was APF1 while retaining the precision of ‘Eua{i}es’. The point is not as trivial as it seems, for APF2 will

138

John Davies

be used by readers with little or no Greek: it therefore needs to be accessible in a way that PAA does not. 7. It is appropriate to report two excisions. The first is stylistic, even political: the spasmodic references to ‘Right’ and ‘Left’ in allusions to the activities of major politicians smell of the Sixties and will disappear. The second is antiquarian-administrative. A process of reasoning not fully set out till 198113 lay behind the inclusion in APF1 of the persons listed on the so-called diadikasia-documents (IG II2 1928–1932). Though given qualified support by Rhodes, the case was powerfully controverted by Gabrielsen, arguing that the decisions recorded were not liturgical but had to do with public debts in the context of the new framework of taxation set up in 378/7.14 Although advanced tentatively, his case is persuasive enough to make it appropriate to eliminate these men from APF2. 8. Other minor excisions result from a review of the four additional sequences which were placed towards the end of APF1 (pp. 575–95). Series A, listing men for whom only a demotic survives, records useful information about the distribution of the propertied class among the demes and will remain as it is. So will Series D, which lists persons whose names are not preserved at all. Series B, listing men whose name is attested only in broken form, can be partially culled without great loss. Series C, listing non-Athenians who are known to have qualified for the liturgical class or equivalent, generates an awkward sheep-or-goat choice in the case of enfranchised metics such as Charidemos or Pasion, and is therefore best amalgamated with the main sequence. 9. However, excisions are more than balanced by the need to incorporate new primary and secondary material. First, primary material, where five groups need notice. One is a mea culpa: APF1 was justly criticised for its less than systematic coverage of evidence provided by nonAttic epigraphic documentation:15 every effort will be made to remedy the deficiency. A second stems from the decision to extend coverage into the third century BC, which has yielded a substantial number of new entries. Though the decision was itself a welcome response to the gradual emergence of Hellenistic Athens from its chronological fog and undeserved politicocultural disprezzo, its principal impetus was the publication by Braun and Kroll of archives of third-century date relating to the Athenian cavalry.16 They were extensive enough to transform our knowledge of the post-Ipsos Athenian upper class, and assumed their full value for APF2 in the light of the demonstration by Spence that “horse-ownership or cavalry service clearly qualifies an individual for inclusion in J. K. Davies’s propertied class” (p. 286).17 All cavalrymen known from these archives and from other sources will therefore be listed in APF2. 10. The question of a new ‘final date’ therefore had to be reviewed, for notices of the cavalry and of cavalrymen continue well beyond the third century BC. Pertinent here is the office of agonothetes, whose late fourth-century bearers already figured in APF1 and whose third-century bearers form a third new qualifying group. The hiatus in attestations of agonothetai after 229 BC, conjoined with the clear evidence of that year as a major political watershed in Athenian   Davies 1981, 133–50.   Rhodes 1982; Gabrielsen 1987. 15   Habicht 1979, 147–52. 16   Braun 1970; Kroll 1977. 17   Spence 1993, 272–86. 13 14

Revising Athenian Propertied Families: Progress

and

Problems

139

history,18 made it appropriate to revise the decision of 1994 and to fix upon 229 BC as the revised final date, though obviously, as in APF1, known later members of listed families will continue to be traced and recorded. 11. A fourth set of new primary material derives from a step-change in knowledge of a ‘class’. That stems from the newer finds of ostraka, only preliminary and partial reference to which was possible in the Addenda of APF1. Though they have added few new names, both the summary information now available19 and the extensive scholarly literature to which it has given rise20 require appropriate though brief notice. 12. Fifth and final is the certainty of much new material and information which will emerge both from the revision of IG II3 and from the completion of PAA. To proceed prematurely will do the user of APF2 no service. Equally, to cease further work until PAA is complete, and until the texts and commentaries to be published in the decree fascicles of IG II3 have either been formally published or at least have crystallised sufficiently to be cited with confidence that the reader will not be misled, is a temptation best resisted.21 Wisest, and therefore firmly in view, will be to have a near-complete text ready for supplement and emendation. 13. The near-exponential growth in secondary bibliography since 1971 poses further awkward choices, for the format adopted in APF1 of placing a brief list at the head of major entries is no longer adequate: readers are entitled to expect a full up-to-date steer towards the material. However, while to attach full references to single entries will involve much repetition, to place them all in a single list at the end of the volume(s) threatens little short of bibliographical elephantiasis. Nonetheless, the latter expedient is probably inescapable. 14. The entry for Euagides quoted above cites one reference (II2 791= SEG XXXII 118, II.59), in a double form. This expedient too is inescapable, at the cost of occupying extra space, for though normal practice must be to cite the single most recent full publication, the reference modes of other scholars must be respected. Thus, PAA consistently cites this epidosis-list in its IG form, just as Keesling consistently cites Akropolis dedications from Raubitschek’s Dedications from the Athenian Acropolis (1949) rather from IG I3.22 All that can be done is to keep such doublebarrelling to the minimum. 15. One issue carries both presentational and interpretative importance. The two great family trees presented in APF1 as Tables I and II were typographical tours de force, for creating which the printers of the Press deserved warm admiration. The Tables will not be perpetuated in APF2, for even apart from the prospect of non-paper publication there has proved to be practical advantage in breaking up some of the largest entries (e.g. for 600 Alkibiades (III) or 9688 Megakles (I)) into a series of separate articles, each covering a single lineage and best presented by a much   Habicht 1997, 173–8.   Agora XXV, Brenne 2001 and Siewert 2002. 20   Summaries in ML 21 with Addenda (1988) p. 309; SEG XXXII 25 (with list of entries in previous volumes); XXXIII 28; XXXIV 40; XXXVI 44; XXXVII 36–8; XXXVIII 14; XXXIX 29; XL 23; XLI 16; XLII 32; XLIV 26; XLVI 78–103; XLVII 99–104; XLIX 69–74; LII 67–8. 21   Especially given the preliminary studies which editors have already published (e.g. Lambert 2004; 2005; 2006; 2007a; 2007b; Oliver 2007b; Oliver (forthcoming)). 22   Keesling 2003. 18 19

140

John Davies

simpler stemma. However, it will be essential not to obscure known genealogical ramifications, especially when both the coagulation and the eventual erosion of each of the two great family networks mapped in Tables I and II were processes of such primordial political and economic importance for Athenian history and society. I am well aware that APF1 came to be referred to as ‘the Athenian telephone directory’, a role now better filled by PAA, but it was initially, and with luck will continue to be, an interpretative tool as well. 16. All the same, ‘genealogical ramifications’ are dangerous ground. Though the approach to the family reconstructions sketched in APF1 had already been sensitised by the name-juggling games played by members of Mantias’ dysfunctional family (APF 9667) or by the manipulations perpetrated by Theopompos of Oion,23 more recent scholarship has emphasised the need for an even more cautious approach. Habicht’s warnings of homonymities,24 the disconcerting evidence that ostraka can attribute two different demotics to (almost certainly) the same man,25 or the erosion by recent and current scholarship of older assumptions about procedures of succession or appointment to gentilicial priesthoods26 all help to ensure that APF2 will be even more circumspect in reassembling family stemmata than was APF1. Not unrelated has been the salutary reminder that the publication of APF1 predated the liberation from error and self-contradictory assumptions which the work of Bourriot and Roussel brought to the study of the Athenian genē.27 Even apart from the question of priesthoods, serious reformulations have therefore been necessary in entries for many families, whether ‘Eupatrid’ or not. 17. The visual impact of APF1 was little short of rebarbative. Even family trees have limited charm, while pages of one-line cross-references do nothing to hold the reader. Digital printing and photo-reproduction will facilitate the introduction of appropriate illustrations such as portrait busts (valuable even if wholly unreliable as likenesses), plans of monuments or grave-plots, and maps of the approximate locations of properties owned by family members. 18. Lastly, a comment on ramifications. The decision of 1994 to report all attested biographical information, perhaps too lightly taken in the optimism of the moment, has had both temporal and critical consequences. First, basic, and obvious is that it is lengthening very considerably the time required to create a publishable text. Second and more subtle has been the consequential need to negotiate sources of biographical information which do not comprise reasonably robust epigraphical, historical, or forensic texts but stem from biographical traditions, especially for major figures, which are preserved in literary or antiquarian texts which rework their material for their own (sometimes opaque) purposes and present documents, anecdotes, or posthumous evaluations. The task has therefore come to be cross-cut by the growth of publications in two adjacent and closely associated areas of scholarship. One, obviously, is Plutarch, whose working methods, sources, personality and agenda have provided rich material for recent studies. The other, less populated area comprises the debate about the authenticity of decrees and other documents transmitted in such literary texts. Pausanias, Strabo, Diogenes Laertius and Diodoros   APF 2921; Davies 2001.   Habicht 1990. 25   Ἀγασίας Ἀρξιμάχου Ἀγρυλῆθεν/Λαμπτρεύς (Siewert 2002, 46 for references). 26   Aleshire 1994; Lambert (forthcoming). 27   Bourriot 1976 and Roussel 1976, with Davies 1996a, 600–2 for evaluations; Parker 1996, 56–66 and 284–327; Lambert 1999. Cf. also the continual debate about the Salaminioi (Taylor 1997; Lambert (forthcoming)). 23 24

Revising Athenian Propertied Families: Progress

and

Problems

141

all figure in such an enquiry, as especially does Plutarch himself in respect of the material which he transmits for the Persian War and its aftermath. Though begun by Habicht nearly 50 years ago, the debate28 has yet to yield a systematic understanding of the processes of transmission, transformation, or (re-)creation which were involved. Obviously, neither for documents nor for anecdotes is APF2 the place for discussion or evaluation. The only practicable expedient will be to deploy a set of phrases functioning as modal operators to warn the reader. Readers of this report will no doubt be chiefly interested in the ‘bottom line’, in this case both the cost and the date of eventual publication. I have no control over cost. Date is dependent above all on achieving saturation coverage of the secondary bibliography, which is proving a nightmare of wholly unexpected proportions. The current objective is to have a text ready for press by December 2011.

References Aleshire, S. B. (1994) ‘The Demos and the priests: The selection of sacred officials at Athens from Cleisthenes to Augustus’, in Osborne–Hornblower 1994, 325–337. Biraschi, A. M., Desideri, P., Roda, S. and Zecchini, G. (eds) (2003) L’uso dei documenti nella storiografia antica. Naples. Bourriot, F. (1976) Recherches sur la nature du génos. Étude d’histoire sociale athénienne: périodes archaïque et classique. Lille. Braun, K. (1970) ‘Der Dipylon-Brunne, B: Die Funde’, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung 85, 198–269. Brenne, S. (2001) Ostrakismos und Prominenz in Athens: Attische Bürger des 5.Jhs. v.Chr. auf den Ostraka. Vienna. Davies, J. K. (1981) Wealth and the Power of Wealth in Classical Athens. New York. Davies, J. K. (1996a) ‘Strutture e suddivisioni delle “poleis” arcaiche. Le repartizioni minori’, in S. Settis (ed.), I Greci: Storia Cultura Arte Società. 2, Una storia greca. 1, Formazione. Turin, 599–652. Davies, J. K. (1996b) ‘Documents and “documents” in fourth-century historiography’, in P. Carlier (ed.), Le IVe siècle av. J.-C. Approches historiographiques. Nancy / Paris, 29–39. Davies, J. K. (2001) ‘The strategies of Mr Theopompos’, in P. A. Cartledge, E. E. Cohen and L. Foxhall (eds), Money, labour and land. Approaches to the economies of ancient Greece. London / New York, 200–208. Davies, J. K. (2007) ‘Data-base or check-list? How best to track a document’, in M. Moggi (ed.), Documenti nella storiografia antica. Prospettive informatiche. (= Mediterraneo Antico 10, 215–232). Davies, J. K. (forthcoming) ‘Wealth and the power of wealth revisited’. Dreyer, B. (1999) Untersuchungen zur spätklassischen Athen (322–ca.230 v.Chr.). Stuttgart. Faraguna, M. (1992) Atene nell’età di Alessandro: problemi politici, economici, finanziari. Rome. Frösén, J. (ed.) (1997) Early Hellenistic Athens: Symptoms of a change. Helsinki. Gabrielsen, V. (1987) ‘The diadikasia-documents’, Classica et Mediaevalia 38, 39–51. Habicht, C. (1961) ‘Falsche Urkunden zur Geschichte Athens im Zeitalter der Perserkriege’, Hermes 89, 1–35. Habicht, C. (1979) Untersuchungen zur politischen Geschichte Athens im 3.Jahrhundert v.Chr. Munich. Habicht, C. (1988) ‘Die beiden Xenokles von Sphettos’, Hesperia 57, 323–327 (= Habicht 1994, 323–327). Habicht, C. (1990) ‘Notes on Attic prosopography: coincidence in father-son pairs of names’, Hesperia 59, 459–462 (= Habicht 1994, 349–353). 28

  Habicht 1961; Davies 1996b; Biraschi

et al.

2003; Zizza 2006; Davies (2007).

142

John Davies

Habicht, C. (1994) Athen in hellenistischer Zeit. Gesammelte Aufsätze. Munich. Habicht, C. (1995) Athen. Die Geschichte der Stadt in hellenistischer Zeit. Munich. Habicht, C. (1997) Athens from Alexander to Antony. Cambridge, MA / London. Hoff, M. C. and Rotroff, S. I. (eds) (1997) The Romanization of Athens. Oxford. Keesling, C. M. (2003) The votive statues of the Athenian Acropolis. Cambridge. Kroll, J. H. (1977) ‘An archive of the Athenian cavalry’, Hesperia 46, 83–140. Lambert, S. D. (1997) Rationes centesimarum. Sales of public land in Lykourgan Athens. Amsterdam. Lambert, S. D. (1999) ‘The Attic genos’, Classical Quarterly 49, 484–489. Lambert, S. D. (2000–3) ‘The first Athenian agonothetai’, ΗΟΡΟΣ 14–16, 99–105. Lambert, S. D. (2001) ‘Ten notes on Attic inscriptions’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 135, 51–62. Lambert, S. D. (2004) ‘Athenian state decrees and laws 352/1–322/1, I: Decrees honouring Athenians’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 150, 85–120. Lambert, S. D. (2005) ‘Athenian state decrees and laws 352/1–322/1, II: Religious regulations’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 154, 125–159. Lambert, S. D. (2006) ‘Athenian state decrees and laws 352/1–322/1, III: Decrees honouring foreigners, A. Citizenship, proxeny, and euergesy’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 158, 115–158. Lambert, S. D. (2007a) ‘Athenian state decrees and laws 352/1–322/1, III: Decrees honouring foreigners, B. Other awards’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 159, 101–154. Lambert, S. D. (2007b) ‘Athenian state decrees and laws 352/1–322/1, IV: Treaties and other texts’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 161, 67–100. Lambert, S. D. (forthcoming) ‘Aristocracy and the Attic genos: A mythological perspective’, in N. Fisher and H. van Wees (eds), Aristocracy, Elites and social mobility in ancient societies. (Celtic Conference, Cork, July 2008). Momigliano, A. (1961) Claudius. The Emperor and his achievement. 2nd edn. Cambridge. Oliver, G. J. (2007a) War, food, and politics in early Hellenistic Athens. Oxford. Oliver, G. J. (2007b) ‘Space and the visualisation of power in the Greek polis: the award of portrait statues in decrees from Athens’, in R. von den Hoff and P. Schultz (eds), Early Hellenistic portraiture. Image, style, context. New York / Cambridge, 181–204. Oliver, G. J. (forthcoming) ‘Citizenship: Inscribed honours for individuals in Classical and Hellenistic Athens’, in S. Milanesi and J.-C. Couvenhes (eds), Individus, groupes et politique à Athènes: recherches et perspectives. Oliver, G. J. and Davies, J. K. (1996) ‘The revision of Athenian Propertied Families’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 110, 306–308. Osborne, R., and Hornblower, S. (eds) (1994) Ritual, finance, politics. Athenian democratic accounts presented to David Lewis. Oxford. Palagia, O. and Tracy, S. V. (eds) (2003) The Macedonians in Athens, 323–229 BC. Oxford. Parker, R. (1996) Athenian Religion. A History. Oxford. Roussel, D. (1976) Tribu et cité. Paris. Shear, T. L. Jr (1978) Kallias of Sphettos and the revolt of Athens in 286 BC. Princeton. Siewert, P. (ed.) (2002) Ostrakismos-Testimonien I. Die Zeugnisse antiker Autoren, der Inschriften und Ostraka über das athenische Scherbengericht aus vor-hellenistischer Zeit (487–322 v.Chr.). Stuttgart. Taylor , M. C. (1997) Salamis and the Salaminioi: The history of an unofficial Athenian demos. Amsterdam. Tracy, S. V. (1990) Attic letter-cutters of 229 to 86 BC. Berkeley / Oxford. Tracy, S. V. (1995) Athenian democracy in transition. Attic letter-cutters of 340 to 290 BC. Berkeley / Oxford. Tracy, S. V. (2003) Athens and Macedon. Attic letter-cutters of 290 to 230 BC. Berkeley / Oxford. Zizza, C. (2006) Le iscrizioni nella Periegesi di Pausania: Commento ai testi epigrafici. Pisa.

LGPN and the Epigraphy and History of Attica S. D. Lambert

LGPN is extremely valuable to epigraphists as it helps them to detect and analyse onomastic patterns which should inform the restoration of partially preserved names on inscriptions and to highlight anomalies. After reviewing a number of patterns among Attic names (e.g. the tendency for many more Athenians to be given the same name as their father after c. 200–150 BC than before) and anomalies (e.g. a unique occurrence BC of a demotic being used as a personal name), the paper proceeds to analyse the incidence in Attica of names attested for only one person and offers explanations for the changing incidence of such names over time. Onomastics and epigraphy are inextricably linked. Even for a region of Greece as rich in literary evidence as Attica, well over 90% of the 63,000 men and women listed in the relevant LGPN volume (II) are attested on inscriptions and the onomastic lexicographer is therefore heavily dependent on material supplied by the epigraphist. Conversely, when the epigraphist faces the question, “how should I restore the partially preserved name which I find on this inscription that I am editing?”, (s)he is heavily dependent on the onomastic lexicon for guidance as to the possibilities. At a conference in Athens in 2000 to commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of the death of Adolf Wilhelm, one of the great onomastic epigraphists, I began to explore some of the potential of LGPN for improving the quality of restorations of names on inscriptions, for from an epigraphist’s point of view it is one of the great contributions of LGPN that it reveals, or at least makes it much easier to detect and analyse, patterns of nomenclature which inform, or should inform, such restorations. Among others I explored the following patterns, or types of pattern, in relation to Attica:    I am delighted to have the opportunity to express my appreciation of the immense value of the LGPN project to epigraphists and historians and my thanks to the late Peter Fraser and to the honorand of this volume, as well as to Sean Byrne, editor with Michael Osborne of LGPN II, for answering innumerable queries over the years with unfailing promptness and courtesy. I also thank them warmly for making available extremely useful addenda and corrigenda to LGPN II as well as a revised version of the volume as a whole (LGPN IIA, see the LGPN website). On this occasion I am especially grateful to Richard Catling for supplying data from LGPN in a form which facilitated preparation of this paper, to Charles Crowther of the Centre for the Study of Ancient Documents at Oxford for reporting his readings of the squeeze of IG II2 1034 held there; to Claire Taylor of Trinity College, Dublin, Eric Perrin-Saminadayar of the University of Saint-Étienne and my Cardiff colleague, Richard Evans, for helpful discussion of specific points; and to Sean Byrne for helpful comments on a draft.    Lambert 2004 (see also 2000b; 2001, Appendix).

144

S. D. Lambert

(a) there were fashions in names. In other words, some names were common at some periods, rare or out of use at others; (b) names which are similar to Attic demotics (e.g. Κηφίσιος, Κηφισίων, Κηφισῆς) occur quite commonly, but names which are precisely the same as demotics (e.g. Κηφισιεύς) are avoided; (c) before 200 BC it is much more common for fathers and sons to share a name component, e.g. Φιλόθεος son of Φιλοκλῆς, than it is for them to have the same name, e.g. Φιλόθεος son of Φιλόθεος, but (d) after 150 BC the reverse is the case.

A restoration of a name in an inscription which accords with attested patterns is more likely to be right, other things being equal, than one which contradicts them; and I illustrated the utility of this approach with 76 examples, most arising from a study of the LGPN II entries for names beginning in pi and tau, where sensitivity to the pattern helped to improve previously accepted restorations. In several cases the yield included significant new factual information. For example, awareness of changing fashions in the use of the names Ἔνδιος, Πάνδιος (Classical names unattested after the third century BC) and Δῖος (which did not become fashionable until the second century BC) led, via improved restoration of IG II2 4035, to enhancement of our knowledge of a prominent family of the first century BC from Melite. Likewise the realisation that [Πάτρο]κλος, hitherto restored as the name of a worker in the account of building work on the Erechtheum, IG II2 1654, is not otherwise attested in Attica for seven centuries after the completion of the Erechtheum, led to a correction of the reading to [Σ]ῶκλος, an identification with the worker of that name who appears on other Erechtheum accounts, and a redating of IG II2 1654 from the fourth century BC (when the building was thought to be under repair) to be contemporary with the other Erechtheum accounts of the last decade of the fifth century.  Some patterns are stronger than others and the stronger they are, the higher the likelihood of our being right to restore in accordance with them and wrong to restore otherwise. One very strong pattern is that relating to demotics. In fact, before the Christian era there is only one known Athenian with a name identical with an Attic demotic, Σουνιεύς, father of Δημοκράτης Σουνιέως Κολωνῆθεν, proposer of IG II2 847 in the archonship of Diokles (214/13 BC?) (PAA 828455). Anomalies require explanations. How should we explain this one? The community of Sounion was already unusually mixed in the fourth century. Insofar as can be judged from the findspots of funerary monuments, a good proportion of the citizen demesmen seem not to have been permanently resident in the deme, while the mining business drew nondemesmen, including Athenians from outside the area and large numbers of foreigners (mainly,   Lambert 2000b, 60–1; 2004, 333–4.   Lambert 2000a; 2004, 334.    LGPN II also lists it as a personal name on the ephebic dedication SEG XXI 684, 4, dated by its editor to the 2nd cent. BC, where the ephebes are [Διονυ]σόδωρος Θεόφρα[στος] Σουνιεύς Σίμων (see also PAA 828440). If so, this man may be a relation of our Σουνιεύς. However, one can not rule out the possibility that Dionysodoros and Simon were foreigners and Theophrastos an Athenian citizen, distinguished as such by his demotic (on the opening of the ephebate to foreigners from c. 125 BC see below). Other Athenians with names equivalent to normal demotic forms BC listed in LGPN II are dubious. E.g. LGPN II records Σφήττιος as the personal name not only of an ephebic epengraphos of 179/80 AD, but also of an Athenian citizen of the 4th cent. BC, albeit with the prudent annotation ‘(n. pr.?)’ (see also PAA 853940). The latter occurrence seems certain to be a demotic. The relevant text, inscribed in the right margin of the relief on the dedication to Asklepios, IG II2 4415, is Ἱερ[έ]ω[ς Σφ]ηττίου which, as Klaffenbach notes ad loc, should be restored [ἐπὶ τοῦ δεῖνος] Ἱερ[έ]ω[ς Σφ]ηττίου, as in the contemporary dedication to Asklepios, IG II2 4427, [ἐπὶ] Ἀμφιτέκτον[ος Ἱερ]έως Προσπ[αλτίου].    See Goette 2000, 121–2. Sounians are well-represented, however, in local land-owning (Osborne 1985, 113– 25).  

LGPN

and the

Epigraphy

and

History

of

Attica

145

but not only, mining slaves); and the fortress, established already during the Peloponnesian War, drew military personnel. The deme also included among its members one of the two branches of the genos Salaminioi, ‘the Salaminioi from Sounion’, who, together with the other branch, ‘the Salaminioi from the Seven Tribes’, had some sort of connection with the island of Salamis. Against this background it is unsurprising that Sounion was the butt of jokes in the fourth century for accepting ill-qualified members: “many are those who now are not free, but tomorrow are Sounieis”, quips the comic poet Anaxandrides.10 Against this background too it is conceivable that an Athenian who was not a member of the deme, but was, say, resident or billeted in Sounion, might have been inspired by the location to override the normal prejudice against using a demotic as a personal name for his son. It might be relevant, in that case, that if Demokrates son of Sounieus was from Leontid Kolonai (in north-east Attica) he was in the same tribe as, and will therefore have done military service and service on the Council with Sounians; and that if he belonged rather to Antiochid Kolonai (probably also in north-east Attica), he might have been related to the Antiochides son of Demokrates of Kolonai attested c. 321 by Agora XV 55, 46. This man was perhaps named for his tribal eponym and (indirect) links can be made between the cult of Antiochos in Attica and the genos Salaminioi, with its Sounian connections.11 I suspect, however, that we should think rather in terms of our Sounieus having an origin among the large non-Athenian community in Sounion (though in that case it is interesting that he was not, despite Anaxandrides, enfranchised in the deme Sounion), or in a non-Athenian family with more distant or indirect links to the place. Sounion was one of those Attic locations, apart from Athens, that was well-known outside Attica, not only no doubt because of the strong non-Athenian presence there, but also because familiar, with its splendid temple of Poseidon visible from the sea, to countless traders and travellers rounding the southern cape of Attica (many of whom would have had occasion to put in there, sometimes no doubt in distressed circumstances): cape Sounion and the ‘noteworthy deme of Sounion’, as Strabo describes it.12 Consultation of the splendid LGPN on-line search facility reveals that, in addition to two other names in Σουνι- attested in Attica (several cases of Σουνιάδης, from iv BC onwards, and one of Σούνιον, dated ii–i BC), there are three instances of Σουνιάδης in the LGPN I region (Hellenistic Tenos) and one of Σούνιον in LGPN IIIB (i BC Oropos). As Christian Habicht has noted, unusual names in the Attic onomasticon can often be explained by foreign onomastic input, a result, for example, of naturalization as an Athenian citizen of a man of non-Athenian origin.13 It may seem perverse to interpret what seems, on the surface of it, a very Attic name as of foreign origin;   Goette 2000, 91–106; Lauffer 1979 and Kalcyk 1982, 159–65 (on mining slaves); Osborne 1985, 113–25 (on land-ownership in this area by citizens from outside the area). The number of metics known to have been domiciled in Sounion was not especially large (see Whitehead 1986, 83–4), but our evidence specifically for metics, as opposed to foreigners of uncertain status, is slight and perhaps skewed somewhat towards the city demes and the Piraeus. Note, on the other hand, the striking provision in IG II2 1180 that the deme’s new agora, donated in the mid 4th cent. BC by one Leukios, should be large enough to accommodate not only Sounians, but also ‘anyone else who wished’ (note that the text does not say, or perhaps imply, that ‘anyone’ had to be Athenian). For discussion I am grateful to Claire Taylor, who delivered a stimulating paper on Sounian society at the annual Classics conference of the Universities of Wales, Gregynog 2007.    Th. viii 4; Whitehead 1986, 401–7; Goette 2000, 44–55.    See Rhodes–Osborne 37. 10   PCG II 240 Anaxandrides fr. 4, 3–4 (Anchises); Whitehead 1986, 259, 292–4. 11   Lambert 1999, 125 with n. 45. 12   Str. ix 1. 21–2. Goette took this description for the title of his monograph on Sounion. 13   Habicht 2000. See further below. 

146

S. D. Lambert

but for a non-Athenian the name Σουνιεύς would be unexceptionable as it could never be for an Athenian. Compare, for example, the Attic demotics Μαραθώνιος, never borne by an Athenian as a personal name, but attested, as LGPN reveals, for Delians of the third and second centuries BC (note also Μαραθώνις, Thessalonike i–ii AD) and Πειραιεύς, again the name of no Athenian, but attested for a Tenian of the first century BC. Anaxandrides jokes that men who one day were slaves (scil. in the Sounion area) might the next day find themselves demesmen of Sounion. I take our Sounieus to be, as it were, a variant on the same theme: originally a foreigner (possibly but not necessarily of servile origin) named for a connection to Sounion, eventually an Athenian citizen (albeit not a demesman of Sounion). However we explain it, one Attic instance of a demotic-type name deep into the Hellenistic period supplies no justification for restoring partially preserved personal names in inscriptions of earlier periods to yield Attic demotic forms. Names which are cognate with, but not identical to, Attic demotics were common in both the Classical and Hellenistic periods and that is the pattern we should follow when restoring. For example, the councillor of 304/3 from Euonymon attested at Agora XV 61, 165 and endowed by the editor of that inscription with a name identical to the demotic of Aphidna, Ἀφιδνα[ῖος], is better restored with some other termination, e.g. Ἀφιδνα[ίων]; and where, at the preserved start of IG II2 244, a law about repairing walls of c. 337 BC, we read – Ἀφιδνα[ῖος] εἶπεν, we may confidently (on this ground and others) take Ἀφιδνα[ῖος] as the proposer’s demotic rather than, as has recently been suggested, his name.14 The pre-200 BC pattern whereby there were more fathers and sons who shared name components than fathers and sons with the same name is quite strong, but not overwhelmingly so. In the sample I examined (i.e. names beginning with pi or tau), I found 5–6 times more cases of a father and a son sharing a name component (c. 140) before 200 BC than cases where they had the same name (c. 25). This certainly undermines restorations which have not been mindful of the pattern. To take a simple case, in Agora XV 73 = SEG XXVI 155, 77 (c. 332/1), we shall not follow the editor’s restoration of the father’s name of Πολύστρατος Πολυ[στράτου] and will be inclined to think of one of the several other names in Polu- attested for Phlya in the fourth century BC, Πολυκλῆς, Πολυμήδης or Πολύμνηστος; but Πολύστρατος Πολυ[στράτου] is not certainly wrong and in such a case an editor, lacking any other relevant information, has no choice but to leave the father’s name unrestored. The post-200/150 BC pattern is much stronger. In my sample there were c. 192 cases of fathers and sons with the same name after 200 BC and only c. 18 of shared name components after c. 150 BC. Unsurprisingly, girls were more commonly named for their mothers or mothers’ relations, but some of them do share names or name components with their fathers and in such cases the pattern is comparable with boys. In other words girls also tend to share name components with their fathers before 200–150 BC and to have the feminine version of their fathers’ names thereafter.15 Among attested Athenian females with names in pi and tau in the second and first centuries BC, none shares only a name component with her father,16 while there are two cases of daughters with the female version of their father’s name.17 Our richest source for Athenian female   See Lambert 2007, 74–7.   In general on male/female nomenclature patterns see Runes 1924–25. 16   There are a few instances for names beginning with other letters, though at least some of these need reviewing with a view to possible redating, e.g. Λυσὼ Λυσάνδρου and Λευκίππη Λευκίδου, named on funerary monuments currently dated to the 1st cent. BC (IG II2 6041 and 7775). 17   Πολυξένα daughter of Πολύξενος (Athens?) on the funerary stele, IG II2 12494, ii BC, and Τελεσίππη daughter of Τελέσιππος of Kephisia, IG XII (8) 109, 5, ?ii BC. 14 15

LGPN

and the

Epigraphy

and

History

of

Attica

147

names at this period, apart from funerary monuments, are the lists of girls who were honoured for working the wool for Athena’s peplos (ergastinai), named in three inscriptions of the years around 100 BC.18 In these lists there is no certain case, one arguable instance aside,19 of a girl sharing only a single name component with her father, while there are two clear cases of girls with the feminine version of their father’s name.20 As I noted,21 this pattern encourages the restoration [-c 4-]όκλεια Ἀγαθοκλέους ἐκ Κηδῶν at IG II2 1060 + 1036 = Aleshire–Lambert 2003, 33 (108/7 BC), to [Ἀγαθ]όκλεια. What we are to make of IG II2 1034 +1943, col. 2 l. 4 (103/2 BC), where IG prints Ἀρισ[τ -c 5- Ἀρ]ίστω[νος, is less clear. Ἀρ]ίστω[νος is quite attractive, viewed on its own terms, being much the commonest Attic masculine name containing the letters ‑ιστω‑ (210 cases according to an on-line search of LGPN II), but it yields a daughter who shares a name component with her father and that will cause us to consider other possibilities. There is one other common name that will fit, Ἀριστώνυμος (50 attestations in LGPN II). Bearing in mind the pattern we have detected and the space to be filled, this raises the possibility Ἀρισ[τωνύμη Ἀρ]ιστω[νύμου]. Admittedly there is no other known Athenian female named Ἀριστωνύμη, but the female version of such a well-attested Attic name can be posited without difficulty, and there is a parallel outside Attica in Ἀριστωνύμα, attested in the Argolid (Hermione) in the third century BC. In col. B, 25 IG prints [Λυσι]δίκη(?) Λύσω[νος. Here it is not so much that Λυσιδίκη is otherwise unattested in Attica that causes the hesitation. As the feminine version of a masculine name, Λυσίδικος, well-attested in Attica and elsewhere, it is unobjectionable. Again it is rather our preference against restoring father and daughter with shared name components that gives pause, together with the fact that there are plenty of well-attested alternatives that will fit, Ἀρχεδίκη, Δημοδίκη etc.22 In the list of girls of the tribe Attalis at col. B, 28, where IG prints [Σω]στράτη Σωσ[- (PAA 864800) and l. 31 where IG has Ἀγαθόκλεια Ἀγ[αθ- (PAA 103030), sensitivity to the attested pattern will induce us to think of Σωσ[τράτου] and Ἀγ[αθοκλέους]. This raises an attractive possibility, namely that our Σωστράτη was the [Σω]στράτη daughter of Σώστρατος (PAA 864775) and sister of Βοίηθος whose funerary monument from Delos (Rheneia), EAD XXX 304, is there dated ‘fin. ii BC’. As I observed,23 a number of the ergastinai can be identified as from families who had come to prominence on the back of wealth accruing from restored Athenian control of Delos after 166. When daughter and father share the same name, however, and in the absence of a demotic, a certain identification is impossible. One might also suspect a family connection between the Ἀγαθόκλεια Ἀγ[αθοκλέους?] at l. 31 and the [Ἀγαθ?]όκλεια Ἀγαθοκλέους ἐκ Κηδῶν (in Erechtheis) at IG II2 1060 + 1036 = Aleshire–Lambert 2003, 33, but identity is not possible in this case as the girls belonged to different tribes. The scope for further research in this field is vast, both as regards the identification of patterns 18   IG II2 1060 +1036 = Aleshire–Lambert 2003 (108/7 BC); IG II2 1034 + 1943 = Tracy 1990, 216–19 (103/2 BC); IG II2 1942 (c. 100 BC). See Aleshire–Lambert 2003, 65–6. 19   Φιλωτέρα Φιλοθέου ἐκ Κεραμέων, IG II2 1060 + 1036 = Aleshire–Lambert 2003, 55. 20   [Διο]νυσία Διονυσίου Κηφισιέως, IG II2 1060 + 1036 = Aleshire–Lambert 2003, 30; Θεογενὶς Θεογένου Πτελεασίου, IG II2 1034, 24. 21   Aleshire–Lambert 2003, 80. 22   Charles Crowther kindly reports that there are slight traces to the left of the delta suggestive of omikron or omega, though it is not certain that they are inscribed strokes. 23   Lambert 2003, 86.

148

S. D. Lambert

and in their application to improve epigraphic restorations.24 To what extent, for example, are there regional patterns in nomenclature within Attica? What about the relationship of naming patterns to socio-economic status? And (importantly, especially as regards the Hellenistic period) to what extent are the Attic patterns similar to or different from those in the rest of Greece? We face the challenge not only of detecting the patterns, but of understanding them. Why, between 200 BC and 150 BC, did Athenians mostly stop giving their children names which contained merely one component of their own names and start giving them their own names much more frequently than previously? In 2000 I raised the possibility that we should look to Rome for an explanation, noting, however, that it would be surprising if Roman practice in this regard had had such a profound influence so early.25 This is a good example of an issue that needs analysis across the Greek world as a whole. That lies outside the scope of this paper, but any such analysis will need to bear in mind the underlying rationale for the Roman system, apparently to do with conveyance down the generations of the patria potestas, and the possibility that this change in Athenian(/Greek?) onomastic practice reflected a real shift in the basis of family and inheritance law towards the Roman model. For the time being I add just two observations: that Athens was prompt in aligning herself with Rome against Macedon in 200 and remained a steadfast ally of the coming power in the period 200–167, a loyalty which yielded dividends in 167 with the restoration, due to the Roman senate, of control over Lemnos, Imbros, Skyros and, greatest prize of all, Delos;26 and that it is also from around 200 that we encounter the first instances of a more obvious kind of onomastic Romanization: Athenians giving their sons Roman names.27 There is, however, one further direction in which I should like to expand the enquiry in this paper, namely in relation to names attested for only one person (which I shall refer to as ‘unique’ names). The epigraphist is commonly faced with a situation in which (s)he has to do with a partially preserved name, say the text is stoichedon and the name is αβγ[. . .5 . .]. (S)he consults LGPN II and finds that there is only one name attested in Attica that will fit. Is (s)he justified in restoring that name? Or, to put it another way, how likely is it that the name on the stone was an otherwise unattested name? The question has been raised with me by several colleagues in response to my 2004 paper. It is a serious one and can be answered by analysis of the incidence of unique names in Attica. As in my previous paper the analysis is based on a 10% sample of all attested Athenians, i.e. those with names beginning in pi or tau. Though the sample is not strictly random, there is no reason to suppose that there would have been more or fewer unique names in Attica beginning with these than with other letters of the alphabet, so it is probably fairly representative. The analysis begins with the earliest attested Attic names; I have not taken   In a paper delivered at the Attica panel of the 13th International Congress of Greek and Latin Epigraphy in Oxford, September 2007, John Traill persuasively applied this type of reasoning from observable patterns to a number of restored names in Attic inscriptions, but the exercise I carried out with names in pi and tau still needs to be extended systematically to the rest of the Attic onomasticon. Cf. my comments, 2001 (Appendix). 25   Lambert 2004, 336. 26   See Habicht 1997, ch. 8. 27   The earliest case mentioned by Byrne 2003 (cf. Habicht 1997, 343–4) is Μάαρκος of Marathon, probably born c. 200 and father of a Σέλευκος who was victorious in a senior boys’ event at the Theseia in 153/2 (IG II2 958 II, 74, cf. 960 II, 33), gymnasiarch on Delos in 129/8 (ID 2589, 48) and general in the second half of the century (IG II2 2866; as LGPN II notes, as gymnasiarch he also dedicated a statue of Mithridates V Euergetes on Delos, ID 1558, 2). On Roman names at Athens see further below. According to App., Mithr. 152, Sulla ‘reintroduced’ the constitution which Rome had previously given to Athens, but there seems no other trace of this pre-Sullan ‘Roman’ constitution of Athens, let alone any indication that it might have resulted in a shift in Athenian naming patterns c. 150 BC. Cf. Habicht 1997, 315. 24

LGPN

and the

Epigraphy

and

History

of

149

Attica

it beyond the first century BC as after that the picture is complicated by factors such as the increasing occurrence of Roman names in Attica. The results are shown in the following table: Century BC A. Number of Athenians with names in pi and tau B. Number of Athenians with names in pi and tau whose names are otherwise unattested for an Athenian B as % of A

vii–vi 121

v 615

iv 1793

iii 603

ii 662

i 284

40

80

137

32

47

6

33%

13%

7.5%

5.5%

7.1%

2.1%

‘Athenians’ includes both males and females and those designated as possible/uncertain Athenians in LGPN (‘Athens?’). It does not include non-citizens (those designated ‘Athens*’).

As far as the trend over time is concerned, the general picture is clear: the proportion of unique names declines over the Archaic and early Classical periods, remains steady in the fourth, third and second centuries BC and drops significantly in the first century BC. These figures show that, even in the early Archaic period, a partially preserved name is more likely to be from an otherwise attested name, other things being equal, than from one which is otherwise unattested in Attica. These figures, however, give an exaggerated impression of the frequency of unique names. Many fewer women are attested in Attica than men and for that reason a disproportionate number of unique names – about 25–30% – are women’s names. Leaving women’s names aside, a good half of the remaining names are cognate with names attested in Attica such that they may be regarded as ‘pseudo-unique’. 5–10% are patronymic versions of attested names (e.g. Παγκλείδης, unique, cf. Παγκλῆς, attested twice); 1–5% are masculine versions of attested women’s names (e.g. Πανάριστος, unique, Παναρίστα, attested twice); 15–20% are names which differ in form only slightly, and in ways which correspond with normal patterns of name-formation, from attested names (e.g. Παράλιος, unique, cf. Πάραλος, attested five times; Πελάγων, unique, cf. Πελάγιος, attested three times); 10–15% are names formed by combinations of name components that are well attested in Attica (e.g. Πασιμένης, unique, but cf. Πασικλῆς, Πασιτέλης, Δεξιμένης, Σωσιμένης etc.). If we leave aside the women’s names and the pseudo-unique names we are left with a core of about a third of the ostensibly unique names that we might describe as ‘genuinely’ unique in Attica. The personal names of Attica, however, are not a self-contained category. Many names, of course, occur both in Attica and elsewhere in Greece. In fact about a third of names that are unique in Attica are attested outside Attica, and over half are attested outside Attica in cognate forms (as defined above). Only ten percent or so of all unique Attic names in pi and tau are what one might term ‘hard core’ unique, names like Πανδέλετος (PCG IV 254 Cratinus fr. 260 (Cheirones), cf. Ar., Clouds 924, n. pr.?), Πέλνος (IG XII (6) 268, but CAT III 828 reads Τέλλος), Περιφύγων (IG I3 1150, 12), Πηδαλίων (Agora XV 39, 11), Πιαῖος (IG II2 12450), whose existence could not easily be extrapolated from other attested names in Attica or elsewhere. Even here a number of the names are based on questionable readings or occur in contexts, such as fragments of comic poets, where it is doubtful that we have to do with a real-life name. The conclusion that the epigraphist should draw is clear: even if (s)he takes a ‘narrow’ definition of uniqueness, other things being equal, and especially if the name is masculine, at every period it is more likely that the name (s)he has to restore is otherwise attested in Attica, though in the

150

S. D. Lambert

Archaic period and the fifth century BC there is a significant possibility, in the fourth to second centuries BC a slighter possibility, that it is unique. If (s)he takes a broader view, it is extremely unlikely at any period that the name (s)he has to restore will be otherwise unattested, in the same or in a cognate form, in Attica or elsewhere, and the possibility can for practical purposes be discounted. So much for the epigraphy; what is the historical significance of the changing incidence of unique names in Attica over time? In a system where there is a strong tendency for names and name components to be heritable, broadly speaking, stability in the onomastic record is an indicator of social stability. The point is made by Fraser and Matthews in the Preface to LGPN IIIA, who remark (p. vii) on the contrast between “the social stability of cities such as Athens and Rhodes, where onomastic changes do, of course, occur, but where there is also a basic onomastic continuity” and other places where there is less onomastic continuity and less social stability. The observation was the starting point for Habicht’s study of Athenians bearing unusual, non-Athenian names.28 He identified four main routes by which foreign names entered the Athenian name-pool: as a consequence of (a) ritual friendship (xenia) between an Athenian and a non-Athenian family (e.g. Alkibiades, named for a Spartan with whose family his family had maintained formal ties since the sixth century29); (b) intermarriage between an Athenian and a non-Athenian woman (e.g. Kleisthenes, named for his maternal grandfather, Kleisthenes tyrant of Sikyon30); (c) by an Athenian choosing to name his son after a foreign king or other celebrity (e.g. Seleukos and Attalos, both common names for Athenians in the Hellenistic period); and (d) by the process of naturalization (e.g. Σήραμβος, an Athenian of the deme Hermos originally from Eleutherna in Crete31).32 Of these routes, marriage between an Athenian man and a nonAthenian woman was probably fairly common in the Archaic period, but was effectively cut off by Perikles’ citizenship law of 451 (reaffirmed in 403/2), which required Athenian citizens to have citizen parents on both sides. I take this development to be an important factor in explaining the decrease in the incidence of unique names in the fifth and fourth centuries BC.33 The figures for the fourth to second centuries BC are striking in two respects. First, the incidence of unique names, even if we include the ‘pseudo-unique’, is strikingly low, at 5% or so; second, the rate of occurrence of such names remains remarkably consistent. This reflects the stability of the Athenian citizen body, and probably the continuing application of Perikles’ citizenship law, through this long period.34 Most striking, however, is the sharp drop in the   Habicht 2000.   Th. viii 6. 3 with APF 15–16. 30   Hdt. vi 126–31. 31   Habicht 2000, 122. 32   In Lambert 2001 I suggested that one might also consider adoption by Athenians of foreigners as a possible route. In the Classical period this appears not to have been permitted, but the extent of the practice in Hellenistic Athens is obscure. 33   I do not mean to suggest that it is the only factor. The relatively high proportion of unique names in the Archaic period is in part a consequence of the relatively small number of Athenians attested and of the fact that a disproportionate number of them are not certainly Athenian citizens (i.e. designated ‘Athens?’ in LGPN II). Route (a) may also have become less common after the Archaic period, though Habicht 2000, 122, is in my view overly dogmatic on this point (cf. Lambert 2001). 34   Compare my remarks (2003, 86) about the high proportion of ergastinai at the end of the 2nd cent. BC whose families can be traced back to the 4th cent. Habicht 2000, 122–4, notes that mixed marriages, illegal in the mid-4th cent., are found occasionally in the 3rd cent. BC and a little more often in the 2nd cent. BC, but it is not until the late 2nd cent. that a son of such a marriage can be identified as an Athenian citizen (for details of the two attested cases of this, see Habicht’s discussion). At some point between 128/7 and 123/2 foreigners were admitted to the 28 29

LGPN

and the

Epigraphy

and

History

of

Attica

151

incidence of unique names to practically zero in the first century BC (the six attested are in fact practically all ‘pseudo-unique’). This is remarkable for several reasons. First, the number of Athenians attested at this period is relatively small and one might accordingly expect the proportion of them who had unique names to be relatively high (compare the figures for the seventh to sixth centuries BC). Second, if after c. 125 BC Perikles’ law was no longer in force and foreigners could enter the citizen body via the ephebate one would expect an increase, not a decrease in foreign names entering the citizen body in the first century BC. Third, there are indications that the trauma and loss of life associated with Athens’ decision to support Mithridates and break with Rome and the consequent sack of Athens by Sulla in 86 BC, marked a sociopolitical caesura35 and one might have expected this to have been reflected in increased levels of onomastic instability. The data on unique names, however, suggest that none of these factors impacted significantly or in the ways we might have expected. What is the explanation? As far as the liberalisation of access to the citizenship after c. 125 is concerned, our data would seem to add fuel to an argument that it may be a scholarly figment, or, if not, that its practical effect on behaviour was very slight.36 To judge from this aspect of the onomastic record, marriages between Athenian men and non-Athenian women seem to have remained rare and the number of foreigners awarded the Athenian citizenship was small (besides, not all who were offered it accepted).37 It may be that there is some narrowing of the evidential base towards the elite, but this does not seem to be a major factor. Certainly the elite are over-represented in our evidence for late Hellenistic Athens, but there is not a discontinuity in our sources such as would suggest that they are more over-represented in the first-century BC evidence than they had been in the second. For example, a significant proportion of the Athenians in the second century and the first century are attested on columella funerary monuments of the standard Hellenistic type. Other types of evidence, for example inscriptions recording ephebes38 and officials and the New Style coinage with its mint magistrates,39 also span both centuries. It may be, however, that the first-century data on unique names point to a significant narrowing, not so much of the evidential base, but of the citizen body itself, or at least of the ruling elite, to a very small number of families;40 and that in their use of Greek names the first-century Athenian citizen body was simply extremely unadventurous. Some names (e.g. Διονύσιος and Ἀπολλώνιος) became common at this period to the point of banality; a more limited range of Greek names seems to have been in use than in previous centuries. In one direction, however, there was onomastic innovation, for it is in the late second and first century BC that Roman names begin to appear in the Athenian citizen body in significant numbers, in some cases, it seems, in consequence of Roman citizens taking Athenian citizenship, in others (though very rarely before the end of the first century BC) by virtue of Athenians being awarded the Roman citizenship, but in many cases for no apparent reason other than that it became fashionable for Athenians to give their sons Roman names ephebate. Habicht and others have supposed that they thereby automatically became Athenian citizens, but PerrinSaminadayar 2007, 468–75, shows reasons to doubt this. Habicht also infers that, in tandem with the opening of the ephebate to foreigners, by about 125 BC Perikles’ law was no longer enforced, but there are uncertainties here too (see further below and my remarks, 2001). 35   See Aleshire–Lambert 2003, 86. 36   Cf. as regards the ephebate the scepticism of Perrin-Saminadayar 2007, 468–75 (above n. 34). 37   E.g. Cicero’s friend, Titus Pomponius Atticus, despite long residence at Athens and substantial benefactions to the city, refused the Athenian citizenship offered to him (Nep., Att. 3. 1, cf. Habicht 1997, 329, 347). 38   For the ephebic inscriptions of 167–88 see now Perrin-Saminadyar 2007, 199–248. 39   Habicht 1997, 242–5; Perrrin-Saminadayar 2007, 588. 40   Cf. the remarks of Habicht 1997, 315–21 and 327 on the narrowness of the post-Sullan oligarchy.

152

S. D. Lambert

like Μάαρκος, Γναῖος, Λεύκιος (which was both an old Greek name and a new Roman one = Lucius) and Κόϊντος (= Quintus).41 The pool of Roman praenomina was much more limited than the pool of Greek names and individual Roman praenomina tend to occur quite frequently in the Attic record:42 such names do not, for this reason, figure significantly in the statistics for unique names. I suggest, therefore, that the almost complete absence of unique names from the Attic onomastic record for the first century BC is a sign of an increasingly narrow, restricted and onomastically unadventurous citizen body, which presented increasingly a closed face to the rest of the Greek world and an open one in one direction only: towards Rome.

References Aleshire, S. and Lambert, S. D. (2003) ‘Making the Peplos for Athena: a new edition of IG II2 1060 + IG II2 1036’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 142, 65–86. Byrne, S. G. (2003) ‘Early Roman Athenians’, in D. Jordan and J. Traill (eds), Lettered Attica. A Day of Attic Epigraphy. Athens. Goette, H. R. (2000) Ὁ ἀξιόλογος δῆμος Σούνιον. Landeskundliche Studien in Südost-Attika. Rahden. Habicht, C. (1997) Athens from Alexander to Antony. Harvard. Habicht, C. (2000) ‘Foreign Names in Athenian Nomenclature’, in Greek Personal Names 119–127. Kalcyk, H. (1982) Untersuchungen zum attischen Silberbergbau. Gebietsstruktur, Geschichte, Technik. Frankfurt. Lambert, S. D. (1999) ‘IG II2 2345, Thiasoi of Herakles and the Salaminioi again’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 125, 93–136. Lambert, S. D. (2000a) ‘The Erechtheum Workers of IG II2 1654’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 132, 157–160. Lambert, S. D. (2000b) ‘Ten Notes on Attic Inscriptions’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 135, 51–62. Lambert, S. D. (2001) review of S. Hornblower and E. Matthews (eds), Greek Personal Names. Their Value as Evidence, 2000, BMCR 2001.8.22. Lambert, S. D. (2004) ‘Restoring Athenian Names’, in A. Matthaiou (ed.), ΑΤΤΙΚΑΙ ΕΠΙΓΡΑΦΑΙ. Πρακτικὰ Συμποσίου εἰς μνήμην Adolf Wilhelm (1864–1950). Athens. Lambert, S. D. (2007) ‘Athenian State Laws and Decrees, 352/1–322/1: IV Treaties and Other Texts’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 161, 67–100. Lauffer, S. (1979) Die Bergwerkssklaven von Laureion. 2nd edn. Wiesbaden. Osborne, R. (1985) Demos: The Discovery of Classical Attica. Cambridge. Perrin-Saminadayar, E. (2007) Éducation, culture et société à Athènes. Les acteurs de la vie culturelle athénienne (229–88): un tout petit monde. Paris. Runes, M. (1924–25) ‘Die Vererbung der Personennamen im Griechischen’, Wiener Studien 44, 170–178. Tracy, S. V. (1990) Attic Letter Cutters of 229 to 86 BC. Berkeley / Oxford. Whitehead, D. (1986) The Demes of Attica, 508/7–ca. 250 BC: a Political and Social Study. Princeton.

  For details see Habicht 1997, 342–6; Byrne 2003 (earliest case, above n. 27). Cf. Byrne, RCA. One wonders whether it was, in fact, mere fashion or whether the Greeks who gave their sons Roman names might, in some cases, have had ties of amicitia with Roman families in which the names occurred, as earlier the Attic name-pool was enriched by ties of xenia with other Greeks. 42   E.g. Μ́άαρκος occurs 12, Γναῖος 10, Λεύκιος 120, and Κόϊντος 23 times. 41

A NEW EDITION OF IG II2 2391 EXILES FROM IONIA? Angelos P. Matthaiou

The paper presents a new edition of IG II2 2391, a list of names in two columns, which D. M. Lewis acutely recognised as having been attached to a decree. An origin for these people in Ionia, perhaps Chios or Erythrai, is indicated by the names, and it is suggested that they were democratic exiles seeking the support of Athens. A plausible context for their exile is found in the Social War (357–355), which accords well with the date indicated by the letter forms. David Lewis in a footnote of his posthumous article on the Athenian Casualty Lists rightly in my opinion noted that “IG II2 2391 should be a list attached to a decree”. This note alerted me to look more closely at this text. I examined the stone in the Epigraphical Museum and I present here a new edition with some notes on the names and thoughts on the nature of the text. This short paper seemed to me to be appropriate for a volume honouring Elaine Matthews who has done so much to advance the study of Greek personal names. Fragment of white marble broken above, to the right and bottom (EM 8668). It preserves the original left side and the back. Found on the south slope of the Acropolis. Height (pres.) 0.30 m., width (pres.) 0.19–0.21 m., thickness 0.09 m. Letter height 0.006 m. The interval between the lines of the second column is shorter than that of the first. (Fig. 1).



5



-------- [- - - - - - -]ος [- - - - - -]ς [- - 5-6- -]ηστος [- -3-4- -] [Kαλ]λ̣ίστρατος [-3-4-]ν [-3-4-]α̣σίστρατος [Σ]τ̣η[σ]αγόρας



20



25



-----Nεα[- - -] Σκυθ[- - -] Σάβων̣ Διονυσ[- -] Παντιμ̣[- -] Ἄλκιπ[πος] Kόπρων̣ Διονυσ̣[- -] Σιμᾶς

  I would like to thank warmly Richard Catling for his contribution in the search of the names and for his help with my English text; I am also grateful to my former student Dr Nike Makres for her help with my English. All dates are BC.    Lewis 2000–3, 17 n. 37. 

154

Angelos P. Matthaiou

Figure 1. IG II² 2391 (courtesy of the Epigraphical Museum of Athens)



10







15



Πυθαγόρ[.]ς Ἀγέλεως Bίων Λεωφῶν Ἀνχί̣θεος Kυνίσκος Ἄθηνις Ἀριστῶνα̣ξ Ἀναξαγόρης Bάστας



Ἀπολλ̣[- -] Xόριλλ[ος] 30 Ἑκαταῖο̣[ς] Ἀπολ[- - -]̣ Ἀρτε̣[- - -] Ὀλυ[- - -] Ἀπο[- - -] 35 Θαρ[- - -] Zην[- - -] Ἑκα[- - -] Παρ[- - -] Kωλ̣[- - -] 40 Πυθι[- - -] Kλα̣[- - -] Oἵδε ἐπρέ[σβευον - - -] [- - - - -]κίππο, KΛ̣[- - - - - -] -------------------

A New Edition of IG II2 2391. Exiles from Ionia?

155

9 Πυθαγόρ[η]ς IG. || 16 Ἀρίστων IG. || 38 Γαρ IG. || 43 Ἱπποκλ[- -] IG. 7 [-3-4-]α̣σίστρατος: spacing indicates the restoration [Δαμ]α̣σίστρατος or [Tιμ]α̣σίστρατος. 23 Παντιμ̣[- -]: Πάντιμ̣[ος] or Παντιμ̣[ίδης]. 43 [- -]κίππο: it could be restored as [Nι]κίππο, [Γλαυ]κίππο, [Λευ]κίππο, etc. Presumably the names of the envoys were followed by their patronymics.

The names of ll. 1, 4, 6–7 and 19, 20, 22, 26, 28, 31–41 should not be restored, because more than one name could be restored in each case. Of the other names Στησαγόρας (l. 8) is attested in various regions of the Attic-Ionic world (Attica, Delos, Amorgos, Thasos, Ionia) and in Caria; Ἀριστῶναξ (l. 16) in Delphi, the Aegean Islands, Chios, Ephesos, Teos, Magnesia on the Maeander, Cyprus; Ἑκαταῖος (l. 30 and perhaps l. 37) is attested primarily in the Ionian world, especially in Ionia itself and the Ionian colonies; Kυνίσκος (l. 14) is attested in Attica, the Peloponnese, Delphi, Ionia (many). Ἄλκιππος (l. 24), Bίων (l. 11), Δαμασίστρατος or Tιμασίστρατος (l. 7), Kαλλίστρατος (l. 5), Πυθαγόρας (l. 9) are attested in many regions of the Greek world. The following names appear to be uncommon: Ἀγέλεως (l. 10): attested only on Delos, Chios (LGPN I) and at Ephesos (LGPN VA) and Miletos (Milet I (3) 122 II, 5, 412/11) in Ionia; also in a catalogue of uncertain origin from Attica, IG II² 2405, 7. Ἀνχίθεος (l. 13): as far as I know, the name is attested nowhere else but here. The name Ἀγ(ν)χιθείδης, which derives from it, is attested only on Delos (LGPN I). Ἄθηνις (l. 15): well-attested on Chios and Delos (LGPN I) and once at Kyzikos (LGPN VA). Ἀναξαγόρης (l. 17): attested on Chios and Thasos (LGPN I), at Ionian colonies in the Black Sea (LGPN IV) and at Klazomenai, Kolophon, Ephesos and Miletos in Ionia (LGPN VA; Milet I (3) 122 I, 63, 94, v BC). Bάστας (l. 18): attested only on Chios (LGPN I) and once at a much later date at Pantikapaion (LGPN IV); note also Βαστᾶς (Βαστᾶδος – gen.) at Ionian Erythrai (LGPN VA). Kλα̣[- -] (l. 41): the name could be restored as Kλᾶ[ρις] or Kλα[ριεύς]. Both are attested exclusively in Ionia at Kolophon (LGPN VA). Kόπρων (l. 25): attested only in Caria, at Iasos and Halikarnassos (IIasos 1, 7, 367–354 BC; Syll3 46 c, 75 = SEG XLIII 713 C, 7, v–iv BC). Κωλ̣[- -] (l. 39): the name could be restored as Κωλ̣[ώτης] or, less likely, Κωλ̣[ωτίων], typical of Ionia and Ionian colonies (LGPN IV and VA). Λεωφῶν (l. 12): attested only on Delos and once on Thasos (LGPN I). Πάντιμ̣[ος] or Παντιμ̣[ίδης] (l. 23): the first is the proposed reading of a name on Amorgos (LGPN I) and also occurs at Oisyme in Macedonian Pieris, one of Thasos’ mainland foundations (LGPN IV), the latter on Thasos (LGPN I). Σάβων (l. 21): attested only in Attica (LGPN II) and in Epiros (LGPN IIIA).    The search for the names which come from regions, like Ionia, for which the relevant volumes of LGPN have not yet appeared is based partly on the PHI project on Greek Inscriptions and partly on material that will appear in LGPN VA and subsequent fascicles on Asia Minor.    The form Πυθαγόρης is attested on Samos and Thasos (LGPN I) and of course in Ionia.    The form Ἀναξαγόρας is attested in various regions of the Greek world.    A name of this type is also restored in the genitive in an inscription of Erythrai (IEK 22, 72 Κλαρί[ου]). In my opinion the genitive could just as well be restored as Kλάρι[ος] or Κλαρι[έως].

156

Angelos P. Matthaiou

Σιμᾶς (l. 27): attested only at Erythrai, Smyrna and Miletos in Ionia (LGPN VA; unpublished example from Miletos). Xόριλλ[ος] (l. 29): attested only in Thessaly (LGPN IIIB). From this list it becomes clear that these people came most probably from Ionia. I note that out of 20 surviving or restored names in the inscription, fourteen are attested in Ionia, of which ten are found on Chios and eight in Erythrai, whereas six are attested on Delos. The letter forms of the inscription indicate a date around the middle of the fourth century BC. It seems that this decree, of which only the list of names attached to it survives, deals with a number of persons, probably members of a political party, who were sent into exile by an unknown city-state of Ionia. That all these men had the same origin, probably from one particular city, can be inferred from the fact that there is no ethnic following their names. Still it could also be the case, though less likely, that these men came from two different city-states; in that case two ethnic headings would have been inscribed at the head of the two columns. The Athenian demos probably took some measures in favour of these persons after an appeal by their representatives, who would have come to Athens and were presented to the Athenian demos. The names of these envoys were written with their patronymics under the heading Oἵδε ἐπρέ[σβευον – -] in l. 42. That not only a city-state but also a political party could be represented by envoys can be adduced from the following passage of Thucydides (iii 85. 2): Ὕστερον δὲ οἱ φεύγοντες τῶν Kερκυραίων... τείχη τε λαβόντες, ἃ ἦν ἐν τῇ ἠπείρῳ, ἐκράτουν τῆς πέραν οἰκείας γῆς καὶ ἐξ αὐτῆς ὁρμώμενοι ἐλῄζοντο τοὺς ἐν τῇ νήσῳ καὶ πολλὰ ἔβλαπτον... ἐπρεσβεύοντο δὲ καὶ ἐς τὴν Λακεδαίμονα καὶ Kόρινθον περὶ καθόδου. There are to my knowledge three more Athenian decrees of the first half of the fourth century for foreign exiles: IG II² 33, 37 and 109. The first is for Thasian exiles and it is dated about 385; the second for exiles of an unknown city-state dated a little after 382; the third, dated to 363/2, for the Delphian Astykrates and some other Delphians who were exiled together with him. The present decree concerning these people from Ionia, possibly from Chios or Erythrai, should in my opinion be associated with the events of the Social War (357–355) and the years just after it. The revolt of Chios, Kos and Rhodes from the Second Athenian Confederacy was instigated by Mausollos, the satrap of Caria. From a passage of Demosthenes’ On the liberty of the Rhodians (xv 19) delivered c. 351: Xίων ὀλιγαρχουμένων καὶ Mυτιληναίων καὶ νυνὶ Ῥοδίων... it is certain that at that time an oligarchy held power in Chios. This fact taken together with the revolt of Chios in 357, which should have been promoted by an oligarchic regime, explains the possible existence of some Chian democrats in exile, whose representatives came to Athens to ask for help from the Athenian demos. An oligarchy may also have been set up in Erythrai as can be adduced from an Erythraian inscription honouring Mausollos as benefactor with citizenship, proxenia and a bronze statue in the Agora. The inscription mentions only the Council of Erythrai and in referring to Erythrai uses the word τὴν πόλιν rather that τὸν δῆμον; as M. N. Tod noted, these elements suggest that an oligarchy was established at Erythrai. The decree was dated to the years of the Social War (357–355). S. Hornblower has suggested the    For the Social War, see Buckler 2003, 377–84; for the history of Chios in this period see Sarikakis 1998, 157–62.    Tod, GHI II 155 = Rhodes–Osborne 56.

A New Edition of IG II2 2391. Exiles from Ionia?

157

possibility of an earlier date in the mid 360s. He proposed a connection with the activity of the Athenian general Timotheos in the area, reflected in the Athenian decree (IG II² 108) of 366/5 on the Erythraians. This earlier dating does not, in my opinion, undermine the likelihood that this oligarchic regime was still in power at Erythrai during the Social War. If this was the case, representives of the exiled Erythraian democrats could well have come to Athens to ask for help, as well as the Chians.

References Buckler, J. (2003) Aegean Greece in the Fourth Century B.C. Leiden. Hornblower, S. (1982) Mausolus. Oxford. Lewis, D. M. (2000–3) ‘Κατάλογοι θανόντων ἐν πολέμωι’, ΗΟΡΟΣ 14–16, 9–17. Sarikakis, Th. Ch. (1998) Ἡ Χίος στὴν ἀρχαιότητα. Athens.



  Hornblower 1982, 107–110, esp. 108.

Foreign names, inter-marriage and citizenship in Hellenistic Athens Graham Oliver

This paper re-examines the recent discussion about whether or not Athenian citizenship was reformed some time in the third century BC or later. Central to this debate are: (1) the participation of foreigners in the Athenian ephebeia in the second century; (2) the possibility that Athenians could not only marry non-Athenians in the Hellenistic period but also expect that children born of such marriages could become Athenian citizens; (3) the presence of foreign names in Athens may reflect the integration of nonAthenians into the citizen body by various institutional operations ranging from grants of citizenship, sympoliteia, as well as changes in marriage patterns/legislation. The paper demonstrates that although some progress has been made in our understanding of the nature of citizenship in Hellenistic Athens, there remain important areas that merit further investigation. In a recent study of foreign names at Athens, Christian Habicht concluded that while Athens does demonstrate “onomastic stability”, there is some evidence for the penetration of ‘non-Athenian’ names. In his analysis of such foreign names, Habicht identified four avenues whereby such names entered Athenian nomenclature: 1. xenia between two families (one Athenian, the other foreign) 2. intermarriage between an Athenian man and a foreign woman 3. naming a child after a King or foreign celebrity 4. the award to a foreigner of Athenian citizenship

I am interested in particular with the second and fourth possibilities at Athens in the Hellenistic period. In a recent assessment of Athenian citizenship in the Hellenistic period, I tried to show that there is increasing support for the view that significant value continued to be attached to the award of Athenian citizenship into the late Hellenistic period. If there was a significant change in the award of citizenship it took place after Sulla’s assault on Athens, later on in the first century BC. One aspect in this study concerned the epigraphical evidence for the increase in examples of   Habicht 2000; e.g. Oloros, Ophelas, Magas, Seuthes, Serambos, Habicht 2000, 119–20.   See Herman 1990; most examples belong to the Archaic and early Classical period, Habicht 2000, 122; grants of isopoliteia may have facilitated intermarriage in the Hellenistic period, see Herman 1990, 358–9 n. 28, citing Gawantka 1975, 34.    Oliver 2007a.  

Foreign Names, Inter-marriage

and

Citizenship

in

Hellenistic Athens

159

marriage between Athenians and non-Athenians in the Hellenistic period and similarly instances that children of such marriages could indeed continue to be Athenian citizens (metroxenia). It is worth exploring the instances of intermarriage, the inter-related issue of foreign names at Athens, and the award of Athenian citizenship. The application of the strict restriction of Athenian citizenship to a parentage (father and mother) that was Athenian on both sides was introduced in the 450s and reaffirmed at the end of the fifth century. Mixed marriages, between an Athenian and non-Athenian, are rare after 403/2, the date when Pericles’ citizenship law was applied again. On the basis of evidence that was synthesised by Vatin, Habicht suggests that the law ceased to be applied in the third quarter of the second century BC. By 125 BC, Pericles’ citizenship law “was no longer enforced” (Habicht 2000, 123). Habicht draws on the presence of non-Athenians in the ephebeia and concludes that their presence in this body demonstrates that non-Athenians could thenceforth be admitted to Athenian citizenship. The conclusion is based on the assumption that only citizens were eligible to serve as ephebes. In the decade since Habicht’s analysis of foreign names at Athens, a great deal of work has been published on the nature of Athenian citizenship and the admission of foreigners to the civic body (Byrne 2003; Niku 2004, 2007; Perrin-Saminadayar 2003, 2005, 2007; Oliver 2007a). Here one finds some agreement that while foreigners were certainly serving in the ephebeia in the last third of the second century BC, this did not mean that those foreigners were citizens or became citizens (Byrne, Perrin, Oliver). Certainly there was no requirement that Athenian citizens should serve in the ephebeia in the Hellenistic period. Indeed such a requirement had probably ended by the close of the fourth century BC when it becomes clear that not all Athenian citizens did serve in the ephebeia. The presence of ephebes of non-Athenian origin, however, can no longer be used to argue that non-Athenians serving as ephebes became Athenian citizens in the late second century. If this suggestion is accepted, then, the argument that the citizenship law of Pericles was no longer applied around 125 BC is weakened because some of the force of this case rested on the idea of foreigners serving as ephebes and subsequently becoming citizens. The ephebeia was clearly a major feature of civic life in Athens: Tracy says of the ephebeia that it was “one of the most important institutions that defined the polis” (Tracy 2004, 209). That foreigners were able to serve as ephebes did not diminish the importance of the ephebeia. The admission of foreigners to the ephebeia was a major feature of the Athenian policy of making the city attractive to non-Athenians, especially from the later third century. Perrin-Saminadayar’s recent and important study of the Hellenistic ephebeia has made a clear case that the ephebeia was a central feature of the city’s policy of attracting rich and cultured non-Athenians to the city. Another element in Habicht’s assessment of the foreign names in Athens was his treatment of the evidence from the funerary inscriptions. It has long been known and demonstrated that in the Hellenistic period more examples are found of Athenians who had married non-Athenians   Oliver 2007a, 290–1.   See Vatin 1970, 125–6; 1984.    On the practical limitations of the full cohort of citizens serving as ephebes, Hansen 1994. Niku 2007 suggests that the change in the requirement that all citizens should serve as ephebes occurred in the 3rd cent. BC.    Oliver 2007a, 287–8 for a summary.    Perrin-Saminadayar 2007.  

160

Graham Oliver

where children from those marriages went on to be citizens. Although the examples are few, they are decisive. In addition, the funerary evidence shows a significant increase in the number of examples of monuments that record the death of one or other of the partners in mixed marriages between an Athenian man and a non-Athenian woman (see Table 1 and Appendix).10 In his study of foreign names at Athens, Habicht had argued that there was not sufficient evidence from the funerary inscriptions, or other documents from the period, to suggest that there had been any change in Athenian legislation until the later second century. Nor did Habicht think that the frequency of the evidence for such mixed marriages indicated any real legal change in the earlier second century. Indeed, the majority of the examples of foreign names found at Athens that Habicht discussed belong typically to families of some significance, families that can be documented.11 Not all the examples of foreign names in Athens, however, can be linked to reasonably high-flying individuals. Given that Habicht’s argument for a change in the legislation in Athens concerning the admission of foreigners to the citizen body ultimately rested on the ephebic material of the third quarter of the second century, and in light of the radically different understanding of that institution, the analysis of the funerary monuments that demonstrate the existence of mixed marriages might also be re-visited. In Niku’s extensive study of foreigners in Athens in the Hellenistic period, the demise of the enforcement of the Periclean restrictions on citizenship is dated to the last quarter of the third century. Here the argument is based not only on the coincidence of the increasing numbers of examples of Athenian citizens born from mixed marriages but also the change in the formulaic phrasing of grants of citizenship.12 After 229 BC, the grants of Athenian citizenship made by the polis to foreigners no longer included in their formulaic decrees a specific instruction that Athenian citizenship should be extended to the descendants of the honorand: to use Michael Osborne’s analysis of the formulation, such grants after 229 no longer included a statement clause that the honorand “and his descendants” should be Athenian (Osborne, Naturalization I 16). The disappearance of the phrase, for Osborne, reflected an overhaul of procedures for the granting of citizenship c. 229 BC which saw citizenship granted thenceforth as “a privilege of practical use rather than as an honour”.13 It is difficult to see how a privilege, even if of practical use, ceases to be an honour and it is likely that some honour was still intended by such an award.14 As Osborne says (Naturalization III–IV 153), the fact that citizenship decrees no longer refer to the descendants of the honorand after 229 “represents a more liberal attitude towards marriage and descent, and that grants were now automatically assumed to cover a benefactor’s children”. Ogden and Niku suggest that the change in Athenian rules about the transmission of Athenian citizenship to descendants in such decrees can be associated with a contemporary reform of citizenship rules. Ogden, followed by Niku, argue that from c. 229 grants of citizenship no longer specify the extension of such grants to the descendants of the honorand because by this time   Vatin 1970, 125; Ogden 1996, 81–2; Niku 2004; 2007.   Niku 2007, 18–19. 11   Habicht 2000, 124–7. 12   Niku 2004; 2007; Ogden 1996. 13   Osborne, Naturalization III–IV 185, and also 156–7. 14   Osborne, Naturalization III–IV 157, says “This change in attitude [i.e. in 229]… did not cause the Athenians to forsake their hitherto consistent practice of granting citizenship only in combination with strictly compatible honours and privileges (a practice which was widely ignored elsewhere).” 

10

Foreign Names, Inter-marriage

and

Citizenship

in

Hellenistic Athens

161

the children of mixed marriages were citizens “by right”.15 Niku reinforces the arguments made by Ogden that changes took place in Athens that allowed children born of marriages between Athenian (men) and non-Athenian (women) to be eligible for Athenian citizenship from the late third century. Niku argues that after 229, mixed marriages would not have been recognised as official marriages but as concubinage. The offspring of such marriages would ordinarily not have been able to claim Athenian citizenship. The essential evidence here is drawn from the inscribed funerary monuments in Athens and Attica. Niku indicates that that there is a significant growth in the (small but important) number of inscriptions that demonstrate that mixed marriages between Athenian citizens and non-Athenian women were being commemorated on funerary monuments more frequently from the third to the second centuries. Niku points to over 50 examples of funerary monuments showing mixed marriages in the Hellenistic period and analyses 25 that can be dated to the third or second centuries BC. It is perhaps worth offering the results of a preliminary search and also to contextualize the evidence by offering the wider perspective of the late Hellenistic and early Imperial periods for comparison (see Appendix). The results (see Table 1) serve to emphasise the point made by Niku (2004 and 2007) of the important trend in the second century towards the increasing frequency with which intermarriage is recorded on funerary monuments in Athens. That trend continues into the later Hellenistic and accelerates further in the early Imperial periods. But within these results, we have to bear in mind that the epigraphic habit of the polis at this time is also fluctuating.16 Although the absolute numbers must be assessed with some caution, the steep increase in the second century is significant. Date (century, or period) 4th BC Hellenistic 4th/3rd BC 3rd BC 3rd/2nd BC 2nd BC 2nd/1st BC 1st BC 1st BC/1st AD Imperial 1st AD 1st/2nd AD 2nd AD Uncertain

Number of examples 5 3 1 6 6 21 14 16 9 16 31 6 6 10

Table 1. Number of funerary monuments in Athens recording mixed marriage (Athenian man/non-Athenian woman)

  Niku 2004, 79.   Meyer 1993 and Hedrick 1999 offer reasonable perspectives on the epigraphical habit in Athens based on funerary monuments and decrees respectively. 15

16

162

Graham Oliver

The evidence certainly indicates a major shift during the second century. Whether all these examples saw Athenian citizenship being transferred to any subsequent children being produced from these marriages cannot be certain. Vatin and Niku have illustrated that this was the case in some examples where sufficient evidence for the descendants of such married couples exists. Whilst there is no direct evidence for the continued use or demise of the stricter Periclean rules for Athenian citizenship, the indirect evidence is therefore quite significant. The use of foreign names by Athenian citizens is clearly an important factor. The increase in the evidence for intermarriage may have been one of the principal routes for the introduction of foreign names in Hellenistic Athens. But it is difficult to make that conclusion without several caveats. A notable one is onomastic practice. It is usually assumed that names chosen for children (particularly male offspring) reflect the names of previous family members. In the case of a mixed marriage therefore, a child might conceivably be named after the maternal grandfather and thereby acquire a name that is unusual in Athens.17 Examples of this practice are rather unusual not least because there are very few instances where sufficient evidence over three generations survives in the Hellenistic and early Imperial period.18 It is worth stepping back to consider the general sense of the ways in which Athens behaves towards foreigners and in particular how the polis handles admission to the citizen body. There is some evidence that Athens displayed a general openness to foreigners in the Hellenistic period, especially in the institutions of the city in the late third and second centuries.19 The openness of the city should perhaps be seen as a strength in the mid- to later Hellenistic periods and reflected the vibrancy of Athens and its relatively successful economic existence. The institutions of the city in the middle Hellenistic period do indeed tend to suggest that honours (such as citizenship, statues, crowns) continued to be awarded as privileges of some importance.20 There is not much evidence in the second century that the Athenians felt that the honours that they could grant had become devalued. However, it remains undeniable that the evidence for the inscribing of honours (notably citizenship) disappears from the epigraphical record in the last third of the second century. During the late third and second century BC there are also procedural changes in the validation of citizenship. Other shifts are also visible. In the early second century BC references to citizens competing in games in Athens appear as ἐκ τῶν πολιτικῶν where there seems to be some adjustment in vocabulary in order to identify different types of statuses.21 Fraser suggests politikoi can include metics, isoteleis, and others of similar status. But the evidence begs the question about whether in fact one might read the increase in marriages between Athenians and non-Athenians as being facilitated by concomitant developments, or nuances, in the participation and status of those within the polis.22 The precise nature of civic participation in Hellenistic Athens and the different statuses of those entitled to participate in different civic institutions needs further thought. It is possible, for example, that a greater permeability of Athenian institutions, whereby   It will be noted, however, that some examples of onomastic assimilation would have left little trace: Philokrates son of Philon of Amaxanteia took on his paternal grandfather’s name which was not at all unusual in Athens (IG II2 9052). 18   Niku 2007, 18 studies three families. Herman 1990 on the role xenia played in such naming processes. 19   See Niku 2007. 20   Statues at Athens, Oliver 2007b. 21   SEG XLII 115, see Fraser 2009, 17 n. 6. 22   Fraser 2009, 17–20. 17

Foreign Names, Inter-marriage

and

Citizenship

in

Hellenistic Athens

163

those without full Athenian citizenship could continue to participate in some civic activities, affected marriage patterns. If there was some adjustment to the way in which the polis treated the different status groups within the community, there remains still the critical question (which it does not seem possible to answer with much confidence) about inheritance. Non-Athenians could not own property: enktesis continues to be granted late on in the Hellenistic period at Athens.23 The fourth century had seen the use of honours as a way for the city to develop an international profile and encourage (or reward) specific kinds of activity. The introduction in the third quarter of the fourth century of inscribed honours for those involved in bringing grain to Athens on favourable terms demonstrates such a change. Whatever changes were taking place in the marriage patterns of Athenian citizens and the status of children produced by such marriages, there is little evidence to suggest that Athenian citizenship had become devalued. One such example is the evidence from Polybius (reproduced in Livy) for the award of Athenian citizenship to the Rhodians at the end of the third century: “the people of Rhodes was awarded a golden crown of virtue and citizenship was granted to the Rhodians, as the Rhodians had so granted the Athenians before” (Liv. xxxi 15. 6–7); “They (the Athenians) welcomed the Rhodians magnificently and granted the people a crown of excellence and decreed to all Rhodians isopoliteia because of, apart from the other things, their restoring to the Athenians both the ships24 and the men who had been made prisoners” (Plb. xvi 26. 9). This may have been a sympoliteia or, as Polybius describes it, an isopoliteia agreement. Such agreements may indeed have led to greater opportunities for intermarriage and the retention of citizenship but there is no obvious concentration in the ethnic origins of those non-Athenian women marrying Athenians to suggest that the funerary inscriptions indicate indirect evidence of individuals marrying as a result of isopoliteia or sympoliteia agreements. Another possibility worth thinking about is syngeneia. Papazarkadas and Thonemann’s revised edition of a fragmentary decree between Athens and Kydonia suggests that the city had looked back to a common mythology to develop better links with the Cretan city.25 Our evidence for this type of agreement, and other iso- or sympoliteiai is very thin but certainly such agreements may have facilitated inter-marriage. Athens has an attested syngeneia relationship with Kydonia, Phokis and Lemnos in the Hellenistic period.26 In his analysis of the decrees awarding citizenship, Osborne is quick to emphasise the shift in the terminology from declaring the honorand Athenian to granting the honorand politeia. For Osborne the purchase of Athenian citizenship later in the first century reflected the self-interest that was served by those who acquired Athenian citizenship: many of those who obtained Athenian citizenship in the first century BC “felt that the acquisition of Athenian citizenship was advantageous to them in their business and that it did not prejudice their original citizen rights” (Osborne, Naturalization III–IV 157). That similar desires made citizenship attractive to   Niku 2007, 129–31, 142–4.   The Rhodians returned the four Athenian ships that had been captured by the Macedonians, Liv. xxxi 15. 5. A recently published inscription in which Athens honours a Rhodian, Eukleidas son of Kleombrotos, with an olive crown, proxenia, enktesis and the inscription, probably belongs to this period, although a precise date is difficult to determine (Daly 2007, 543–4 suggests c. 200 BC; Agora I 7571). 25   Papazarkadas–Thonemann 2008. 26   Syngeneia with Lemnos and with Phokis: Papazarkadas–Thonemann 2008, 82 n. 26; SEG XLVII 143 (Lemnos) and Suda s.v. Polemon (Phokis). On isopoliteia and sympoliteia, see Gawantka 1975; Reger 2004; Savalli 1985. 23 24

164

Graham Oliver

commercially active foreigners already in the late third century is not yet apparent. Nevertheless, in the second century the improving economic fortunes of the polis and its cultural significance made Athens an attractive destination for non-Athenians. The increasing vitality of Athens, the influx of foreigners that trade on Delos would have stimulated, the movement of Athenians to and from Delos, the success of the festival culture of the city, these are all factors that would also have brought Athenians into contact with non-Athenians perhaps to a greater degree and in a much more positive context for most of the second century than might have been the case in the third century. Certainly festival culture had been more constrained in the uncertain and difficult times of the mid-third century. With the changing and improving social and economic conditions in Hellenistic Athens in the second century, different interests may have presented themselves to the polis. Did institutions change and adapt in this period? It looks as though they did. But just how far and precisely what those changes were, particularly in the specific nature of civic participation and citizenship rights, requires further thought.27 It may well be that the ramifications of the evidence for or against inter-marriage in Hellenistic Athens have not yet been fully explored. That some Athenian citizens had foreign names was in many cases the result of some sort of integration of non-Athenians into the citizen body. Clearly, therefore, future work will have to pay close attention to the onomastics.28

  A useful starting point will be Davies 1978.   It is a great pleasure to offer this chapter in honour of Elaine Matthews. We first met when I was a doctoral research student and was considered (briefly) by Elaine and Peter Fraser for a temporary role assisting in the production of LGPN. My supervisor intervened fearing that such activity would divert me from my thesis work and so I never actually worked with Elaine. But since then I have benefitted enormously from her support and from all who have worked with her on the LGPN in subsequent years. It is a testimony to the work of Elaine and, of course, P. M. Fraser that the many ways in which the Lexicon material can be explored will be greatly facilitated by its database format that has evolved under Elaine’s guidance. I must thank the editors, and in particular Richard Catling, who asked me to offer a chapter and have shown exceptional patience and kindness to me as I have completed this contribution. 27 28

Foreign Names, Inter-marriage

and

Citizenship

in

Hellenistic Athens

165

Appendix A preliminary survey of Athenian funerary inscriptions indicating mixed marriages between Athenian men and non-Athenian women29 *Fourth century (pre-317 BC): IG II2 10023 (FRA 5901); ?10575a (FRA 6642); SEG XVII 97 (FRA 6144). Late fourth century: IG II2 ?9057 (FRA 2952); ?10026 (FRA 5905). *Hellenistic: IG II2 8088 (= IG IX (1)2 774; FRA 523)30; Peek, AG II 25 no. 63 (FRA 2107); SEG XIX 289 (FRA 5441). *Fourth/third century:31 ?IG II2 10135 (FRA 6212). Third century: IG II2 8527 (FRA 1638);32 8768 (FRA 2153);33 8875 (FRA 2431);34 9152 + AM 67 (1942) 109 no. 210 (FRA 3188); 9970 (FRA 5786); 9052 (= Osborne, Naturalization III–IV T97 = Samama 2003 no. 12; FRA 6774). Third/second century: Agora XVII 515 (not in FRA under Karystos); ?524 (FRA 3016); IG II2 8774 (FRA 2166?); 9662 (FRA 4799); 10097 + SEG III 210 (FRA 6124); SEG XXIV 248 (FRA 3122). Second century: IG II2 8092 (FRA 533); 8377 (FRA 1231); 8581 (FRA 1761); 8693 (FRA 1989); 9027 (SEG III 194; FRA 2845);35 9054 (= SEG III 167; FRA 2954); 9198 (FRA 3312); 9217 (FRA 358); 9679 (FRA 4866); 9805 (SEG III 160); 9895 (FRA 5517); 9968 (FRA 5782); 9975 (FRA 5760); 10204 (FRA 6475); 10206 (FRA 6511); 10273 (FRA 6667); 10304 (FRA 6748); 10452 (FRA 7136); SEG XIX 279 (FRA 1864); Agora XVII 566 (=IG II2 9531; FRA 4371); IG II2 2332, 95–7 (183/2). *Second/First century: Agora XVII 401 (FRA 369); 416 (= SEG XXV 269; FRA 666); 589; IG II2 8609 (FRA 1810); 9150 (FRA 3182); 9642 (FRA 4709); 9669 (FRA 4816); 9838 (FRA 5311); 10252 (FRA 6627?); 10284 (FRA 6695); 10285b (FRA 6708?); 10412a (FRA 7037); 10513 (FRA 7330); SEG XXI 993 (FRA 7245). 29   Those periods not covered by Niku (2004, 79 n. 16; 2007, 66–8, esp. n. 43) are marked by an asterisk (*). Additional examples not included by Niku in those periods that she covers are in bold; examples not included by Niku where there is some uncertainty are in bold/underlined. 30   Dated ‘hellenistic’ by Osborne and Byrne; late 4th cent. by Niku; “post a. 317/6 a.” by Kirchner. 31   I omit, for example, IG II2 10321 (FRA 68011/6811): this example shows Athenian citizenship being granted to the Sinopean Dion (FRA 6812) in the mid-4th cent. and to his sons Diodoros (FRA 6801) and Diphilos (FRA 6811). 32   Dated by Osborne and Byrne to the 3rd cent., by Kirchner to “post fin. s. iv a’; by Niku to “late fourth century.” 33   Dated by Osborne and Byrne to the 3rd cent.; Niku: “late fourth century.” 34   Dated by Osborne and Byrne to the 3rd cent.; Niku: “late fourth century.” 35   Dated by Osborne and Byrne to the 2nd cent., after Kirchner; Niku (2007, 67–8 n. 43), to the previous century.

166

Graham Oliver

*First century BC: IG II2 5423 (FRA 246); 8485 (FRA 1514); 8578 (= 8579; FRA 1753); 8757 (FRA 2131); 8785 (FRA 2186); 8984 (FRA 2752?); 9362 (FRA 3748); 9591 (FRA 4531); 9678a (FRA 4863); 9844 (FRA 5324?; date, Kirchner); 9878 (FRA 5446); 9914 (FRA 5588); 9966 (FRA 5774); 10060 (FRA 5995); 10250 (FRA 6610); 10439 (FRA 7103). *First century BC/first century AD: IG II2 7961 (= SEG III 175; FRA 196);36 8171 (FRA 782); 9069a (p. 894; = Agora XVII 523; FRA 2977); 9543 (FRA 4390); 9797 (FRA 5203); 10095 (FRA 6115); 10120 (FRA 6184); 10307 (FRA 6752); SEG XXV 282 (FRA 4644). *Imperial period: Agora XVII 622 (FRA 5702); IG II2 5537 (FRA 5568); 7637 (FRA 6577); 8208 (FRA 868); 8695 (FRA 1991); 9014 (= Agora XVII 518; ?FRA 2838); ?9075 (FRA 2994); 9195 (FRA 3305); 9450 (FRA 4062); 9618 (FRA 4656); 9731 (FRA 5003); 9783 (FRA 5178); 9813a (FRA 546); 9864 (FRA 5401); 9901 (= Agora XVII 611; FRA 5541); 10161a (FRA 6364). *First century AD IG II2 7883 (FRA 11); 8178 (FRA 789); 8321(FRA 1094); 8407 (FRA 1319); 8503 (FRA 1575); 8549 (FRA 1681); 8735 (FRA 2091); 8781 (FRA 2183); 9065 (FRA 2964); 9181 (= SEG III 185; FRA 5463);37 9444 (FRA 4042); 9448 (FRA 4058); 9664 (FRA 4805); 9683 (FRA 4873); 9699 (FRA 4902); 9747 (FRA 5059); 9813 (FRA 5244); 9821 (= Agora XVII 596; FRA 5261); 9881 (FRA 5463); 10123 (FRA 6188); 10162 (see for reading FRA 6285); 10198 (FRA 6448); 10216 (FRA 6515); 10235 (FRA 6575) 10275/6 (FRA 6672); 10372 (FRA 6926); 10373 (FRA 6928); 10408 (FRA 7022); 10459 (FRA 7157); AM 67 (1942) 220 no. 13 (FRA 3014); op. cit. 221 no. 20 (FRA 6182). *First/second century AD: Agora XVII 512 (FRA 2726); IG II2 9082 (FRA 3009); 9182 (FRA 3279); 9363 (FRA 3755); 9949 (not in FRA under Miletus) SEG XXXV 188 (FRA 4103). *Second century AD: IG II2 7667 (date: LGPN II Attikos 78; a Milesian woman); 9422 (FRA 3954); 9718 (FRA 4968); 9721 (FRA 4979); 9787 (FRA 5183); 10191 (FRA 6438). *Uncertain date: IG II2 7977 (FRA 248); 8481 (FRA 1498); 8606 (FRA 1806); 8773 (FRA 2167); ?9118 (FRA 3108); 9504 (FRA 4252); 9804 (FRA 5215); 10469 (FRA 719); Peek, AG II 28 no. 85 (FRA 5728); SEG XXXII 291 (FRA 638).

References Byrne, S. G. (2003) ‘Early Roman Athenians’, in D. Jordan and J. Traill (eds), Lettered Attica. A day of epigraphy (Proceedings of the Athens symposium, March 2000 with a memoir by Johannes Kirchner). Toronto, 1–20. Daly, K. F. (2007) ‘Two inscriptions from the Athenian Agora: I 7571 and I 7579’, Hesperia 76, 539–554. Davies, J. K. (1978) ‘Athenian citizenship: the descent group and the alternatives’, Classical Journal 73, 105–121. 36 37

  Niku 2007 included this as 2nd cent. BC following SEG III 175, here Osborne and Byrne’s date is used.   Osborne and Byrne’s later date is preferred to Hondius’ 2nd cent. date that Niku 2007 followed.

Foreign Names, Inter-marriage

and

Citizenship

in

Hellenistic Athens

167

Fraser, P. M. (2009) Greek Ethnic Terminology. Oxford. Gawantka, W. (1975) Isopolitie. Munich. Habicht, C. (2000) ‘Foreign names in Athenian nomenclature’, in Greek Personal Names 119–127. Hansen, M. H. (1994) ‘The number of Athenian citizens secundum Sekunda’, Échos du monde classique 38, 299–310. Hedrick. C. W. (1999) ‘Democracy and the Athenian epigraphical habit’, Hesperia 68, 387–493. Herman, G. (1990) ‘Patterns of name diffusion within the Greek world and beyond’, Classical Quarterly 40, 349–363. Meyer, E. A. (1993) ‘Epitaphs and citizenship in Classical Athens’, Journal of Hellenic Studies 113, 99–121. Niku, M. (2004) ‘When and why did the Athenian μετοικία system disappear? The evidence of the inscriptions’, Arctos 38, 76–93. Niku, M. (2007) The official status of the foreign residents in Athens, 322–120 B.C. Helsinki. Ogden, D. (1996) Greek bastardy in the classical and hellenistic periods. Oxford. Oliver, G. J. (2007a) ‘Citizenship: inscribed honours for individuals in Classical and Hellenistic Athens’, in J.-C. Couvenhes and S. Milanezi (eds), Individus, groupes et politique à Athènes: recherches et perspectives. Actes du colloque international de Tours des 7–8 mars 2005. Tours, 273–292. Oliver, G. J. (2007b) ‘Space and the visualization of power in the Greek polis: the award of portrait statues in decrees from Athens’, in R. von den Hoff and P. Schultz (eds), Early Hellenistic Portraiture: image, style, context. Cambridge / New York, 181–204. Papazarkadas, N. and Thonemann, P. (2008) ‘Athens and Kydonia. Agora I 7602’, Hesperia 77, 73–87. Perrin-Saminadayar, É. (2003) ‘Des élites intellectuelles à Athènes à l’époque hellénistique? Non, des notables’, in M. Cébeillac-Gervasoni and L. Lamoine (eds), Les élites et leurs facettes. Les élites locales dans le monde hellénistique et romain. Rome / Clermont-Ferrand, 383–400. Perrin-Saminadayar, É. (2005) ‘Images, statut et accueil des étrangers à Athènes à l’époque hellénistique’, in D. Nourrisson and Y. Perrin (eds), Le barbare, l’étranger: images de l’autre (Actes du colloque organisé par le CERHI, Saint-Étienne, 14 et 15 mai 2004). Saint-Étienne, 67–91. Perrin-Saminadayar, É. (2007) Éducation, culture et société à Athènes. Les acteurs de la vie culturelle athénienne (229–88): un tout petit monde. Paris. Reger, G. (2004) ‘Sympoliteiai in Hellenistic Asia Minor’, in S. Colvin (ed.), The Greco-Roman East. Politics, culture, society. Cambridge / New York, 145–180. Samama, É. (2003) Les médecins dans le monde grec. Geneva. Savalli, I. (1985) ‘I neocittadini nella città ellenistiche: Note sulla concessione e l’acquisizione della “politeia”’, Historia 34, 387–431. Tracy, S. V. (2004) ‘Reflections on the Athenian ephebeia in the Hellenistic age’, in D. Kah and P. Scholz (eds), Das hellenistische Gymnasion. Berlin, 207–210. Vatin, C. (1970) Recherches sur le mariage et la condition de la femme mariée à l’époque hellénistique. Paris. Vatin, C. (1984) Citoyens et non-citoyens dans le monde grec. Paris.

SARAPION, SON OF SARAPION, OF MELITE – AN INADVERTENT CHRONOGRAPHER Michael Osborne

The tenure of the Eleusinian agonothesia by Sarapion in 98/7 (Olympiad 170.3) certifies that the Athenian archons Chairephon, Diokles and Aischron (all of whom served in years of the Great Eleusinia) should be set in 218/17 (Olympiad 140.3), 214/13 (Olympiad 141.3), and 210/9 (Olympiad 142.3) respectively and reveals that the archon Thrasyphon (widely seen as the anchor for the chronology of Athens in the late third century BC on the basis of a decree from Magnesia on the Maeander) should be located not in 221/0 but in 220/19. Sarapion, son of Sarapion, of Melite was a luminary of the new set of families which came to prominence in Athens late in the second century BC. He served as hoplite general in 102/1 and again in 98/7, when he was leader of the Pythaïs, and was epimelete of Delos in 100/99. In the archonship of Argeios (98/7), in addition to his other positions, he is recorded as having been agonothetes Eleusinion ([ἀ]γωνοθέτης Ἐλ[ευσινίων]). References to this office are rare but the information in this case is unusually significant, since it is linked to an archon date (archon Argeios, 98/7) and thus provides clear evidence for the location of the (penteteric) Eleusinian festival in the third year of an Olympiad (since the year 98/7 is to be correlated with Olympiad 170.3). This information has at least four significant ramifications. Firstly it controverts the almost universal attribution of the Great Eleusinia to the second year of an Olympiad. Secondly, and as a result, it requires the re-dating of three archons from the late third century BC who are known to have served in years when the Great Eleusinia were celebrated. Thirdly it undermines the seemingly strong case for the location in 221/0 of the Athenian archon Thrasyphon who, according to W. B. Dinsmoor, “is not merely the only accurately dated archon of the latter part of the third century … but the only accurately dated archon of the entire third century (apart from those earlier than 294/3) of whose secretary we know the deme, in this case Paiania”. Finally, it helps to elucidate the chronology and circumstances of a decree of the late third century BC   Cf. Tracy 1982, 215 f.; LGPN II Σαραπίων (24) cf. (23). See also Habicht 1997, 288.   Tracy 1982 = SEG XXXII 218, 207–8.    For the attribution to the second year cf. Dinsmoor 1931, 210 ff.; Mikalson 1975, 46; and especially Clinton 1979, 9 ff. More recently, however, Clinton appears to have revised his views in favour of the third year; cf. Neue Pauly s.v. Eleusinia; also his re-publication of IG II² 1304, IEleusis 211.    For these archons cf. IG II² 1304 = IEleusis 211, discussed further below.    Dinsmoor 1931, 196.  

Sarapion, Son

of

Sarapion,

of

Melite

169

concerning the inviolability of Magnesia on the Maeander and the associated establishment of the Panhellenic Leukophryeneia. It is generally acknowledged that there were two Eleusinian festivals – a trieteric and a penteteric – and widely believed that the rather more impressive penteteric festival was celebrated in the second year of an Olympiad. The essential rationale for this belief has been that the archon Thrasyphon (with a secretary from Tribe V) can be securely attributed to the year 221/0 and, since a secretarial cycle is patently in operation, he can serve as an anchor for the archon list of the 220s and beyond. As a result the three archons who are known to have served in years when the Great Eleusinia were celebrated, for two of whom the secretarial details are known, are to be attributed to the second year of an Olympiad. But this scenario is seriously flawed in that it flies in the teeth of the evidence presented by Sarapion’s tenure of the Eleusinian agonothesia in 98/7, which certifies that in reality the Great Eleusinia were celebrated in the third year of an Olympiad. It is, of course, true that, apart from the information in the Pythaïs document, evidence for the timing of the Eleusinia is decidedly thin. There is, however, the important testimony of a very substantial ephebic document from the year of Medeios (101/0) indicating a celebration of the Great Eleusinia in the year of his predecessor, Echekrates (102/1) which is to be equated with Olympiad 169.3; also the list of accounts from 332/1 for the trieteric festival, indicating that this festival was held in the first year of an Olympiad (Olympiad 112.1 = 332/1). Given the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it is entirely reasonable to conclude that the two Eleusinian festivals were celebrated in the first and third years of an Olympiad, the more impressive penteteric in the third year. The upshot of all this is to invalidate the attribution of Thrasyphon to 221/0 and thereby the sequence of archons that depends on this attribution. Turning to Thrasyphon and the archon list, it is universally agreed that a secretary cycle was in operation throughout the 220s and beyond on the basis of the fragmentary Great Archon List and sundry other documents from this period.10 Amongst the latter a particularly significant document is the decree of the Athenians and others stationed in Eleusis, Panakton and Phyle in honour of their general, Demainetos of Athmonon.11 For this decree informs us that Demainetos served as general for the Eleusinian command on three occasions and, importantly, that each year of service witnessed a celebration of the Great Eleusinia (γινομένης δὲ καὶ τῆς πανη[γύρε]ως τῶν Ἐλευσ[ι]νίων̣ τῶμ μεγάλων ἐν τοῖς ἔτεσιν οἷς ἐστρα̣τήγηκεν). The three years are designated by reference to the archons Chairephon, Diokles and Aischron, who must thus be set four years   The decree was first published by O. Kern as IMM 16 (= Syll3 557); important new readings were made by Ebert 1982, 198 ff. = SEG XXXII 1147; and a revised text has recently been published by Rigsby (Asylia 66). For significant new restorations and discussion, see now Slater–Summa 2006, and Thonemann 2007.    The archons are Chairephon, Diokles and Aischron, all known from the decree for Demainetos of Athmonon (IG II² 1304 = IEleusis 211). The secretary for Chairephon was from Tribe VII (Agora XVI 227); for Diokles from Tribe XI (IG II² 846; 847). See further below for discussion.    IG II² 1028.    IG II² 1496. Cf. also IG II² 3012, a much later dedication from 159/60 (= Olympiad 234.3). 10   For the Great Archon List cf. IG II² 1706 + Dow 1933 + Dow 1934, 187 (new fragment) (SEG XIV 87). This list, which was set up to celebrate the new period of independence from Macedon (from 229 BC) provides three sequences of archons all of whose secretaries can be shown from other evidence to have served in a tribal sequence. See further Osborne 2008. 11   IG II² 1304 = IEleusis 211. 

170

Michael Osborne

apart. Fortunately, the secretarial details are independently attested for Chairephon and Diokles as being Tribe VII and Tribe XI respectively, thereby confirming the operation of the cycle. 12 What is still more significant, however, is that, armed with the knowledge that the Great Eleusinia were celebrated in the third year of an Olympiad, a precise location can be established for these archons and they (rather than Thrasyphon) can provide a reliable anchorage for the block of archons in the Great Archon List. The name of the first archon in the Great Archon List is lost but the next four are preserved and their tribal affiliations are known as follows:13 HELIODOROS LEOCHARES THEOPHILOS ERGOCHARES

IX X XI XII

Chairephon (VII) and Diokles (XI) both figure in later fragments of the Great Archon List and, given that a secretarial cycle is in operation, Chairephon should be situated ten years after Heliodoros. But what is the year of Heliodoros? Hitherto it has been almost universally accepted as 229/8 (because of the attribution of Thrasyphon with his secretary from Tribe V to 221/0)14 but the realization that Chairephon belongs in the third year of an Olympiad serves to set him firmly in the year 218/7 (= Olympiad 140.3) and to draw down Heliodoros by one year to 228/7. Such a date certainly suits the expectations of both the secretary and the Metonic cycles15 as well as locating Heliodoros appropriately as the second archon on a list that was clearly set up to celebrate independence from Macedon and so should have commenced with the archon of 229/8;16 but a possible impediment is the seemingly secure attribution of Thrasyphon to 221/0. However, as I have argued elsewhere,17 the attribution of Thrasyphon to 221/0 is anything but certain and his location in 220/19 not only suits the evidence for the date of the Great Eleusinia but is also in reality quite compatible with the testimony of the Magnesian decree that seems at first glance to set him in 221/0. The (fragmentary) decree from Magnesia on the Maeander in question dates from 208/7 and it deals with the successful establishment of the Panhellenic Leukophryeneia and the recognition of the inviolability of the city and land of the Magnesians in the stephanephorate of Moiragoras.18 The opening lines refer back to an initial effort some fourteen years earlier, when Zenodotos was stephanephoros, in response to a manifestation on the part of the goddess Artemis. Doubtless   It may be noted that the known details of the secretaries of the predecessor of Chairephon and of the two successors of Diokles also indicate a tribal cycle. Cf. Osborne 2008. 13   The relevant data are: Heliodoros, IG II² 832; Leochares, Agora XV 120; Theophilos, IG II² 837; Ergochares, IG II² 838. 14   So, for example, Dinsmoor 1931, 196 f.; 1954; Meritt 1961; 1977; Asylia 187 f.; etc. Doubts were expressed by Morgan 1996; also Osborne 2000, 517 n.7; 2001, 69. 15   Cf. Morgan 1996; Osborne 2008, 87. 16   For the circumstances of the setting up of the Great Archon List cf. Habicht 1982, 79; 1997, 174, where, however, he has the incumbent of 230/29 as the first archon in the List (necessarily, since he has Heliodoros in 229/8). King Demetrios died early in 229 BC so that one might expect the period of independence to date from the archon year 229/8. 17   Osborne 2008, 85 ff. 18   For the details cf. n. 6 above. 12

Sarapion, Son

of

Sarapion,

of

Melite

171

because of the importance of this original stimulus the date of this earlier attempt is recorded with considerable precision, as follows:19 ... ἐπὶ στ[εφανηφόρου] Ζηνοδότου, ἐν Ἀθήναις δὲ ἄρ[χο]ντος Θρασυφ[ῶντος Πύθι]α δὲ κιθαρωιδοῦ νικῶντο[ς τ]ῶι προτέρωι ἔτ[ει --c 8--] ου Βοιωτίου, Ὀλύμπια δὲ τῶι ὑστέρωι ἔτει τὴ̣ν̣ [ἑκατοστὴν] κ̣αὶ τετταρακοστὴν Ὀλυμπιάδα νικῶντος [τὸ τρίτον] [π]αγκράτιον Ἁγησιδάμου Μεσσηνίου... At first glance this seems to certify that the archon Thrasyphon served in Olympiad 139.4, which is to be equated with the archon year 221/0. As has been seen, however, such a date is incompatible with the evidence for the location of the Great Eleusinia, and a solution is to hand. For, as I have argued elsewhere,20 there was a gap of some two months between the commencement of the Athenian archon year and the start of an Olympic year and, whereas an archonship for Thrasyphon in 220/19 would in general terms have been equated with Olympiad 140.1, the first two months of his term will have fallen in Olympiad 139.4. There is thus no problem in assigning Thrasyphon to the archon year 220/19.21 The Magnesian document goes on to attest that Moiragoras was the fourteenth stephanephoros after Zenodotos: [ἐπὶ σ]τεφανηφόρου Μοιραγόρου, ὅς ἐστιν τετταρα̣κ[̣ αιδέκατος] ἀ̣πὸ Ζηνοδότου. Assuming an inclusive count, as has been generally accepted,22 this should set the term of office of Moiragoras in 208/7. Fortunately, amongst the many preserved responses to the invitation to participate in the festival which decorated the perimeter wall of the Magnesian agora, there is the decree recording the favourable reply of the Athenians.23 The name of the archon for this decree is lost but enough is preserved to show that the year was intercalary24 and that the secretary came from Tribe IV and so served thirteen years after Thrasyphon. These data certify the year as 208/7. The foregoing permits elucidation of the Magnesian decree (which has sometimes seemed problematic).25 For the stephanephorate of Zenodotos must belong in Olympiad 139.4 (c. September 221–c. September 220) and in part at least in the year of Thrasyphon (July 220–July 19   Quite apart from providing a multiplicity of chronological indicators, the dating formula is unusual in two other respects – for it appears to be the first epigraphically attested use of a numbered Olympiad, and it makes reference to the victor in the pankration rather than (as normally) to the victor in the stadion. Cf. Christesen 2007, 469 ff.; also Sumi 2004. 20   Osborne 2008. 21   The rather complicated and verbose format of the dating formula may in part at least reflect the difficulties of satisfying the desire for precision and of coping with the awkwardness of relating the Athenian archon to the Olympiad. For recent discussion, see Thonemann 2007. 22   Cf. Asylia 189 with n. 37. 23   IMM 37 = Asylia 87. 24   The calendar equation recorded in the text of the decree is: Pyanopsion (IV) 6 = Prytany V 7. As was pointed out long ago by Dinsmoor (1931, 209), this is an impossibility, so that it has to be assumed either that (unusually) a month was intercalated before Pyanopsion or else that the number of the Prytany was incorrectly recorded as V instead of IV (or, as suggested by Kern, that the name of the month was wrongly inscribed). Probably correctly, Dinsmoor settled for the correction of the Prytany number from the fifth to the fourth. The salient point for present purposes, however, is that in either event the year will have been intercalary, as Dinsmoor recognized. 25   For problems cf. Asylia 217.

172

Michael Osborne

219); his period of office was thus surely c. August 221–c. August 220. Assuming that he is to be counted as the first and Moiragoras as the fourteenth stephanephoros, as is generally agreed, this would fix the term of office of Moiragoras as extending from c. August 208 to c. August 207 and thus sitting for the most part in the Athenian archon year 208/7. On this basis it may be suggested that Moiragoras initiated his proposal at the very beginning of his term (August 208), that the Athenian response was framed in the prytany of the year (late 208) and that the inaugural Leukophryeneia were celebrated towards the end of the stephanephorate of Moiragoras. Sarapion has, of course, been a minor, supporting actor in the foregoing – but maybe not so inappropriately, since so many of us who are contributing to this volume have played cameo roles in the grand production of the Lexicon of Greek Personal Names and are delighted to acknowledge the distinct privilege of having the opportunity to present deserved plaudits to Elaine Matthews, who has been not just our co-director but also the co-star of this mighty enterprise.

References Christesen, P. (2007) Olympic Victor Lists and Ancient Greek History. Cambridge. Clinton, K. (1979) ‘IG I² 5, The Eleusinia and the Eleusinians’, American Journal of Philology 100, 1–12. Dinsmoor, W. B. (1931) The Archons of Athens in the Hellenistic Age. Cambridge, Mass. Dinsmoor, W. B. (1954) ‘The Archonship of Pytharatos’, Hesperia 23, 284–316. Dow, S. (1933) ‘The List of Archontes, IG II² 1706’, Hesperia 2, 418–446. Dow, S. (1934) ‘The Lists of Athenian Archontes’, Hesperia 3, 140–190. Ebert, J. (1982) ‘Zur Stiftungsurkunde der Λευκοφρυηνά in Magnesia am Mäander (Inschr. v. Magn. 16)’, Philologus 126, 198–216. Habicht, C. (1982) Studien zur Geschichte Athens in hellenistischer Zeit. Göttingen. Habicht, C. (1997) Athens from Alexander to Anthony. Harvard. Meritt, B. D. (1961) The Athenian Year. Berkeley. Meritt, B. D. (1977) ‘Athenian Archons 347/6–48/7 B.C.’, Historia 26, 161–191. Mikalson, J. D. (1975) The Sacred and Civil Calendar of the Athenian Year. Princeton. Morgan, J. D. (1996) ‘The Calendar and the Chronology of Athens’, American Journal of Archaeology 100, 395. Osborne, M. J. (2000) ‘Philinos and the Athenian Archons of the 250s B.C.’, in P. Flensted-Jensen, T. H. Nielsen and L. Rubinstein (eds), Polis & Politics. Studies in Ancient Greek History presented to Mogens Herman Hansen on his sixtieth birthday. Copenhagen, 507–520. Osborne, M. J. (2001) ‘Shadowland: Athens under Antigonos Gonatas and his successor’, in O. Palagia and S. V. Tracy (eds), The Macedonians in Athens, 322–229 B.C. Oxford, 67–75. Osborne, M. J. (2008) ‘The Date of the Athenian Archon Thrasyphon’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 164, 85–89. Slater, W. J. and Summa, D. (2006) ‘Crowns at Magnesia’, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 46, 275–299. Sumi, G. (2004) ‘Civic Self-Representation in the Hellenistic World: the Festival of Artemis Leukophryene’, in S. Bell and G. Davies (eds), Games and Festivals in Classical Antiquity. Oxford, 79–92. Thonemann, P. (2007) ‘Magnesia and the Greeks of Asia (I.Magnesia 16.16)’, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 47, 151–160. Tracy, S. V. (1982) IG II² 2336. Contributors of First Fruits for the Pythaïs. Meisenheim am Glan.

PELOPONNESE

La famiglia di Damonikos di Messene D. Baldassarra

A partire dall’analisi di alcuni testi epigrafici dell’antica Messene, risalenti all’inizio del I secolo d.C. e riguardanti il medesimo individuo, Damonikos figlio di Mantikrates, è possibile ricostruire parte della genealogia della sua famiglia. Damonikos dovette svolgere un ruolo di spicco nella vita cittadina, come dimostrano il suo pregevole cursus honorum e gli onori che gli vennero tributati da parte della comunità, di cui fu sicuramente un generoso benefattore. L’analisi del piccolo dossier epigrafico di I d.C. e il confronto con alcune iscrizioni di IV–III a.C. permettono inoltre di avanzare l’ipotesi che il Damonikos figlio di Mantikrates, teorodoco nel 242 a.C., possa essere un avo dell’omonimo vissuto all’inizio dell’età imperiale. Analysis of some epigraphical texts from ancient Messene of the first century AD, all concerning the same individual, Damonikos son of Mantikrates, allows us to reconstruct the genealogy of his family. Damonikos played a prominent role in civic life, as attested by his valuable cursus honorum and by the honours bestowed on him by the community in return for his generous benefactions. Comparison between the inscriptions of the first century AD and some texts of the fourth to third centuries BC allows the suggestion that a Damonikos son of Mantikrates, a theorodokos in 242 BC, could be an ancestor of his namesake of early Imperial times. La ricca documentazione epigrafica dell’antica Messene permette di conoscere sempre meglio il tessuto sociale della polis in età ellenistica e imperiale (Fig. 1): sono infatti numerose le    Le iscrizioni qui prese in esame sono state da me sottoposte ad autopsia nel 2001, anno in cui ho preso attivamente parte ai lavori di scavo (cfr. PAE 2001, 63). Il mio più caloroso ringraziamento va al prof. Petros Themelis, attuale direttore degli scavi di Messene e dell’Hetaireia Messeniakon Spoudon di Atene: questo contributo si basa infatti sul censimento totale dell’archivio delle iscrizioni, custodito presso la Hetaireia, condotto nel febbraio del 2003 e aggiornato nel giugno 2006. La sigla AEM sta per Archaiologike Hetaireia Messenes e precede il numero d’inventario delle iscrizioni conservate al Museo Archeologico di Mavromati-Ithomi.    Per la storia degli scavi condotti presso il sito dell’antica Messene si veda Themelis 1998; 1999; 2003. Il generale impianto urbanistico ed architettonico della città è ormai chiaro grazie al costante avanzamento delle ricerche archeologiche e alla collaborazione tra il prof. Themelis ed équipes di ricerca internazionali, tra cui si segnalano quelle dell’Università giapponese di Kumamoto (Prof. J. Ito), l’Università di Berlino (Prof. W. Koepfner), del Minnesota (Proff. F. Cooper – P. Broucke); inoltre, nel 1998 è stata indetta una campagna di fotografia aerea grazie alla collaborazione con la compagnia giapponese “Asia Air Survey Ltd”; cfr. PAE 1999, 69–111. Tra i risultati di questi studi si segnalano Cooper 1999; 2000; Yoshitake–Ito 2001; Yoshitake–Hayashida–Ito 2004; Muth 2007.

La

famiglia di

Damonikos

di

Messene

175

Figure 1. Mappa del sito dell’Antica Messene, da Themelis 2004, 33, fig. 2

famiglie messenie di cui ora si può seguire la storia, grazie all’analisi dei testi epigrafici e al loro confronto, e gli stemmi genealogici di alcune delle famiglie meglio note arrivano fino all’ottava generazione. Tra esse vale la pena ricordare i Saithidai e gli Aristomenai, che ottennero l’onore    Il corpus delle iscrizioni scoperte durante gli scavi ha ormai superato le 700 unità: lo studio delle iscrizioni è affidato a A. P. Matthaiou e V. Bardani della Società Greca di Epigrafia; si veda Bardani 1988; 1989–90; Matthaiou 2001. Tra gli studi prosopografici di recente apparizione si segnalano: Habicht 1998; 2000; Spawforth 2002, 102–3; Baldassarra 2007; 2008; (forthcoming); Luraghi 2008a; 2008b, 292–329; Fröhlich 2008.

176

D. Baldassarra

Figure 2. Albero genealogico

della Civitas romana dall’imperatore Claudio; inoltre i Flavii Kleopha(n)toi, di cui si può seguire l’ascesa da quando erano ancora privi della cittadinanza, e i Flavii Polybioi, noti solo in testi del II e III d.C., epoca in cui dovevano essere Cives romani da almeno cinquant’anni. Si presentano qui le iscrizioni che permettono la ricostruzione della genealogia della stirpe di Damonikos, vissuto nella prima metà del I sec. d.C. (Fig. 2). 1. Inv. no. AEM 3032 – Fusto di colonna marmorea di ordine dorico (h. 205, ø 46–49,5), rinvenuto a Mavromati-Ithomi (Messene) nel 1990 durante gli scavi condotti dalla Società Archeologica Greca (direttore P. Themelis), nella stoa d’epoca tardo-romana ad ovest del Sebasteion; attualmente in situ. Si conservano 19 linee di scrittura regolare (dopo le ll. 6, 11, due ampi vacat). Lettere: h. 2,5. Alpha con barra centrale spezzata; apicature. PAE 1990, 91–3 (SEG XLI 335). Foto: Baldassarra 2001 (Fig. 3). Autopsia 2001. Si fornisce l’edizione solo delle ll. 1–6. 33 d.C.



 

Ἐπὶ ἱερέως Καλλικρατίδα, ἔτους ἑξηκοστοῦ καὶ τετάρτου, vac. ἀγορανόμος vac. Ἄρης Ἀρχεδάμου,

  Cfr. Baldassarra 2007, 28–42.   Cfr. Baldassarra 2008.

La 5

famiglia di

Damonikos

di

Messene

177

vac. ὑπαγορανόμος vac. Δαμόνικος Μαντικράτεος.

Sacerdote (di Zeus Ithomatas) Kallikratidas, nell’anno sessantaquattresimo (dell’era aziaca), agoranomo Ares figlio di Archedamos, ipagoranomo Damonikos figlio di Mantikrates. 2. Inv. no. AEM 6666+6701 – Base di statua ornata da kymation (66 × 58 × 41), rinvenuta a Mavromati-Ithomi (Messene) il 19/05/1995 durante gli scavi condotti dalla Società Archeologica Greca (direttore P. Themelis), presso i Propilei nord-occidentali del ginnasio, accanto alle scale di accesso; attualmente in situ. Iscrizione su due righe, scrittura regolare. Lettere: h. 1,3. Alpha con barra centrale spezzata; phi con occhiello schiacciato; apicature. PAE 1995, 73 (SEG XLVI 416); Habicht 2000, 122. Foto: AEM 6666, 6701. Autopsia 2001. Post 33 d.C.

Δαμόνικος Μαντικράτεος γυμνασιαρχήσας ἀνέθηκε. Damonikos figlio di Mantikrates dedicò (questa statua) quando era ginnasiarco. 3. Inv. no. AEM 6665 – Base di statua, ornata da kymation (65 × 49, 50–1 × 32), rinvenuta a Mavromati-Ithomi (Messene) il 30/05/1995 durante gli scavi condotti dalla Società Archeologica Greca (direttore P. Themelis), presso i Propilei nord-occidentali del ginnasio accanto alle scale di accesso; attualmente in situ. Iscrizione su due righe, scrittura regolare. Lettere: h. 1,3. Alpha con barra centrale spezzata; phi con occhiello schiacciato; apicature. PAE 1995, 73 (SEG XLVI 417); Habicht 2000, 122. Foto: Baldassarra 2001 (Fig. 4). Autopsia 2001. Post 33 d.C. Δαμόνικος Μαντικράτεος γυμνασιαρχήσας Τελέσταν τὸν ἀδελφεὸν vac. Ἑρμᾶι. Damonikos figlio di Mantikrates quando era ginnasiarco (dedicò la statua) del fratello Telestas ad Hermes. 4. Inv. no. AEM 11396 – Frammento di sekoma marmoreo (14 × 14,5), rinvenuto a MavromatiIthomi (Messene) durante gli scavi condotti dalla Società Archeologica Greca nel 2000 (direttore P. Themelis), inserito nel muro di età bizantina che delimita a Sud la stoa settentrionale dell’agora; attualmente conservato al Museo. Iscrizione su due righe, scrittura regolare. Lettere: 1,8. PAE 2000, 85–6 (SEG LI 490). Foto: AEM 11396 (Fig. 5). Autopsia 2001. Post 33 d.C. [Δαμόνικος Μαντικρ]άτεος ἀγορανομήσας ἀνέθηκε θεοῖς καὶ τᾶι] πόλει. L. 1 [- - -]άτεος, Themelis in testo, in commento [Δαμόνικος Μαντικρ]άτεος.

Damonikos figlio di Mantikrates quando era agoranomo dedicò agli dei e alla città.

178

D. Baldassarra

Figure 3. Iscrizione no. 1, da Baldassarra 2001

Figure 4. Iscrizione no. 3, da Baldassarra 2001

Figure 5. Iscrizione no. 4, da Themelis 2000, pl. 51α

La

famiglia di

Damonikos

di

Messene

179

Damonikos figlio di Mantikrates, nato probabilmente all’inizio del I secolo d.C., fu ipagoranomo nel 33 d.C. (n. 1), carica sicuramente da lui ricoperta prima di essere agoranomo (n. 4), e, verosimilmente, anche prima della ginnasiarchia (nn. 2–3), che prevedeva oneri ed onori maggiori a livello sociale e richiedeva un’età di almeno trent’anni; le due basi di statua (nn. 2–3) e il sekoma (n. 4) sono quindi presumibilmente posteriori alla lista del 33 d.C. Il ginnasiarco Damonikos fece erigere la statua del fratello Telestas, benefattore della città: la struttura speculare dei testi delle iscrizioni nn. 2–3 suggerisce che Damonikos avesse fatto scolpire anche una statua per sé volendo celebrare con la stessa enfasi anche la propria attività di evergete. Entrambe le opere furono collocate nel ginnasio, luogo prediletto dalla comunità per omaggiare i suoi cittadini più illustri; l’ambiente IX, per esempio, fu destinato ad ospitare le statue di due notabili, Dionysios figlio di Aristomenes e Tiberios Klaudios Theon figlio di Nikeratos, i quali, definiti ‘eroi’ nella dedica in quanto ormai defunti, avevano ricevuto sepoltura all’interno tombe monumentali poste nello stesso ginnasio, poco più a nord rispetto all’ambiente IX, a dimostrazione di quanto contasse l’evergetismo dei notabili messeni per l’economia cittadina e quanta visibilità venisse data loro in cambio dalla comunità. Damonikos decise di erigere le due basi in un luogo molto in vista, presso le scale dei Propilei nord-occidentali del ginnasio: da lì si accedeva ad un grande ambiente dove campeggiava su un’alta base marmorea una copia del Doriforo di Policleto, che, secondo lo Themelis, avrebbe rappresentato Teseo.10 La posizione di spicco delle due statue fa pensare che anche Telestas al tempo della dedica stesse ricoprendo una carica istituzionale o l’avesse fatto in passato: è comunque evidente che costui doveva aver compiuto qualche importante atto evergetico verso il ginnasio e la comunità cittadina e quindi meritava di essere celebrato assieme ai ginnasiarchi, agli evergeti e agli intellettuali, le cui statue onorarie erano erette lungo i portici del ginnasio o di fronte a questi. Vedere nel Telestas che fu vincitore degli agoni olimpici nel 340 a.C. (Paus. vi 14. 4) un avo omonimo del nostro benefattore è certo solo una suggestione, quale probabilmente deve rimanere l’identificazione del medesimo olimpionikes con il Tele(s)stas sacerdote di Apollo Karneios che compare in una dedica al dio rinvenuta recentemente nel teatro di Messene, oltre che con l’atleta che avrebbe lasciato

  La datazione aziaca compare in vari documenti epigrafici di Messene, in particolare nelle liste efebiche, di agoranomi e di officianti delle feste Ithomaia in onore di Zeus: si veda, a titolo esemplificativo, IG V (1) 1467–9; PAE 1969, 103–4 (BE 1970, no. 230); 1990, 99 nn. 1–2 (SEG XLI 337–8); 1992, 71–3 (SEG XLIII 145), 78–9 (SEG XLIII 146). L’era aziaca considerava come primo anno il 31 a.C., data della battaglia di Azio: cfr. RE e Suppl. III s.v. Aera; Stirpe 2005, 276. Alcuni studiosi hanno sollevato vari dubbi riguardo all’anno d’inizio di questa era: ad esempio il Moretti, ritenendo improbabile che i documenti potessero essere stati datati in questo modo fin dal 31 a.C., propendeva per il 27–26 a.C.; cfr. Moretti, IAG 206.    In età imperiale l’agoranomo, magistrato attestato fin dall’età classica, corrispondeva all’aedilis romanus; cfr. RE s.v. Agoranomoi (Oehler); Migeotte 2003, 133–8. Gli scavi di Messene hanno restituito quattro liste di agoranomi incise su colonne, che presentano la medesima struttura e successione gerarchica – sacerdote eponimo di Zeus Ithomatas, agoranomo, ipagoranomo: la prima (PAE 1992, 78–9) è stata trovata presso il santuario di Demetra (SEG XLIII 146); le altre tre [PAE 1989, 70–1 (SEG XLI 336); 1990, 91–3 (SEG XLI 335), 93–4 (SEG XLI 334)] sono state tutte rinvenute a nord del Sebasteion, per cui vedi Themelis 1999, 79–80.    Per il ruolo del ginnasio e la ginnasiarchia cfr. Delorme 1960; Kah–Scholz 2004; Trombetti 2006; per il ginnasio di Messene cfr. Themelis 2001a e b.    Il sekoma era una misura di peso standard che regolava le operazioni di pesatura che avvenivano presso il mercato: esso riportava l’iscrizione dell’agoranomo, il magistrato che sovrintendeva le attività del mercato. 10   Per la copia del Doriforo trovata a Messene cfr. PAE 1998, 122, pinn. 64–6; Themelis 2001a, 123–4. 

180

D. Baldassarra

un graffito nel corridoio da cui si accedeva allo stadio di Nemea:11 non vanno però trascurate le ripercussioni sociali che dovevano derivare dall’appartenenza ad una famiglia di olympionikai, che era sempre motivo di grande lustro e rispettabilità, come dimostrano le numerose basi onorarie di statue rinvenute a Messene:12 che il fratello di Damonikos avesse lo stesso nome di un avo particolarmente famoso per i suoi successi atletici rimane dunque plausibile. Suggestiva appare anche la menzione di un Damonikos figlio di Mantikrates teorodoco di un decreto del 242 a.C., trovato nell’Asklepieion di Cos, che celebra la philia e la syngeneia tra Coi e Messeni e assegna l’asylia ai teori di Cos che si fossero recati a Messene:13 il teorodoco del 242 a.C. viene solitamente identificato con il Damonikos che compare tra gli officianti del culto di Atena Kyparissia in un’iscrizione di Messene databile al III a.C.;14 già il Klaffenbach aveva proposto di identificare quest’ultimo Mantikrates con il padre di quel Mnasagoros figlio di Mantikrates che compare in qualità di hegemon dei Messeni in una coppia di decreti di prossenia di Delfi, databili al 209/8 a.C.15 Secondo lo Habicht il teorodoco Damonikos sarebbe un progenitore dell’omonimo ipagoranomo di I secolo.16 A favore di questa seppur suggestiva ipotesi deporrebbe, allo stato attuale delle conoscenze solo l’alto tasso di ereditarietà dei nomi nelle famiglie messenie. Damonikos era con buona probabilità il padre della sacerdotessa di Artemide Mego, onorata nel I secolo d.C. da un epigramma e da una statua eretta nell’Artemision posto all’interno dell’Asklepieion:17 (a) [Δαμόνικος - - -]ς, Τιμαρχὶς Δαμαρχίδα ἱερατεύσαντες | [Μεγὼ] τὰν θυγατέρα; (b) Τᾷ Παρθένῳ τὰν παῖδά σοί με, πότνια | Ὀρθεία, Δαμόνικος ἠδ’ ὁμευνέτις | Τιμαρχίς, ἐσθλοῦ πατρός, ἄνθεσαν Μεγὼ | τεὸν χερὶ κρατεύσασαν, Ἄρτεμι, βρέτας |5 ἅν τε πρὸ βωμῶν σῶν ἔτεινα λαμπάδα·| εἴη δὲ κἀμὲ τὰν ἐπιπρεπέα χάριν | τεῖσαι γονεῦσιν· ἔνδικον γὰρ ἔπλετο | καὶ παισὶ τιμᾶν ἐμ μέρει φυτοσπόρους.18 Si tratta dell’unico epigramma noto a Messene dedicato ad una sacerdotessa ed è chiara la volontà di celebrare l’intera famiglia dell’onoranda, che finanziò la statua: padre, madre e figlia avrebbero infatti prestato servizio cultuale come sacerdoti di Artemide, che, come sappiamo da altre iscrizioni, si riunivano in un’assemblea denominata gerousia Oupesia e dovevano rigorosamente appartenere ad una delle cinque tribù cittadine,   Cfr. Moretti, Olympionikai 453; cfr. LGPN IIIA s.v., nn. 11, 27, dove il Fraser e la Matthews propongono l’identificazione di Telestas messenio con l’atleta di Nemea, per cui cfr. Miller 2001, 85, 313, 315 no. 2D, figg. 523–4; per il sacerdote di Apollo Karneios si veda PAE 2001, 71–9; cfr. SEG LII 412, dove si accetta che Telestas figlio di Mantikrates e fratello di Damonikos sia discendente dell’atleta-sacerdote Tele(s)stas. 12   Ergon 1963, 93 (SEG XXIII 228; XLIII 162); PAE 1993, 33–4 (SEG XLIII 162); 1999, 79–80 (SEG LI 478); Habicht 2000, 123–6 (SEG L 423); PAE 2001, 81 (SEG LII 400); 2004, 35 (SEG LIV 465), 48 (SEG LIV 464). 13   Asylia 15; per la teorodochia in Peloponneso cfr. Perlman, Theorodokia. 14   PAE 1991, 91 (SEG XLIII 144). 15   FD III (4) 21–22 = Syll3 555 A [2], B 8–9 (SEG L 421); si veda anche Herzog–Klaffenbach 1952, 11 no. 4, 18; per la datazione dei decreti delfici cfr. Daux 1943, K 13 (207/6 a.C.), Lefèvre 1995, 200–1, 206 (209/8 a.C.); cfr. Habicht 2000, 122, nota 14. 16   Habicht 2000, 123–6 (SEG LII 400). 17   PAE 1962, 110–11, fig. 112b (SEG XXIII 220; Daux 1970, 620–3); cfr. Chlepa 2001, 33 (SEG LI 482): l’ipotesi che Mego sia figlia di Damonikos viene accolta in LGPN IIIA, s.vv. Δαμόνικος, Μαντικράτης, Μεγώ; cfr. PAE 2000, 85. Per l’Artemision di Messene si veda Themelis 1998; 1999; Chlepa 2001. 18   A): “Damonikos [...], Timarchis figlia di Damarchidas, quando erano sacerdoti, (dedicarono) la figlia Mego”; B): “alla Parthenos la figlia, a te, signora Ortheia, Damonikos e la sposa Timarchis, di nobile padre, dedicarono me, Mego, che stringo nella mano, Artemis, la tua statua e la fiaccola che protesi davanti ai tuoi altari. Sia che anch’io renda il dovuto ringraziamento ai genitori: è conforme a giustizia infatti che anche i figli onorino a loro volta chi li ha generati” (trad. it. di Zunino 1997, 40, T 30). 11

La

famiglia di

Damonikos

di

Messene

181

la Kresphontis, che prendeva il nome dal primo re eraclide della Messenia, Cresfonte.19 Un Mantikrates è attestato da un’altra iscrizione inedita (AEM 54), databile alla tarda età ellenistica o alla prima età imperiale, incisa su una statua rinvenuta nell’area dello Stadio durante gli scavi di A. K. Orlandos: si tratta di una serie di nomi incisi casualmente su vari punti della statua, presumibilmente firme di efebi, fenomeno già noto epigraficamente e testimoniato tra l’altro proprio dalle facce laterali delle due basi di statue appena menzionate (nn. 2–3).20 Damonikos figlio di Mantikrates e fratello di Telestas sarebbe stato quindi sposato con Timarchis figlia di Damarchidas, da cui avrebbe avuto una figlia, Mego. Appare chiaro che la famiglia di Damonikos dovette godere di grande rilievo sociale: discendessero o no dal teorodoco Damonikos vissuto alla metà del III a.C. o dall’olympionikes e sacerdote di Apollo Karneios Tele(s)stas, è sicuro che la comunità volle celebrare i due figli di Mantikrates per l’importante ruolo da loro ricoperto sia a livello politico (agoranomia) sia all’interno del ginnasio (ginnasiarchia), ma probabilmente anche a livello cultuale (sacerdozio di Artemide).

Riferimenti bibliografici Baldassarra, D. (2007) ‘Famiglie aristocratiche a Messene nella prima età imperiale: il contributo dell’epigrafia’, in G. Cresci Marrone and A. Pistellato (eds), Studi in ricordo di Fulviomario Broilo, Atti del Convegno, Venezia, 14–15 ottobre 2005. Padua, 25–62. Baldassarra, D. (2008) ‘Il contributo dell’epigrafia allo studio delle famiglie notabili messenie (I–III secolo d.C.). Il caso dei Flavii Kleopha(n)toi e dei Flavii Polybioi’, Epigraphica 70, 119–141. Baldassarra, D. (forthcoming) ‘Il contributo dell’epigrafia allo studio delle famiglie notabili messenie (II–III secolo d.C.). II. La famiglia di Aelius Ariston di Messene e gli Iulii Theaghenai di Corone, Epigraphica 71. Bardani, V. (1988) ‘Εις IG V 1, 1462’, ΗΟΡΟΣ 7, 79–81. Bardani, V. (1989–90) ‘Εις IG V 1, 1426’, ΗΟΡΟΣ 8, 86–88. Chlepa, E.-A. (2001) Μεσσήνη. Το Αρτεμίσιο και οι οίκοι της δυτικής πτέρυγας του Ασκληπιείου. Athens. Cooper, F. A. (1999) ‘Curvature and Other Architectural Refinements in a Hellenistic Heroon at Messene’, in L. Haselberger (ed.), Appearance and essence: refinements of classical architecture, curvature. Proceedings of the Second Williams Symposium on Classical Architecture held at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, April 2–4, 1993. Philadelphia, 185–197. Cooper, F. A. (2000) ‘The Fortifications of Epaminondas and the Rise of the Monumental Greek City’, in J. Tracy (ed.), City Walls: The Urban Enceinte in Global Perspective. New York, 155–191. Daux, G. (1943) Chronologie delphique, Fouilles de Delphes III, fasc. hors série. Paris. Daux, G. (1970) ‘Notes de lecture’, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 94, 595–623. Delorme, J. (1960) Gymnasion. Étude sur les monuments consacrés à l’éducation en Grèce (des origines à l’empire romain). Paris. Fröhlich, P. (2008) ‘Les tombeaux de la ville de Messène et les grandes familles de la cité à l’époque hellénistique’, in Grandjean 2008, 203–227.   Per le tribù doriche di Messene cfr. Jones 1987, 146–7; per il culto di Artemide a Messene si veda Zunino 1997, 33–68. Numerose le iscrizioni che menzionano i membri della gerousia Oupesia: PAE 1962, 112α/β, no. 5, 1–5 (οἱ τᾶς Οὐπησίας ἱεροὶ γέροντες ἀπὸ Κρεσφόντα), cfr. SEG XXIII 215; PAE 1962, 112β/γ ([οἱ τᾶς] Οὐπησίας ἱεροὶ γέροντες), cfr. SEG XXIII 216; PAE 1962, 112γ ([οἱ ἱερ]ο[ὶ γέροντες] οἱ ἀπὸ Κρεσφ[όν]τα), cfr. SEG XXIII 217; Orlandos 1965, 116–21, ll. 7–8, 11, 15, 19 (οἱ τᾶς Οὐπησίας); cfr. J. e L. Robert in BE 1966, no. 202; SEG XXIII 208. 20   Cfr. Themelis 2001b, 122, in cui si afferma: “In their free time, the ephebes scratched their names everywhere they possibly could; they especially favoured the statue bases. They also sat on the northwest propylon steps and played with dice”. 19

182

D. Baldassarra

Grandjean, C. (ed.) (2008) Le Péloponnèse d’Épaminondas à Hadrien. Colloque de Tours 6–7 octobre 2005. Paris. Habicht, C. (1998) ‘Kleine Beiträge zur altgrieschichen Personenkunde’, Revue des études anciennes 100, 487–494. Habicht, C. (2000) ‘Neues aus Messene’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 130, 121–126. Herzog, R. and Klaffenbach, G. (1952) Asylieurkunden aus Kos. Berlin. Jones, N. F. (1987) Public Organisation in Ancient Greece: a Documentary Study. Philadelphia. Kah, D. and Scholz, P. (eds) (2004) Das hellenistische Gymnasion. Berlin. Lefèvre, F. (1995) ‘La chronologie du IIIe siècle à Delphes, d’après les actes amphictioniques (280–200)’, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 119, 161–208. Luraghi, N. (2008a) ‘Meeting Messenians in Pausanias’ Greece’, in Grandjean 2008, 191–202. Luraghi, N. (2008b) The ancient Messenians: constructions of ethnicity and memory. Cambridge, Mass. Matthaiou, A. P. (2001) ‘Δυο ιστορικές επιγραφές της Μεσσήνης’, in V. Mitsopoulos Leon (ed.), Forschungen in der Peloponnes. Athens, 221–231. Migeotte, L. (2003) L’economia delle città greche: dall’età arcaica all’alto impero romano. Rome. Miller, S. G. (ed.) (2001) Excavations at Nemea. II, The Early Hellenistic Stadium. Berkeley / London. Muth, S. (2007) Eigene Wege. Topographie und Stadtplan von Messene in spätklassisch-hellenistischer Zeit. Rahden. Orlandos, A. K. (1965) ‘Δύο επιγραφαί εκ Μεσσήνης’, Ἀρχαιολογικὴ Ἐφημερίς, 116–121. Spawforth, A. J. S. (2002) ‘Italian Elements among Roman Knights and Senators from Old Greece’, in C. Müller and C. Hasenohr (eds), Les Italiens dans le monde Grec, IIe siècle av. J.-C.-Ier siècle ap. J.-C. Circulation, activités, intégration. Actes de la table ronde, École Normale Supérieure, Paris, 14–16 Mai 1998. Paris, 101–107. Stirpe, P. (2005) ‘Concomitanze di feste greche e romane con grandi feste panelleniche tra l’età ellenistica e la prima età imperiale’, in D. Musti (ed.), Nike. Ideologia, iconografia e feste della vittoria in età antica. Rome, 227–280. Themelis, P. (1998) Ancient Messene, Site and Monuments. Athens. Themelis, P. (1999) Η Αρχαία Μεσσήνη. Athens. Themelis, P. (2001a) ‘Das Gymnasion von Messene in der römischen Zeit’, in C. Reusser (ed.), Griechenland in der Kaiserzeit: neue Funde und Forschungen zu Skulptur, Architektur und Topographie. Kolloquium zum sechzigsten Geburtstag von Prof. Dietrich Willers, Bern, 12.–13. Juni 1998. Bern, 9–20. Themelis, P. (2001b) ‘Roman Messene: the Gymnasium in the Greek East in the Roman Context’, in O. Salomies (ed.), Proceedings of a Colloquium organised by the Finnish Institute at Athens, May 21 and 22, 1999. Helsinki, 119–126. Themelis, P. (2003) Heroes at Ancient Messene. Athens. Trombetti, C. (2006) ‘Ginnasi come santuari. Il Peloponneso’, Siris 7, 45–69. Yoshitake, R. and Ito, J. (2001) ‘Restoration of the Grave Monument III: Architectural Survey of Ancient City of Messene in Greece’, Journal of Architecture, Planning and Environmental Engineering, 285–291. Yoshitake, R., Hayashida, Y. and Ito, J. (2004) ‘A Survey of the Stoas of the Asklepieion in Messene’, Journal of Architecture, Planning and Environmental Engineering, 207–214. Zunino, M. L. (1997) Hiera Messeniaka. Udine.

‘Becoming Roman’ : à propos de deux générations parentes de néo-citoyens romains à Sparte et à Athènes J.-S. Balzat et A. J. S. Spawforth Ce volume édité en l’honneur d’Elaine Matthews par ses collègues et ses amis en témoignage de leur estime et de leur sympathie si justement méritées nous offre l’occasion de revenir sur plusieurs entrées du Lexicon of Greek Personal Names qui soulèvent de difficiles problèmes d’interprétation. Nous n’avons pas la prétention de les résoudre complètement, mais seulement d’apporter notre contribution à la discussion pour éclairer davantage l’histoire familiale de deux familles, l’une de Sparte, l’autre d’Athènes, qui furent parmi les premières de la province d’Achaïe à être candidates à la citoyenneté romaine. This volume in honour of Elaine Matthews, put together by colleagues and friends as a richly deserved expression of their esteem and good wishes, gives us the opportunity to return to several entries in the Lexicon of Greek Personal Names which raise difficulties of interpretation. We do not pretend to provide definitive solutions, but offer our contribution in the hope of shedding further light on the history of two families, one Spartan, the other Athenian, which were among the first in the province of Achaia to be granted Roman citizenship.

Introduction Suite aux conclusions de W. Kolbe présentées lors de l’édition du volume V (1) des Inscriptiones Graecae, aux travaux de A. M. Woodward et à la révision de A. J. S. Spawforth en 1985, le stemma de la famille des Memmii de Sparte est désormais bien connu. Une relecture attentive de plusieurs inscriptions de Sparte nous amène cependant à proposer la reconstruction du stemma d’une autre famille restée jusqu’à présent largement inconnue et portant aussi le gentilice Memmius. On la désignera désormais sous le nom de Memmii (II) pour la distinguer des Memmii   Une première version de cet article a été présentée par J.-S. Balzat au cours d’une session du Postgraduate Seminar, School of Historical Studies, Newcastle University. Pour leurs commentaires sur des points de philologie, les auteurs remercient les Prof. John Moles et Dr. Susanna Philippo et, pour leur relecture, Mr. Yvan Balzat et Dr. Fabienne Marchand.    Voir Spawforth 1985, 193–215. Pour les compléments bibliographiques voir Rizakis–Zoumbaki–Lepenioti 2004. 

184

J.-S. Balzat

and

A. J. S. Spawforth

(I) de Sparte. La clef de cette nouvelle reconstruction se trouve dans l’identification comme une seule et même personne des Λυσίνικος (2) et Λυσίνικος (4) du volume IIIA du Lexicon of Greek Personal Names. En outre si les membres de cette famille de Memmii (II) sont très peu nombreux en comparaison avec ceux de la famille des Memmii (I), on ne peut toutefois ignorer leur importance : ils apportent en effet des éléments nouveaux pour mieux comprendre l’apparition de la citoyenneté romaine parmi les membres de l’élite spartiate, mais également parmi les hauts magistrats athéniens puisque la reconstruction du stemma des Memmii (II) permet aussi de faire avancer le portrait de Tibérius Claudius Novius d’Oion, un Athénien ayant épousé une femme issue de la famille des Memmii (II) de Sparte.

Le stemma des Memmii (II) La reconstruction du stemma des Memmii (II) a comme point de départ l’inscription IG V (1) 509 (Fig. 1). Le texte, composé de deux fragments qui furent réutilisés dans la construction d’un mur d’une maison de Mistra, fut édité par Ph. Le Bas en 1836, puis par W. Kolbe dans les IG. La pierre semble désormais perdue. Comme on va le voir, il s’agit probablement d’une inscription funéraire qui faisait partie d’un monument élevé par deux membres d’une même famille en l’honneur d’un de leurs parents. A Β

Π(όπλιος) Μέ(μμιος) Λυσίνεικ[ος] Φιλάδελφος κα[ὶ] Δαμοσθένεια Λυσινείκου, Πό(πλιον) Μέ(μμιον) Γο[ρ]γιππίδαν Φιλάδελφον Λυσινείκου υἱὸν τὸ[ν] [ἀδελφόν - - - -]

Le gentilice Memmius montre d’abord que nous sommes en présence d’une famille dont certains membres obtinrent la citoyenneté romaine de Publius Memmius Regulus, entre 35 et 44 ap. J.-C., dates de son gouvernement en Mésie, Macédoine et Achaïe en tant que légat propréteur. Le surnom ou la qualification de Φιλάδελφος (ou φιλάδελφος : voir ci-dessous) commun à Publius Memmius Lysinicus et à Publius Memmius Gorgippidas indique leur degré de parenté : il s’agit de deux frères. Comme en témoigne sa restitution de la dernière ligne, c’est bien ainsi que W. Kolbe a compris les liens familiaux entre les deux Memmii. Cette dernière restitution a aussi mené les commentateurs à considérer que Damostheneia, fille d’un Lysinicus, aurait été la sœur des deux frères Lysinicus et Gorgippidas. Une seconde inscription doit être versée au dossier des Memmii (II) : l’inscription IG V (1) 141. Il s’agit d’une liste de magistrats annuels connus sous le nom de hiérothytes, accompagnés de leur personnel d’intendance, qui participaient à des rites sacrificiels accomplis au nom de   Sur Tibérius Novius Claudius, voir Lozano Gómez 2007.   W. Kolbe avait restitué, à la première ligne, Λυσινείκ[ης] dans l’édition des IG ; il faut naturellement restituer Λυσίνεικ[ος] : Spawforth 1996, 236.    Groag 1939, col. 25–30.    Il a été suivi par Bradford 125 et Spawforth 1996, 236–7.  

‘Becoming Roman’

185

la cité. La liste comporte aussi dix-sept paidia. Le mot paidion indique qu’il s’agit de petits enfants, même si, chez les auteurs attiques, le mot paidion ‘petit enfant’ est occasionnellement interchangeable avec celui de pais ‘enfant’. En outre la définition hippocratique du terme paidion comme enfant âgé au-dessous de sept ans semble être trop rigoureuse, plutôt technique. Parmi ces paidia, l’édition du texte de Kolbe mentionne un Lysinicus et un Gorgip[p - - -], lignes 24–5 colonne III, malheureusement sans patronyme du fait que le texte de l’inscription est endommagé sur le côté droit et que les patronymes des paidia étaient en partie gravés sur un bloc adjacent. Des trois colonnes de l’inscription, on ne donne ici que les deux colonnes de paidia incorporant les nouvelles restitutions proposées ci-dessous et après réexamen de la pierre10. Col. II Col. III 10 παιδία Σ̣ει̣ δ̣ έ̣ [̣ κτας Πρατόλα,] 20 Κριτόδαμο̣[ς - - - - ] Δαμοκρατία Δαμοκράτεος, Καλλικρατία Καλλικράτεος, Θεοκλέα Σωσ̣[ - - - - ] Ἀριστοκλῆς Καλλικράτεος, Δεξίδαμο[ς - - - - ] Ἱππίχα Ἵππωνος, Ἄλκιμος Σωκ̣[λείδα,] 15 Ἀριστονίκα Νικοκράτεος, Λυσίνικος̣ [Λυσινίκου,] Ῥαδάμανθυς Εὐρυκλέους, 25 Γοργιππίδ[ας Λυσινίκου,] Δεξίμαχος Εὐρυκλέους, Ξένων Ἀν̣[ - - - - ] Δεξίμαχος Πρατόλα, Περικλ̣ῆς̣ Λ̣[ - - - - ] W. Kolbe proposait Γόρ̣γι̣π[̣ πος] à la ligne 25 de la colonne III. Le réexamen de la pierre nous a permis de lire Γοργιππίδ[ - - ], qu’il faut compléter en Γοργιππίδ[ας]. Les noms Lysinicus et Gorgippid[as] (lignes 24 et 25) rappellent évidemment ceux des deux Philadelphes de IG V (1) 509. Ainsi le stemma de la famille des Memmii (II) doit être recomposé à partir de la paire Lysinicus – Gorgippid[as] de IG V (1) 141 et des deux Memmii Philadelphes, Publius Memmius Lysinicus et Publius Memmius Gorgippidas de IG V (1) 509. La rareté de ces anthroponymes nous amène aussi à suggérer que les deux paires homonymes sont à identifier comme une seule et même paire de frères11. Que les deux paidia des lignes 24–5 de la colonne III soient deux frères est d’autant plus évident que la liste de paidia mentionne plusieurs autres paires de paidia de même famille. L’ordre des noms suggère que Lysinicus était le plus âgé des deux. Suite à cette identification des deux paires de frères comme une seule, on est aussi en droit de reconnaître le père de Lysinicus et Gorgippid[as] dans le Λυσίνικ[ος Σωτη]ρίδα connu par une inscription datée

  Spawforth 1992, 228–9.   Hp. ap. Ph. 1. 26 ; Golden 1990, 14–16 note que chez les auteurs attiques “[f]urther elaboration is required to give even paidion and paidarion the meaning “small child” unequivocally, an adjective or a descriptive phrase”.    Woodward 1948, 241 a restauré le patronyme Σωτηρίδα sur base de SEG XI 679, restitution acceptée dans Rizakis–Zoumbaki–Lepenioti 2004, 366. 10   Nous avons numéroté le texte en fonction de la correction du texte par Spawforth 1985, 195 et 197. Le Λ̣ de la ligne 27 pourrait être un Α ou Δ. 11   Pour la rareté des noms, on renvoie au LGPN. On ne connaît pas de Lysinicus ou de Gorgippidas ailleurs que dans le Péloponnèse et majoritairement à Sparte. Il serait étonnant que deux générations successives de frères aient strictement porté les mêmes noms comme le défend l’hypothèse retenue dans Rizakis–Zoumbaki–Lepenioti 2004, 366–7.  

186

J.-S. Balzat

and

A. J. S. Spawforth

d’un peu avant l’ère chrétienne par son éditeur A. M. Woodward12. Ce Lysinicus aurait, selon les restitutions, reçu rien moins qu’un sacerdoce héréditaire des Dioscures suite à la générosité dont il fit preuve envers les divinités13. On devrait alors restituer le patronyme Λυσινίκου pour les Lysinicus et Gorgippid[as] aux lignes 24–5 de la colonne III du catalogue de paidia IG V (1) 141 et non Σωτηρίδα comme le pensait A. M. Woodward, qui n’avait pas fait la connexion entre les deux paires d’homonymes.

Premiers Memmii (II) à Sparte Cette nouvelle reconstruction entraîne des conséquences pour l’histoire de la famille. La première concerne directement les circonstances dans lesquelles se déroula l’octroi de la citoyenneté romaine aux deux Memmii Lysinicus (II) et Gorgippidas. L’inscription IG V (1) 509 doit être datée après 35 ap. J.-C. sur base du début de l’entrée en fonction de Publius Memmius Regulus, patron de la famille. On a proposé de dater le catalogue de paidia IG V (1) 141 des années 30–20 av. J.-C. grâce à la mention de deux enfants d’Euryclès, contemporain d’Auguste14. En tout cas, cette inscription est vraisemblablement à ranger dans la catégorie des catalogues de Sparte qui font écho à la restauration religieuse menée par Auguste à Rome15. D’autre part, l’inscription, malheureusement perdue, des Agrippiastes de Sparte montre qu’un Deximachus fils d’un Pratolaus était princeps de l’association en l’honneur d’Agrippa en 16 av. J.-C. ou peu après selon la titulature d’Agrippa16. Si ce Deximachus est correctement identifié avec l’homonyme fils de Pratolaus attesté dans le catalogue de paidia IG V (1) 141 (II, ligne 18), on peut affirmer que ce dernier document est dans tous les cas antérieur à 15–10 av. J.-C. Une telle reconstruction amène donc à penser qu’ils reçurent la citoyenneté romaine de Publius Memmius Regulus durant son gouvernement sur la région entre 35 et 44 ap. J.-C. alors qu’ils avaient peut-être déjà plus d’une soixantaine d’années. L’intérêt de cette reconstruction est qu’ils possèdent tous deux la citoyenneté romaine. Avant de pouvoir supposer l’existence de deux octrois viritanes de la citoyenneté romaine par l’empereur à deux frères, on devrait d’abord se demander – depuis ce que l’on sait de l’attribution individuelle de la citoyenneté romaine – si ce n’est pas leur père, dénommé Lysinicus (I), qui aurait reçu la citoyenneté romaine, et si l’octroi n’aurait pas par conséquent bénéficié indirectement à ses fils17. L’hypothèse d’un octroi à Lysinicus (I) père est cependant difficile à tenir si l’on s’en tient à la chronologie suggérée ci-dessus. En effet, jeunes gens vers 15–10 av. J.-C., Lysinicus (II) et Gorgippidas auraient dû jouir de l’existence de leur père, un contemporain d’Euryclès et d’Auguste, au-delà de l’année 35 ap. J.-C. Il est donc plus raisonnable de croire à deux octrois viritanes de la citoyenneté romaine par l’intermédiaire du gouverneur Publius Memmius Regulus.   Woodward 1926, 247–9 (SEG XI 679). Il faut également reconnaître un membre de la même famille dans le Λυσίνικος Σωτηρίδα de l’inscription IG V (1) 26. W. Kolbe a daté cette inscription du 2ème ou du 1er siècle av. J.-C. par la forme des lettres. A. M. Woodward y a donc reconnu le grand-père du Lysinicus de SEG XI 679. 13   Sur ce prêtre voir Hupfloher 2000, 114–15 et Balzat (à paraître). 14   Spawforth 1985, 193–5. 15   Cartledge–Spawforth 2002, 99. 16   IG V (1) 374. Pour la datation voir Rizakis–Zoumbaki–Lepenioti 2004, 466–7. 17   Pour une argumentation similaire utilisée pour discuter qui était le bénéficiaire de l’octroi de la citoyenneté romaine dans une famille de Milet, voir Ferrary 2005, 59. 12

‘Becoming Roman’

187

Il vaut le peine de commenter les termes philadelphos/on qualifiant les deux frères. W. Kolbe les considérait comme des noms de personne et le Lexicon of Greek Personal Names assure d’autre part que Φιλάδελφος, littéralement ‘celui qui aime son frère ou sa sœur’, est bien attesté comme nom de personne dans les documents grecs d’époque tardive mais cependant pas à Sparte. Le terme apparaît également comme second cognomen chez des Orientaux possédant la citoyenneté romaine. C’est le cas par exemple de ‘P. Claudius Attalus Philadelphus’, un citoyen de Laodicée du Lycos de l’époque d’Hadrien18. Dans notre cas cependant, vu que Lysinicus (II) et Gorgippidas n’étaient pas des citoyens romains de naissance, on devrait imaginer, dans le cas où ‘Philadelphos’ serait ici un nom de personne, qu’ils avaient acquis celui-ci comme un second nom au sein même de leur famille ou bien dans un autre contexte, pendant qu’ils étaient encore peregrini. De tels surnoms sont extrêmement rares dans la Sparte d’époque romaine19. De plus, cette insistance sur les liens fraternels qui existaient entre les deux frères durant leur vie aurait été très inhabituelle, tout au moins en Grèce, bien que dans notre cas, elle pourrait éventuellement s’expliquer comme une référence aux Dioscures pour lesquels leur père était en charge d’une prêtrise héréditaire si l’on en croit la reconstruction ci-dessus. Une autre explication peut peut-être se révéler plus convaincante. On connaît un certain nombre d’individus qualifiés de philadelphos dans un contexte privé et familial grâce à des inscriptions funéraires grecques. Les exemples comprennent le Timon enterré à Thasos par son frère Timée qui qualifie le défunt de φιλάδελφος (2ème–1er s. av. J.-C.) ; les deux filles décrites par leurs parents en deuil comme ταῖς φι[λ]α̣δέλφαις (époque romaine, Bithynie) ; et les quatre frères qualifiés de φιλαδέλφων sur un héroon de Milet (également d’époque romaine)20. Nous suggérons donc que la présence du terme ‘Philadelphos’ ou ‘philadelphos’ (adjectif) dans l’inscription de Sparte s’explique partiellement, si pas entièrement, par le contexte funéraire du monument : selon toute vraisemblance une statue qui surmontait une base inscrite, élevée au-dessus ou à côté du tombeau de Gorgippidas.

Damosthenia et son époux Tibérius Claudius Novius du dème d’Oion L’identification des deux paires de Lysinicus (II) et Gorgippidas comme une seule et même paire de frères a encore une autre conséquence pour l’histoire familiale. Elle concerne Damostheneia, traditionnellement considérée comme leur sœur. L’absence de gentilice pour celle-ci dans l’inscription IG V (1) 509 peut s’expliquer aisément : si la concession de la citoyenneté romaine avait affecté son père et ses descendants, celle-ci devait déjà être hors de l’oikos paternel lors de la concession. Si les octrois étaient destinés à ses frères, elle n’était tout simplement pas en droit de bénéficier de la citoyenneté romaine qui se transmettait seulement aux descendants directs21. Quelle que soit l’explication retenue, les deux hypothèses respectent bien finalement le cadre   SEG XXXVII 961, 16 (Claros).   Un cas manifeste est celui du magistrat Callicratès fils d’Eudamidas, qualifié de Μωλόχι(ο)ς : IG V (1) 85, 13–15 et SEG XI 528, 6 (2ème siècle ap. J.-C.). 20   GVI 761 ; SEG XLI 1117 (Sébastopolis, Pont) ; SEG XL 1020 (Teichioussa, Milet). 21   Comme on va le voir, Damosthenia apparaît également sans gentilice dans ID 1629. Il aurait été très étonnant si elle avait possédé la citoyenneté romaine que l’on n’ait pas mentionné ici son gentilice d’autant plus qu’elle avait pris pour époux un notable récemment élevé au rang de citoyen romain. Il faut selon nous écarter l’éventualité d’une restitution d’un quelconque gentilice pour Damostheneia dans IG V (1) 509 contrairement à Byrne, RCA 356 et Rizakis–Zoumbaki–Lepenioti 2004, 347. Nous conservons la lecture de W. Kolbe. 18 19

188

J.-S. Balzat

and

A. J. S. Spawforth

chronologique de la famille établi ci-dessus : Publius Memmius Lysinicus (II) et Publius Memmius Gorgippidas peuvent avoir reçu la citoyenneté romaine à plus d’une soixantaine d’années et il est dès lors très probable que leur (?) sœur fût déjà mariée au moment où ils reçurent tous deux la citoyenneté romaine entre 35 et 44 ap. J.-C. Cette reconstruction chronologique amène cependant à se demander si Damostheneia est bien, comme on l’a pensé jusqu’à présent, la sœur des P. Memmii Lysinicus (II) et Gorgippidas. Un obstacle chronologique sérieux à l’interprétation en ce sens des liens de familles entre les trois personnages de IG V (1) 509 se situe dans le fait qu’une Damosthenia, fille de Lysinicus, est attestée dans une inscription de Délos datée des alentours de 50 ap. J.-C. comme la femme du prêtre d’Apollon Délien, le bien connu Tibérius Claudius Novius d’Oion22. ῾Ο δῆμος ὁ Ἀθηναίων καὶ οἱ κατοικοῦντες ἐν τῆι ἱερᾷ Δῆλωι Δαμοσθενίαν Λυσινίκου Μαραθωνίαν, τὴν γυναῖκα ἱερέως Τιβερίου Κλαυδίου Νουίου, ἆθλον εὐταξίας, Ἀπόλλωνι, Ἀρτέμιδι, Λητοῖ L’identification de la Damostheneia de Sparte avec celle de Délos est bien assurée du fait de la rareté des noms Damosthen(e)ia et Lysinicus23. L’absence du gentilice Claudia dans l’inscription de Délos indiquerait volontiers que le mariage avec Tibérius Claudius Novius d’Oion avait cependant pris place après l’acquisition de la citoyenneté romaine par celui-ci, c’est-à-dire après 41/42 ap. J.-C24. Cependant, si les deux frères Spartiates furent paidia dans les années 30–20 av. J.-C., il est difficile d’admettre qu’une de leurs sœurs pourrait avoir marié un Athénien dont la carrière s’échelonna sur les années 41–61/2 ap. J.-C. : Novius devait en toute vraisemblance appartenir à une génération plus jeune. Comme il est vraisemblable que son épouse doit avoir été du même âge que lui ou même plus jeune, la date de la naissance de celle-ci pourrait donc s’être située au plus tôt dans la décade 1–10 ap. J.-C. Selon cette interprétation, il serait préférable d’identifier le père de Damosthen(e)ia, dénommé Lysinicus, avec le P. Memmius Lysinicus (II) d’IG V (1) 509 plutôt que de l’identifier avec le père homonyme de ce dernier25. On note finalement qu’aucun fils du défunt Gorgippidas ne prit part à sa commémoration, vraisemblablement parce qu’il n’en avait aucun ou, du moins, aucun au moment de son décès. S’il incomba bien à P. Memmius Lysinicus (II) d’enterrer son frère, cela doit signifier qu’il était son parent le plus proche. Vu qu’il n’y a pas non plus de mention d’un fils de Lysinicus (II) au moment du décès de Gorgippidas, Damostheneia peut avoir été son héritière. Si c’est le cas, son implication à un moment crucial dans les affaires de sa famille paternelle s’explique d’autant mieux, même s’il soulève, sur l’interprétation offerte ci-dessus, la question des transmissions de patrimoine entre citoyens romains et pérégrins d’une même famille.   ID 1629. Voir Follet 1976, 161 (datation) et Spawforth 1996, 236–7 (identification).   Rizakis–Zoumbaki–Lepenioti 2004, 347 n’ont ni retenu ni discuté cette identification acceptée cependant par le LGPN. Toutes les attestations du nom Damostheneia connues du LGPN, 9 au total, viennent du Péloponnèse, et majoritairement de Sparte. 24   Comme d’autres exemples nous le montrent, la concession de la citoyenneté romaine inclut dans certains cas en plus du pérégrin à qui est octroyé le privilège, son épouse et ses descendants ainsi que ses parents. Voir par exemple le dossier de Séleucos de Rhosus (Raggi 2007). Pour la carrière de Novius, voir Byrne, RCA XIV–XV et 170–3. 25   La restitution des lignes 6–7 de IG V (1) 509 reste en effet ouverte. Une autre restitution pourrait être τὸν | [ἥρωα]. 22 23

‘Becoming Roman’

189

L’inscription de Délos mérite quant à elle d’être commentée sur deux autres points relatifs à Damosthenia. Le premier est sa qualification de ‘Marathonienne’. Kapetanopoulos avait déjà remarqué l’étrangeté de la formule onomastique de Damosthenia : elle était fille de Lysinicus (II) et Marathonienne26. Or il est sûr que si son père avait été athénien, elle aurait dû apparaître comme Damosthenia fille de Lysinicus (II), suivi du dème de son père – ici ‘Marathonien’27. Ce n’est pas à la femme qu’était attribué le démotique à Athènes28. Elle devait donc avoir établi d’une manière ou d’une autre des liens particuliers avec le dème de Marathon. Pour Geagan, “Damosthenia’s civic status must have been through a special grant”29. La chose pourrait en fait s’expliquer par mariage entre familles de Sparte et de Marathon : il est possible que Damosthenia ait été mariée à un pérégrin athénien inscrit dans le dème de Marathon lors d’un premier mariage. Ce serait alors seulement en secondes noces qu’elle aurait épousé Tibérius Claudius Novius d’Oion fils de Philinos. Une telle hypothèse invite cependant à s’interroger sur les raisons qui avaient poussé les concepteurs de l’inscription de Délos à conserver le lien marathonien de Damosthenia. Une telle mise en évidence du démotique pourrait peut-être partiellement s’expliquer en souvenir d’anciens liens de culte qui reliaient Apollon Délien et Marathon. Ce dernier était en effet l’un des quatre dèmes qui constituaient une antique association religieuse dans le Nord-est de l’Attique, l’ainsi nommée Tétrapolis, qui possédait son propre Délion ou sanctuaire d’Apollon Délien (à Marathon) et qui envoyait sa propre théorie à Délos au début de l’époque hellénistique30. Comme association de culte, la Tétrapolis était encore attestée en 98/7 av. J.-C., alors que ces représentants prenaient part aux Pythaïdes, ambassades sacrées envoyées par les Athéniens à Delphes durant la basse époque hellénistique. Delphes était l’autre grand sanctuaire international d’Apollon avec lequel les Tétrapolitains jouissaient d’antiques liens31. Si c’est bien dans cette direction qu’il nous faut chercher, l’invocation du lien marathonien de Damostheneia ne pourrait peut-être être rien de plus que la trace d’une religiosité archaïsante de la part de ceux qui conçurent les honneurs déliens de Damostheneia. L’inscription de Délos n’est pas en soi la preuve que les antiques liens de la Tétrapolis avec Délos subsistaient ou avaient été ravivés vers le milieu du 1er siècle ap. J.-C., mais rien n’empêche cependant que ceux-ci aient encore été actifs, étant donné que les rapports cultuels qui liaient la Tétrapolis à Delphes étaient encore vivants dans les années 90 av. J.-C. Il est aussi possible que Damostheneia elle-même ait été d’une façon ou d’une autre impliquée dans le culte de la Tétrapolis. Dans cette perspective, il vaut la peine de rappeler quels étaient les cercles que sa famille paternelle fréquentait dans la Sparte d’époque romaine, cercles où s’exprimait d’ailleurs une piété adhérente aux cultes traditionnels de la cité. Son grand-père supposé, Lysinicus (I) fils de Soteridas, paraît avoir joué un rôle décisif dans le rétablissement d’un des cultes spartiates des Dioscures32. Comme jeunes enfants, les fils de ce dernier, Lysinicus (II) et Gorgippidas, avaient pris part aux rites publics menés par les hiérothytes spartiates à l’instar d’autres enfants issus de l’aristocratie, parmi   Kapetanopoulos 1970, 564, Geagan 1979, 288 et Spawforth 1996, 237.   Notons aussi le ā de son nom. 28   Vatin 1970, 116. 29   Geagan 1979, 280. 30   Philochoros FGrHist 328 F 75. 31   Parker 1996, 331–2 ; 2005, 82–3 ; Daux 1936, 532–40 et 549–51. 32   Hupfloher 2000, 107–24. 26 27

190

J.-S. Balzat

and

A. J. S. Spawforth

lesquels le paidion Alcimus fils de Socleidas qui descendait d’un antique lignage ayant des liens héréditaires avec Delphes où il fut d’ailleurs honoré comme proxène vers 23 ap. J.-C33. Une possibilité supplémentaire, qui ne doit pas nécessairement exclure les précédentes, demande de s’interroger plus en avant sur le premier mariage de Damostheneia. Sous Auguste, la prêtrise athénienne d’Apollon Délien était occupée par Pamménès de Marathon, fils de Zénon, un membre important d’une famille athénienne bien connue. La prêtrise passa par la suite au fils de Pamménès, un autre Zénon (V), dont la naissance était située par D. Geagan vers 13/12 av. J.-C. Le statut de ‘Marathonienne’ de Damostheneia, quel que soit le mécanisme par lequel il fut officiellement accordé, commémorait peut-être un premier mariage avec ce même Zénon (V), dont l’orientation ‘romaine’ de la famille athénienne et le statut sacerdotal complétaient comme il se devait les origines familiales de la Lacédémonienne Damostheneia. Après la mort de Zénon (sous Claude ?), la veuve (qui était sans enfant ?) demeura à Athènes où elle épousa une autre figure importante : Novius. Ce faisant, elle facilitait – et peut-être en un sens légitimait – la réaffectation par la cité de la prêtrise délienne de son défunt mari à son nouvel époux. Dans ce scénario, les honneurs déliens pour Damostheneia comme épouse du nouveau prêtre d’Apollon Délien peuvent bien avoir fait allusion au contexte ‘dynastique’ dans lequel la prêtrise en vint à être transmise de l’ancien au présent titulaire34. Le texte délien soulève une dernière difficulté que les éditeurs antérieurs n’ont pas commentée. Il s’agit de l’ἆθλον εὐταξίας de la ligne 4. Du fait de la syntaxe de la phrase, il est improbable que nous soyons ici en présence d’une sorte de formule condensée qui ferait référence à une victoire au sens propre de l’honorant dans un ἀγών τῆς εὐταξίας. Des concours de ‘bonne conduite’ sont bien attestés, y compris sur l’île de Délos elle-même, mais ils le sont dans le milieu du gymnase grec35. Il nous a été suggéré que la formule ἆθλον εὐταξίας apparaît être une apposition, non à Damosthenia elle-même, mais à l’ensemble de la phrase. Ce seraient donc la statue et sa base qui auraient été la récompense offerte à Damosthenia par les Athéniens et les résidents de l’île pour la démonstration de son eutaxia. Ce dernier terme se retrouve chez Plutarque pour qualifier l’épouse ‘attachée à ses devoirs’, mais également dans plusieurs inscriptions honorifiques ou funéraires, en prose et en vers, en l’honneur de femmes36. Il sert à décrire une vertu féminine “qui consiste à rester à la place fixée par les convenances et à jouer exactement le rôle imposé par la société”37. On ne sait dans quel contexte précis Damosthenia déploya toute l’envergure de son eutaxia, mais les occasions offertes à l’épouse d’un prêtre d’Apollon pour faire apprécier des Athéniens et des résidents de l’île sa conduite publique ne devaient pas manquer.

Conclusion Pour finir, il vaut la peine d’en revenir à la citoyenneté romaine. Le mariage entre une pérégrine et Tibérius Claudius Novius d’Oion qui était sur le point de devenir l’un des personnages les plus   Spawforth 1985, 197.   Les détails sur Zeno (V) et sa famille dans Geagan 1992. 35   Crowther 1991 qui, dans son catalogue de témoignages inclut ID 1958 (2ème s. av. J.-C.) qui mentionne un vainqueur dans un concours délien d’eutaxia. 36   Plu., Alc. 8. 4. Voir les références aux inscriptions et à Plutarque rassemblées par Vérilhac 1985, 103–4. Voir encore D.Chr. xxxiii 48. 37   Vérilhac 1985, 103. 33 34

‘Becoming Roman’

191

importants de son époque pose évidemment question : d’éventuels enfants du couple n’auraient pas été citoyens romains aussi longtemps qu’elle aurait conservé son statut de pérégrine38. C’est une éventuelle requête à l’empereur qui lui aurait permis d’acquérir la ‘citoyenneté’ romaine pour elle-même ou pour ses enfants, ou du moins le ius conubii. En réalité, le but de ce mariage n’était peut-être pas la constitution d’une descendance, mais bien l’accroissement de la dignitas d’un Novius dont les origines sociales sont floues. À la différence d’une famille comme celle des Claudii de Marathon qui joua un rôle important pour la cité dès avant le milieu du 1er siècle av. J.-C. et qui, malgré une période de ‘relatif effacement’ de Caligula à Vespasien, s’imposa définitivement comme une famille majeure de l’Athènes du 2ème siècle, Novius est le seul représentant important connu de sa famille à un moment même où la citoyenneté romaine est encore peu répandue parmi les hauts magistrats athéniens39. Kapetanopoulos a proposé d’identifier ses ancêtres directs, son père et son grand-père, dans un catalogue de la tribu Léontis40. En proposant de raccorder IG II² 2301 et IG III 3882, Follet a aussi récemment fait apparaître un nouvel archonte du nom de Phi[li]nus41. La datation de la pierre au milieu du 1er siècle apr. J.-C. pourrait en faire un membre de la famille de Novius, mais le nom est trop commun pour en avoir la certitude. On ne connaît d’autre part quasiment rien des descendants de Tibérius Claudius Novius malgré sa carrière exceptionnelle. Kapetanopoulos a proposé de reconnaître un de ses descendants en la personne de Philinus d’Oion42. Quoi qu’il en soit, il est sûr que certains néo-citoyens romains du fait de leur mariage avec une pérégrine ne purent transmettre le statut de citoyen romain, ce qui put mener à l’effacement de certaines familles. D’autre part, il est difficile de nier l’origine latine du nom même de Novius malgré les remarques de Kapetanopoulos43. Si l’on reconnaît que le choix d’un tel nom dans une famille athénienne de cette époque ne révèle effectivement pas sur-le-champ des liens de mariage avec une famille de negotiatores italiens, il ne fait aucun doute cependant qu’il démontre une attitude consciente d’afficher une certaine Romanitas. C’est d’ailleurs ce que confirme toute la carrière de Novius, depuis sa candidature à la citoyenneté romaine au début des années 40 – candidature qu’il fut l’un des premiers à soumettre parmi l’élite dirigeante de la cité – jusqu’à la proposition d’honorer Néron dans un coin de l’Acropole dédié aux guerres contre les Perses44. Ajoutons que, si l’on a correctement identifié certains de ces ancêtres dans le catalogue de la tribu Léontis, il est frappant que le catalogue enregistre aussi plusieurs noms d’origine latine et certains d’entre eux sont bien des citoyens romains naturalisés athéniens45. On sait aussi que des familles importantes d’Achaïe ont entretenu des liens étroits avec des familles d’origine italienne. Ce fut le cas des 38   Voir sur les mariages mixtes Treggiari 1991, 43–9. Plusieurs inscriptions et papyri témoignent de ce phénomène : Taubenschlag 1972, 106 n. 15 et 108 n. 18. 39   Sur ‘l’effacement relatif’ des ancêtres d’Hérode Atticus : Follet 2007, 124. 40   IG II² 2461, 11–12. Kapetanopoulos 1970, 563–4. L’inscription serait de 30–1 av. J.-C. : Byrne, RCA 456. 41   Follet 2007, 118. 42   IG II² 3994 = 7011. Kapetanopoulos 1970, 563 avec Geagan 1979, 280 n. 8. 43   Kapetanopoulos 1970, 563–4. Voir RE s.v. Novius, col. 1214–15 (Münzer). Pour Oliver 1950, 95, le gentilice est un gentilice campanien, mais ajoute après avoir émis l’hypothèse d’un mariage, l’alternative que “his father moved in these circles”. Solin–Salomies 1994, 128. Voir aussi Spawforth 1997, 189. Le nom Novius est enregistré 5 fois dans LGPN II. 4 attestations sont d’époque impériale, l’une du 3ème s. av. J.-C. Pour le reste du LGPN, on connaît une attestation en Achaïe en 146 av. J.-C., et d’autres en Italie du Sud. 44   Spawforth 1996, 234. Voir aussi son rôle dans la promotion du culte impérial Kantiréa 2007, 175–8. 45   IG II² 2461A, 6 [Λε]ύκιος Ποπίλλιος et ligne 23 Πόπλιος Τυρράνιος qui apparaît aussi à la ligne 4 de IG II² 2462 pour n’en citer que deux du dème d’Oion. Voir Hatzfeld 1919, 75 n. 5 et 12.

and

A. J. S. Spawforth

∫

J.-S. Balzat

∫

192

Figure 1. Stemma des Memmii (II).

Claudii de Marathon et d’une importante famille de Messène46. C’était que certaines d’entre elles devaient avoir la respectabilité suffisante pour se lier avec l’aristocratie traditionnelle achéenne. Ainsi une éventuelle proximité avec les milieux italiens d’Athènes, les liens de patronage avec de puissants Romains, notamment Publius Memmius Regulus pour qui il éleva une inscription honorifique sur ses propres deniers avant même d’avoir reçu la citoyenneté romaine, et la citoyenneté romaine elle-même avaient vraisemblablement permis à Novius une élévation aussi rapide qu’inattendue dans la société athénienne de son temps47. Plusieurs éléments permettent d’autre part de dire qu’aux yeux des Athéniens, Novius possédait aussi les signes visibles de son appartenance au groupe des protoi de sa propre cité. Car, tout en affichant les claires marques de sa citoyenneté romaine dans l’inscription IG II² 1990, il pouvait également revendiquer sa victoire au concours du ‘meilleur des Grecs’ à Platées. Il n’y avait rien de contradictoire à l’idée de se présenter à la fois comme le ‘meilleur des Grecs’ et comme citoyen romain. Son épouse   Spawforth 2002.   Voir Geagan 1979 pour d’autres liens avec d’importants Romains. Novius avait aussi préféré prendre le gentilice Claudius malgré sa proximité avec le gouverneur Regulus, qui n’était autre que le patron de son beau-père (?), Publius Memmius Lysinicus (II).

46 47

‘Becoming Roman’

193

Damosthenia était aussi au final originaire de la Sparte de Lycurgue, tout en affichant le prestige du dème de Marathon. Ce n’est donc peut-être pas un hasard si Tibérius Claudius Novius d’Oion fut l’un des premiers magistrats athéniens à afficher sa citoyenneté romaine si publiquement48.

Références bibliographiques Balzat, J.-S. (à paraître) ‘Prosopographie des prêtres et prêtresses des Dioscures dans la Sparte d’époque impériale’, in A. Rizakis (ed.), Roman Peloponnese III. Athens / Paris. Cartledge, P. and Spawforth, A. J. S. (2002) Hellenistic and Roman Sparta. A Tale of Two Cities. 2nd edn., London. Crowther, N. B. (1991) ‘Euexia, Eutaxia, Philoponia : Three Contests of the Greek Gymnasium’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 85, 301–304. Daux, G. (1936) Delphes au IIe et au Ier siècle : depuis l’abaissement de l’Étolie jusqu’à la paix romaine, 191–31 av. J.-C. Paris. Ferrary, J.-L. (2005) ‘Les Grecs des cités et l’obtention de la civitas romana’, in P. Fröhlich and C. Müller (eds), Citoyenneté et participation à la basse époque hellénistique. Geneva / Paris, 51–75. Follet, S. (1976) Athènes au IIe et au IIIe siècle : études chronologiques et prosopographiques. Paris. Follet, S. (2007) ‘Un nouvel archonte d’Athènes et les ancêtres d’Hérode Atticus au premier siècle de notre ère’, in Y. Perrin (ed.), Neronia VII. Rome, l’Italie et la Grèce. Hellénisme et philhellénisme au premier siècle ap. J.-C. Actes du Colloque international de la SIEN (2004 Athènes). Brussels, 117–125. Geagan, D. J. (1979) ‘Tib. Claudius Novius, the Hoplite Generalship and the Epimeleteia of the Free City of Athens’, American Journal of Philology 100, 279–287. Geagan, D. J. (1992) ‘A family of Marathon and social mobility in Athens of the first century BC’, Phoenix 46, 23–44. Geagan, D. J. (1997) ‘The Athenian Elite: Romanization, Resistance, and the Exercise of Power’, in Hoff– Rotroff 1997, 19–32. Golden, M. (1990) Childhood in Classical Athens. Baltimore / London. Groag, E. (1939) Die römischen Reichsbeamten von Achaia bis auf Diokletian. Vienna / Leipzig. Hatzfeld, J. (1919) Les trafiquants italiens dans l’Orient hellénique. Paris. Hoff, M. C and Rotroff, S. I. (eds) (1997) The Romanization of Athens. Proceedings of an International Conference held at Lincoln, Nebraska (April 1996). Oxford. Hupfloher, A. (2000) Kulte im Kaiserzeitlichen Sparta. Eine Rekonstruktion anhand der Priesterämter. Berlin. Kantiréa, M. (2007) Les dieux et les dieux augustes. Le culte impérial en Grèce sous les Julio-Claudiens et les Flaviens. Études épigraphiques et archéologiques. Athens / Paris. Kapetanopoulos, E. (1970) ‘Some observations on “Roman Athens”’, Historia 19, 561–564. Lozano Gómez, F. (2007) ‘La promoción social a través del culto imperial: el caso de Tiberio Claudio Novio en Atenas’, HABIS 38, 185–203. Oliver, J. H. (1950) The Athenian Expounders of the Sacred and Ancestral Law. Baltimore. Parker, R. (1996) Athenian Religion. A History. Oxford. Parker, R. (2005) Polytheism and Society at Athens. Oxford. Raggi, A. (2006) Seleuco di Rhosos : cittadinenza e privilegi nell’oriente greco in età tardo repubblicana. Pisa.   Peu avant lui, sous Caligula, on peut mentionner Gaius Silius Polycritus, pour lequel J. H. Oliver a aussi soupçonné, sur base de son gentilice, des liens avec des Italiens résidents. Mais voir Byrne, RCA 436. En réalité, la citoyenneté de cette famille athénienne dérive vraisemblablement du patronage de l’éminente famille romaine qui comptait parmi ses membres C. Silius A. Caecina Largus (cos. ord. 13 ap. J.-C.) et l’infortuné C. Silius, amant de Messaline (cos. des. 49 ap. J.-C.). Sur la citoyenneté romaine accordée aux élites grecques, nous renvoyons le lecteur à la thèse de doctorat en préparation à Newcastle University (J.-S. Balzat). 48

194

J.-S. Balzat

and

A. J. S. Spawforth

Rizakis, A. D., Zoumbaki, S. and Lepenioti, C. (2004) Roman Peloponnese. II, Roman Personal Names in their Social Context (Laconia and Messenia). Athens / Paris. Solin, H. and Salomies, O. (1994) Repertorium nominum gentilicum et cognominum latinorum. Hildesheim. Spawforth, A. J. S. (1985) ‘Families at Roman Sparta and Epidaurus’, Annual of the British School at Athens 80, 196–253. Spawforth, A. J. S. (1992) ‘Spartan cults under the Roman empire: some notes’, in J. M. Sanders (ed.), ΦΙΛΟΛΑΚΩΝ. Lakonian Studies in Honour of Hector Catling. London, 227–238. Spawforth, A. J. S. (1994) ‘Symbol of Unity ? The Persian-Wars Tradition in the Roman Empire’, in S. Hornblower (ed.), Greek Historiography. Oxford, 233–247. Spawforth, A. J. S. (1997) ‘The Early Reception of the Imperial Cult in Athens : Problems and Ambiguities’, in Hoff–Rotroff 1997, 183–201. Spawforth, A. J. S. (2002) ‘Italian Elements among Roman Knights and Senators from Old Greece’, in C. Müller and C. Hasenohr (eds), Les Italiens dans le monde grec. IIe siècle av. J.-C. – Ier siècle ap. J.-C. Circulations, Activités, Intégration. Actes de la Table ronde, École Normale Supérieure, Paris 14–16 mai 1998. Paris, 101–107. Taubenschlag, R. (1972) The Law of Greco-Roman Egypt in the light of the Papyri. 2nd edn., Milan. Treggiari, S. (1991) Roman marriage. Iusti Coniuges from the Time of Cicero to the Time of Ulpian. Oxford. Vatin, C. (1970) Recherches sur le mariage et la condition de la femme mariée à l’époque hellénistique. Paris. Vérilhac, A.-M. (1985) ‘L’image de la femme dans les épigrammes funéraires grecques’, in A.-M. Vérilhac (ed.), La femme dans le monde méditerranéen. 1, Antiquité. Lyon, 85–112. Woodward, A. M. (1926) ‘Excavations at Sparta, § 3: The Inscriptions’, Annual of the British School at Athens 27, 210–254. Woodward, A. M. (1948) ‘Inscriptiones Graecae, V 1: Some Afterthoughts’, Annual of the British School at Athens 43, 209–259.

SPARTA’S FRIENDS AT EPHESOS THE ONOMASTIC EVIDENCE R. W. V. Catling

A significant number of personal names attested at Ephesos, mainly in the fourth century, appear to bear witness to ties of xenia between prominent Spartans and their Ephesian counterparts. While many of these names can be related to eminent Spartans from the time of the Ionian war and the period of the Spartan ascendancy that followed, some of these relationships are probably older, perhaps as early as the Archaic period. These connections are placed in the context of Ephesos’ special place in western Asia Minor, especially its close relations with its non-Greek neighbours and in particular the Lydian and Persian rulers of western Asia Minor, and the long history of Spartan links with southern Ionia. It is suggested that relationships of this kind were rarely made with the Spartan kings or their most senior commanders, while there is no evidence for Spartans reciprocating by naming their sons after their Ephesian friends. In a famous and picturesque scene set in the grassy meadows of Hellespontine Phrygia, somewhere not far from the satrapal palace at Daskyleion and the Achaemenid paradeisos by the shores of lake Daskyleitis, Xenophon (HG iv 1. 29–40) describes the meeting in late winter 395/4 between King Agesilaos of Sparta and his thirty Spartan companions with the Persian satrap Pharnabazos and his retinue. The meeting had been arranged by their joint friend (xenos) Apollophanes of neighbouring Kyzikos who was keen to reconcile the two parties. Various formalities were observed in its course, the preliminary verbal greetings and shaking of hands, the precedence in speaking given to the elder Pharnabazos, and, after the speeches, the sealing of their understanding with renewed shaking of hands and warm words addressed to Pharnabazos by the Spartan before the meeting broke up. As Pharnabazos was departing on his horse, an unnamed son of his, apparently overcome by the occasion, lagged behind and ran up to Agesilaos. He then, in heroic and suitably laconic fashion, made a formal declaration of his friendship, Ξένον σε, ὦ Ἀγησίλαε, ποιοῦμαι (‘I make you my xenos, Agesilaos!’). Without waiting for an answer, he breathlessly announced his acceptance of Agesilaos’ friendship and told him to remember the relationship, Ἐγὼ δέ γε δέχομαι. Μέμνησό νυν (‘I accept you. Remember!’). There then followed   I am indebted to a number of people for their help and advice in writing this paper, especially Stephen Hodkinson, Simon Hornblower, Michael Kerschner, Philip Kinns, Gerald Schaus, Nicholas Sekunda, and Dyfri Williams. All dates are BC unless otherwise stated.    The same episode was apparently related with much less charm by Theopompos: FGrHist 115 F 21. 

196

R. W. V. Catling

an improvised exchange of gifts, the young Persian giving Agesilaos a fine javelin (παλτός), Agesilaos responding by giving him the splendid trappings (φάλαρα) from the horse of Idaios, his secretary, after which the youth leapt on his horse and rejoined his father. Xenophon goes on to say that Agesilaos later fulfilled his part in the relationship when the Persian was exiled by his brother, providing for his needs and more. This episode, so full of epic resonances, encapsulates nicely certain aspects of xenia, normally translated as ‘guest-friendship’ but involving a much more profound relationship and set of reciprocal obligations than this might suggest. In the first place it is a xenos of the two belligerents who acts as intermediary and establishes a temporary truce that allows the parley to proceed. It also depicts the making of a new tie of xenia, the formulaic expressions of making and accepting the relationship and the exchange of gifts of precious personal possessions used to seal it, albeit of an impromptu nature which presumably was not typical of the normal formalities. And finally it looks forward to the time that the tie was honoured by Agesilaos in his xenos’ time of need. The importance of personal relationships of this kind between members of the ruling classes from different Greek cities and between Greeks and barbarians in the Archaic and Classical periods has been emphasised in a number of recent studies and there is no need to repeat what has been said at greater length elsewhere. Suffice it to say that ties of xenia have been shown to be crucial elements in the maintenance and structuring of relations between cities and in the process of decision-making affecting foreign policy and diplomacy. Such relations were apparently more influential in states with long traditions of oligarchic government than in those such as Athens where the institutions of government were strong and popular participation diluted the influence of the wealthy aristocrats who were the principal participants in these networks of foreign connections. Sparta in particular, whose political institutions were much less developed, appears to have been prominent in the deployment of these private relations for public purposes. In a number of studies dealing either with the general phenomenon or specific cases the existence of these relationships has been shown to help explain specific decisions and actions. For example, in 1977 Christopher Tuplin drew attention to the importance of personal connections in explaining the workings of foreign policy and diplomacy between Sparta and Mantineia. In this he was followed five years later, in 1982, by Paul Cartledge in his investigation into the special relationship that existed between Sparta and Samos. He was able to explain Sparta’s curious decision c. 525 to help a group of Samian exiles in an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to overthrow the tyrant Polykrates by reference to a long standing obligation that may have gone back to the help rendered by the Samians to Sparta at the time of the Messenian wars. On this occasion a close relationship was established between a Spartan family and the Samians which was still maintained three generations later and may account for Spartan willingness to support the Samian revolt in 439. The case of Samos discussed by Cartledge was striking as there was no obvious tie of kinship, fictitious or real, binding the two states, unlike Sparta’s connections with its colonies such as Thera or Melos and the Theran colony of Cyrene, or other fellow Dorians.   Inter alios Finley 1978, 99–103; Gauthier 1972, 17–27; Herman 1987; Mitchell 1997.   Cartledge 1987, 81, 193, 196, 243–6, 264; Mitchell 1997, 55–65, 73–89, 118–127; Hodkinson 2000, 337–52; 2007, 48–9.    Tuplin 1977.    Cartledge 1982.

 

Sparta’s Friends

at

Ephesos

197

One important aspect of xenia that does not emerge from the episode described by Xenophon is the naming of children (invariably sons) after the name of the xenos. Thus, new strains of personal names were introduced into those families, and consequently into their cities. Indeed, Gabriel Herman has argued forcefully that it was through this practice, rather than intermarriage between foreigners, that new names entered a local repertoire. A good example, explicitly commented upon by Thucydides (viii 6. 3), is Alkibiades the Athenian whose name originated in a Spartan family with which his own had an ancestral tie of xenia. In addition to specific names of this kind, tying a man to a particular family in another city, there is also the class of ethnic personal names, usually given to bear witness to a family’s ties with a region or city.10 Thus, Kimon, the Athenian friend of Sparta, named one of his sons Lakedaimonios (Plu., Cim. 16), while the name Samios recurred in a Spartan family out of respect to the Samians for the exceptional honours awarded to Archias for his heroic death at Samos in 525 (Hdt. iii 25). Because these relationships were never formally recorded and had no legal status, unlike the official proxenoi (not infrequently one and the same as the xenoi) appointed to act in the interests of the citizens of another city, knowledge of them is based almost entirely on literary sources where they are generally mentioned in passing to explain someone’s actions or appointment to a military or diplomatic office overseas. So, an individual may be said to have had many xenoi but never who they all were, even if a few are explicitly mentioned elsewhere. In this context the evidence from the study of personal names and their distribution can make an important contribution to our knowledge of the wider functioning of such relationships. In particular it may bring out otherwise unsuspected patterns, revealing geographical and chronological concentrations which cry out for explanations.11 Unfortunately, by its nature this evidence is essentially speculative in that the connections are never made explicit, so that at best it allows us to deal with high probabilities rather than certainties. But where new evidence is always in short supply and greedily consumed, it is not to be neglected. The purpose of this paper is to draw attention to the personal links that existed between Sparta and Ephesos, one of the great cities of Ionia. The existence of these links is entirely based on the evidence of personal names and lacks the clear statements of the textual tradition, even if the contexts in which such relations developed are often clear enough or can be convincingly surmised. In many cases the existence of such a link is open to question, largely on account of the widespread frequency of the name. But there is a hard core of names which, taken together, can best be explained on the basis of personal relations between Spartans and Ephesians. The vast majority of the Ephesians are attested as the names of the officials on coins minted from 405 until the end of the fourth century, a good indication that the individuals in question belonged to the ruling class. Because the majority of these officials have names typical of Ionia, the ‘Spartan’ names stand out all the more noticeably. Apart from the numismatic material, there is remarkably little evidence, whether textual or epigraphic, for the prosopography of Ephesos before the second half of the fourth century, and very little of that relates to public officials. Sadly there is virtually nothing earlier than 405, so it is impossible to trace the history of these relations any earlier. The names will be discussed individually in alphabetic order, citing in the first place the   Herman 1987, 19–22.   Herman 1990.    This tie originated no later than c. 550: see APF 15–16. 10   See Fraser 2009, 215–24. 11   A good example is the study of ‘Spartan’ names in Thessaly: Sekunda 2008.  

198

R. W. V. Catling

evidence for Ephesians of the relevant name before going on to note the Spartan homonyms with whom they were most likely connected. The names are divided into two groups. First are those where the rarity of the name or the epichoric associations with Sparta are strong enough to leave little doubt of the existence of a connection. The second is made up of those where the banality of the name or its lack of a regional flavour make it much harder to prove the case. Finally, the contexts in which these links were made will be discussed and placed in a wider historical setting.

Group I Ephesians with names more or less certainly derived from Spartans 1. Ἀλκείδης Coins of c. 345–325 (Coin Hoards IX 182 obverses 142 and 144; 205 = Leschhorn, LAGM II 309). This is the Ionic and koine form of the Doric Ἀλκίδας, a name with a distinctly Heraklid ring, Alkeides/Alkidas being an alternative poetic name first for Amphitryon, the father of Herakles, and later for Herakles himself.12 In either form it is an uncommon name, but one borne by at least four Spartans between the sixth and third centuries BC. Its only other significant occurrence is on Thasos where three men of this name are known from the later fifth to early fourth centuries;13 the others are isolated examples at Lokroi (s. iv–f. iii BC) and at Lamia (iv BC) and also somewhat later in the Thessalian cities of Atrax and Gyrton (s. iii BC). The earliest Spartan is known only as the father of Ἄγητος, an intimate friend of the mid sixth-century Eurypontid king Ariston (Hdt. vi 61, Poralla 61), a man who must have been born in the late seventh century. The second and best-known is the nauarchos of 428/7 and later, in 426, joint oikist of the Spartan colony at Herakleia in Trachis (Poralla 62), where his Heraklid name may have influenced his selection in this role.14 During his notorious voyage along the Ionian coast in 428, having arrived too late to relieve Mytilene, Alkidas put in with his fleet at Ephesos for an unspecified period of time, but long enough to receive a deputation of Samian exiles from Anaia.15 There is thus a direct link between this man and Ephesos and it is certainly possible that he already had ties of friendship there or that they were established on this occasion. The third Alkidas is also known as a naval commander in the year 374/3, approximately two generations later than his predecessor, suggesting that he might have been a grandson. But there is nothing to connect him with Ephesos or Asia Minor (D.S. xv 46. 2, Poralla 63).16 The last of the Spartans is known only as victor in the stadion at Olympia in 244 (Poralla 64).17 It has been suggested that the first three, if not all four, belonged to a long-lived elite Spartan family, which, apart from being on close terms with Spartan royalty, was intimately connected to the family of Leon and Antalkidas.18   It occurs earliest in the Aspis (l. 112), a sixth-century poem ascribed to Hesiod, referring to Amphitryon. It was perhaps used by Pindar (fr. 291) to refer to Herakles but no certain use of the term is found before Kallimachos in his hymn to Artemis (l. 145) in the early third century. 13  LGPN I s.v. Ἀλκείδης. 14   See Hornblower 1991, 506–7 for illuminating remarks on the likely significance of the names of the three oikists in their selection for this role; also in Hornblower 2000a, 136 with n. 30. 15   The generally adverse judgements of Alkidas by ancient and modern critics has been challenged with some justification in Roisman 1987. 16   His only known action concerned Spartan support for the exiles from Kerkyra. 17   Moretti, Olympionikai 566. 18   Hodkinson 2000, 413–14. 12

Sparta’s Friends

at

Ephesos

199

If this was not an ancient friendship, the Ephesian might have been named after the second or third of the Spartans. Chronologically the third might be a better fit with the date of the Ephesian and it is clearly a possibility that he had been one of the many Spartans to see naval service in the eastern Aegean earlier in his career in the 390s and 380s. But if allowance is made for an unattested Ephesian generation spanning the period 425–365, it could just as easily be the second, famous Alkidas who lies behind the occurrence of the name at Ephesos, and possibly those at Thasos and in Thessaly as well.19 2. Ἀντιαλκίδας Coins of c. 350–340 (Coin Hoards IX 181 obverses 124–5; 204 = Leschhorn, LAGM II 326). The striking feature of this name is that it is rendered in Doric and in a form attested specifically at Sparta. In inscriptions of the second half of the first century BC, we find an Ἀντιαλκίδας and an Ἀντιάλκης (IG V (1) 93, 15; 212, 6). Elsewhere it occurs in this form for another Ionian, probably from Teos or Klazomenai (m. ii BC), and for a man of Selymbria (perhaps i BC or i AD).20 It is tempting to think, as others have done, that this is the correct rendering of the name of the famous Spartan familiar in most of the literary sources as Ἀνταλκίδας (Poralla 97).21 All the more so when this is the way the name is rendered in a second-century AD papyrus of the Alexandrian scholar Didymos’ commentary on Demosthenes’ Philippics (7 ll. 13, 19), in one place quoting from the early third-century Atthidographer, Philochoros (FGrHist 380 F 149a). It is also the reading of one manuscript in a single passage of Xenophon (HG v 1. 36). It would correspond to a well attested feature in the Laconian dialect where a digamma, normally represented by the letter beta, is inserted in the intervocalic position to mark the glide between iota or upsilon and a following vowel.22 Presumably his name was normalised in most of the ancient sources, including Xenophon, his contemporary and probable acquaintance.23 This man (hereafter referred to in the familiar form of his name), famous for negotiating and concluding the King’s Peace or Peace of Antalkidas of 386, had a distinguished career, which, as far as we know, was spent largely in Asia Minor in diplomatic dealings with the Persians. He was particularly well qualified for this role on account of the ties of friendship he formed not only with some of the leading Persians in western Asia Minor but also with King Artaxerxes himself.24 One of these friendships, with Ariobarzanes, was apparently ancestral (X., HG v 1. 28, ξένος ἐκ παλαιοῦ), indicating that his family had connections with leading Persians earlier than 393, when Antalkidas first appears on the scene. Ariobarzanes was a member of a Persian dynasty based at Kios in the Propontis, an ancestor of the great Pontic dynasty of the Mithradatids,25 so unlikely to lie behind any association of the family with Ephesos. Antalkidas was the son of Leon   Sekunda 2008, 345–6 and 348 tentatively associates the Thessalian occurrences with ties of friendship with one of the Spartans. Alkidas’ role as oikist of Herakleia would provide a context for a connection with the Alkidas from neighbouring Lamia, just as suggested for Xenares (17) below. An Alkidas from Anaktorion in Akarnania (?iii BC) could be associated with the elder Alkidas’ naval operations off the northwest coast in 427 or those of the later nauarchos’ expedition to Kerkyra (D.S. xv 46. 1–3). 20   Ionia: Pfuhl–Möbius no. 1521 with L. Robert in BE 1969, no. 97; Selymbria: IByz S 24. 21   In OCD3 s.v. Antalcidas, Hodkinson curiously refers to this as a “deviant reading”, whereas in OCD2 Wormell had regarded it as correct. Ἀνταλκίδας/δης is otherwise only attested twice on the island of Keos in the early Hellenistic period (LGPN I), so has no greater authority. 22   Bourget 1927, 81; Buck 34 § 36. Noteworthy examples are Εὐβάβερος, Εὐβάλκης, Εὐβάμερος, Εὐβανδρίδας, Εὐβάνωρ, Εὐβήσυχος: LGPN IIIA s.vv. 23   See Whitehead 1979. 24   Mitchell 1997, 126–7; Hodkinson 2000, 346–7 with table 14 (p. 338). 25   See T. Corsten in IKios 26–30; Bosworth–Wheatley 1998. 19

200

R. W. V. Catling

(perhaps the younger son) and probably brother of the Pedaritos who was sent as commander to Chios in 412 and died there the following year.26 Concerning the father, Leon, it is impossible to determine whether all the attestations of the name from the second half of the fifth century refer to one and the same man.27 But there is general agreement that the Olympic victor and joint oikistes of Herakleia in Trachis were one and the same, and probably the ambassador to Athens of 420,28 and it was he who in all likelihood should be identified as the father of our man.29 As Whitehead has observed, there must be a strong case for believing that he named his son after Alkidas (see 1), his fellow oikistes, suggesting either that they were related or had close ties of friendship.30 But if this was a relationship of long standing, it cannot be used as evidence for the approximate date of Antalkidas’ birth.31 Nevertheless, given that Antalkidas’ career continued until his death in the 360s, having been ephor in 370/69, he is unlikely to have been born much earlier than 430. As already noted, Antalkidas’ first appearance is in 393 as an ambassador in negotiations for a common peace (X., HG iv 8. 12–16). This was probably the occasion his ties of friendship with the Persian court were established. Next he is found as nauarchos in 388/7 commanding a fleet in the eastern Aegean and Propontis, touching at Ephesos as his first port of call, and it was presumably from there that he set out to join Tiribazos, probably another of his Persian xenoi, on the journey to Susa for the negotiations with Artaxerxes that led to the King’s Peace. 32 On his return, he conducted successful naval operations in the Hellespont that finally forced the Athenians to come to terms. He made two further visits to the Persian court in 371 and some time in the 360s, serving in between as ephor in 370/69. There can be no doubt that, in the course of his career, Antalkidas had the opportunities to forge friendships at Ephesos, if they were not inherited from an earlier date. The possibility that he and Alkidas were related, combined with the occurrence of their names, and that of his father Leon, among the nomenclature of leading Ephesians, might indicate that the relationship predated Antalkidas’ diplomatic activity and was perhaps a contributory factor in his appointment as Sparta’s ambassador on successive occasions. His Ephesian namesake, attested on coins c. 350–340, must have been born between 400 and 375 and should therefore have been named after the great diplomat by one of his friends at Ephesos. 3. Γοργώπας Coins of c. 370–360 (Coin Hoards IX 177 obverses 50–2; 202 = Leschhorn, LAGM II 422). This name occurs just this once in Asia Minor but is well-known in Laconia, where, more generally, names containing the element Γοργ- are favoured for men and women; it is also common on Thera, where no fewer than nine bearers of the name are known from the late third century to the Imperial period.33 Best known and earliest attested is the man who served as epistoleus, the secretary and second  On Pedaritos see Ducat 2002.   See Poralla 483. 28   Hodkinson 1983, 262–3; 2000, 329 n. 12. 29   For further speculation about his possible connections with the commander Teleutias and thereby with Agesilaos see Cartledge 1987, 145. 30   Whitehead 1979, 193. 31   As Whitehead, followed by Hodkinson 1983, 251 n.28. 32   On Tiribazos see Mitchell 1997, 126; Hodkinson 2000, 346. 33   LGPN I and IIIA. There are a few others of whom one in neighbouring Messenia may be relevant: SEG XLI 342, 14, f. iii BC. 26 27

Sparta’s Friends

at

Ephesos

201

in-command, to the nauarchos Hierax in 389/8 and in the same period as harmostes on Aigina (Poralla 193). When Antalkidas took over as nauarchos in 388/7, Gorgopas accompanied him with his ships from Aigina to Ephesos before being sent back to Aigina, where, after initial successes, he lost his life in an ambush set by the Athenian general Chabrias (X., HG v 1. 5–13). The curious movements of Gorgopas between Aigina and Ephesos might suggest that Antalkidas enlisted him in the initial stages of his mission because he had existing connections at Ephesos, though there is good reason to believe that Antalkidas was already well-connected there (above 2). Possible descendents of this Gorgopas are [Γοργ]ώπας Γοργώπα, one of the later fourth or early third-century Spartan naopoioi at Delphi (CID II 120 A, 31 = Poralla 194–5). The father was perhaps born as early as 400–380 and might conceivably have been son of the man who died in 388, but was more likely a grandson, if indeed they were related. Another, perhaps a Spartan of the Hellenistic period, was a casualty of war (SEG XXXII 397), and finally Livy (xxxiv 29. 9–12) records a Gorgopas as one of the commanders of king Nabis in the garrison of Gytheion when it was attacked in 195 by L. Quinctius Flaminius. Much later men of this name occur in the Augustan and Flavian periods (IG V (1) 212, 43; SEG XI 608, 5 = Bradford 2 and 4 respectively). Elsewhere the only noteworthy occurrence of the name is among a list of exiles given refuge at Athens soon after 383, possibly a Boiotian ousted following the Spartan occupation of the Kadmeia (IG II2 37 I, 20 with addenda; cf. SEG XXXII 47).34 It seems safe to conclude that the Ephesian owed his name to the Gorgopas who died on Aigina in 388. Unless there was an ancestral family connection, the date of the coins bearing the name of the Ephesian magistrate suggest that the link existed prior to the time of Gorgopas’ visit to Ephesos in the year of his death. In this case, he is likely to have been one of those based at Ephesos with the forces of Agesilaos from 396 or, earlier still, in the final phases of the Ionian war under Lysander. 4. Γύλιππος Coins of c. 340–325 (Coin Hoards IX 183 obverses 156–7; 205 = Leschhorn, LAGM II 423). This too is a name not otherwise certainly attested in Asia Minor35 but particularly characteristic of Sparta where four people are known, including the famous Spartan general sent in 414 to Syracuse under Athenian siege.36 Elsewhere the name is found only on Rhodes and Kalymnos, the earliest a priest of Athena Lindia in 373 and, perhaps like the Ephesian, owing his name to a Spartan (ILindos 1 A sub anno 373). The earliest of the Spartans is the general of the Sicilian campaign (Poralla 196), son of Κλεανδρίδας, who may also have had a namesake at Ephesos (below 9). Following his return from Sicily, where according to some sources he won little respect on account of his greed,37 he is not heard of again until 405 when he is found among the Spartan subordinate commanders at Aigospotamoi. Lysander entrusted him with conveying the spoils of victory to Sparta but temptation allegedly proved too much for Gylippos, his theft was detected, he was condemned to death and, like others before him, he went into exile; thereafter nothing is known of him, unless Poseidonios’ claim that he starved himself to death following his conviction is believed 34   It should be said that there is nothing typically Boiotian about the names in the list; several of them are more at home in the Ionian world of the Aegean islands and East Greece. 35   It should probably be restored in a text of Imperial date from Perge: IPerge 264. 36   Other names with the element Γυλ- are known from Sparta: two men called Γῦλις (one a polemarch in 394) and the very similar Γύλλις (one of the fallen at the battle of Thyrea in the mid-6th cent.). 37   Timaios, FGrHist 566 F 100; his pejorative representation of Gylippos is at odds with the one Thucydides offers.

202

R. W. V. Catling

(FGrHist 87 F 48c). As his father had probably been ephor at the time of his own disgrace in 446, Gylippos must have been at least forty-one, and probably somewhat older, at the time of his own downfall. As we shall see (below 9), there was possibly an ancestral link between his family and Ephesos, but he doubtless had opportunities during the final stages of the Ionian war, when Ephesos served as the Spartan base of naval operations, to establish or reaffirm ties with leading Ephesians. Three other Spartans bore this name, none of whom are eligible for consideration in the present context, even if they may be descendents of the famous Gylippos. The first is commemorated in an epigram of Nicander of Kolophon as the only survivor of the seven sons of Iphikratidas and Alexippa, the rest of whom died in battle against Messene (Poralla 197). If this is a reference to Sparta’s early Messenian wars, he is likely to be a fictitious character, but it may relate to some indeterminate episode in Sparta’s implacable hostility towards the new city of Messene from the time of its foundation in 369 and the mid-second century when the epigram was composed.38 The second is the father of Agiatis, wife of Agis IV and later of Kleomenes III, so probably born c. 300 and evidently of high social status (Plu., Cleom. 1 = Bradford 1). The third is of the Antonine period (IG V (1) 149, 6 = Bradford 2). Although the Ephesian of this name was born after the disgrace of Gylippos in 405 (probably not before 390–370), it would still seem most likely that he was named after the famous Spartan general, most likely by an Ephesian who had been befriended by him in the period between 411–405 or as a result of a much older ancestral relationship. 5. Εὐρύβατος This is the name of the Ephesian entrusted by Kroisos with a quantity of gold to raise allies to defend Lydia against the Persians in 546 who defected to Cyrus. His name subsequently became proverbial for treachery and wickedness (Ephoros, FGrHist 70 F 58). The name is rare, otherwise found only at Sparta, Kerkyra, Hermione, Hierapytna in Crete and another anonymous city,39 though there are two other occurrences in the form Εὐρυβάτας/ης at Eretria and Argos. However, earliest of all is the Spartan Eurybatos, victor in the first Olympic wrestling competition in 708.40 There is a wide range of Spartan names incorporating the component Εὐρυ- whose connotations of wide-ranging strength and power were appealing. While such an eighth-century connection with Ephesos is not impossible, especially for a successful athlete, it is perhaps more likely that any putative link was forged by a homonym in a later generation. If the Ephesian was a real person, he might be expected to have been born c. 600 or soon after and was perhaps named after a grandson or great-grandson of the Olympic victor. 6. Θάλπις Coins of c. 390–380. (Coin Hoards IX 174 obverse 2; 201 = Leschhorn, LAGM II 541). Apart from the Homeric Thalpios, one of the four leaders of the Eleian Epeians at Troy, this is one of only two examples of the name borne by ‘historical’ figures, the other being   Gow–Page, HE 2719. That relations between the two cities were not always so bad is shown by SEG XLVII 390, an epigram of the 3rd cent. found at Messene that honours a Spartan, Damostratos, for his efforts to reconcile Messene and Sparta, in spite of their ἀρχαία ἔχθρα. 39   See IDorIns 97 II, 14 where the name of the city is lost; the other names in the relevant column strongly suggest a Cretan origin for some of these people, with most parallels occurring at Hierapytna. 40   Moretti, Olympionikai 22. The historicity of the early victors is naturally doubtful, but the name was perhaps considered appropriate for a Spartan. 38

Sparta’s Friends

at

Ephesos

203

a Spartan victor in the stadion at Olympia at a very early date (680).41 While such an early link is not inconceivable, as with Eurybatos (5), it is possible that otherwise unattested descendents bearing the same name lie behind the Ephesian example, whose relatively early date (born no later than c. 420–410) would imply that the connection was made no later than the Peloponnesian war. 7. Θηρίμαχος Coins of c. 405–390. (Coin Hoards IX 103 no. 19 = Leschhorn, LAGM II 556). This too is a very uncommon name, but significant in a Spartan context as the name of one of the sons of Herakles by the Theban Megara.42 Just six other historical examples are known, the Ephesian being the only one from Asia Minor. Apart from him, the earliest attested is a Spartan who served as harmostes at Methymna where he was defeated and fell in battle against Thrasyboulos in 389 (X., HG iv 8. 29; D.S. xiv 94. 4 = Poralla 370). As both men must have been close contemporaries and born no later than c. 440–430, any family connection must have been forged in an earlier generation.43 8. Θηριππίδης This man is attested in an inscription of the late fourth to early third centuries, where he occurs as the trainer (ἐπιστάτης) of an athlete who purchased Ephesian citizenship (IEph 2005, 4).44 So it is not certain that he was an Ephesian himself, nor of the high social standing that we might expect. However, given the rarity of the name which occurs five times at Athens (LGPN II), once at Sparta in the early fourth century, and nowhere else, let alone in Asia Minor, a connection is possible. The Spartan is known only from Diodoros (x 30. 3 = Poralla 372) in the form Θηριπίδης, a commander who in 377 expelled the tyrant of Histiaia in northern Euboia. 9. Κλεανδρίδης Coins of c. 350–340. (Coin Hoards IX 180 obverses 113, 115–16; 204 = Leschhorn, LAGM II 610). This too is an uncommon name, otherwise unknown at Ephesos, but attested at neighbouring Kolophon and at Iasos in Caria, for people of approximately the same period.45 It is also known in Sparta, as well as at Corinth and Rhodes (LGPN I and IIIA). Of the Spartans, the most obvious candidate is Kleandridas, the father of Gylippos (Poralla 420). As advisor to the young king Pleistoanax, probably as one of the ephors, he was said to have accepted a bribe to persuade him to abandon the invasion of Attica in 446 in support of the revolt of Euboia, Megara and Byzantion following the Athenian defeat at Koroneia and its loss of Boiotia.46 For this he was condemned to death and went into exile, the remainder of his life being spent as a citizen of the new colony of Thourioi in South Italy, where he served as military commander against its hostile neighbours. It has been suggested that he was subsequently forgiven and returned to Sparta, though his presumed age may count against this.47 The seniority   Moretti, Olympionikai 32 = Poralla 353. The name is derived by Bechtel (HPN 573) from the Homeric hero. 42   RE s.v. 1. 43   For Spartans, with their passion for hunting, these uncommon names in Θηρι‑ were appropriate; e.g. Θηρικύων, Θηριμένης, Θηριππίδας. 44   See Robert 1967, 28–32. 45   Kolophon: LGPN VA (father of Amphilochos); Iasos: IIasos 1, 43 (son of -thos); 42, 2; 59, 4; 60, [3] (son of Kleandros); 54, 4 (father of Pantaleon). Two rather later people are known from Knidos and Smyrna. 46   See Noethlichs 1987, 144–6. 47   See Hornblower 2008, 534–5. 41

204

R. W. V. Catling

implied by his role as advisor to the young king suggests he was a mature adult in 446, probably aged at least forty. Although he has no known connection with Ionia, this seniority would have made him a valuable friend for any foreigner who had dealings with Sparta. Quite possibly the occurrences of the name at Kolophon and Iasos have a similar explanation. The existence of the second Spartan of this name found in Poralla’s prosopography depends upon the uncertain emendation of the text of Diodoros (xv 54. 1 = Poralla 421), relating to a Spartan exile who served with the Theban forces at the battle of Leuktra in 371. The manuscripts’ reading Λεανδρίας has been variously emended, by Dindorf to Λεανδρίδας and Müller to Κλεανδρίδας. Although Λεανδρίας is otherwise unattested and likely to be corrupt, the existence of a Spartan called Λανδρίδας, who made a dedication at Delphi in the first half of the fourth century and for this reason has been identified with the man in Diodoros, suggests that Dindorf was correct.48 This man may therefore be omitted from consideration. The other Spartan Kleandridas occurs much later, though he may have been born c. 300. His name is read by Peek as the patronymic of a Spartan proxenos of Epidauros in the period c. 240–200.49 Finally it is worth noting the occurrence of the name in the former perioikic town of Messenian Thouria, perhaps in the second century (IG V (1) 1385, 4). 10. Κλέας Coins of c. 340–325. (Coin Hoards IX 183 obverse 147; 205 = Leschhorn, LAGM II 611). This again is an uncommon name, attested just this once at Ephesos as well as at Miletos in the fifth century, at Priene in the early third, and much later at Iasos.50 Elsewhere it is distributed thinly with the largest number in the Peloponnese, of whom the earliest is a Spartan cavalryman killed in a skirmish in Boiotia in 378 during one of Agesilaos’ campaigns (X., HG v 4. 39 = Poralla 426). As a cavalryman, whose name was deemed worth recording by Xenophon, he was probably of high rank and should be considered a possible candidate,51 especially if he was a veteran of Agesilaos’ expedition to Asia Minor between 396 and 394 or one of the later Spartan campaigns in the eastern Aegean. 11. Κυνίσκος Coins of c. 370–360 (Coin Hoards IX 177 obverses 51–2, 60; 202 = Leschhorn, LAGM II 630) and later of c. 340–320 (Imhoof-Blumer, KM 50 no. 7). As noted by Tuplin, Kyniskos is an uncommon name with a highly localized distribution.52 It occurs a third time at Ephesos early in the second century,53 with perhaps as many as eleven and no fewer than four at neighbouring Kolophon, known for the most part from the great list of subscribers to the building of the city walls (311–306);54 it is also found at Ionian Metropolis, Smyrna, Pergamon, Perinthos and Sinope.55   FD III (4) 196 = IG V (1) 1565a = Syll3 156. This man is not found in Poralla and is inexplicably omitted in the second edition published by A. S. Bradford in 1985. Also relevant is the Spartan female name Λεανδρίς (Poralla 479), wife of king Anaxandros in the later seventh century. 49   IAEpid 136–7 no. 330, 18 ([Καλ]λιτελίδας Κλε[ανδ]ρίδα) = Perlman, Theorodokia 189–91 E.4. 50   Miletos: Milet I (3) 133, 2; Priene: unpublished coin (Kinns); Iasos: IIasos 277, 23 (12 AD). 51   But because the horses were provided for the cavalry by the Spartan wealthy, he was not necessarily a rich man in his own right: see Hodkinson 2000, 213. A few years later at Leuktra, Xenophon (HG vi 4. 10–11) claims that the Lakedaimonian cavalry was composed of the least fit and keen men. 52   Tuplin 1977, 5–6. 53   IEph 4103 II, 19. As the patronymic, he would have been born in the mid 3rd cent. 54   LGPN VA s.v. 55   LGPN IV and VA s.v. 48

Sparta’s Friends

at

Ephesos

205

Outside Asia Minor its first occurrence is at Sparta as the sobriquet of Zeuxidamos, son of king Latychidas, who is presumed to have died prematurely and at any rate before 476 when his own son Archidamos became king following the exile of Latychidas (Hdt. vi 71 = Poralla 345). If we follow Tuplin, he was probably born c. 535–525 and perhaps died between 500 and 495, when Archidamos was still a child.56 Tuplin goes on to suggest that two generations of leading Mantineans of the mid-fifth century were named Kyniskos to mark their friendship with the Spartan. A second Spartan called Kyniskos is known from the end of the fifth century as harmostes in the Thracian Chersonese in 400 (X., An. vii 1. 13 = Poralla 460) and it has been conjectured on the basis of his name that he was a member of the Eurypontid royal family. Within roughly the same generation the daughter of Archidamos II, sister of Agis II and Agesilaos, was also named Kyniska, probably born c. 440. She is best known for her chariot victories at Olympia, perhaps in 396 and 39257 and is presumed to be the same as the Kyniska who made a dedication at the Menelaion (IG V (1) 235). It is tempting to see in the occurrence of the name over two or three generations at Ephesos, as well as at Kolophon (where some of its bearers were probably born in the first quarter of the fourth century), reflections of friendships perhaps made at the turn of the fifth and fourth centuries, if they were not of a much older vintage. The presence of both the male and female names at a later date in Thessaly has likewise been interpreted tentatively as testament to much earlier Spartan personal connections in the region.58 It should be noted that there was perhaps also a Corinthian fondness for the name. Although it has not as yet been attested there, there is an early occurrence at Kerkyra as well as later ones at Bouthrotos, Epidamnos and Illyrian Apollonia, and also at Potidaia, all cities either founded by Corinth or subject to strong Corinthian influences (See LGPN IIIA and IV). 12. Λίχας Coins of c. 290–281 (Aufhäuser sale 14 (1998) no. 155) and c. 200–170 (Kinns 1999, 88 = Leschhorn, LAGM II 644). Although the dates of these coins are comparatively late, it is nevertheless attractive to see a connection with a leading Spartan of the later fifth century. The name is not common, though it is found at Kolophon and Miletos in much the same period, where it is of course tempting to make the same connection as at Ephesos.59 Lichas in mythology was the herald of Herakles and closely associated with the story of his death on Mt Oita in Trachis;60 the Heraklid connection and Spartan interests in Trachis might explain the adoption of the name in a leading Spartan family. The name occurs at Sparta from an early date, Lichas being one of the agathoergoi, a group enlisted from the elite hippeis, at the time of Sparta’s unsuccessful wars against Tegea in the period c. 575–550, and the man who was instrumental in the recovery of the bones of Orestes (Hdt. i 67–8 = Poralla 491). But it is Lichas son of Arkesilas who is the most likely candidate 56   A corollary of Tuplin’s arguments is the implied great age of Latychidas at his death in 469. If Zeuxidamos was born c. 530, he himself cannot have been born later than 550, meaning that he was at least eighty in 469 and possibly a good deal older. 57   Moretti, Olympionikai 373 and 381 = Poralla 459; Hornblower 2006, 100 n. 54 suggests an earlier date for her victories, partly on the grounds that her father, Archidamos, must have been at least 60 at the time of his death in 427. 58   Sekunda 2008, 342 and 347. 59   Kolophon: LGPN VA s.v.; Miletos: Milet I (3) 138 I, 64 (282 B.C. father of Echeboulos); Milet I (2) 12a, 2; I (3) 33a, 3; 141, 5; 151, 12; VI (3) 1225, 9 (son of Hermophantos, father of Echeboulos and Hermophantos, s. iii BC). 60   RE s.v. 1; LIMC s.v.

206

R. W. V. Catling

for the Ephesian connection, a man of whom something is known between 421 and his death at Miletos in, or shortly after, 411 (Poralla 492).61 He was a proxenos of Argos and was active in Spartan negotiations with Argos in 421 and again in 418. His family’s wealth is evident from their victories in the chariot-race at Olympia, his father Arkesilas winning twice, probably in the 440s, Lichas notoriously in 420 when his chariot had to be entered in the name of the Boiotians on account of the ban on Spartan participation introduced that year.62 Lichas also won a reputation for his hospitality and generosity to foreigners at the Spartan festival of the Gymnopaidiai (X., Mem. i 2. 61; Plu., Cim. 10). Apart from his Argive relations, he seems to have been more generally well connected. A link with Cyrene seems certain on the basis of his father’s name, shared with the kings of Cyrene, and of the occurrence of Lichas at Cyrene and Barka-Ptolemais in the third century and later.63 The same is true of Thasos where a Λίχης Ἀρκεσίλεω (the Ionic equivalent of Λίχας Ἀρκεσίλα) is attested as archon in 398/7.64 In both cases we seem to be dealing with an ancestral friendship, dating back at least to his grandfather’s generation. He may also be linked to the occurrence of the name at Arkadian Kleitor, known as the father of a victor in the boys’ boxing contest at Olympia in the first half of the fourth century.65 One may also suspect that the Spartan lies behind the names at Miletos, where he is known to have resided in 412–411; while two of them were active in the third century, a third must have been born in the period c. 375–350. The same may also be true of the two Kolophonians (perhaps one and the same person) attested in the period 311–306, again probably born no later than c. 350. His connections with the people whose descendents have been listed above, if they did not exist from previous generations, is most likely to have been made in the final year of his life when, with Antisthenes, he was given the important task of leading the Spartan negotiations with Tissaphernes to obtain acceptable terms for Persian financial support in the naval war against Athens. 13. Μελαγγρίδας Coins of c. 360–350. (Coin Hoards IX 178–9 obverses 80 and 86–7; 203 = Leschhorn, LAGM II 668). As it stands this is a unique name but it is evidently a variant spelling of a rare name found locally elsewhere, derived from the name Μέλαγχρος (‘black-skinned’).66 In the form Μελαγκρίδας it is attested seven times on Kos, six of them dating from the later fourth to second centuries; on the same island it occurs twice with the simple variant spelling Μελανκρίδας, one of these being a man also attested in the more common form.67 A single example from neighbouring Halikarnassos in the later Hellenistic period appears as Μελανγρίδης, involving the substitution of kappa by gamma.68 For our purposes the most significant is the Spartan Μελαγχρίδας, known   See Mitchell 1997, 77; Hornblower 2006, 278–81.   Moretti, Olympionikai 305, 311, 339. It has been suggested that he was already a member of the Gerousia in 420, and so probably over the age of 70 at the time of his death: Cartledge 1987, 188. 63   First suggested in Lewis 1977, 33 n. 34; adopted by Hodkinson 2000, 311 and Hornblower 2006, 279; cf. LGPN I s.vv. 64   Pouilloux 1954, 266 no. 29, 17. This has led to some rather wild speculation that this person was in fact the Spartan of the same name: Pouilloux–Salviat 1983. See Cartledge 1984 and L. Robert in BE 1984, no. 314, though he is far too sceptical in denying the likelihood of any link at all; also Hornblower 2002; 2008, 131–2. 65   IvOl 167; Moretti, Olympionikai 406, his victory placed tentatively in 376, so born c. 395–390, implying a birth-date for his father c. 430–415. 66   Μέλαγχρος (usually spelled Μέλανχρος) is an epichoric name of Lesbos: LGPN I s.v. The variation in the spelling of the consonant group -γχρ-, itself an assimilated form of original -νχρ-, corresponds to the common confusion of γ with κ and χ respectively and of κ with χ: see Threatte I 437–8, 452–5, 471–2. 67   LGPN I, to which should be added two further people in ICos ED 235 I, 28 and 32 (possibly the same man). 68   BCH 14 (1890) 100 no. 5, 23. 61 62

Sparta’s Friends

at

Ephesos

207

only as nauarchos in 413/12, who was charged with the naval mission to aid Chios and Erythrai but was substituted at the last moment following the inauspicious omen of an earthquake (Th. viii 6. 5 = Poralla 517; one can only speculate how his name would originally have been written). No more is heard of him, but as a naval commander he almost certainly participated in the operations in the eastern Aegean between 413 and 405. The Doric form of the Ephesian also calls attention to the strong likelihood of a link with the Spartan, whose name may possibly also be linked with its occurrences on Kos. 14. Ναμέρτης Coins of c. 405–390 (Coin Hoards IX p. 104 no. 49 = Leschhorn, LAGM II 701). This is a very rare name, otherwise attested only for a Spartan of unknown date, a Pergamene of the Augustan period, and, in its Ionic form Νημέρτης, three times at Iasos between the late fourth and midsecond centuries. It is also the most likely expansion of the abbreviated name Ναμερ(–) on sling-bullets found at Torone and Olynthos, presumably associated with their sack by Philip II in 349 and 348 respectively and the name of one of the Macedonian commanders. The Spartan occurs in Plutarch’s Apophthegmata Lakonika (230 A–B) where he appears as an ambassador to an unnamed city where he had many friends (Poralla 544). Although the historical context cannot be determined, it is unlikely to be later than the fourth century and more probably of the earlier period, like the majority of entries in this work. The literal meaning of the name, ‘truthful’ or ‘infallible’, was perhaps appropriate for an ambassador and as such might be regarded as a ‘speaking name’. This name, or a cognate form, has plausibly been restored in a fragmentary inscription of the late sixth century from Sparta (Ναμ[–]) but other possibilities do exist.69 Once again the Doric form of the Ephesian’s name calls for attention. 15. Νικόλοχος Coins of c. 200 (Kinns 1999, 89 = Leschhorn, LAGM II 714). Although this name is attested comparatively late at Ephesos and lacks the epichoric features that characterize most of this group, its rarity in Asia Minor suggests it might have foreign associations. The name is widespread but nowhere common; five examples on Rhodes from the third to first centuries, two at Athens of the fourth century, a handful in the Peloponnese (Epidauros, Megalopolis and an Arcadian), and six Thessalians of the fourth century to early Imperial period. In Asia Minor there are singles from Miletos (m. iv BC), Kyzikos (278 BC) and Adramyteion (ii BC). In addition there are two from Laconia, the first found on an early fifth century inscription from Gerenia (IG V (1) 1337 = Poralla 563), the second the name of Antalkidas’ epistoleus in 388/7 and later nauarchos in 376 (Poralla 564). The earlier occasion was the most likely for forming a connection, when Spartan involvement in Asia Minor was at its peak. There are perhaps even stronger grounds for connecting the Spartan with his Milesian homonym, a man probably born in the first two decades of the fourth century.70 16. Νικομήδης Coins of c. 390–380 (Coin Hoards IX 174 obverse 2; 201 = Leschhorn, LAGM II 715). While this name becomes common from the third century onwards, perhaps popularized by the Bithynian dynasty, four of whose kings were so named, it is very rare before this. Only instances of the fourth century or earlier will be considered here. Apart from the fictitious father of the Messenian 69 70

  IG V (1) 457 = LSAG2 200 no 29, pl. 37 (Jeffery restores the text differently). See Masson 1986, 138.   The name occurs on a coin: Leschhorn, LAGM II 714.

208

R. W. V. Catling

patriot Aristomenes (Paus. iv 14. 8), the earliest bearer of the name is the son of Kleombrotos, grandson of king Anaxandridas, and so a member of the Agiad royal family (Poralla 565). He is best known for the great victory over Athens at Tanagra in 457, when he commanded the army on behalf of his nephew, the young king Pleistoanax. After the death of Pausanias, his brother and regent, he may have acted as regent himself, first for Pleistarchos and later Pleistoanax. One can only speculate how a connection with Ephesos might have been forged but given his high standing and as brother of Pausanias, victor of Plataia, it is easy to conceive of occasions and opportunities in the period following the Persian wars. Elsewhere there are a handful of examples: four from Athens, the earliest being the son-in-law of Themistokles and a close contemporary of the Spartan, and singles from Akanthos, Sinope and perhaps from Sikyon.71 17. Ξενάρης Coins of c. 370–360 (Coin Hoards IX 178 obverses 61 and 67; 202 = Leschhorn, LAGM II 721). This is a rare name everywhere except at Miletos, where it occurs at least five times from the seventh century to the late Hellenistic period. So it is quite possible that we should look no further and account for the name of the Ephesian though a friendship at Miletos. Elsewhere it is only at Sparta that the name is found more than once. Earliest is the ephor of 421/0, probably the same man who was killed the following year as commander of the Spartan colony at Herakleia in Trachis in fighting with their hostile neighbours (Poralla 567). As ephor he had pursued policies hostile to Athens following the peace of Nikias and is likely to have been sympathetic to exiles and malcontents in cities of the Athenian empire. His father had the unique and interesting name Κνίδις, an ethnic type of name referring to the city of Knidos in Caria.72 As with the adoption of the name Σάμιος in a Spartan family having close links with Samos, this name should imply a close relationship with Knidos. This was a city that Herodotos (i 174. 2) claimed to be a Spartan foundation and was quick to join the Spartan cause in 412, one of whose leading figures served as a nauarchos in the fleet that won the victory at Aigospotamoi and was commemorated at Delphi (Paus. x 9. 9). It suggests that Xenares came from a well-connected family and that he perhaps owed his name to a link with Miletos. There must also be a good chance that the name occurred at Ephesos through a Spartan connection rather than a Milesian. The two other Spartans of this name are known in much later contexts, one of them a boyhood friend of the later king Kleomenes III (Plu., Cleom. 3; IG V (1) 94, 9 (s. i BC) = Bradford 1–2 respectively).73 Elsewhere there are scattered examples of the name, several of which are possibly of interest in the present context. First is a man from Thouria in Messenia, formerly a Lakedaimonian perioikic town where names with a Spartan ring might well have survived (SEG XI 972, 37; the man in question was probably born in the late 3rd cent.). Second is a man from Lamia, just to the north of Herakleia where Xenares the ephor apparently met his death, attested in a Delphic honorific decree of the second quarter of the third century (FD III (3) 197, 2). It is tempting to see in him a descendent of a xenos of the Spartan. Similarly tendentious is one of the Milesians whose son was victor in the pankration c. 310 at the Lykaia, the games held at the sanctuary of   LGPN II, IIIA, IV and VA. The date of the Akanthian, a historian, is not certainly so early; the man from Sinope occurs as astynomos on stamped amphoras and tiles c. 350. 72   Hornblower 2008, 137 draws attention to Meineke 1869, 363, proposing to emend the text of Thucydides from Κνίδιος to Κνιδίου, so producing a much more regular ethnic form for the name. 73   Also worthy of note are the two Laconian women called Ξεναρία, both of Imperial date: LGPN IIIA. 71

Sparta’s Friends

at

Ephesos

209

Zeus on Mt Lykaion in southwestern Arkadia (IG V (2) 549, 20). Apart from a single Rhodian, he is the only attested competitor in these games from East Greece, the vast majority being from the Peloponnese, including a number of Spartans. It may not be too fanciful to think he was a man with existing connections in this part of the world which encouraged him to participate in this rather parochial festival.74 18. Ὄρσιππος Attested on coins of c. 320–300 (Kinns 1999, 94 n.172 = Leschhorn, LAGM II 732) and as the patronymic of one Εὐρύδημος in an honorific decree inscribed on the Artemision in the period of the diadochoi, dated c. 300 (SEG XLI 960, 1). Both are likely to refer to the same man. The name is very rare, occurring on only three further occasions. Best known is the famous athlete and military leader of Megara who lived in the later eighth century (his name rendered as Ὄρριππος at Megara). There is also a Spartan found serving in a senior position in Agesilaos’ army in Asia Minor in 394 (X., HG iv 2. 8 = Poralla 582), one of a number of cases where a link between Spartan officers of Agesilaos and Ephesos can be proposed. Lastly there is an Ὄρριππος attested on an Eretrian gravestone of the fourth or third centuries. 19. Σκύθης Coins of c. 340–325 (Coin Hoards IX 184 obverse 163; 198, 205 = Leschhorn, LAGM II 812). This rather uncommon name is of the type derived from an ethnic, in this case the barbarian Scythians. Herodotos (iv 10) claimed that the Scythian kings were descended from Skythes the son of Herakles, a tradition that is of relevance in a Spartan context and one that had presumably been elaborated at the time of the Scythian appeal for Spartan help during the Persian invasion of their lands in the late sixth century. Most occurrences of the name are early, being of Classical or early Hellenistic date. It occurs a number of times at Eretria (7), Samos (2), Thasos (2), Athens (at least one), in Macedonia (1) and Thrace (5), and in Asia Minor at Kalchedon (1), Herakleia Pontike (1), Elaia in Aiolis (1), Miletos (1), Halikarnassos (1), Kolophon (2), Magnesia (4) and twice more at Ephesos itself, some of them places situated on the Black Sea, others cities (such as Miletos) or regions which are known to have had links with the Black Sea region. Not surprisingly, the name is commonest in some of the cities of the northern Black Sea (Tauric Chersonesos, Phanagoreia and Gorgippia in the Taman peninsula). However, it was also the name of one of Agesilaos’ advisors and commanders in Asia Minor in 395–4, perhaps a close companion who, on their overland return to Sparta in 394, was imprisoned by the Thessalians at Larisa and only freed through negotiations with Agesilaos (Poralla 668).75 It is tempting to think he owed his name to a tie of friendship between one of his ancestors and one of the Scythian ambassadors that had sought help from Sparta in the reign of Kleomenes I (Hdt. vi 84, c. 515–510). The Ephesian is certainly of the right age to have been named after this man who was based for some time at Ephesos and perhaps had a subsequent role in Sparta’s relations with the East Greek world. It is also worth noting the occurrence of the name for an official of Magnesia on the Maeander in   This man, Ἀντήνωρ Ξενάρεος, was victor at Olympia in the pankration in 308 (Moretti, Olympionikai 488), was honoured at Athens in 306/5 (Osborne, Naturalization T89) and held high office in his own city in 279/8 (Milet I (3) 123, 38). 75   The story of his imprisonment is told only by Plutarch (Ages. 16); see Cartledge 1987, 154. This Skythes is the subject of Sekunda (forthcoming) who draws much the same conclusions as those reached here. 74

210

R. W. V. Catling

the third quarter of the fourth century and for two Kolophonians, one the father of a contributor to the building of the city-walls in 311–306, the other an ambassador to Athens in 307 (possibly one and the same man).76 20. Τεισαμενός Coins of c. 340–325 (Coin Hoards IX 198 = Leschhorn, LAGM II 836). Mythical bearers of this name were more or less closely associated with Sparta. The bones of Teisamenos were transferred from Helike and reburied in Sparta, like those of his father Orestes, apparently as part of Sparta’s ‘Achaian’ propaganda in the mid-sixth century.77 Another Teisamenos, king of Thebes, was grandfather of Theras who settled the island of Thera from Sparta (Hdt. iv 147). While not a rare name, it is highly localized, being associated with three places in particular. Apart from two later occurrences at Ephesos and a single man from Abydos in the Troad, there are no other attestations of this name in western Asia Minor. It is commonest in Athens where there are no fewer than thirty examples, a good number belonging to the fifth and fourth centuries. But its best known bearers are the members of the Elean Iamidai, a family of seers (manteis), some of whose members moved to Sparta early in the fifth century.78 Two brothers, Teisamenos and Agias, were given full Spartan citizenship before 480 and their descendents apparently survived into the Hadrianic period. Teisamenos himself was active as mantis until at least the battle of Tanagra in 457, the last of his five victories (Poralla 703). His grandson, Agias son of Agelochos, was Lysander’s mantis at Aigospotamoi, while a relation (perhaps his brother, also a mantis) called Teisamenos was executed in 398 for his part in the Kinadon conspiracy (Poralla 22 and 704 respectively). Though nothing more is known of him, it was perhaps after this last man that the Ephesian was named. 21. Φάραξ Coins whose date is variously given as late fourth/early third century or first half of the second century (Kinns 1999, 96 = Leschhorn, LAGM II 836); it is also the name of an Ephesian sculptor of unknown date, known only from Vitruvius.79 The name is very rare and with a few exceptions (Tenos and Thessalian Atrax) known only in Sparta, where an uncertain number of individuals are found in the later fifth and first half of the fourth century (Poralla 716–18).80 Earliest is the father of Styphon, one of the Spartan officers on Sphakteria in 425, perhaps the same as the advisor to king Agis II at the battle of Mantineia in 418, but certainly to be differentiated from the Pharax who fought at Aigospotamoi, was subsequently nauarchos in 398/7 serving in the eastern Aegean, and in 396/5 joined forces with Dionysios I of Syracuse against the Carthaginians. Tellingly, Pausanias (vi 3. 15) informs us that the Ephesians set up a statue of Pharax in the Artemision, along with statues of Lysander, Eteonikos and other less distinguished Spartans, following the victory at Aigospotamoi. This man turns up again in 390 when he was present at the Isthmos as proxenos of the Boiotians in their negotiations with Agesilaos. He is probably the same Pharax who is found on an embassy to Athens in the winter of 370/69, along with Arakos, another veteran of Aigospotamoi,81 and is almost certainly the one who dedicated a crown on Delos, recorded   Magnesia: Leschhorn, LAGM II 812; Kolophon: Meritt 1935, 361–71 no. 1, 423; IG II2 456 b, 23.   See Leahy 1955; Malkin 1994, 28–30. 78   On the Iamidai and Teisamenos in particular see Flower 2008. 79   Künstlerlexikon s.v. 80   See Hodkinson 2000, 415. 81   On this man see Mosley 1963. Pharax was probably in his seventies at the time of the embassy. 76 77

Sparta’s Friends

at

Ephesos

211

in the temple inventories over many years.82 The last Spartan of this name led a contingent to assist Dionysios II against Dion c. 353, perhaps a grandson of the second Pharax.83 Although the Ephesian magistrate named on the coins is of comparatively late date, there can be little doubt that he was a descendant of a family which adopted this name from one of the Spartans, most likely the hero of Aigospotamoi. The occurrence of the name in the later third century at Atrax, a city with other ‘Spartan’ names, has been accounted for in much the same way.84 22. Χαλκιδεύς Coins of c. 200 (Kinns 1999, 90 = Leschhorn, LAGM II 889). This is a rare name derived from an ethnic which relates either to the Euboian city of Chalkis or, less probably, to the inhabitants of the Chalkidike (the Χαλκιδεῖς). It occurs most frequently at Athens and presumably reflects ties between Athenians and Euboian Chalkis where there had been an Athenian clerouchy since 506; the earliest attestation is in 442/1 (IG I3 270, 1). However, there was also a Spartan of this name who served as a naval commander in 412 and was successful in winning over Chios, Erythrai, Klazomenai, Teos and Miletos until his death in the same year near Miletos (Poralla 743). A Kolophonian attested as a patronym in the great subscription list of 311–306 may well have been named after the same man. Names of this type were often adopted for the offspring of xenoi, so the Spartan was presumably given the name to mark a family connection with Chalkis. It is, of course, possible that the Ephesian and Kolophonian were named in the same way through independent connections of their own families and there might have been some ambiguity for an Ephesian to have given his son a name which itself reflected a relationship of his xenos with someone from another city. But given its rarity, a link with the Spartan commander should also be considered. 23. Χαρμῖνος Coins allegedly relating to two individuals, one of the fourth century, the other dated c. 200 (Kinns 1999, 90, 92–4 = Leschhorn, LAGM II 892–3). This is a rare name, otherwise known on Kos (4), at Athens (2), in Messenia (4), at Sparta (1) and Myndos in Caria (1). The Ephesian could be linked either to one of the Athenians or the Spartan. The former was one of the generals of 412/11 when from his base on Samos he had some success against the Spartan nauarchos Astyochos. He evidently took the side of the Four Hundred in 411 and was implicated in the death of Hyperbolos. The Spartan, variously referred to as a Λάκων or a Λακεδαιμόνιος by Xenophon, was a subordinate commander of Thibron in Mysia in 400/399 and involved in the recruitment of the remnant of the Ten Thousand (the Kyreioi) in Thrace (Poralla 750). 24. Among the Ephesian onomastic repertoire is a significant number of personal names formed from ethnics or place-names, some of which have already been encountered (e.g. Σκύθης, Χαλκιδεύς). Most of these are likely to originate in foreign relations of the type under discussion, where the children of xenoi were given names that testified to their foreign relations. Their frequency and geographical variety should encourage greater confidence in the evaluation of those names with apparent Spartan associations. Some of them are well attested as personal names and have a widespread distribution which presumably corresponds in some 82   See ID Index 83 for references. A Pharax named on a sling-bullet, once in the archaeological collection in Rodosto (mod. Tekirdağ) and said to be of the 3rd or 2nd cent., might also be identified with one of the Spartans: LGPN IV s.v. 83   It is presumably this man whose taste for the good life was criticized by Theopompos: FGrHist 115 F 192. 84   Sekunda 2008, 344–5.

212

R. W. V. Catling

way with the importance of the states or peoples concerned (e.g. Ἀθήναιος, Ἀργεῖος, Ἀρκάς, Βοιωτός, Θεσσαλός, Μολοσσός, Παρράσιος). But others are much less frequent or very rare (e.g. Αἰγύπτιος, Δήλιος [perhaps a cult-name], Ἡρακλεώτης, Θασιάδης, Ἰωνικός, Κιμμέριος, Κλειτόριος, Κνῶσος, Μαντινεύς, Παιώνιος, Πέλασγος, Ῥόδιος, Συρακόσιος, Φεραῖος). Worthy of note are those from the Peloponnese, specifically Arkadia, which were closely allied to Sparta and well-known as sources of mercenary soldiers, not least for the expedition of the Ten Thousand. Of more direct interest in the present context are those with a direct Spartan or Laconian connection, of which Λάκων, attested on a coin c. 390–380 (Coin Hoards IX 174 obverse 2; 201 = Leschhorn, LAGM II 634), is the most obvious, and not uncommon elsewhere, even from an early date in the fifth century. It is found in other cities in Asia Minor (e.g. Sinope, Herakleia Pontike, Kyzikos, Smyrna, Priene and Halikarnassos) but nowhere as early as Ephesos. It is much more common than Λακεδαιμόνιος, the name given to one of Kimon’s sons and otherwise only known in the fourth century again at Athens, on Thasos and at Elaia in Aiolis. The name Γερήνιος, attested on coins of c. 340–330 (Coin Hoards IX 182 obverse 182; 204 = Leschhorn, LAGM II 417), is a hapax which has the appearance of an ethnic. It is tempting to connect it to the small Laconian town of Gerenia, situated on the west side of Taygetos between Kardamyle and Messenian Pharai, close to the ancient border between Laconia and Messenia. Certainty is not possible as the ethnic attested epigraphically for Gerenia is Γερηνός.85 The name is possibly of heroic type, mimicing the title Γερήνιος attributed to Nestor in the Homeric poems, which itself was understood by ancient commentators to refer to the place where he was raised, but not identified with the later town of Gerenia/Gerena.

Group II Ephesians with names possibly derived from Spartans 25. Ἀναξίλας Coins of c. 200–170 (Kinns 1999, 84 = Leschhorn, LAGM II 318). The Doric form of the name calls for attention, though far from unique in Ionia at this date.86 The name, in any of its dialect forms, is commonest in the Dorian world and attested in many places. At Sparta it was the name of a Eurypontid king in the seventh century and of one of the five Spartan judges who acted as arbitrators in the dispute over Salamis between Athens and Megara around 600 (Poralla 88–89). 26. Ἀριστεύς Attested on an unpublished coin of c. 350–330 (Leschhorn, LAGM II 355) and twice in thirdcentury inscriptions of Ephesos (IEph 1447, 2; 1465, 1). Like many other names with the termination -εύς, it seems to be particularly favoured in the Dorian world, though it is attested elsewhere in Ionia, with surprising frequency at Magnesia. The name occurs twice at Sparta, possibly concerning a single person (Poralla 118). First is the man who was one of the three Spartans sent to Chalkidike in 423 to supervise the appointment of governors at Amphipolis and Torone that had recently been won by Brasidas. Second is the eponymous ephor attested in   IG V (1) 1336, ii BC; cf. St. Byz. s.v. There are multiple forms attested for the place-name.   E.g. an official on coins of Priene around the same time: Leschhorn, LAGM II 318; official at Magnesia (f. iii BC), IMM 6, 5.

85 86

Sparta’s Friends

at

Ephesos

213

two inscriptions, probably in the last years of the fifth or early fourth centuries (IG V (1) 213, 81; 1230, 6). Such a man is likely to have had some involvement in the military operations in the later stages of the Peloponnesian war and would be a potential candidate for any connection with the family of the Ephesian. 27. Ἀριστόδημος Attested on coins c. 405–390 (Coin Hoards IX 102 nos. 11–12) and also c. 380–370 (Coin Hoards IX 175 obverses 8–11, 201 = Leschhorn, LAGM II 358, for both) and in an inscription of the second half of the fourth century (IEph Addenda 126, 17). The name is very common in many regions. As the name of one of Herakles’ sons by the Theban Megara and more significantly of the descendant of Herakles who fathered Prokles and Eurysthenes, the first kings of Sparta, it perhaps had a particularly Spartan resonance. It is well-attested in Classical Sparta in its Doric form, among others for the sole survivor of the Three Hundred at Thermopylai in 480 who died the following year at Plataia, and also for a senior figure in the Agiad royal house who as guardian of the young king Agesipolis commanded the army in the campaign that led to the victory at Nemea in 394. It is also the name of a Spartan harmostes at Oreoi in Euboia in the first quarter of the fourth century (Poralla 124–6). 28. Ἀριστόλοχος Coins of c. 405–390 (Coin Hoards IX 103 nos. 13–14) and c. 340–320 (unpublished = Leschhorn, LAGM II 360, for both), as well as two later occurrences on a third-century inscription and a second-century coin (LGPN VA). Widely, if irregularly distributed, the name is found quite frequently in western Asia Minor, at Miletos and Kyzikos among other places. It is known at Sparta only as the name of one of the three ambassadors sent to Athens in 378 (X., HG v 4. 22 = Poralla 130). 29. Ἄριστος Coins of c. 405–390 (Coin Hoards IX 104 nos. 42–4) and c. 350–330 (Imhoof-Blumer, KM 50 no. 7 = Leschhorn, LAGM II 361, for both). The name is locally common (e.g. on Kos), but rare elsewhere. Outside Ephesos, where it is attested for two others in the Hellenistic period (LGPN VA), it is uncommon in Asia Minor. It is known once at Sparta as the name of a commander sent in support of Dionysios I of Syracuse in 404 (D.S. xiv 70. 3 = Poralla 135), a contemporary of the earlier Ephesian official. 30. Ἀρχίδαμος Coins of c. 340–325 (Coin Hoards IX 183 obverses 145–7; 205 = Leschhorn, LAGM II 372). At first sight this appears, like some of the other names derived from Spartans, to reproduce a Doric form of a name, but it is possibly one of those compounds based on δαμεῖν (‘tame’), rather than δῆμος/δᾶμος (‘people’), hard to separate from one another in many cases.87 It recurs a second time at Ephesos, as the patronymic of Skythes in an honorific decree of the mid-second century, and also at Kolophon in the late fourth century.88 Although very widespread throughout the Greek world (both as Ἀρχι- and Ἀρχε-), it is infrequent in Ionia. At Sparta it is a name favoured   Bechtel, HPN 115–16 with note on the difficulties of distinction. Ἀρχίδαμος is well-attested outside Doric dialect areas, especially in Euboia where there is a nice instance of an Ἀρχίδαμος son of Ἀρχίδημος (IG XII (9) 245 B, 338). 88   Ephesos: IEph 1390, 7 (date based on CSAD squeeze); Kolophon: Meritt 1935, 361–7 no. 1, 432. 87

214

R. W. V. Catling

in the Eurypontid royal family, first for one of the seventh-century kings and subsequently for several obscure figures of the Archaic period, but best known for the long-lived king of the fifth century (Archidamos II) whose kingship lasted from c. 476/469 to 427, and his grandson, son of Agesilaos and Kleora, who ruled from Agesilaos’ death in 360 until 338 (Poralla 154–8).89 31. Δερκυλίδης A person of this name appears as ὁ τῆς Περσικῆς ἀφηγημένος δυνάμεως (‘commander of the Persian contingent’) in an inscription from Ephesos of uncertain character, dated to the first century (IEph 610). The name is uncommon, occurring a number of times at Eretria and in Macedonia in the Hellenistic period. However, it is best known as the name of a Spartan commander who had a long and successful career in naval and land operations in the eastern Aegean and Hellespont (Poralla 124).90 He first appears in 411 as a naval commander in the Hellespont, where some years later in 407 he is found as harmostes of Abydos. Characterized by Xenophon as μηχανητικός (best translated as ‘cunning’), for which he was nicknamed Σίσυφος, from 399 to 396 he took command of Spartan operations against the Persians, primarily in northwestern Asia Minor, using Ephesos as his base. With Agesilaos’ arrival in Asia Minor in 396 he first acted as one of his advisors before returning to Sparta, only to reappear in the Hellespont in 394. Once again he had some success in maintaining a Spartan presence in this crucial region after the naval defeat at Knidos and remained there until his replacement in 389. Such a man would have had ample opportunity to establish close relations in the cities of Asia Minor, Ephesos included. Another Spartan of this name is known only from an anecdote recorded by Plutarch (Mor. 219 F) in the context of Pyrrhos’ invasion of Laconia in 272 but indicates that, although the earlier Derkylidas remained unmarried and had no children, the name may have been perpetuated in a parallel branch of the family. The main obstacle to seeing a link is the late date of the Ephesian text and the uncertainty that the man in question was an Ephesian at all. 32. Ἡγέλοχος Coins of c. 380–370 (Coin Hoards IX 176 obverses 19 and 21; 201) and c. 350–330 (unpublished coin = Leschhorn, LAGM II 526, for both). A common name in both its Ionic and Doric forms, but infrequent in Ionia except at Miletos. In its Doric form, Ἀγέλοχος, the name occurs at Sparta in the family of manteis of Elean origin, settled there before 480, as the son of Teisamenos and father of Agias, the Spartan mantis at Aigospotamoi (Poralla 4).91 The possibility of a Spartan connection is strengthened by the occurrence of Teisamenos as a name at Ephesos (above 20), suggesting that there may have been an ancestral relationship between the families. 89  Archidamos II had ties of xenia with Perikles at Athens, as well as with people at Phleious and probably Mantineia: see Hodkinson 2000, 338 table 14, 347. 90   See Cartledge 1987, 210–12, 322–3, 355–6; Mitchell 1997, 84; during his lengthy three-year command in Asia Minor he evidently raised a mercenary force called the μισθοφόροι Δερκυλιδείοι, which passed into the service of Agesilaos in 396 (Hell. Oxy. 674). 91   Hornblower 2008, 1017–18 refers to a forthcoming paper in which he suggests the identification of the Spartan mantis with the Tarentine Hegelochos honoured at Eretria in 411 for his part in the liberation of the city from Athens: ML 82 and Eretria XI 77–84 no. II. Assuming that Agelochos was born c. 480, he would have been about seventy in 411, making him rather elderly for a naval command, though he might still have been active as a mantis. Even if the identification is not accepted, the name of the Tarentine likely reflects a tie of xenia with the family of Teisamenos and his descendents.

Sparta’s Friends

at

Ephesos

215

33. Ἡγησίπολις Coins of c. 340–330 (SNG Kayhan 263–5 = Leschhorn, LAGM II 528). While not as distinctively Spartan as the foregoing names, the fact that it is not otherwise attested in Ionia and is extremely rare more generally in Asia Minor is noteworthy. It and its Doric form, Ἁγησίπολις, are common on Rhodes and Thasos, on the former no earlier than the later fourth century, on the latter from the beginning of the fourth (as a patronymic, so presumably born c. 450–425: LGPN I). It is also quite common in Thessaly where it is first attested for a Magnesian hieromnemon at Delphi (CID II 36 I, 7; 43, 3, 49: 344–340). However, it is also the name of three Spartan Agiad kings, as well as of the father of the last of these (Poralla 14–15; Bradford 1–2). Of these the first was the elder son of king Pausanias and brother of Kleombrotos, born c. 410 and still a youth at the time of his father’s exile in 395 when he became king under the regency of Aristodamos, perhaps his uncle. His activities were largely confined to the Peloponnese, managing, for example, the dioikismos of Mantineia c. 385, and he died in 380 at Olynthos leading an expedition against the Chalkidian League. However, the date of the coins suggests that the Ephesian magistrate may well have been born under his kingship (c. 390–370), whose early years coincided with a period of intense activity in Spartan relations with Persia and the Greeks of Asia Minor. So it should perhaps be expected that he too had a part in these dealings. But it is equally likely that there was an ancestral friendship forged by earlier members of the Agiad royal family (below 17 and 37) which would account for the use of the name for an Ephesian. Another possibility is Hagesipolis II, his nephew, who succeeded his father Kleombrotos in 371 but his short, one-year reign and presumed youth make him a much less promising candidate. Finally it should be noted that the epichoric form of the name (Ἀγhίπολις) is attested in the fifth century at Gerenia, one of the perioikic towns on the west side of Taygetos on the Messenian gulf (IG V (1) 1338 = Poralla 13), suggesting that the name may have been more widely current in Laconia. 34. Λέων Coins of c. 370–360 (Coin Hoards IX 185 = Leschhorn, LAGM II 642). This is a common and very widespread name, but not frequently attested in Ionia except at Miletos (no fewer than 15). As the lion was one of the attributes of Herakles, this name may have had a particular resonance at Sparta, and it recurs in the patronymic form Λεωνίδας. It was the name of an Agiad king of the first half of the sixth century and also of at least two prominent Spartans of the fifth century (Poralla 481–2). First of these was the son of Antikleidas who, possibly at a young age, won an Olympic victory in the chariot-race in 440.92 This man is generally identified with one of the three oikists of Herakleia in Trachis in 426, in which role his Olympic victory and Heraklid name, like that of his colleague Alkidas, have been seen as relevant factors.93 He is also thought likely to be the same as one of the three ambassadors sent to repair relations with Athens in 420 (Th. v 44. 3) and perhaps the eponymous ephor of 419/18 (X., HG ii 3. 10). This was also the name of the father of Pedaritos, the Spartan commander killed on Chios in 411, and of Antalkidas, the famous diplomat of the first three decades of the fourth century. These two are normally thought to have been brothers and sons of the above. But he is scarcely the same as the Leon   See Hornblower 2006, 235–6 n. 422 for a detailed explanation of the confusion over the date; also Hodkinson 2000, 329 n. 12; Moretti, Olympionikai 332 misdates the victory to 424. 93   Hornblower 1991, 506–7; 2006, 235–6. 92

216

R. W. V. Catling

who succeeded Pedaritos on Chios in 411, where Thucydides (viii 61. 2) describes him simply as ἄνδρα Σπαρτιάτην, ὅς Ἀντισθένει ἐπιβάτης ξυνεξῆλθε. Although this prominent figure is never attested in a role that would have brought him into contact with Ephesos, his son Antalkidas’ (above 2) ancestral relationship with Ariobarzanes and apparent connections in Ionia suggests this does not reflect the true position. This would be all the more persuasive if his fellow oikist Alkidas, known to have had an Ephesian connection (above 1), was indeed a close friend, as has been suggested on the basis of the name given to Leon’s son, Antalkidas.94 Even if it was not this man whom the Ephesian commemorates, it might have been that other Leon who replaced Pedaritos on Chios, of whom nothing further is known. 35. Ναυκλῆς Coins of c. 340–325 (Coin Hoards IX 185 = Leschhorn, LAGM II 702). This is an uncommon name, not surprisingly best known in Athens. No further examples of it are known in western Asia Minor. Rather surprisingly it is attested twice for Spartans, one of several names with the element ναυ- or ναυσι- relating to ships current among one or two generations of Spartans in the late fifth and early fourth centuries (e.g. Ναυβάτας, Ναυκλείδας, Ναυσιάδας, Ναυσικλείδας). The first Ναυκλῆς known to us commanded the mercenary contingent (τὸ ξενικόν) in the garrison of Oneion near Corinth in 367 (X., HG vii 1. 41 = Poralla 549), and in terms of date would certainly correspond well to the naming of the Ephesian. The second was the father of a Spartan buried at Athens, probably in the third century (IG II2 9153 = Bradford 1). 36. Νικόλας Coins of c. 350–330 (Numismatic Chronicle 1937, 157 no. 8 = Leschhorn, LAGM II 714). The Doric form of the common name Νικόλαος calls for attention, though the use of Doric terminations is not so uncommon in places where Ionic dialect was used.95 In either form the name is not common in Ionia before the Imperial period. At Sparta the name is found in one leading family as the father and son of the Boulis who, together with Sperchias, offered his life in atonement for the murder of the Persian ambassadors who had demanded tokens of submission to Dareios a generation earlier (Poralla 561–2). Nikolas the son, together with Aneristos the son of Sperchias, was chosen some fifty years later as one of the three Spartan ambassadors sent in 430 to Persia to obtain funds for the war with Athens. All three, together with their companions from Corinth, Tegea and Argos, were captured in Thrace, sent to Athens and summarily executed. Their choice as ambassadors was obviously deliberate and suggests that a formal tie of friendship had been established between their fathers and the Persian king.96 It can only be conjectured that on their journey to Susa and before their encounter with Hydarnes, whom Herodotos describes as στρατηγὸς δὲ τῶν παραθαλασσίων ἀνθρώπων τῶν ἐν τῇ Ἀσίῃ (a rather imprecise term that may refer to one of the satrapies of western Asia Minor), they, like others before and after, passed through Ephesos. 37. Ξενοκλῆς Attested on coins of c. 350–340 (Coin Hoards IX 181 obverses 121 and 123; 204) and again c. 340–325 (Coin Hoards IX 183 obverse 146; 205 = Leschhorn, LAGM II 722, for both), as well as on an epitaph commemorating a father and his two sons (IEph 123), apparently no later   Hodkinson 2000, 414. One might even speculate that they were related in some way.   The same form of the name occurs twice at Miletos: Milet I (3) 124, 11; Leschhorn, LAGM II 714. 96   Mitchell 1997, 76; Hodkinson 2000, 344. 94 95

Sparta’s Friends

at

Ephesos

217

than the fourth century. The name recurs on early third-century coins (Leschhorn, LAGM II 722). Although a common and widespread name without any particular local colour, it is not otherwise frequent in Ionia or other parts of Asia Minor. It may therefore be associated with one of Agesilaos’ close companions and commanders during his Asia Minor campaigns in 395–4, a man imprisoned at Larisa together with Skythes on their return through Thessaly in 394, set free after negotiations (Poralla 569).97 Any one of the Ephesians would potentially be of the right age for someone named after a tie of friendship contracted at that time. 38. Παυσανίας Coins of c. 350–340 (Coin Hoards IX 180–1 obverses 112 and 117; 204) and much later c. 200–170 (Kinns 1999, 89 = Leschhorn, LAGM II 750, for both). This name, present almost everywhere but typical of Thessaly and central Macedonia and well-represented in Ionia from an early date, is attested earliest at Sparta where it figured twice in the Agiad royal family (Poralla 595–6). First was Pausanias the son of Kleombrotos who acted as regent for his cousin Pleistarchos, following the death of Kleombrotos in 479. In this role he commanded the allied forces at Plataia and subsequently in the naval operations around the Hellespont and Propontis which led to his disgrace and recall. The same name was given to his grandson, the son of Pleistoanax, who must have been born before his father’s exile in 445 and was still alive at the time of his own son, Agesipolis’ death in 380. He was nominally king in the period of Pleistoanax’ exile (445–426) under the regency of his uncle Kleomenes and only assumed the kingship in 408, until his own exile in 395 following the skirmish at Haliartos in which Lysander had been killed. Either man would have been a suitable candidate for an Ephesian to be named after, the earlier on account of his preeminent position in the short period 479–476 and perhaps also because of his connections with the Persians, the latter because his kingship coincided with the period of Sparta’s ascendancy in western Asia Minor and the height of its popularity among the Greeks living there.98 39. Πολυκλῆς Attested on coins of c. 380–370 (Coin Hoards IX 175–6 obverses 8, 10–11, 13, 15–18; 201 = Leschhorn, LAGM II 765) and, as the son of Theudoros, in an inscription from Miletos closely dated to 391–387 (Milet I (2) 9 b, 16), perhaps referring to the same man. The name is widespread and locally common but rare in western Asia Minor. A Spartan Polykles, evidently a wealthy man who had the nickname Πολύχαλκος, is recorded as victor in the chariot-race at Olympia, Delphi, the Isthmos and Nemea, giving him the prestigious title of periodonikes (Poralla 629). The dates of his victories are unknown but conventionally placed in the second half of the fifth century, a period of unparalleled Spartan success in chariot-racing.99 Such a date would coincide well with the date of the Ephesian who lived about a generation later. He was clearly the type of man whose wealth and status enabled him to participate in the networks of foreign connections and made him a desirable friend for his peers outside Sparta. 40. Φιλόλεως Coins of c. 340–325 (Coin Hoards IX 183–4 obverses 147 and 161; 205 = Leschhorn, LAGM II 873). In this Ionic form the name is unique, while the more familiar Φιλόλαος is common only   See Cartledge 1987, 154.   Both men had foreign xenoi, the former with Hagetoridas of Kos, the latter an ancestral tie with the family of Nikias, the Athenian: see Hodkinson 2000, 338 table 14, 341. 99   Moretti, Olympionikai 315 places his Olympic victory in 440, while Hodkinson (2000, 330 n. 14) puts it in 424. A date in the early fourth century has also been proposed. 97 98

218

R. W. V. Catling

in Thessaly and rare in Asia Minor. A Spartan Φιλόλαος is known from Delphic inscriptions in the period 360–354, first for bringing dedications on behalf of Sparta and then as one of the naopoioi, the board charged with the rebuilding of the temple of Apollo (CID II 4 II, 53; 31, 6, 35 = Poralla 728). *** From the preceding catalogue it is clear that many of the personal connections between Spartans and Ephesians were established during the later part of the Peloponnesian war (the so-called Ionian war) and the period of Spartan ascendancy between 405 and the signing of the King’s Peace (the Peace of Antalkidas) in 386. This period will be discussed in more detail below. First, however, attention should be drawn to the possibility that relationships of this kind were established at an earlier date, perhaps as early as the sixth century if not before, in the context of Ephesos’ geographical location and its close relations with its non-Greek neighbours.

Ephesos and its special place in Western Asia Minor Ephesos owed some of its importance to its great harbour, capable of sheltering a large fleet and for this reason used by various powers as their naval headquarters. But it was only one of a number of fine harbours on the coast of Asia Minor. More important in the present context was the fact that it was used as the regular point of departure for people journeying inland to Sardis, three-days distant on foot, which was first capital of the Lydian kingdom and later the seat of the Persian satrap. Sardis was itself the starting point of the Persian Royal Road that crossed Anatolia and allowed communications with the imperial centres and the further parts of the empire (see Hdt. v 54; Ktesias, FGrHist 688 F 33).100 Thus, when the Scythian ambassadors to Sparta c. 513 propose a two-pronged attack on the Persian heartland, they suggest that the Spartans should set out from Ephesos (Hdt. vi 84: τοὺς Σπαρτιήτας .... ἐξ Ἐφέσου ὁρμωμένους ἀναβαίνειν). About 110 years later Ephesos was the starting point for an expedition of precisely this kind when the young Cyrus attempted to overthrow his brother with the help of the Ten Thousand (X., An. ii 2. 6), and a little later in 388 it was from there that Antalkidas set out on his journey to Susa to negotiate the terms of the peace with Artaxerxes (X., HG v 1. 6). So for most communications between mainland Greeks and the powers that ruled western Asia Minor, Ephesos was likely to have been the starting point.101 A natural consequence of Ephesos’ favoured role as port of entry to western Asia Minor would have been the establishment of personal relations between these travellers, whether ambassadors, military commanders, exiles, or mercenaries, with those who were well-disposed among the ruling-class in Ephesos. The attractions of such relationships were further enhanced by the close links between Ephesos and its non-Greek neighbours in the Kaystros, Maeander and Hermos   See Debord 1995. See also Briant 2002, 700–2 on this and other aspects of Ephesian relations with its neighbours. 101   A reminder that it was not the only starting point for the journey to Sardis, nor necessarily the quickest, comes in Herodotos’ account (i 152) of the Spartan mission that followed the fall of Sardis and the appeal of the Ionians for protection against the Persians. On this occasion they landed at Phokaia in northern Ionia and their envoy presumably travelled up the Hermos valley to Sardis, which must have been the main alternative to the route starting at Ephesos. The choice of Phokaia was probably influenced by the fact that the spokeman for the Ionian delegation was Pythermos of Phokaia. 100

Sparta’s Friends

at

Ephesos

219

valleys. Of all the Greek cities of Ionia, Ephesos was probably most at ease with the Lydians and later the Persians and least energetic in the cause of the freedom of the Greeks in Asia.102 Certainly in 407, when Lysander arrived as nauarchos to take over command of the allied fleet at Ephesos, Plutarch (Lys. 3) could describe the city as “being in danger of being barbarized by Persian customs through constant interaction with them, because Lydia encircled it and royal commanders were present for much of the time”. Apart from geographical proximity, two other factors may account for its happy coexistence with its non-Greek neighbours. One is the possibility that Ephesos included within its population a large number of non-Greeks (Paus. vii 2. 8 refers to Leleges and Lydians settled around the Artemision).103 Prior to the enlargement of its territory in the third century, Ephesos rubbed shoulders with its Lydian neighbours a few hours distant from the city in the lower Kaystros valley.104 At Belevi, not much more than ten kilometres northeast of Ephesos, where the Kaystros passes through the narrows into the coastal plain, a monumental tomb, evidently modelled on the Mausoleion at Halikarnassos, exhibits distinctive Achaemenid features in its mortuary iconography and architecture.105 A recent study has argued that the tomb was originally built in the mid fourth century for a wealthy Persian, perhaps for Autophradates the satrap of Sardis,106 contrary to the prevailing view favouring a date in the first half of the third century and identifying it as the tomb of Lysimachos, the founder of the new Ephesos. It would indeed be remarkable for the tomb of such an eminent figure in the Achaemenid administration to have been located right on the border with the territory of Ephesos. It raises the possibility that there were Achaemenid estates not far from Ephesos in the Kaystros valley, where even in Pausanias’ time there were survivals of Persian fire cult at the town of Hypaipa (Paus. v 27. 5); more widely in Lydia aspects of the Persian divinity Anahita were adopted in the cult of Artemis Anaitis and Artemis Persike.107 An equally short distance to the southeast brought Ephesians into Persian territories in the Maeander valley and the administrative centre at Magnesia, nominally a Greek city but with strong Persian leanings and perhaps incorporating an even larger non-Greek element than Ephesos itself.108 Likewise to the north, Kolophon had a chequered history; even in the period of Athenian domination, there were factions who favoured the Persians.109 The other, more important factor is the cult of Artemis Ephesia, monumentalised in the sixth century in the great Artemision. This cult, whose mythical past was intimately associated with the Amazons, concerned a native Asiatic deity identified by the Greek inhabitants with Artemis, mainly devoted to the protection of the city and those seeking asylum. The sanctuary was held in great esteem not only by the Greeks but also by the indigenous populations and the Lydian   See Picard 1922, 608–10; in the context of resistance to a Persian presence in cities of Asia Minor in the Ionian War, Meiggs (1972, 356) says of Ephesos, “Ephesus seems to have been an exception in accepting Persian control willingly”. 103   See Ehrhardt 2005. 104   The size of Classical Ephesos’ territory is considered to have been larger than 500 km 2 by Rubinstein in Hansen–Nielsen, IACP 1070; this seems to be a considerable overestimate if allowance is made for the existence of small poleis such as P(h)ygela, Marathesion and Anaia. 105   Praschniker–Theuer 1979. 106   Polat 2005. 107   See Brosius 1998; Mitchell 2007, 159–62. 108   See Nollé–Wenninger 1998–99, 50–63. 109   See Hansen–Nielsen, IACP 1078; IG I3 37. 102

220

R. W. V. Catling

and Persian rulers. Thus even before Kroisos became king of Lydia he is found making a vow to Artemis at Ephesos and later as king dedicating the property of Sadyattes, a weathy Lydian merchant, to Artemis (Nikolaos of Damaskos, FGrHist 90 F 65). When Kroisos first attacked the cities of Ionia, Ephesos was his first target but out of respect for the sanctity of the Artemision, he spared the city (Hdt. i 26). Xerxes also is said to have made an exception of the Artemision when he destroyed the other Greek temples in Ionia, including the oracular shrine of Apollo at Didyma (Str. xiv 1. 5). Kroisos was also a major benefactor in the construction of the enlarged Artemision begun c. 560, paying for many of its vast columns with their sculpted lower drums and dedicating a group of golden oxen there (Hdt. i 92).110 About 150 years later, in 411, Tissaphernes, the Persian satrap of Lydia, is found sacrificing to Artemis at Ephesos (Th. viii 109) as a prelude to military action and a few years after (409) the same man, in the face of an Athenian attack on Ephesos, calls on the surrounding people to defend Artemis (X., HG i 2. 6). Taken with the attention paid to Artemis by Agesilaos and his army in 396–394 and Alexander the Great’s sacrifice and armed parade at the Artemision in 334, it has been suggested that Ephesian Artemis had a warlike aspect, akin to other Artemis cults, but this finds little support among the dedications or other iconographic and written evidence.111 Centuries later, an Ephesian embassy in 22 A.D. to the Roman senate still thought it appropriate to refer to the Persian confirmation of the right of asylum at the Artemision which originated in the asylum given to the wounded Amazons (Tac., Ann. iii 61).112 Artemis of Ephesos is frequently invoked in Lydian imprecations of the Achaemenid period against those who might harm either a sacred building or a tomb.113 In his Persai, a kitharodic nomos performed c. 410, Timotheos of Miletos has a soldier from Phrygian Kelainai, made captive by a Greek at Salamis, begging for his life and finishing his speech in garbled Greek with the lines: Ἄρτιμις ἐμὸς μέγας θεός | παρ’ Ἔφεσον φυλάξει (PMG 791 = Timotheus fr. 13, 160–1).114 One of the officials of the Artemision, styled in Greek as the neokoros, had a Persian title (Greek Μεγάβυξος = Persian ‘Bagabuxsa’, ‘the servant of god’: X., An. v 3. 5–7; IPriene 3, 4–5, 17; 231)115 and was later alleged to have been a eunuch in the Persian manner (Str. xiv 1. 23). Persian Magi were settled at Ephesos (Plu., Alex. 3) and were perhaps involved in the cult of the Artemision, influencing not only the local philosopher Herakleitos but also disseminating more widely in East Greece the knowledge and thought of the Near East.116 Aristophanes and Autokrates, another fifth-century comic poet, refer in similar terms to the Lydian girls who worship Ephesian Artemis (Ar., Clouds 598–600; Autokrates, PCG IV 18–19 fr. 1). In the archaeological record there is also abundant evidence for the dedication of foreign objects and exotica at the Artemision, including items of Phrygian, Lydian and Persian origin,   While many of the dedicatory inscriptions on the column bases were in Greek, at least one was in Lydian: Sardis VI (2) 48. 111   Dillon 2008, 249. For a more measured view of Artemis see Vernant 1991, 195–219, 244–57, though Ephesian Artemis was in Lewis’ words (1977, 108) “a decidedly peculiar goddess”. 112   Fleischer 2002. 113   Gusmani, LW nos. 1–2, 23–4, 54; a Greek funerary imprecation of the 3rd cent. also calls on Artemis Ephesia: SEG XXXII 1612, 14–15. 114   See commentary in Hordern 2004. 115   See Benveniste 1966, 108–15; Mitchell 2007, 156–7. 116   See for example Stella 1927; West 1971, 163–202, 239–42; Papatheophanes 1985, esp. 112–15, 142–4, 154–6. 110

Sparta’s Friends

at

Ephesos

221

as well as close stylistic links between Ephesian artistic production and that of its non-Greek neighbours.117 Among the remains of animal offerings from early levels at the Artemision are a small number of dog bones which have been related to evidence for the sacrifice of dogs at Sardis.118 The close association between Ephesos and Sardis at the level of cult emerges most clearly in a remarkable inscription of the second half of the fourth century (IEph 2), the so-called ‘sacrilege inscription’.119 It informs us (ll. 8–9) that the Ephesians had founded a sanctuary of Artemis at Sardis (τὸ ἱερὸν τῆς Ἀρτέμιδος | τὸ ἱδρυμένον ὑπὸ Ἐφεσίων), to which a sacred delegation was sent according to ancestral custom for the chitones for Artemis. This was presumably a sanctuary of Artemis Ephesia, dependent in certain ways on its mother sanctuary at Ephesos, to be distinguished from the great sanctuary of Artemis Sardiane. Apart from their deep reverence for the sanctuary, the Lydian and Persian rulers also established close relations with the Greek inhabitants of Ephesos, who are often found acting in their service. Early in the sixth century, Melas, one of the tyrants of Ephesos, had married a daughter of the Lydian king Alyattes (Ael., NH iii 26; cf. Nikolaos, FGrHist 90 F 63). When Kroisos was faced with the threat of the Persian attack on his kingdom, he entrusted Eurybatos the Ephesian with a large amount of gold to summon military assistance, only to be betrayed when he turned it over to Cyrus (Ephoros, FGrHist 70 F 58), an episode which gave rise to a proverbial expression for wickedness. Among Xerxes’ Greek advisors who accompanied him in his invasion of Greece, there were probably several Ephesians, one of whom, Hegias, was present at Thermopylai (Ktesias, FGrHist 688 F 13. 27). Another of these was perhaps the Dionysophanes who arranged for the burial of Mardonios after his death at Plataia in 479 (Hdt. ix 84). Ephesos also appears as a place of safety for Persians, a generally reliable ally where diplomatic and commercial interaction with Greeks may have been concentrated. After the defeat at Salamis, Xerxes entrusted his bastard children to Artemisia of Halikarnassos to take to Ephesos for safekeeping (Hdt. viii 103, 107). It was claimed by Timaios (FGrHist 566 F 150 b) that the rebuilding of the Artemision in the fourth century was paid for, at least in part, from the money and perhaps other valuables deposited in the temple by the Persians (ἐκ τῶν Περσικῶν παρακαταθηκῶν), though this was disputed by Artemidoros, the local geographical writer. In the early fifth century Ephesos, together with Sardis, had been a market for the sale of young Greek eunuchs to barbarian, presumably Persian, owners (Hdt. viii 105). Although, at the outset of the Ionian revolt in 499, Ephesians acting as guides for the Greek allies enabled them to make a surprise attack on Sardis (Hdt. v 100), Ephesos appears to have stood aloof from the subsequent conflict. In the aftermath of the Ionian naval defeat at Lade, Ephesian forces contributed to the disaster suffered by the Chians by killing the survivors of the battle who were trying to make their way to safety overland through Ephesian territory (Hdt. vi 16). It is likewise revealing that when Themistokles defected to the Persians, some time in the 460s, he landed at Ephesos, presumably in the expectation of meeting Persian sympathisers who could convey him to Sardis (Th. i 137. 2). Something of the flavour and atmosphere of the city is conveyed by Demokritos,   There is an extensive literature on this material of which the following is a selection: Greenewalt 1973; Brein 1978; Bammer 1991–92; Bammer–Muss 1996, 47, 84–6; Gasser 1992; Özgen–Öztürk 1996, 26–7, 58, 61–3; Öztürk 1998; Klebinder 2002; Klebinder-Gauss 2007, 205–12; Kerschner 2005; 2007, 233–5. 118   Bammer et al. 1978, 108, 150; Forstenpointner et al. 2005, 90–1. 119   The same episode seems to lie behind the award of citizenship to a man of Sardis who had given assistance to the sacred delegation: IEph 2010. 117

222

R. W. V. Catling

who composed a history of the temple at Ephesos in the later third century, in his description of the luxurious Persian style of dress adopted by his fellow citizens (FGrHist 267 F 1). It is also interesting, in an anecdote of Satyros the historian (FHG III 160. 1 in Ath. 534 B), to find the Ephesians setting up a Persian tent for Alkibiades at Olympia on the occasion of his victory in the chariot-race of 416. Within this social and cultural milieu it is not surprising to find evidence for Lydian and Phrygian loan-words in the vernacular vocabulary of Hipponax, the Ephesian poet of the later sixth century.120 Ephesos was almost certainly a place where there was knowledge of the nonGreek languages of western Asia Minor and where interpreters and translators as well as guides who knew the routes through Lydia could be found. It would have been a natural source of information and advice to mainland Greeks in their dealings with the Lydian kings and the Persian satraps and its leading citizens were in a position to assist travellers to Sardis both materially and through their own personal connections in the region.

Sparta’s relations with Southern Ionia and Lydia in the Archaic period Sparta’s formal connections with the non-Greek powers of Asia Minor apparently began in the reign of Kroisos (c. 560–546).121 Friendly relations had been established when Kroisos made a gift of the gold which a Spartan mission had been sent to Sardis to procure for the statue of Apollo at Thornax. This act of generosity was the prelude to the treaty made between Sparta and Kroisos towards the end of his reign (Hdt. i 69–70). The alliance was sealed on their part by the gift of a huge bronze crater, doubtless similar to that found at Vix in northern Burgundy, which, for reasons disputed by the parties involved, ended up as a dedication in the Heraion on Samos. When Kroisos called on Spartan help, an expedition was still being prepared when Sardis fell to the Persians (Hdt. i 83–4). These transactions were almost certainly conducted through Ephesos and would have provided occasions for the formation of ties of xenia between Spartans and Ephesians. The fact that the great crater ended up in the Samian Heraion strongly implies that it was being transported to Sardis along the southern Ionian route with Ephesos as its destination port. It is also worth noting that in their hour of need the Ionians twice, in 546 and 499, directed their appeals for help first to Dorian Sparta rather than to their Ionian kin in Athens and other parts of the Aegean. Doubtless this was in recognition of Sparta’s preeminence and military supremacy on the Greek mainland, but it may also reflect a background of close official relations and intimate personal contacts between the two regions. Some support may be found in the late story (Ael., VH iii 26) that Pindaros, tyrant of Ephesos at the time of Kroisos’ attack c. 560–550 and required to leave the city under the terms of the agreement made with Kroisos, chose to go into exile with some of his retinue in the Peloponnese. Archaeological evidence suggests strongly that relations between Sparta and Ionia, and perhaps with Lydia, were well established much earlier than the reign of Kroisos, no later than the beginning of the sixth century and the early years of the reign of Alyattes. It has long been   See Masson 1962, 31–2; also 16 for his knowledge of things Lydian and Phrygian; Tedeschi 1981 argues that Hipponax’ use of foreign words, not restricted to Lydian and Phrygian, was more to do with an ostentatious display of learning than a reflection of local realities. 121   The date of the Persian capture of Sardis is conventionally dated to 546, but there appear to be good grounds for lowering it to the period between 539 and 530: see Ehrhardt 2005, 106 n. 108. 120

Sparta’s Friends

at

Ephesos

223

known that significant amounts of Laconian pottery found their way to Samos, where it figures prominently at the Heraion (c. 625–525)122 and the Artemision (c. 550–525),123 and to a lesser degree in the cemeteries.124 Although the majority of this material dates to the period from c. 575–530, the earliest belongs to the late seventh and first quarter of the sixth century, indicating a long and continuous history of regular contacts. These finds, together with other certain or probable Laconian objects that include two eighth-century bronze figurines, a marble perirrhanterion (c. 660), a later seventh-century terracotta figurine, some late seventh to early sixth-century ivories, several terracotta masks (c. 600–575), two or three sixth-century bronze figures including a small bronze lion originally attached to the rim of a bronze vessel with an inscribed dedication by the Spartiate Eumnastos (c. 550), and an over-life-sized marble warrior identified as a Lakedaimonian (c. 530),125 have frequently been associated with that special relationship between Sparta and Samos referred to above (see Hdt. iii 47. 1). More recent discoveries at Miletos, the traditional enemy of Samos, have rather upset this picture, suggesting that the Samian finds form part of a more widespread pattern of Spartan contacts with southern Ionia which began in the seventh century and were intensified from the early sixth. Finds of Laconian pottery from the extra-urban sanctuary of Aphrodite at Zeytintepe alone now outnumber those from Samos, with considerable quantities from the first quarter of the sixth century, continuing down to the end of the third quarter.126 At other sites the quantities are smaller but some pottery reached Sardis in the period c. 600–540127 and, even more remarkably, part of a terracotta disc akroterion of Laconian type has also been found there.128 This latter find is important for indicating that a sanctuary roofed in the Laconian style was constructed there c. 600. At Ephesos itself Laconian pottery is scarce, though this may in part be accounted for by the lack of votive deposits at the Artemision later than the first quarter of the sixth century when the old temple was superseded by the first stages of construction of the vast new building designed by the Cretan Chersiphron and Theodoros of Samos. What there is consists of two Laconian II fragments from the early excavations kept in the British Museum129 and a few pieces of cups and craters from more recent work at the site.130 The impressive figures for southern Ionia contrast markedly with the very small quantities of Laconian pottery (seven in total) found in sixth-century horizons at Old Smyrna.131 122   Stibbe 1997 includes 116 items in his catalogue; at 30–1 he estimates that about 300 Laconian pots have been found so far at the Heraion. 123   Pipili 2001 publishes 58 pieces. 124   Löwe 1996, 76–8 nos. 3–9 and 81 nos. 24–31; Pipili 2004 reexamines the date of the 16 Laconian pots found in the west cemetery, all but one of which were found in a single burnt deposit dated c. 540–30. 125   Stibbe 1997, 32–3 lists most of these objects. Ivories: Freyer-Schauenburg 1966, 37–9 on nos. 5–6; perirrhanterion: Hiesel 1969, Sturgeon 1987, 18 no. 1 and Carter 1988 for its likely Laconian origin; terracotta: Furtwängler 1981, 106; masks: Gercke 1969; bronze lion: Dunst 1972, 140–4 = LSAG2 446 no. 16a; other bronzes: Herfort-Koch 1986, 116 no. K 132; marble warrior: Freyer-Schauenburg 1974, 158–62 with Stibbe 1996, 235–40. To these might be added a bronze female figurine that originally supported a larger object: Stibbe 2007, 61–2 no. 28 (c. 600?). 126   Gerald Schaus, responsible for the study and publication of this pottery, kindly informs me that his catalogue of Laconian pottery now exceeds 420 pieces; of these no fewer than 61 are from Laconian II cups, to which a further 350 uncatalogued scraps may be added. 127   Schaeffer 1997, 135. 128   Winter 1993, 246. 129   Lane 1933–34, 180. 130   Kerschner 2008, 130. 131   Cook 1965, 138.

224

R. W. V. Catling

The case for believing in close and regular links between Sparta and southern Ionia and the Lydian hinterland is strengthened by the ever-increasing evidence for East Greek influences manifested in the material culture of Laconia. It has often been suspected, and indeed assumed, that immigrant craftsmen were active in Archaic Laconia and that they made an important contribution to the flowering of the arts between the later seventh century and its climax in the mid-sixth. Influences have been detected from a number of directions both in the Dorian world of the Peloponnese and Crete as well as from East Greece. In ceramics Ionian influences are evident in the development of the stemmed cup, the most common Laconian export throughout the Mediterranean in the mid-sixth century, as well as the so-called ‘fruit-stand’, a shallow dish on a stemmed foot. Noteworthy are the occasional copies made by Laconian potters of East Greek bird-bowls and, more remarkably, the lydion, a shape found in Lydia and Ionia which took its name from its place of origin; some of the unusual Laconian shapes found only in East Greek contexts (e.g. at the Samian Artemision) were perhaps made to order for some specific purpose, and thus reflect close links between producers and clients. Reciprocal influences of Laconian ceramics on the products of East Greece, especially those of Samos and Miletos, have also been identified.132 For some of the monumental architectural programmes at Sparta, the names and origins of several men responsible for their design and execution are recorded. Best known is Bathykles from Magnesia on the Maeander, architect of the extraordinary architectural complex at the sanctuary of Apollo Hyakinthios at Amyklai, most likely before the middle of the sixth century, whose unorthodox design blended together a number of Ionian and Doric architectural elements in the details of its execution. According to Pausanias (iii 18. 14) Bathykles was accompanied by fellow craftsmen from Magnesia. Theodoros of Samos, an important figure in early sixth-century metal-working as well as in sculpture and architecture (the Artemision included), is said to have built the Skias in Sparta, perhaps round in plan and certainly one of its few distinguished public buildings, still in use in Pausanias’ day for meetings of the Spartan assembly (Paus. iii 12. 10). There were probably other foreign commissions of which we have no direct knowledge in the first seventy-five years of the sixth century, a period of intensive construction at Spartan sanctuaries. One such may be the late Archaic marble statue of Athena Promachos found in a few fragments close to the sanctuary of Athena Chalkioikos on the Spartan acropolis and attributed to an Ionian sculptor.133 The dedicatory inscription on a bronze discus from Olympia tells us that the artisan was a Lakedaimonian called Hermesios, a name redolent of Ionia that leaves little doubt that he was either a first generation immigrant or the descendent of an earlier emigré.134 In the same way East Greek, and specifically Ionian influences have been detected in Archaic Laconian stone sculpture.135 These East Greek influences were not limited to the visual arts but also figure in the poetic and musical output of Archaic Sparta. Terpandros, who practised his arts mainly at Sparta in the early seventh century, came from Antissa on Lesbos; Alkman, the lyric poet of the later seventh century, was thought by some to have been a Lydian from Sardis, a place mentioned in one of his poems (fr. 16; note also the reference to the Lydian mitra in fr. 1, 68); also of the seventh century was Polymnestos of Kolophon who composed a poem for the Spartans.   See e.g. Shefton 1989.   Palagia 1993. 134   See Catling 2009 on Patay-Horváth 2007. 135   See e.g. Lorenz 1991; Bonias 1993. 132 133

Sparta’s Friends

at

Ephesos

225

This varied evidence for frequent and intensive connections between Sparta and Ionia, especially southern Ionia, suggests that the conditions existed for the formation of close personal ties at a relatively early date, perhaps as early as the seventh century. This would make much more plausible those hypothetical relationships based on names attested several centuries earlier in Sparta than their counterparts at Ephesos (e.g. Eurybatos (5) and Thalpis (6) and perhaps Anaxilas (25)).

Sparta and Ephesos from the sack of Sardis to the Athenian disaster in Sicily (c. 546–413) Spartan relations with East Greece and the new rulers of western Asia Minor seem to have deteriorated following the failed attempt to overthrow Polykrates, tyrant of Samos c. 525. The archaeological evidence for such connections, which had been so plentiful in the earlier sixth century, disappears almost in toto but interpretation of this rupture is not itself straightforward and reflects much broader patterns of change in the production and exchange of goods, especially pottery, in the late Archaic period. Having cultivated good relations with the Lydian kingdom, Sparta avoided confrontation with the Persians, at least until the Greek mainland and its own allies were threatened.136 In 546 or shortly after, the appeal of the Ionians and Aiolians to Sparta for military assistance against Persia was rejected, though they did send an envoy to Cyrus warning him not to harm any Greek city (Hdt. i 152). This was followed by their refusal to become embroiled first with the Scythians and a decade or so later in the revolt of the Greeks of Asia Minor. Even after the defeat of Xerxes, they could not envisage doing more for the Greeks of Asia than to resettle them on the land of Greek cities that had taken the Persian side. Their attitude seems to have been based on a pragmatic and not unreasonable assessment that it was impossible for the Greeks of Asia to be given indefinite protection against the Persians (e.g. Hdt. ix 106) and that a modus vivendi had to be sought which achieved the best that circumstances allowed. This fundamental point of view seems to govern Spartan thinking, with a brief interlude following the Peloponnesian war, from the time that the Greek cities came under Lydian control until the Peace of Antalkidas. It was a point of view which they struggled to square with their stated aims in the Peloponnesian war of liberating the Greeks, especially when faced with the fact that defeat of Athens was only possible with a fleet built and maintained with Persian money, itself contingent on the recognition of Persian rights to rule and receive tribute from the Asiatic Greeks. Ephesos, having been a docile subject of the Persians, apparently continued to be so as a subject of Athens. Almost nothing is known of it in the first twenty years or so following the Persian defeat other than the fact that it was there that Themistokles landed following his escape from Athens, before eventually taking up residence at neighbouring Magnesia. Thereafter, having paid its tribute of seven and a half talents regularly, it was reduced to six talents after the assessment of 446 and then raised again to its previous level either in 438 or 434, but the same pattern is found for many cities and need not imply any special measures. Ephesos is still found paying an uncertain amount in the latest surviving list of contributions early in 414 (IG I3 290, 26) and it seems to have been used as his base of operations by an Athenian general in the spring of 414 (ML 77, 79), perhaps in connection with Athenian support for the revolt of Pissouthnes, satrap of Sardis, and his son Amorges. The only sign that Ephesos might be regarded as unreliable is that it was the only city on the coast of Asia Minor where the Spartan nauarchos 136

  For Sparta’s relations with Persia see Lewis 1977, esp. 62–70, 88–155.

226

R. W. V. Catling

Alkidas is known to have felt secure enough to come ashore in his abortive naval mission to support the revolt of Mytilene in 427 (Th. iii 31–3).137 This impression was perhaps reinforced by the recent occupation of neighbouring Kolophon by a barbarian force under Itamenes, apparently a subordinate of Pissouthnes the satrap. A more subtle form of resistance to Athenian imperialism, challenging its claims as the cultural centre of the Greek world and subverting its role as liberator of the Greeks from Persian rule, has been identified in the famous group of the Wounded Amazons by Polykleitos, Pheidias and Kresilas, three of the leading sculptors of the age, perhaps commissioned by Ephesos to mark the dedication of the completed Artemision in the period 440–430. The choice of these figures was intimately related to the history of the sanctuary and its origins as a place of asylum, and their representation in a positive light, in harmony with Ephesos’ historical Persian sympathies, was in marked contrast to the depiction of Amazons in contemporary Athenian iconography as mythological forerunners of the Persian invaders.138 Several of the putative ties of xenia between Spartans and Ephesians may be attributed to this long and eventful period. Most notable is Alkidas (1) for whom a direct link is attested, though it is certainly possible that his appointment to the naval command in 427 was influenced by his having prior connections in Asia Minor and at Ephesos in particular. Others are Kleandridas (9), Nikomedes (16), Xenares (17), perhaps Kyniskos (11), Teisamenos (20), and less certainly Aristeus (26), Archidamos (30), Agelochos (32), Leon (34), Nikolaos (36), Pausanias (38) and Polykles (39).

Sparta and Ephesos during the Ionian War and the Spartan ascendancy (413–371) At some point soon after 414 and no later than 412, the situation changes and Ephesos from then on until 394 and again from 391 to 386 is found firmly in the Spartan camp. It was during this period, when Sparta had regular close contact with Ephesos, that many of the relationships were formed which introduced Spartan names into the Ephesian onomasticon. As one of the more important omissions in book 8, Thucydides curiously neglects to say when Ephesos revolted from Athens, especially as it came to play such an important part in Spartan and Persian operations.139 The possibility that Ephesos defected to Persia in the person of Tissaphernes, who in the following years showed a close attachment to the city, rather than Sparta might help to explain the lapse. So, in the summer of 412 a rebel Chian ship is able to take refuge at Ephesos (Th. viii 19. 3), and later in the summer of 411 Tissaphernes is found sacrificing at the Artemision prior to his expedition to the Hellespont (Th. viii 109). In 409 Ephesos was the target of a concerted Athenian assault under the command of Thrasyllos but succeeded in inflicting a major defeat using its own forces supported by allies under Tissaphernes’ leadership, Lakedaimonian troops and the crews of twenty-five Syracusan and two Selinuntine ships (X., HG i 2. 6–10; a much fuller but fragmentary account of the battle survives in the Cairo fragments of the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia 1–3 which gives the names of the Ephesian leaders, Timarchos   His other two attested landfalls were at Embaton and Myonnesos in the territories of Erythrai and Teos respectively. None of the standard commentaries remark on the fact that Ephesos was considered a safe place to come ashore, when he had apparently avoided Erythrai and Teos. Alkidas lingered there long enough to receive a delegation of Samian exiles from Anaia, 15–20 kilometres south of Ephesos. 138   See Hölscher 2000 and Fleischer 2002, 192–200. Both argue convincingly against interpretations which somehow make these figures into Athenian dedications. 139   See Lewis 1977, 90 n. 39; HCT V, 43; Hornblower 2008, 805. 137

Sparta’s Friends

at

Ephesos

227

and Possikrates, informs us of Lakedaimonian involvement and apparently provided much more detail about the allies who came to the aid of Ephesos140). About the same time, Ephesos made a not insignificant financial contribution of 1,000 darics (roughly equivalent to 3.3 talents of silver) to the Spartans for the purposes of the war ([ἔδον τ]οὶ Ἐφέσιοι τοῖς Λακεδαιμ[ο|νίοις πὸτ’ τὸ]ν πόλεμον χ(ε)λίος δαρ[ικὸς]), which had almost certainly been preceded by a payment earlier in the war, prior to their revolt, possibly at the time of Alkidas’ expedition in 427.141 In these actions Ephesos emerges as a whole-hearted and committed supporter of the war against Athens, very different from the neutral or bipartisan part it had taken in the previous one hundred years or so. It was not until 407 that Ephesos became the focus of the Spartan war effort with the arrival of Lysander as nauarchos and the transfer of the Spartan headquarters from Miletos, concentrating a force of seventy ships in its harbour, soon to inflict on the Athenians the naval defeat at Notion that was to be one of the turning points in the war at sea (X., HG i 5. 1–15; also described in Hell. Oxy. 8). There were perhaps several reasons for Lysander’s choice of Ephesos. In the first place it was intensely pro-Spartan (Plu., Lys. 3, Γενόμενος (sc. Lysander) δ’ ἐν Ἐφέσῳ καὶ τὴν πόλιν εὑρὼν εὔνουν μὲν αὑτῲ καὶ λακωνίζουσαν προθυμότατα), possibly promoted by close personal connections of long duration such as are known to have influenced Spartan decision-making on other occasions, and less likely to cause the sort of trouble that had occurred at Miletos. As already seen, it was strategically located as a centre of maritime connections and land routes communicating with the interior, provided a secure source of supplies from its hinterland and was in a better position to control the coast of Asia Minor against the Athenian base on Samos. But, given the importance Lysander attached to securing the finances from Cyrus needed to support his fleet, its Persian links may have been equally attractive.142 In short, Ephesos was much less likely to resist a Persian presence in the way that other Ionian cities had, and it was somewhere Persians felt at home. Ephesos, according to the source on which Plutarch drew (Lys. 3), benefitted considerably from the increased activity in its harbours and markets, contributing to the material prosperity of its inhabitants. Ephesos continued to be the Spartan naval headquarters for the remainder of the war. It was there that the allied delegates gathered following the defeat at Arginousai and decided to send envoys to Sparta with a view to getting Lysander reappointed to a naval command (X., HG ii 1. 6). Ephesian territory was raided by the Athenians in 405 (X., HG ii 1. 16). An Ephesian nauarchos, with the evocative name Kimmerios son of Pelasgos, must have commanded an Ephesian contingent in the final victory at Aigospotamoi, and duly found his place in the series of statues dedicated at Delphi from the Athenian spoils in commemoration of the victory (ML 95 e). Some measure of the Ephesian sense of gratitude to the Spartans is given by the dedication in the Artemision of statues not only of Lysander, but also of Eteonikos and Pharax, as well as other Spartans whose names Pausanias, in his scathing comments about Ionian fickleness, disappointingly does not enumerate (vi 3. 15, Ἐφέσιοι δὲ ἐς τὸ ἱερὸν ἀνετίθεσαν τῆς Ἀρτέμιδος   See Bleckmann 1998, 149–62.   Bleckmann 1993; 1998, 208–11; 2002; Piérart 1995 against the date 427 favoured by Loomis 1992. Matthaiou– Pikoulas 1989, 105 argue convincingly that the contributions were made between 427 and some time after 415. Matthaiou 2006, 31 n. 3 reveals a further new reading of l. 1 in which Ephesians seem already to have made a donation of 400 darics to support a particular lochos: [Ἔ]δ̣ον τ̣οὶ ̣ Ἐ̣φέ̣σ̣ιοι ̣ [….]Ο̣ […..τοὶ Λα]κ̣ε ̣δ̣α̣ι μ̣ ̣ο̣ν̣ίο[ν φί]λ̣ο̣[ι] | [π]ο̣τὸν πό̣λ̣εμον τε̣τρακατίος̣ δαρ̣ιχ̣ὸ̣ς ἐ̣φ̣’ Ε̣Ι ̣Σ̣[.]Α λ̣[ό]χοι. Matthaiou has subsequently enlarged on this reading in an unpublished lecture delivered to the meeting of Ancient Greek Historians in Birmingham in May 2009, proposing in l. 1 [Ἔ]δ̣ον τ̣οὶ ̣ Ἐ̣φέσ̣ιοι ̣ [φεύγ]ο[ντες τοὶ Λα]κ̣ε ̣δ̣α̣ι ̣μ̣ο̣ν ̣ίο[ν φί]λ̣ο̣[ι]. 142   See Lotze 1964, 15. 140 141

228

R. W. V. Catling

Λύσανδρόν τε αὐτὸν καὶ Ἐτεόνικον καὶ Φάρακα καὶ ἄλλους Σπαρτιατῶν ἥκιστα ἔς γε τὸ Ἑλληνικὸν γνωρίμους).143 In the same general context of post-Aigospotamoi euphoria and pro-Spartan sentiments in East Greece, Ephesos was perhaps the leading member of a group of cities that minted a symmachic coinage bearing the obverse type of the child Herakles strangling two snakes (the so-called Herakliskos Drakontopnigon, a type which has been associated with Lysander and his liberation of the Greeks of Asia from Athenian rule) and the legend ΣΥΝ.144 It is therefore slightly surprising to find the Ephesians, together with the people of Notion, being praised in an Athenian decree of 403/2 for some sort of help given to pro-Athenian Samian exiles, perhaps good evidence that after 405 Ephesos was no longer under close Spartan control and a sign of political independence.145 Sparta’s involvement in East Greece was renewed in 399 at the request of the Ionian cities over which Tissaphernes had been attempting to reassert his authority (X., HG iii 1. 3) and from then until 394 there was a steady escalation of Sparta’s commitment to military action and diplomacy in the wider region to force the Persians to concede the autonomy and freedom of the Greek cities of Asia Minor.146 Thibron was appointed to the command and once again made Ephesos his base of operations against Persian possessions in the Maeander valley (X., HG iii 1. 5–7; D.S. xiv 36). His replacement the following year was Derkylidas, whose command was renewed in 397 and reinforced by the appointment of Pharax as nauarchos to provide naval support for a more aggressive strategy (X., HG iii 2. 12). Finally in 396 king Agesilaos accompanied by Lysander and other senior Spartans147 arrived to take charge of the campaign and it is to this period between 396 and 394 that Xenophon’s famous description of Ephesos as the ‘workshop of war’ (ὥστε τὴν πόλιν ὄντως οἴεσθαι πολέμου ἐργαστήριον εἶναι, HG iii 4. 17) belongs. Xenophon describes their devotions to Artemis and there is some evidence that Agesilaos himself contributed to the cost of repairs at the Artemision following a fire c. 395.148 With the withdrawal of Agesilaos and his army in 394 and the defeat of the fleet in the same year, a Spartan presence in western Asia Minor was largely missing for the next three years and was never resumed on anything like the same level. Ephesos adapted to the changed circumstances and for the time being took the Persian side (D.S. xiv 84), playing host to the victorious Pharnabazos and Konon (X., HG iv 8. 3) and setting up statues of Konon and Timotheos in the Artemision (Paus. vi 3. 16). From this point onwards Sparta abandoned its championing of the freedom of the Greeks of Asia and reverted to its traditional pragmatic policy of containment of the Persians on the mainland, sending Antalkidas to open negotiations for a comprehensive peace with the Persian king. Whether or not he passed through Ephesos on his mission to Tiribazos in 392/1 is nowhere stated, but in 391 Thibron was again sent with a force to Asia Minor where he established himself once more at Ephesos (X., HG iv 8. 17), though following his death his successors (Ekdikos, Teleutias and Hierax) perhaps again abandoned it. When Sparta reopened   One might hazard a guess that the other statues included Arakos the Spartan nauarchos, Agias the mantis, Epikydidas, one of the subordinate naval commanders, and perhaps Thorax, commander of the land forces. 144   Karwiese 1980, esp. 16, 20–4; Karwiese (24) seems to be alone in having noted the presence of typically Spartan names on Ephesian coins, but his conclusion that they refer to Spartan harmosts is both unlikely and goes against the dates established by Kinns for their issue. 145   Rhodes–Osborne 2, 48. 146   On this phase see Lewis 1977, 137–43. 147   Initially these were Herippidas, Derkylidas and Megillos, replaced in the following year by Xenokles, Skythes and Mygdon. 148   Börker 1980. 143

Sparta’s Friends

at

Ephesos

229

negotiations in 388 they elected Antalkidas as nauarchos on account of his good relations with Tiribazos and he, like most of his predecessors, made Ephesos his headquarters. Antalkidas initially took with him Gorgopas, the harmost of Aigina, but once he had arrived at Ephesos sent him back and put Nikolochos, his epistoleus, in command of his fleet while he set out on the long journey to Susa to negotiate the terms of the peace named after him (X., HG v 1. 6). The names of all three figure in the onomastics of Ephesos. With the conclusion of the peace, Sparta’s direct links with Ephesos, which at various times from c. 412 to 386 had been extremely close, were to all intents and purposes at an end, as its attention from then on was largely directed to affairs on the mainland of Greece. After the defeat at Leuktra in 371 Sparta was never again in a position to influence events in Asia Minor, being preoccupied first with defence of Laconia and thereafter with attempts to recover lost territory and influence closer to home. To this period belong the majority of hypothetical relationships between leading Spartans and their Ephesian counterparts. Most notable are Antalkidas (2), Gorgopas (3), Gylippos (4), Lichas (12), Melanchridas (13), Orsippos (18), Skythes (19) and Pharax (21), others being Therimachos (7), Therippidas (8), Kleas (10), Nikolochos (15), Charminos (23), perhaps Kyniskos (11), Namertes (14), Teisamenos (20), Chalkideus (22), and much less certainly Aristodamos (27), Aristolochos (28), Aristos (29), Derkylidas (31), Agesipolis (33), Naukles (35), Xenokles (37), Pausanias (38) and Philolaos (40).

Other occasions for the formation of ties of xenia So far specific episodes in the history of events have been sought to account for the existence of ties of xenia between Spartans and Ephesians. This should not obscure the possibility, if not the strong likelihood, that friendships were established through the normal functioning of life in the Greek world. Outside the spheres of warfare and diplomacy, the most obvious occasions for men from the ruling classes of cities widely separated geographically to meet one another were the Panhellenic festivals and games, as well as some of the more important local festivals (e.g. the Karneia, Gymnopaidiai and Hyakinthia at Sparta, and the Artemisia at Ephesos). Sparta, while not the host city, played an important role in the early history of the sanctuaries of Zeus and Hera at Olympia, as well as in the associated quadrennial games. The involvement of athletes from East Greece at Olympia is attested from at least the early seventh century when Onomastos of Smyrna is recorded as the first victor in the boxing competition in 688, and was followed by others in the sixth and fifth centuries.149 No Ephesian victor is certainly known before the second half of the fourth century and their lack of success presumably lies behind the story that Sotades the Cretan on the occasion of his second victory in the dolichos in 380 accepted a bribe to have himself declared an Ephesian (Paus. vi 18. 6). Several episodes assume the regular presence of East Greeks, Ephesians among them, at the Olympic festival. As already noted, on the occasion of Alkibiades magnificent victory in the chariot-race in 416, the Ephesians provided him with a Persian tent, the Chians with feed for his horses and victims for sacrifice, and the Lesbians with wine and other provisions (Plu, Alc 12; Satyros, FHG III 160. 1 in Ath. 534 B; Ps-Andoc. iv 30). Somewhat later, Xenophon 149   E.g. Polymestor of Miletos in the boys’ stadion in 596, Pythagoras of Samos in the boxing in 588, Eurymenes of Samos in either the boxing, wrestling or pankration in the later sixth century, Xenopeithes of Chios in the boys’ stadion in 480, a Milesian and Samian in the pentathlon and wrestling respectively in 472 and Kleomachos of Magnesia in the later fifth century.

230

R. W. V. Catling

relates how in his exile at Skillous near Olympia, the Megabyxos had brought him the money deposited with him for safekeeping at Ephesos in 394 when he was attending the Olympic festival as a theoros (ἀφικνεῖται Μεγάβυζος εἰς Ὀλυμπίαν θεωρήσων, An. v 3. 7). From this it should be assumed that the Ephesians normally sent an official sacred delegation to the Olympic festival, which was perhaps attended by others in a private capacity. This pattern must have been much more widespread and true of the other major festivals on the Greek mainland, especially at Delphi. Although no Ionian victors at the Pythian games are attested before the end of the fourth century,150 Ephesos, like other cities in East Greece, is likely to have consulted the oracle on state affairs, even if private citizens may have preferred to refer to oracles closer to home, whether at Didyma, Klaros or Gryneion or even the Sibyl at Erythrai. In the time of its membership of the Delian League Ephesos, like other allied cities, would have been obliged to send representatives to Athens at the Panathenaia and to deliver its tribute at the time of the Dionysia. In the later fourth century, Ephesos is listed among a series of Ionian cities which provided theorodokoi for the Argive theoroi sent to announce the festivals of Nemean Zeus and Argive Hera, with the strong implication that they sent representatives to these festivals.151 At their own festivals, wealthy Spartiates perhaps competed in the hospitality offered to their foreign guests, as is suggested by Xenophon’s reference (Mem. i 2. 61) to the reputation Lichas had acquired as a host at the Gymnopaidiai. The most important festival in the Spartan calendar was the Hyakinthia at Amyklai, involving a procession from the city to the sanctuary, and this was also an occasion for foreigners to be present and entertained (Th. v 23. 4). 152 Apart from these opportunities, as one of the two great powers of the Greek mainland from the sixth century until 370, and for some of that time the great power, Sparta must have been a magnet for foreigners from all over the Greek world and beyond, concerned to advance their causes, public or private, and eager to establish relations with influential Spartans. There were doubtless many disgruntled oligarchic exiles (e.g. Th. iii 31. 1) and victims of Athenian imperial atrocities (Melians and Aiginetans among others) hoping to secure their restoration. Stephen Hodkinson has drawn attention to Xenophon’s description (HG v 4. 28) of king Agesilaos’ early morning routine stroll down to the Eurotas, when he might freely be approached by citizens, foreigners and servants.153 While the kings were perhaps the focus of such attentions, there were many others (ephors, gerousiastai, former commanders and envoys, relations of the powerful) whose office or status made them worth cultivating.

Ephesian names at Sparta? If the evidence set out above is accepted, it might be expected to find the mirror image of these relationships in Spartan onomastics of the fifth and fourth centuries. There is indeed good   See the lists in Klee 76–88. The same is true of the Isthmian and Nemean games, Klee 88–108. However, these very fragmentary lists are perhaps misleading. Where fuller documentation occurs, for example in a victor-list from the Amphiaraia c. 329/8, a Kolophonian is found as victor in two contests: IOrop 520, 16, 18. 151   Perlman, Theorodokia 205–6 A.1 II, 8. 152   This seems to be implied in Polykrates’ description of the Hyakinthia where the citizens entertained their acquaintances and slaves, FGrHist 588 F 1: καὶ δειπνίζουσιν οἱ πολίται πάντας τοὺς γνωρίμους καὶ τοὺς δούλους τοὺς ἰδίους. Polemon (fr. 86) describes the hospitality offered to foreigners at the kopis, a feast associated with the Hyakinthia, and quotes the fifth-century Athenian comic poet Kratinos as further confirmation (PCG IV 211 fr. 175). 153   Hodkinson 2007, 50–2. 150

Sparta’s Friends

at

Ephesos

231

evidence for the practice in Sparta of children being given ethnic names that most likely reflected a friendship with a particular city or region (e.g. Ἀθήναιος, Βοιώτιος, Θεσσαλός, Κνῖδις, Λίβυς, Μύγδων, Ὀλυνθεύς, Σάμιος, Χαλκιδεύς), but there is no Ἐφέσιος, a rare name everywhere before the Imperial period.154 However, there are remarkably few cases where it is evident that the name of a xenos was adopted by a family at Sparta.155 Thus we know of no Kleinias in the family of Endios at Sparta, in the way that we have an Alkibiades at Athens, or any other reciprocal naming where ties of xenia are attested. Although too little survives of Ephesian onomastics before 405 to provide a sound basis for comparison, there are no Spartan personal names that betray an Ionian origin, apart from the bronze-worker Hermesios referred to above who was most likely a naturalized immigrant. The same pattern occurs in the case of Thessaly where a number of typically Spartan names have been noted without any corresponding Thessalian names turning up in Spartan onomastics. The vast majority of Spartan names seem to be embedded in local naming practices and traditions in which foreign elements are rarely identifiable.156 Some explanation for this apparently unbalanced aspect of the xenia relationship where Spartans are involved is demanded. In the first place there was perhaps at Sparta a deeply ingrained attitude as far as name-giving was concerned, which was hostile to the adoption of ‘foreign’ names, either because they lacked Spartan characteristics or because it was somehow demeaning. Of equal importance may have been the perceived inequality in terms of rank and power between these Spartans and their foreign xenoi, even if they were equals in social status, as was the ideal in these relationships.157 In this case Spartans would perhaps only consider adopting a foreign name if in advertising the relationship it conveyed honour and prestige on the family. This could happen where the xenos was a person of higher status or of great fame for their accomplishments, and would make excellent sense in explaining the adoption of the name Arkesilaos in the family of Lichas, if indeed it was adopted from the kings of Cyrene (see above 12). But in most other cases, where Spartan commanders with large forces at their disposal were manifestly in a superior position to confer benefits and provide material help, the relationship was not considered worth commemorating in the naming of their sons, especially in cases where they had multiple ties of xenia with friends in a good number of cities, perhaps on top of their hereditary connections. For their foreign counterparts, on the other hand, and our Ephesians in particular, the adoption of the name of a Spartan general, ambassador or even   Athens: SEMA 1891 (iv BC); Stratos: Perlman, Theorodokia N.1 I, 39 (c. 315–313); Iasos: IIasos 170, 17 (f. ii BC); Lampsakos: Leschhorn, LAGM II 514 (c. 190); Kyzikos: Milet I (3) 137, 10 (c. 334–323); Michel 1224 (278); IKyz I 216, father of Ἐφεσηΐς (?ii BC). Ἐφέσιος might anyway be treated as a theophoric name relating to Artemis Ephesia. There is no example of the female Ἐφεσία earlier than the imperial period. The name Ἔφεσος has a rather different colour and is primarily associated with people of low status, including slaves, notably at Sardis: SEG XXXVI 1011, 38 and 45 (s. iv BC); ISardis 1 I, 17 (slave, s. iii BC) and 3 (cook, f. ii BC); a Mysian: SEG XXXV 1255 (iv/iii BC); Boubon: ZPE 24 (1977) 279 no. 7, 2; Aspendos: Brixhe, DGP 254 no. 97 (iii-ii BC); Chios: Robert, EEP 119 B, 10 (slave, v/iv BC); Athens: IG II2 1297 II, 34 (237/6); Delos: IG XI (2) 158 A, 21 (seller – kapelos, f. iii BC); Tenedos: IG XII (8) 140 (slave, imp.). See Robert’s remarks in BE 1977, no. 481. 155   It is impossible to say if the Spartan Kallias (Poralla 404), on Agesilaos’ staff in his Asiatic campaign and involved in negotiating the Peace of Antalkidas, was named after the Athenian whose family were hereditary proxenoi of the Spartans. Likewise, it is unclear if the Spartan Podanemos (Poralla 616), nauarchos in 394/3, was named after a Phleiasian Podanemos (X., HG v 3. 13) who had been a xenos of king Archidamos, or whether the name had entered a Phleiasian family from Sparta in an earlier unattested generation. 156   A possible example of an adopted name might be the Poseidonios (Poralla 635) who died at Plataia in 479, a very rare exception to the apparent Spartan aversion to the use of theophoric names before the late Hellenistic period, though the cult of Poseidon was important at Sparta. 157   Herman 1987, 34–40. 154

232

R. W. V. Catling

a king, might enhance their standing in their own communities. A further factor might be the potential disparity in age between the two parties; the wives of many high-ranking Spartans were perhaps past child-bearing when these friendships were struck. As most of these connections were established by Spartans serving abroad, sometimes for years at a time, the element of spontaneity necessary for naming a son after a xenos was missing. In this same context it is worth considering whether there is any discernible pattern of rank or social standing among those who appear to have established such relationships at Ephesos. Such an exercise calls attention to some of the prominent ‘absentees’ among the many Spartans who had contacts with Ephesos or were active in the East Greek theatre of operations between 412 and 386. First and foremost among the Spartan names which might have been predicted to occur are Lysandros and Agesilaos (in any of its dialect forms), the two most prominent and powerful Spartans whose friendship was much sought after and who are known to have had close adherents in the cities of East Greece. Likewise, we find no namesake of Arakos, the nauarchos of 405, or his subordinate Eteonikos whose statue was erected in the Artemision, and the same goes for most of the nauarchoi attested for the period between 412 and 386. There is no Thibron, who spent two periods at Ephesos, nor any Herippidas, Megillos or Mygdon, three of the senior Spartans who were based at Ephesos with Agesilaos between 396–394. Some of these absentees may reflect the hazards of survival, since for the period from 475 to 350 the leading political figures in Ephesos remain largely anonymous, even if there is impressive compensation from 405 in the names recorded on the city’s prolific coinage. Doubtless there were other factors to do with personality which made some of these Spartan commanders unapproachable and unlikeable. But a pattern seems to emerge in which holders of the highest military offices are those least likely to have become involved at this close personal level. Most of the Spartans who can plausibly be linked to Ephesians either seem to have had a hereditary relationship, or were serving on diplomatic missions or were apparently among the ranks of subordinate commanders at the time the connection was established. From this it should perhaps be concluded that Spartan commanders avoided or were even prevented from making ties of xenia during the tenure of their office because of the potential conflict between their obligations as xenoi and their official duties and responsibilities. In this way they could avoid having to choose between rivals for their attention and being drawn unnecessarily into local politics. Also it was perhaps considered beneath their dignity to establish relations with anyone but their equals in power and official standing. If such restrictions did not apply to the subordinate commanders, they would have become desirable friends by virtue of their access to and influence over those in overall command.

Conclusions This lengthy study has offered a context for the transfer of Spartan personal names into the Ephesian onomasticon which can perhaps be traced well back into the sixth, if not the seventh century, even if the climax of the phenomenon evidently occurred in the final stages of the Peloponnesian war and the period of the Spartan ascendancy that followed, when there is an almost unbroken record of close contacts between people from the two cities. Apart from substantiating the personal relations which lie behind these shared names, it is fair to ask in what way it enhances our wider understanding of Spartan society. Very briefly, it lends weight to other evidence that personal connections based on xenia were an important element in structuring and cementing

Sparta’s Friends

at

Ephesos

233

Sparta’s foreign relations and it reinforces the image of Sparta as a thoroughly outward looking city in the later seventh and sixth centuries, whose interests, in spite of its landlocked location, spread well beyond the Peloponnese to many other parts of the Greek world. Ephesos in particular perhaps played an important role in mediating Sparta’s relations first with the Lydian kingdom and later the Persian satraps at Sardis. It also gives a good impression of the warmth of relations between the Spartans and their friends in East Greece, where, at least in certain quarters, they were viewed as true liberators from the oppression of Athenian imperialism. While self-interest doubtless had a big part in motivating such relations, it may also serve as a warning against stereotypical generalizations about Spartan arrogance, violence and harshness in their dealings with their allies.158 These relationships cut across the Dorian–Ionian divide, manifesting none of the disdain expressed by Herodotos about the Ionians; Spartan respect for Ephesian military competence was perhaps bolstered by their impressive rout on home ground of Thrasyllos’ Athenian force in 409. Finally, it brings to the fore some of the minor actors who played parts in the grand dramas that unfolded in the Eastern Aegean between 412 and 386, adding a very little flesh to the bare bones of the careers of some of the many Spartans involved. Many of them are named once or a handful of times in association with a particular event, not infrequently the one in which they lost their lives. As in the case of Lysander, whose career before his appointment as nauarchos in 407 is a complete blank and was evidently unknown to writers in antiquity, all these men must have passed through the lower ranks and subordinate commands of the Spartan military system before they suddenly pop up into view, often to disappear, like Melanchridas, just as abruptly. The gaze of the ancient historical writers naturally tends to focus on the leading figures, mentioning those around them incidentally, and for Sparta, unlike Athens, this deficiency cannot be made good by reference to epigraphic sources. So, supplementary information of any kind, even as vague and non-specific as some of that presented here, is very welcome. On account of the large number of personal names of members of the ruling class attested on its coins from 405, Ephesos has been an ideal case for a study of this kind and there is certainly more that could be gained by spreading the net wider than Sparta alone. Superficial impressions suggest the existence of wider onomastic links with certain parts of the Peloponnese which could be associated with the presence of the Kyreioi (the survivors of the 10,000 who had accompanied the young Cyrus in 401) or with the leaders of Sparta’s allies based at Ephesos. A similar approach might also be fruitful in other East Greek cities, such as Miletos, Samos and Chios, and, whatever the result, would help place the evidence from Ephesos in a broader context. The solid basis for such research, and the realization of the historical potential in the study of personal names, has been provided by Peter Fraser’s Lexicon of Greek Personal Names, a project brought to fruition largely through the work of Elaine Matthews.

158

  See e.g. Hornblower 2000b.

234

R. W. V. Catling

References Bammer, A. (1991–92) ‘Multikulturelle Aspekte der frühen Kunst im Artemision von Ephesos’, Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes in Wien 61, 17–54. Bammer, A., Brein, F. and Wolff, P. (1978) ‘Das Tieropfer am Artemisaltar von Ephesos’, in S. Şahin, E. Schwertheim and J. Wagner (eds), Studien zur Religion und Kultur Kleinasiens. Festschrift für Friedrich Karl Dörner zum 65. Geburtstag am 28. Februar 1976. Leiden, 107–157. Bammer, A. and Muss, U. (1996) Das Artemision von Ephesos. Das Weltwunder Ioniens in archaischer und klassischer Zeit. Mainz. Benveniste, E. (1966) Titres et noms propres en Iranien ancien. Paris. Bleckmann, B. (1993) ‘Sparta und seine Freunde im Dekeleischen Krieg. Zur Datierung von IG V 1, 1’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 96, 297–307. Bleckmann, B. (1998) Athens Weg in die Niederlage. Die letzte Jahre des Peloponnesischen Kriegs. Stuttgart / Leipzig. Bleckmann, B. (2003) ‘Nochmals zur Datierung von IG V 1, 1’, Ktema 27, 35–38. Bonias, Z. (1993) ‘Γλυπτά από τις Αιγιές Λακωνίας’, in Palagia–Coulson 1993, 177–187. Börker, C. (1980) ‘König Agesilaos von Sparta und der Artemis-Tempel in Ephesos’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 37, 69–75. Bosworth, A. B. and Wheatley, P. V. (1998) ‘The Origins of the Pontic House’, Journal of Hellenic Studies 118, 155–164. Bourget, E. (1927) Le dialecte laconien. Paris. Brein, F. (1978) ‘Geometrisch dekorierte Keramik aus Ephesos’, in E. Akurgal (ed.), Proceedings of the Xth International Congress of Classical Archaeology. Ankara, 721–728. Briant, P. (2002) From Cyrus to Alexander. A History of the Persian Empire. Winona Lake, Indiana. Brosius, M. (1998) ‘Artemis Persike and Artemis Anaitis’, in M. Brosius and A. Kuhrt (eds), Studies in Persian History: Essays in Memory of David M. Lewis. Leiden, 227–238. Carter, J. B. (1988) ‘Isotopic Analysis of Seventh-Century B.C. Perirrhanteria’, in N. Herz and M. Waelkens (eds), Classical Marble. Geochemistry, Technology, Trade. Dordrecht, 419–431. Cartledge, P. A. (1982) ‘Sparta and Samos: a “special relationship”?’, Classical Quarterly 32, 243–265. Cartledge, P. A. (1984) ‘A new lease of life for Lichas son of Arkesilas?’, Liverpool Classical Monthly 9, 98–102. Cartledge, P. A. (1987) Agesilaos and the Crisis of Sparta. London. Catling, R. W. V. (2010) ‘ΕΡΜΗΣΙΟΣ ΛΑΚΕΔΑΙΜΟΝΙΟΣ – a Spartan Craftsman of Ionian Origin?’, in N. Sekunda (ed.), Ergasteria: Works presented to John Ellis Jones on his 80th Birthday. Gdańsk, 44–55. Cook, J. M. (1965) ‘Old Smyrna: Ionic Black Figure and other Sixth-Century Figured Wares’, Annual of the British School at Athens 60, 114–153. Debord, P. (1995) ‘Les routes royales en Asie Mineure Occidentale’, in P. Briant (ed.), Dans les pas des DixMille: peuples et pays du Proche-Orient vus par un Grec. Actes du Table Ronde internationale, organisée à l’initiative du GRACO, Toulouse, 3–4 février 1995, (Pallas, 43). Toulouse, 89–97. Dillon, M. P. J. (2008) ‘“Xenophon sacrificed on account of an expedition”: divination and the sphagia before ancient Greek battles’, in V. Mehl and P. Brulé (eds), Le sacrifice antique. Vestiges, procédures et stratégies. Rennes, 235–251. Ducat, J. (2002) ‘Pédaritos ou le bon usage des apophtegmes’, Ktema 27, 13–34. Dunst, G. (1972) ‘Archaische Inschriften und Dokumente der Pentakontaetie aus Samos’, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Athenische Abteilung 87, 99–163. Ehrhardt, N. (2005) ‘Die Ioner und ihr Verhältnis zu den Phrygern und Lydern’, in E. Schwertheim and E. Winter (eds), Neue Forschungen zu Ionien, (Asia Minor Studien, 54). Bonn, 93–111. Finley, M. I. (1978) The World of Odysseus. 2nd edn. London. Fleischer, R. (2002) ‘Die Amazonen und das Asyl des Artemisions von Ephesos’, Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 117, 185–216. Flower, M. A. (2008) ‘The Iamidae. A Mantic Family and its Public Image’, in B. Dignas and K. Trampedach (eds), Practitioners of the Divine. Greek Priests and Religious Officials from Homer to Heliodorus. Washington, 187–206.

Sparta’s Friends

at

Ephesos

235

Forstenpointner, G., Weissengruber, G. E. and Galik, A. (2005) ‘Tierreste aus früheisenzeitlichen Schichten des Artemisions von Ephesos. Analyse und funktionelle Interpretation’, in B. Brandt, V. Gassner and S. Ladstätter (eds), Synergia. Festschrift für Friedrich Krinzinger, I. Vienna, 85–91. Fraser, P. M. (2009) Greek Ethnic Terminology. Oxford. Freyer-Schauenburg, B. (1966) Elfenbeine aus dem samischen Heraion. Figürliches, Gefäße und Siegel. Hamburg. Freyer-Schauenburg, B. (1974) Samos XI. Bildwerke der archaischen Zeit und des strengen Stils. Bonn. Furtwängler, A. E. (1981) ‘Heraion von Samos: Grabungen im Südtemenos 1977, II. Kleinfunde’, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Athenische Abteilung 96, 73–138. Gasser, A. (1992) ‘Local Archaic Pottery from Ephesos’, in F. Blondé and J. Y. Perreault (eds), Les ateliers de potiers dans le monde grec aux époques géométrique, archaïque et classique. Athens, 189–193. Gauthier, P. (1972) Symbola. Les étrangers et la justice dans les cités grecques. Nancy. Gercke, W. (1969) ‘Eine samische Tonmaske’, in P. Zazoff (ed.), Opus Nobile. Festschrift zum 60 Geburtstag von Ulf Jantzen. Wiesbaden, 51–52. Greenewalt, C. H. (1972) ‘“Ephesian Ware”’, California Studies in Classical Antiquity 6, 91–122. Herfort-Koch, M. (1986) Archaische Bronzeplastik Lakoniens. Münster. Herman, G. (1987) Ritualised Friendship and the Greek City. Cambridge. Herman, G. (1990) ‘Patterns of Name Diffusion within the Greek World and Beyond’, Classical Quarterly 40, 349–363. Hiesel, G. (1969) ‘Zum samischen Perirrhanterion’, in P. Zazoff (ed.), Opus Nobile. Festschrift zum 60 Geburtstag von Ulf Jantzen. Wiesbaden, 77–81. Hodkinson, S. (1983) ‘Social Order and the Conflict of Values in Classical Sparta’, Chiron 13, 239–281 (= M. Whitby (ed.), Sparta (Edinburgh, 2002) 104–130). Hodkinson, S. (2000) Property and Wealth in Classical Sparta. London. Hodkinson, S. (2007) ‘The Episode of Sphodrias as a Source for Spartan History’, in N. Sekunda (ed.), Corolla Cosmo Rodewald. Gdańsk, 43–65. Hölscher, T. (2000) ‘Die Amazonen von Ephesos: ein Monument der Selbstbehauptung’, in ἀγαθὸς δαίμων. Mythes et cultes. Études d’iconographie en l’honneur de Lilly Kahil. Paris, 205–218. Hornblower, S. (1991) A Commentary on Thucydides. I, Books I–III. Oxford. Hornblower, S. (2000a) ‘Personal Names and the Study of the Ancient Greek Historians’, in Greek Personal Names 129–143. Hornblower, S. (2000b) ‘Sticks, stones, and Spartans: the sociology of Spartan violence’, in H. van Wees (ed.), War and Violence in Ancient Greece. London, 57–82. Hornblower, S. (2002) ‘ΛΙΧΑΣ ΚΑΛΟΣ ΣΑΜΙΟΣ’, Chiron 32, 237–247. Hornblower, S. (2006) Thucydides and Pindar. Historical Narrative and the World of Epinikian. Oxford. Hornblower, S. (2008) A Commentary on Thucydides. III, Books 5.25–8.109. Oxford. Hordern, J. H. (2004) The Fragments of Timotheus of Miletus. Oxford. Karwiese, S. (1980) ‘Lysander as Herakliskos Drakontopnigon (‘Herakles the snake-strangler’), Numismatic Chronicle, 1–27. Kerschner, M. (2005) ‘Die Ioner und ihr Verhältnis zu den Phrygern und Lydern. Beobachtungen zur archäologischen Evidenz’, in E. Schwertheim and E. Winter (eds), Neue Forschungen zu Ionien, (Asia Minor Studien, 54). Bonn, 113–146. Kerschner, M. (2007) ‘Das Keramikbild von Ephesos im 7. und 6. Jh. v.Chr.’, in J. Cobet, V. von Graeve, W. D. Niemeier and K. Zimmermann (eds), Frühes Ionien. Eine Bestandsaufnahme. Panionion-Symposion Güzelçamlı, 26. September-1. Oktober 1999. Mainz, 221–245. Kerschner, M. (2008) ‘Keramik aus dem Heiligtum der Artemis’, in U. Muss (ed.), Die Archäologie der ephesischen Artemis. Gestalt und Ritual eines Heiligtum. Vienna, 125–132. Kinns, P. (1999) ‘The Attic Weight Drachms of Ephesus: a Preliminary Study in the Light of Recent Hoards’, Numismatic Chronicle, 47–97. Klebinder, G. (2002) ‘Ephesos und Phrygien. Eine Untersuchung der Beziehungen anhand der Bronzen aus dem frühen Artemision von Ephesos’, in B. Asamer et al. (eds), Temenos. Festgabe für Florens Felten und Stefan Hiller. Vienna, 75–82. Klebinder-Gauss, G. (2007) Forschungen in Ephesos. XII/3, Bronzefunde aus dem Artemision von Ephesos. Vienna.

236

R. W. V. Catling

Lane, E. A. (1933–34) ‘Laconian Vase-Painting’, Annual of the British School at Athens 34, 99–189. Leahy, D. M. (1955) ‘The Bones of Tisamenus’, Historia 4, 26–38. Lewis, D. M. (1977) Sparta and Persia. Leiden. Loomis, W. T. (1992) The Spartan War Fund: IG V 1, 1 and a New Fragment. Stuttgart. Lorenz, T. (1991) ‘Lakonisches Relief aus der Werkstatt des Bathykles’, in M. Gnade (ed.), Stips Votiva. Papers presented to C. M. Stibbe. Amsterdam, 103–109. Lotze, D. (1964) Lysander und der Peloponnesische Krieg. Berlin. Löwe, W. (1996) ‘Die Kasseler Grabung 1894 in der Nekropole der archaischen Stadt’, in Samos – die Kasseler Grabung 1894 in der Nekropole der archaischen Stadt von Johannes Boehlau und Edward Habich. Kassel, 24–107. Malkin, I. (1990) ‘Lysander and Libys’, Classical Quarterly 40, 541–545. Malkin, I. (1994) Myth and Territory in the Spartan Mediterranean. Cambridge. Masson, O. (1962) Les fragments du poète Hipponax. Édition critique et commentée. Paris. Masson, O. (1986) ‘Prosopographie, onomastique et dialecte des Lacédémoniens’, Revue des études grecques 99, 134–141 (= OGS II, 509–516). Matthaiou, A. P. (2006) Καττάδε ἔδοξε τοῖς Λακεδαιμονίοις. Ἐπιγραφὲς δημοσίου χαρακτήρα ἀπὸ τὴν Σπάρτη τοῦ 5ου αἰώνα π.χ. Athens. Matthaiou, A. P. and Pikoulas, G. A. (1989) ‘Ἔδον τοῖς Λακεδαιμονίοις ποττὸν πόλεμον’, ΗΟΡΟΣ 7, 77–124. Meiggs, R. (1972) The Athenian Empire. Oxford. Meineke, A. (1869) ‘Beiträge zur Kritik des Thukydides’, Hermes 3, 347–374. Meritt, B. D. (1935) ‘Inscriptions of Colophon’, American Journal of Philology 56, 358–397. Mitchell, L. G. (1997) Greeks Bearing Gifts. The Public Use of Private Relationships in the Greek World, 435–323 BC. Cambridge. Mitchell, S. (2007) ‘Iranian Names and the Presence of Persians in the Religious Sanctuaries of Asia Minor’, in Old and New Worlds 151–171. Mosley, D. (1963) ‘Pharax and the Spartan Embassy to Athens in 370/69’, Historia 12, 247–250. Noethlichs, K. L. (1987) ‘Bestechung, Bestechlichkeit und die Rolle des Geldes in der spartanischen Außenund Innenpolitik vom 7.–2. Jh. v. Chr.’, Historia 36, 129–170. Nollé, J. and Wenninger, A. (1998–99) ‘Themistokles und Archepolis. Eine griechische Dynastie in Perserreich und ihre Münzprägung’, Jahrbuch für Numismatik und Geldgeschichte 48–49, 29–70. Özgen, I. and Öztürk, J. (1996) Heritage recovered. The Lydian Treasure. Istanbul. Öztürk, J. (1996) ‘Lydian Jewellery’, in D. Williams (ed.), The Art of the Greek Goldsmith. London, 41–47. Palagia, O. (1993) ‘A Marble Athena Promachos from the Acropolis of Sparta’, in Palagia–Coulson 1993, 167–175. Palagia, O. and Coulson, W. (eds) (1993) Sculpture from Arcadia and Laconia. Proceedings of an International Conference held at the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, April 10–14, 1992. Oxford. Papatheophanes, M. (1985) ‘Heraclitus of Ephesus, the Magi, and the Achaemenids’, Iranica Antiqua 20, 101–161. Patay-Horváth, A. (2007) ‘Eine beschriftete Bronzescheibe aus Olympia’, Tyche 22, 123–141. Pfisterer-Haas, S. (1999) ‘Funde aus Milet. VI. Die Importkeramik’, Archäologischer Anzeiger, 263–271. Picard, C. (1922) Éphèse et Claros. Recherches sur les sanctuaires et les cultes de l’Ionie du Nord. Paris. Piérart, M. (1995) ‘Chios entre Athènes et Sparte. La confrontation des exilés de Chios à l’effort de guerre lacédémonien pendant la guerre du Péloponnèse IG V 1, 1 + (SEG XXXIX 370*)’, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 119, 253–282. Pipili, M. (2001) ‘Samos, the Artemis Sanctuary. The Laconian Pottery’, Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 116, 17–102. Pipili, M. (2004) ‘Lakonische Vasen aus der Westnekropole von Samos: ein erneuter Blick auf alte Funde’, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Athenische Abteilung 119, 91–105. Polat, G. (2005) ‘War der persische Satrap Autophradates von Sardeis der ursprüngliche Grabherr des Mausoleums in Belevi?’, Epigraphica Anatolica 38, 57–72. Pouilloux, J. (1954) Recherches sur l’histoire et les cultes de Thasos I. Paris.

Sparta’s Friends

at

Ephesos

237

Pouilloux, J. and Salviat, F. (1983) ‘Lichas, Lacédémonien, archonte à Thasos, et le livre VIII de Thucydide’, Comptes-rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 1983, 376–403. Praschniker, C. and Theuer, M. (1979) Forschungen in Ephesos. VI, Das Mausoleum von Belevi. Vienna. Robert, L. (1967) ‘Sur des inscriptions d’Ephèse’, Revue de philologie 7–84 (= OMS V, 347–424). Roisman, J. (1987) ‘Alkidas in Thucydides’, Historia 36, 385–421. Schaeffer, J. S. (1997) The Corinthian, Attic, and Lakonian Pottery from Sardis. Cambridge, Mass. Sekunda, N. V. (2008) ‘Lakedaimonian Xenoi in Thessaly: the Onomastic Evidence’, in C. Gallou, M. Georgiadis and G. M. Muskett (eds), Dioskouroi. Studies presented to W. G. Cavanagh and C. B. Mee on the anniversary of their 30-year joint contribution to Aegean Archaeology. Oxford, 334–351. Sekunda, N. V. (forthcoming) ‘Skythes the Lakedaimonian’. Shefton, B. B. (1989) ‘East Greek Influences in Sixth-Century Attic Vase-Painting and Some Laconian Trails’, in Greek Vases in the J. Paul Getty Museum 4. Malibu, 41–72. Stella, L. A. (1927) ‘Eraclito, Efeso e l’Oriente’, Rendiconti della Reale Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Classe di Scienze morali, storice e filologiche ser. VI. 3, 571–602. Stibbe, C. M. (1996) Das andere Sparta. Mainz. Stibbe, C. M. (1997) ‘Lakonische Keramik aus dem Heraion von Samos’, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Athenische Abteilung 112, 25–142. Stibbe, C. M. (2007) ‘Mädchen, Frauen, Göttinnen. Lakonische weibliche Bronzestatuetten und Stützfiguren archaischer Zeit’, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Athenische Abteilung 122, 17–102. Sturgeon, M. C. (1987) Isthmia IV. Sculpture I: 1952–1967. Princeton. Tedeschi, G. (1981) ‘I prestiti linguistici nei frammenti ipponattei e il problema dell’interferenza culturale ad Efeso’, Quaderni di filologia classica (Trieste) 3, 37–48. Tuplin, C. J. (1977) ‘Kyniskos of Mantinea’, Liverpool Classical Monthly 2, 5–10. Vernant, J.-P. (1991) Mortals and Immortals. Collected Essays. Princeton. Whitehead, D. (1979) ‘ἈΝΤΑΛΚΙΔΑΣ, or, the case of the intrusive iota’, Liverpool Classical Monthly 4, 191–193. West, M. L. (1971) Early Greek Philosophy and the Orient. Oxford. Winter, N. A. (1993) Greek Architectural Terracottas. From the Prehistoric through the Archaic Period. Oxford.

NEW PERSONAL NAMES FROM ARGOS Charalambos B. Kritzas

In 2000–2001 a unique discovery was made in Argos: 135 inscribed bronze plaques were found, placed in stone chests or in bronze and clay vases, covered with heavy stones. They were a part of the archive of the treasury of Pallas and can be generally dated to the first thirty years of the fourth century BC. The documents are mostly accounts of various civic or religious bodies, in which more than one thousand persons are mentioned. Many names are original and previously unattested. Here are treated the new names Ἀμφαρίων, Ἀστροβίων, Ἀφείδανς, Γνωhίαρος, Θόαξ, Λωϊάδας, Μίθυλλος, Πάλαθις, Παχᾶς, Fραϊδῖνος, Χαιράνγελος, Ὠκίας. On the basis of the new evidence, the name Ἀραhῖνος is definitely proved to be the name of a river, and so must be deleted from LGPN. The ongoing restoration of the inscribed bronze tablets from the archive of the treasury of Pallas in Argos, and the parallel study of the rich material contained in it, have revealed numerous original or rare proper names. It is estimated that about one thousand new persons can be added to the prosopography of Argos, thus considerably enriching the onomastics of the city. Some of the names have already been published or are in press. A full catalogue of them will appear in the final publication of the corpus that I am preparing. In the meantime, it is a particular pleasure for me to contribute to this volume in honour of Elaine Matthews by publishing some further names, either totally unattested or presenting aspects of particular interest. This should be the least recompense for the benefit that I constantly gain in consulting the valuable LGPN, whose publication owes so much to the honorand. The documents as a whole are generally dated to the first 30 to 35 years of the fourth century BC, possibly with some slight chronological divergences. They are written in the epichoric alphabet and the dialect of Argos. I list them in alphabetical order and with capital letters, as they appear in the tablets, and then add their transcription in ‘Ionic’ letters with breathings and accentuation.

   For my articles concerning the tablets of Argos see Kritzas 2003–4; 2005; 2006; 2007; 2009; (forthcoming a–b).    I wish to thank Professor L. Dubois and R. Catling for their help and advice.

New Personal Names

from

Argos

239

ΑΜΦΑΡΙΟΝ Ἀμφαρίων, -ωνος. The name is unattested, but there exist many names of the same group with the same first and second elements, such as Ἀμφάρης, Ἀμφαρίδας, Ἀμφάριχος, etc. or compounded with various other elements, such as Θεάρης, Πανάρης, and, most interesting of all for our case, Φραhιαρίδας, from Mycenae and elsewhere. All these names are related to the term ἄρος, ‑εος (τὸ), the meanings of which are given by Hesychius. Our name and the other members of its family are to be connected with the first, positive meaning, that of ‘profit’, ‘use’, ‘help’.

*ΑΡΑHΙΝΟΣ Ἀραhῖνος (Ἀρασῖνος / Ἐρασῖνος). LGPN IIIA includes, with a question mark, the personal name Ἀραἷνος (Ἀραhῖνος) from Argos, found on a dedication written on the lip of a bronze hydria. This must be eliminated as a personal name, because it is a variant of the common river name Ἐρασῖνος. The formula of the dedication, with a genitive of possession and a locative dative at the end is also common. Our new texts prove that not only a river Ἀραhῖνος, but also a homonymous kome existed at Argos. A related personal name from Argos is Ἐρασείνιος.

ΑΣΤΡΟΒΙΟΝ Ἀστροβίων, -ωνος. This beautiful name is unattested. It is a compound from ἀστήρ and βίος (rather than βία). It can be added to the group of names related to ἀστήρ, such as Ἀστήρ, Ἀστερίσκος, Ἀστερίων, Ἀστραῖος etc., or in compounds such as Ἀστέρωπος, Ἀστροχίτων. The first element can be found in many composite adjectives, such as ἀστροβλέφαρος, ἀστροβρόντης, ἀστρογείτων, ἀστροδάμας, ἀστροδίαιτος, ἀστρονόμος etc.

ΑΦΕΙΔΑΝΣ Ἀφείδανς (Ἀφείδας, ‑αντος). The name was until now attested only as a heroic name, in Attica, in Arkadia and elsewhere.10 In Attica Ἀφείδας was a legendary king, the son of Oxyntes and the founder of the Attic clan or phratry of Ἀφειδαντίδαι.11 The Arkadian hero Ἀφείδας was one of the three sons of Ἀρκάς, the son of Zeus by Kallisto.12 When Ἀρκάς distributed the land of Arkadia among his three sons, Ἀφείδας received Tegea with the region around it and became its king. It was then that a new demos, the Ἀφείδαντες, was added to the eight pre-existing demes of   For the group of related names see Fick–Bechtel 67; Bechtel, HPN 193. For Φραhιαρίδας, IG IV 492.   Hesych. ἄρος· ὄφελος καὶ κοιλάς, ἐν αἷς ὕδωρ ἀθροίζεται ὄμβριον. καὶ βλάβος ἀκούσιον. For the etymology see Chantraine, DELG s.v. ἄρος. It is interesting to note that natural cavities in the rocks, which retain rain-water, are still called ἀρόλιθοι in Crete.    For the parallel versions of the name see Str. viii 6. 8. cf. viii 8. 4.    SEG XI 329; LSAG2 169 no. 27 (c. 475–450).    See for example the dedication to Zeus on a bronze hydria from Nemea, LSAG2 443 no. 7b. On the cult of Erasinos see Farnell, Cults V 421–3.    See Kavvadias 2006, 328.    See Bechtel, HPN 86, 599. For Ἀστροχίτων see Nonn., D. v, 367, 408, 579 etc. (θεὸς Τύρου πολιοῦχος). 10   RE s.v. Apheidas (Toepffer) gives five examples. 11   Ath. iii 50 (96 D); Paus. vii 25. 1. For the clan see IG II2 1597 col. II, 19. (iii BC); cf. Lambert 1993, 363 test. 27. We have three more doubtful cases of the name Ἀφείδας in Attic inscriptions where the reading is uncertain: see PAA 242115, 242120, 242125. 12   Paus. viii 4. 2.  

240

Charalambos B. Kritzas

Tegea.13 Ἄλεος, the son of Ἀφείδας, was the founder of the temple of Athena Alea at Tegea.14 If we trust Apollodoros,15 Ἀφείδας had some links with the Argolid, since his daughter Σθενέβοια became the wife of Προῖτος. According to Pausanias, as well as epigraphic testimonies, it was the Argive sculptor Ἀντιφάνης who made the statue of Ἀφείδας dedicated with other heroic statues by the Tegeans at Delphi in the second quarter of the fourth century BC.16 This date is very close to that of our documents. Relations between the Argives and the Arkadians at that time were very close. We cannot then exclude that the very rare name Ἀφείδας was given to an Argive member of a family which had friendly relations with Arkadians. As for the meaning of the name, it is a compound from the privative ἀ‑ and the radical φειδ‑ of *φεῖδος, φείδομαι. It means ‘bountiful’, ‘unsparing’, ‘one who is not a niggard’, the opposite of φειδωλός or πολυφειδής or even φείδων, which, however, can also have a positive meaning ‘one who spares’.17 Many personal names belong to the same group, among them Φείδων, the famous king of Argos, and Φείδας, formed with the second element of our name, but having the opposite meaning.18

ΓΝΟHΙΑΡΟΣ Γνωhίαρος (Γνωσίαρος, ‑ου). The name is unattested. The intervocalic sigma is marked with the aspirate. The name is of course a compound, its first element the thematic form γνωσι‑ ( ἡρῷον; 1053: ἀρχ(ι)ερμηνέως, iii AD, Bosporos; IGB I² 57: Ἀπολ(λ)ων(ί)ου, Imp., Odessos; note also the genitive Ὀκταμασιάδεος in a graffito from Hermonassa, while the normal phonetic form of this Scythian personal name should be Ὀκταμασάδης; cf. the Greek and Macedonian name Ἀδαῖος > Ἀδάος with characteristic loss of ‑ι‑). It could be seen as a peculiar change of one unstressed vowel ‑ι into another unstressed vowel ‑ε (‑ι >εε > ε), typical of Bosporan phonetics, though chiefly in the Imperial period (CIRB Add. p. 800). We cannot exclude Δωρ(ι)έος as genitive of Δωριεύς (ISM III 153 = LGPN IV s.v.: Αβα Τιμοκλέους / Δωριέος γυνή) – a male personal name, popular in Macedonia and at Kallatis, Olbia, Chersonesos Taurike in the fourth to second centuries BC. This name belonged to a Rhodian who was living in Pantikapaion in the third century BC (CIRB 20). It was quite popular in the Aegean in the fifth to second centuries BC (LGPN I s.v.). But the character of the inscription and other personal names lead us to expect here the nominative. In Attica and some other Greek cities we find a name Δῶρος (LGPN I s.v. – Chios, Crete, Cyprus etc.; II – Athens; IV – Macedon, Kallatis, Mesembria), popular in the Hellenistic and Roman periods. In Bosporos it could be taken as an anachronism, a survival of an Ionic feature typical of the fifth and fourth centuries BC, and still found even in the first century BC: Δῶρος like ἀδελφεός = ἀδελφός (CIRB 193), Μηνεόδωρος = Μηνόδωρε (CIRB 125), Ποσειδεώνιος = Ποσειδώνιος (CIRB 172, 199, 220), ΘΕΟΔΕΟ > ΘΕΟΔΕΟΣ > ΘΕΟΔΕΩ > ΘΕΟΔΟ – the name of the city of Bosporan Theodosia on coin legends of the fifth to early fourth centuries BC while the standard form was Θεоδοσίη > Θευδοσίη (CIRB 6, 10, 11, 971, 1039, 1111 etc.).   RE s.v. 2486–2550; Leonhard 1915, 15; Menkul 1952, 10; Robert, Ét. anat. 264.   Robert Noms indigènes 530–40. On the occurrence of Paphlagonia in the genitive see Robert, ATAM 216–17.    Dubois, IGDOlbia 101.    Tokhtas’ev 2004, 154 n. 39.    Zgusta, KP § 15–3 (one cannot exclude a scribal error in such cases).    Anokhin 1986, 138–9 nos. 64–6, 73–6. The interpretation of these abbreviations not as the city name of Theodosia nor as the ethnic of its inhabitants (Zograf 1951, 163), but as the genitive of the personal name Θεοδῆς (Τοkhtas’ev 2004, 154 n. 39) is contentious. Personal names of city founders appeared on Greek coins very rarely and only in order to explain the portrait or personal attributes as heroic. Personal names mostly refer to kings, tyrants and monetary officials (Carradice–Price 1988, 60). At Theodosia this would be valid only for a single series with bearded male head on obverse (Anokhin 1986, 138 no. 64), while other coins with this legend have different types – boukranion, heads of gods and heroes (Ares, Athena, Herakles, Kabyros): Shonov 2002, 327–32. This does not permit their attribution to the commemoration of the deified ktistes, and explains why the coin legend traditionally rendered the city’s name in Ionic – Θεοδεοσ(ίη), Θεοδεω(σίη) > Θεοδο(σία). We may recall here the local Bosporan story (Ulpian in Schol. D. xx 33) that Theodosia was named after the sister or wife of the Bosporan tyrant Leukon I (see Petrova 2000, 50–3: she supports the view that the city had two names, although convincing arguments against it are given by Kovalenko 1999, 123), but most probably it was named after the spouse of the founder, a not infrequent practice in Greek colonies; it is attested, for instance, in the colonization of Bosporan Hermonassa.  

New Lead Plaques with Greek Inscriptions from East Crimea (Bosporos)

425

L. 4: we clearly see here a personal name Θῦς at the start. It is attested at Pantikapaion in the fourth century BC (CIRB 189 = LGPN IV s.v.: Θῦς Ἀτώτεω, nom. Ἀτώτης) where it is interpreted as Paphlagonian. This attribution is confirmed by the conjecture in l. 2 concerning the place name Paphlagonia. V. Latyshev and L. Robert demonstrated the Paphlagonian origin of this personal name, pointing to the name of the Paphlagonian king, Θῦς (Ath. iv 144f; x 415d; Αel., VH i 27; Nep., Dat. 2. 2: Thuys; 3. 2: Thuynem – a successor of the king of Paphlagonia in the Homeric period). Treating this personal name as noble in origin finds further confirmation in another Paphlagonian royal name, Ὄτυς (X., HG iv 1. 3), which is close to the Paphlagonian name Οργασθυς where Θῦς is a component.10 The Thraco-Phrygian origin of these names is proved by the Thracian royal name Κότυς: it belonged to the Thracian and Bosporan kings and incorporated the same element Θῦς = Τῦς.11 In southern Isauria and Cilicia we encounter a gravestone with the personal names Του Ελιου which is understood as nominative Του, son of Ελιος, or genitive of Τους > Του. The latter interpretation is the better, so the text should be translated as ‘(gravestone) of Tous, son of Elios’.12 The same origin could be ascribed to the name Θυσσος > Θυσσου in an inscription from Mylasa (pre-Roman): Θυσσος > Θυ(σ)σος >Θυσ(ος) > Θυς (see note 16). The name Θῦς = Τῦς occurs on amphora stamps of Sinope,13 and we also find it at Amisos in Pontic Cappadocia (SEG XXXVIII 1282, iii BC), and on amphora stamps of Herakleia Pontike in Bithynia.14 From there it spread to Chersonesos Taurike in the North Black Sea region and penetrated further into its distant chora in north-west Crimea, where it has appeared at the site of Bel’yaus in a graffito of the second century BC in the genitive Θυός.15 The same name, but in the form Θους, occurs on an epitaph of c. 365–340 BC from Laurion where it doubtless belonged to a miner, a slave or semi-slave (IG II² 11679–80). We may suppose that the name of the Paphlagonian kings spread among ordinary people of Anatolia and then to the North Black Sea coast in the course of the fourth to second centuries BC as a result of Paphlagonian immigration. The next name on the plaque is Ἀχαός = Ἀχα(ι)ός with dropped ‑ι in the diphthong ‑αι‑ before the stressed ending. Examples of this phonetic phenomenon in the Bosporos are known mostly from the first century BC (CIRB Add. p. 805), but some occur earlier (notably in a letter on a sherd of the fourth century BC from the chora of Gorgippia in the Bosporos (SEG XLVII 1175: πα(ι)δί[ωι]); in Asia Minor we find this only from the fourth century BC, mostly in the region of Mylasa: demotic Ὑδαεῖς > Ὑδαιεῖς,16 month Ὑπερβερτᾶου > Ὑπερβερταῖος17 (cf. CIRB 54, 99 etc. – Ὑπερβερεταῖος); the above mentioned name Ἀδαῖος > Ἀδάος (Zgusta, KP § 15–3); cf. CMRDM I 90: πα(ι)δίσχη > παιδίσκη, stele of Stratonike, Imp., χᾶ(ι)ρε > χαῖρε gravestone, ii–i BC.18 In the Greek epigraphy of Western Anatolia -ι before the endings

  Zgusta, PNS § 746; KP § 123; Tokhtas’ev 2007b, 179 no. 5.   IOSPE II 164; Robert, Noms indigènes 453–4. 11   Shkorpil 1904, 32, 72 no. 77, 292b. On the Thracian character of the name ‘Cotys’ see Gindin 1981, 38: Κοτ(τ)ις – Κοτ(τ)υς; the basic element of the name is Τις (= Τυς) > Ζις, Δις, the name of an ancient Thracian deity in compound names (Georgiev 1977, 54–5). The Paphlagonian form Thuys = Θουυς = Θυης is related to the Lydian Τυιος, Illyrian Tuia, Tuio, Tuillos, Isaurian Θουης, Lycaonian Θοων, Pisidian Θοας (Robert, Noms indigènes 456 n. 3) and was formed from the Thracian Tις=Τυς (сf. Greek Θύιος, gen. Θυίου; Thracian Κότυς, Κότις, gen. Κότυος) by changing the ending ‑ιος (‑ς) into ‑ιιυς > ιυς > υς, which was usual for the dialect of the Thracian speaking regions of Asia Minor (Τις > Τιιυς > Θυιιυς > Θουιιυς > Τυιιυς through the confluence ιι > ι, υιιυ > ιυ > υ, ουιιυ > ουιυ > υιυ > υυ >υ (Θουυς > Θους > Θυς, see Brixhe, DGP 25, 63, 80–100)). 12   Nollé–Şahin–Vorster 1985, 135 no. 11, from Laertis. 13   Grakov 1929, 203; Canarache 1957, 400, 407 – Θῦς, 408–9 – Τῦς. 14   Ameling 1994, 143. 15   Solomonik 1984, 456 = SEG XXXVIII 749, 9; Tokhtas’ev 2007a, 179; we find some other Paphlagonian names in Chersonesos (IOSPE I² 712, Ἀτώτας) and in Olbia (IOSPE I² 685, Ἀτοτᾶς). 16   Blümel 1990, 35 n. 14 = IMylasa 901–3. 17   Petzl 1994, 81. 18   Βlümel 1989, 5. 

10

426

Sergey Saprykin and Nikolai Fedoseev

-ως, -ος, -ον and in οι > ο is often lost,19 so the disappearance of ‑ι in the male name Achaios corresponds to the linguistics of Bosporos and Asia Minor, because it belonged to a native of Paphlagonia. This name is popular in the Greek world (LGPN IIIA – Sicily, Achaia, Argolis; LGPN I – Crete, Delos, Euboia, Kos, Keos, Tenos, Rhodes, Melos; LGPN II – Athens, mostly in pre-Imp. times; LGPN IV – Macedonia, mainly iv–iii BC; LGPN IIIB – Thessaly, iv BC and Imp.), of Greco-Macedonian character, based on the ethnic of the Achaians. In the North Black Sea region it is still unknown, but we find it on amphora stamps of Sinope.20 However, on the Caucasian coast there lived the Achaioi, a tribe which the Greeks linked with the Balkan Achaians; there was also a town of Achaia, also called ‘the Achaian Harbour’ or ‘the harbour of the Achaians’ (modern Tuapse).21 But any relation between this tribe and the person whose name was written on the plaque is hardly possible, so we still consider Achaos to be a Paphlagonian or an immigrant from one of the local cities. L. 5: [....ἔ]θελεν πή[ρωσιν?], but we do not insist on it as only two letters of the last word survive. The verb θέλω=ἐθέλω means ‘to wish’, ‘to want’, ‘to be ready’, ‘to be able to do something’, and the third person singular imperfect is quite possible here. It is used in some inscriptions on lead from the North Black Sea: in the letters of the third quarter of the sixth century BC from Berezan (θέλομι[...]) and from Olbia, addressed by Apatourios to Leonaktes (SEG XLVIII 1012: θε]λήσε(ι)ς), in the letter of 530–510 BC from Phanagoreia about a slave from Berezan (SEG XLVIII 1024: θέλομεν).22 In our inscription this verb could mean that somebody whose name was mentioned in the missing part of the letter, wanted to make a wish for something bad (or good) against one of the persons listed from Paphlagonia (or all of them). The plaque then belongs to the category of defixiones or curses of a magic nature. The text is expressed according to the usual scheme: the author first gave the names of persons as the target of his defixio, then wrote a wish, using a special verb. But we cannot say who was the author, what was the nature of the slander and the role of the listed persons, except that they came from Paphlagonia. The real wish, we may suppose, could have been inscribed in ll. 6–10.

This lead plaque is a new example of Bosporan magic curses (defixiones), known from as early as the nineteenth century. They were written on lead plaques and pottery fragments.23 Such documents were popular in Olbia where we come across simple lists of names and real curses.24 A great many have been discovered in Attica and their similarity with documents from Olbia and Bosporos suggested the convincing idea that the practice of cursing in the North Black Sea region was associated with legal procedures in Olbia and Bosporos, which were greatly influenced by the Athenian judicial system. But if we look carefully at the inscriptions on lead from the North Black Sea region, we find there many ordinary lists of names without any real indication of a defixio. So, despite their common interpretation as defixiones, the evidence provides few grounds to regard them as documents of this type. We see no reason why they should not be treated as   E.g. Tanriver 1991, 79 no. 1: μουλ(ί)ον > μουλον; Ricl 1991, 18 no. 33: κατο(ι)κίας; Merkelbach–Şahin 1988, 100: Ἀναξ(ί)ωνος; Nollé–Şahin–Vorster 1985, no. 10: ὑῶν > υ(ἱ)ῶν, ὑοῦ > υ(ἱ)οῦ, Roman period; OGIS 88: τοῦ ὑοῦ, Sestos, 209–205 BC; Naour 1983, 119, 123: ὀ ὑός, τῷ ὑῷ, cf. Şahin 1984a, 108; for Late Antiquity – ΑΘΑΝΑC > Ἀθανάσ(ιο)ς (Öğut–Şahin 1986, 123 no. 97); on a Flavian coin of Laodikeia on the Lykos see the legend ΙΟΥΛΟC ΚΟΤΥC > ΙΟΥΛ(Ι)ΟΣ (Corsten–Huttner 1996, 50 no. 40). 20   Canarache 1957, 411 no. 19. 21   Saprykin 1992, 58. 22   Dana 2007, 71, 75, 87. 23   On the defixiones from Bosporos see Pridik 1899, 120–4 nos. 1–5; Audollent 1904, nos. 90–2; Shkorpil 1908, 68 n. 2; Diehl 1915, 50; Jordan 1978, 159–63; 1985, no. 170; Tolstoi 1953, 138 no. 242; Тоkhtas’ev 2002, 73 nn. 3–4; Saprykin–Zin’ko 2003, 266–73; Saprykin–Maslennikov 2007, 51; Yailenko 2005, 479–82. 24   Pridik 1899, no. 3; Shkorpil 1908, 69–72; Diehl 1915, 46–52; Тоlstoi 1953, no. 63; Audollent 1904, no. 89; Jordan 1985, nos. 171–6; Dubois, IGDOlbia nos. 106–7; Jordan 1987, 162; Chaniotis 1992, 69–73; BE 1988, no. 250; Vinogradov 1994, 104–6; Тоkhtas’ev 2000, 314 ff.; 2002, 73 ff.; 2007a, 48–9. 19

New Lead Plaques with Greek Inscriptions from East Crimea (Bosporos)

427

simple lists of persons eligible for election to various civic offices, such as priesthoods, the city council, membership of the local priestly colleges, or for the performance of certain kinds of leitourgia, religious ceremonies and public festivals. If the list is followed by the sacral formula, as on the lead from Pantikapaion under discussion, then they really should be magic curses. The Kingdom of Bosporos has produced a great number of curse tablets, but we shall pay attention only to one, discovered in 1867 in the necropolis of Pantikapaion. It was published by L. Stefani, then by E. Pridik and later by R. Wuensch and A. Audollent, and most recently by V. Yailenko. Its left side carries just the names of the persons being cursed, while the right side bears the curse.25 The same arrangement is found in our inscription, though the curse has completely disappeared, except for a few letters in ll. 6–10. But the imperfect of the verb in the magic formula, combined with ΠΗ[...], to our minds gives good reason to suppose that the curse was the result of an unsuccessful judicial action. Or, contrariwise, it could be a wish for the success of the persons mentioned. The plaque is important evidence for contacts between Bosporos and Paphlagonia, of which we were previously aware only from supposed Paphlagonian personal names on grave-stones (CIRB 199, 208 etc.), and from an important fourth-century inscription, erected by the Paphlagonian Drosanis (or Drusanis), son of Leukon, who had fought in the country of the Maiotai (CIRB 180). This stone is convincingly attributed to one of the Paphlagonians who had served in the army of the Spartocids in the conquest of Sindike.26 But L. Robert supposed that it belonged to a foreigner of Paphlagonian ancestry who had acquired Bosporan citizenship and was resident at Pantikapaion.27 So it might be justifiable to consider the Paphlagonians in our inscription to be either mercenaries in the service of Bosporan rulers or ordinary settlers from Paphlagonia in Bosporos.

II Akra (modern Zavetnoe, south of Kerch), a small Bosporan town on the coast of the Straits of Kerch, now completely immersed under the sea.28 The lead plaque (7.5 × 6.5 cm in size), folded in four, was discovered by chance in the sea, three or four metres from the shore at a depth of 1.5 metres. The message probably had never reached its addressee. Only seven lines are preserved but, in spite of damage caused by sea-water, all the lines are legible. It is the left part of a letter, whose uneven upper and left-hand edges (at least for the first four lines) represent the top left corner of the plaque (and the letter). The lower part is broken and of the last three lines approximately 1–4 letters have been lost at the start of the line; the right edge too is broken. The text was inscribed rather carefully; the letters are unsteady, sometimes close to one other, but more often well-spaced; the lines are written directly under each other, producing a neat left-hand margin. There is a relatively broad blank space between the first line and the top edge of the plaque (Fig. 2a–b). The beginnings of the first four lines are undamaged; the fifth line has lost just a single letter at   Pridik 1899, 115–18; Wuensch 1897, 18; Audollent 1904, 92; Yailenko 2005, 476: line 6 of this inscription preserved an imprecation μή [τ]ις αὐτοῖς εἴη πη κτῆσις, ‘and may they not have possessions of any sort’; it seems possible that the expression in l. 5 of our inscription [...ἔ]θελεν πη[...] could refer to a similar wish. 26   IOSPE II 296; Zhebelev 1953, 137, 167 n. 3; Blavatskii 1954, 71; Gaidukevich 1971, 72; Sokol’ski 1958, 301. 27   Robert, Noms indigènes 456. 28   We express our gratitude to A. V. Kulikov from the Museum of Kerch, by whose help we have been allowed to publish this document. 25

428

Sergey Saprykin and Nikolai Fedoseev

the beginning, while the two last lines are missing the first words. We cannot say how many lines this letter originally had, nor do we know the length of each line. The style of writing suggests it should be dated between the second half of the third century BC and the second century AD; some letters are found in Bosporan scripts of the second century BC to the early first century AD, and even of the second century AD.29 This date corresponds to certain details in the text, which is as follows:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Βότρυς ὁ ἐπὶ πόλε̣[ως.............................. ] πωι χαίρειν. ἱερὰ πάνυγ[ρα...................... ] σοῦ μὲν ὡ σωτηρία ὑπ̣[οκεῖσθαι?..... ] στοὰ ὑπὸ ὑδρο̣[ποιοῦ?............................. ] [ἄ]πασιν ἐπ’ ἁτέρου [.............................. ] [.......] ἀρὴ καὶ ἴσε ὀβρ[ίμῳ?.................... ] [............]α̣ὐτ̣ ὴ ἐν ὕ[δατι?......................... ] [................................................................ ]

Translation: Botrys, prefect of the city (…….) greetings to (…p)pos! The sanctuaries are waterlogged (or another word derived from water) (…..) Try as quickly as possible to achieve their security (….) for stoa from carrying moisture (or another word derived from water) (….) all of them one after another (….) trouble as well as the frenzied (….) it is itself in (water?....). The name of the letter’s author, Botrys, is attested in Attica from the fourth century BC to the second century AD (LGPN II), in the Aegean, on Amorgos, Thera, Delos, and Kos in the third to first centuries BC (LGPN I), Achaia, Arkadia, Magna Graecia and Sicily in the fifth to second centuries BC (LGPN IIIA), on a Hellenistic gravestone from the Ionian city of Erythrai (IEK 363: Βότρυς [Ἡ]ρακλείῃ),30 in Mesembria and Byzantion in the third to first centuries BC (IGB I² 337bis; IByz 82), and in Macedonia in the first to second centuries AD (LGPN IV). This is the first time it has been encountered in the North Black Sea area. There are a number of possibilities for the name of the person to whom the letter was addressed: [Φιλίπ]πωι, a name popular in Bosporos (CIRB 36, 104, 439, 1277), in Macedonia, Thrace,

Figure 2a. Letter of Botrys, from Akra. Photo: authors; 2b. Drawing of letter of Botrys, from Akra. Drawing: authors 29 30

  Boltunova–Knipovich 1962, 9–11.   Engelmann 1987, 146 no. 19, pl. 17. 19.

New Lead Plaques with Greek Inscriptions from East Crimea (Bosporos)

429

Scythia Minor (particularly at Istria and Kallatis), quite naturally considering the influence of the Macedonian kingdom in this region (five Macedonian kings bore this name), in Chersonesos Taurike (LGPN IV); [Ξανθίπ]πωι, another popular name in the Greek world, known in Olbia in the fifth century BC (LGPN IV; SEG XLVI 955); [Λεΐπ]πωι (LGPN II, Attica, 330–320 BC), or [Λεωνίπ]πωι, cf. the formula of greeting Βασιλ[εὺς Μιθραδ]άτης Λεωνίππῳ σατράπῃ [χαί]ρειν (Syll³ 741, Nysa, c. 88 BC). Botrys’ official position is called ὁ ἐπὶ (τῆς) πόλε[ως]. He was probably sent to Akra as a royal prefect and addressed his message to a certain […p]pos, an inhabitant of that city. Certain details suggest that the letter had an official character. It is indicated by the greeting formula, used frequently in private, business and official letters.31 In the North Pontic region we usually find the formula ὁ δεῖνα τῶι δεῖνι,32 but χαίρειν, ‘wish all the best!’, used in both official messages and documents,33 confirms the late date of the letter. The position of Botrys (ὁ ἐπὶ (τῆς) πόλε[ως]) has never previously been attested in the Bosporos. The installation of royal representatives in cities goes back to Alexander the Great, even if their position in the official hierarchy was higher than that of Botrys. Reaching Alexandria (founded earlier by him) on his journey from Bactria to India, Alexander removed the hyparchos previously appointed there on the grounds of misgovernment (Arr., An. iv 22. 4: ὕπαρχος ὅστις αὐτῳ ἐπὶ τῆς πόλεως τότε ἐτάχθη). In the Hellenistic world the installation of royal officials in the cities became normal in Ptolemaic Egypt and in its subject territories (OGIS 102; SEG XXX 1610, 1638; XLVI 1737): in the third century BC Ptolemy was the prefect of Alexandria (Plb. v 39. 3: Πτολεμαίῳ τῷ τότε ἐπὶ τῆς πόλεως ἀπολελειμμένῳ); in 164 or 163 BC, when a certain Antipatros was tortured to death there, Asklepiades, formerly dioiketes and archisomatophylax but by that time ὁ ἐπὶ τῆς πόλεως τεταγμένος, was ordered to give an explanation of events (D.S. xxxi 20); in Alexandria ὁ ἐπὶ τῆς πόλεως was at the same time dioiketes, exegetes, and gymnasiarchos, as in the inscription of Lykarion. According to a papyrus of October 28, 126 BC (PBad IV 48. 7), ὁ ἐπὶ τῆς πόλεως was anxious about the wives and children of soldiers in battle, and this led H. Bengtson to conclude that the city prefect in Egypt had certain military functions like ‘strategos of the city’, and in the late Hellenistic period he had a policing role.34 The military aspect of ὁ ἐπὶ τῆς πόλεως is clear from Cypriot inscriptions of the second century BC when the island was under Ptolemaic control. This official is mentioned together with phrourarchoi (‘commanders of royal garrisons’: OGIS 113, 134, 155, ὁ ἐπὶ Σαλαμῖνος, ‘prefect of the city of Salamis’; see also in Nikosia where the phrourarchos became prefect of this city (ὁ ἐπὶ τῆς [πóλεως] γενóμενος φρούραρχος). In Cyrene in 108 BC οἱ ἐπὶ τῶν πóλεων τεταγμένοι, i.e. the prefects appointed over the cities, were responsible for the implementation of royal edicts by local city officials; as the recipients of letters containing royal decrees it was their duty to see them enacted by city governments (SEG IX 5). They were similar not only to the strategoi of the cities, but also to royal city governors such as epistatai and episkopoi (IG XII (3) 466, 467, 1296: τεταγμένος ἐπὶ Θήρας, ‘appointed over Thera’; IG VII 2802, 2: ἐπὶ πóλιος, Hyettos; 299, 1: ἐπὶ πóλεως, Оrоpos, both dated to the third century BC). That city prefects under the   Exler 1923, 70–4; Chan-Hie 1972, 21–31.   Сf. the letters from the North Black Sea: Dana 2007, 67 ff.; on private letters from Olbia see Yailenko 1998, 90 ff.: χαίρειν as greeting formula is found only in the letter of Artikon. 33   On χαίρειν in the letters of Hellenistic rulers and their officials: Welles, RC; in the North Black Sea: fragmentary rescripts of Sauromates II (Saprykin 1986, 72) and of king Aspourgos to Gorgippia (Heinen 1999, 134), and in the letter of king Polemon I of Pontos to the council and people of Chersonesos Taurike (IOSPE I² 704). 34   Bengtson 1939–52, III, 128–33; on the ὁ ἐπὶ τῆς πόλεως in Alexandria and Ptolemais see Fraser 1972, 106. 31 32

430

Sergey Saprykin and Nikolai Fedoseev

Ptolemies were directly appointed by the kings and were subordinate to them is clear from an inscription of 240–221 BC found on Samothrace, where a certain Epinikos is styled ὁ τεταγμένος ὑπὸ τοῦ βασιλέως Πτολεμαίου ἐπὶ Μαρωνείας, ‘appointed by king Ptolemy over Maroneia’.35 In the Seleucid Kingdom we find a certain Sophron as prefect of Ephesos in 247 BC (Phylarchos, FGrHist 81 F 24: Σώφρων.....ὁ ἐπὶ Ἐφέσου); when the city of Sardis was besieged in 213 BC during the war between Antiochos III and Arates, Aribazos was installed there as prefect (Plb. vii 17. 9: ὁ δ’ ἐπὶ τῆς πόλεως τεταγμένος Ἀρίβαζος); at Naustathmos this position was given to Athenaios (Ἀθηναίωι τῶι ἐπὶ τοῦ Ναυστάθμου).36 They also functioned at Pergamon, as attested in the Astynomic Law of 188 BC (OGIS 483, 57) and other inscriptions (SEG XLIV 1108; XLVI 1434). In making these appointments the kings’ purpose was to limit polis autonomy. Their functions were close to those of the strategoi in Egypt,37 to control city finances and to oversee those officials responsible for receiving income from temples; they could also impose fines on the astynomoi for any kind of illegality or breach of the law.38 In the Cappadocian kingdom of the first century BC we discover such officials in a decree from Anisa: Ἀλεξάνδρου τοῦ ἐν Εὐσεβείαι ἐπὶ τῆς πόλεως, i.e. prefect of Eusebeia, one of the capitals of the kingdom; in an inscription from Tyana: [τῶν πρῶτ]ων φίλων βασιλέως Ἀριοβαρ[ζάνου φ]ιλορωμαίου καὶ μάλιστα....[γε]γο[νóτας] δὲ καὶ [ἐπὶ] τῆς πóλεως καὶ [τοὺς ἀδ]ελφοὺς τοὺς κοινοὺς.... . Here we find the city prefects among ‘the king’s first friends’, because this position was one of the highest and its holders were members of the royal court.39 Hellenistic rulers appointed their prefects to limit polis autonomy to some degree, but also to show a certain respect towards polis communities by demonstrating a concern for their political rights. That is why in Cappadocia during the reign of king Ariobarzanes I the city prefect in the inscription from Tyana was called ‘brother of the community’, possibly a polis, but more probably a koinon, an association of thiasos type. This comparative evidence provides a good basis for concluding that ὁ ἐπὶ τῆς πόλεως was usually appointed by a king and was subject to him; that he was responsible for communicating royal edicts and rescripts to polis communities, and for the payment of a city’s taxes to the royal treasury, including income from temples and shrines; that he supervised the conduct of various polis officials and, if necessary, took upon himself military functions as phrourarchos or strategos of the city. In the Black Sea region this military aspect is attested in an inscription from Mesembria of 71 BC in honour of Gaius Cornelius, son of Gaius, appointed to that city by Marcus Licinius Lucullus, who had liberated the western Black Sea coast from Mithridates VI Eupator. This commander was ὁ καθεσταμένος ἐπὶ τᾶς πóλιος [στραταγ]ός (IGB I² 314), i.e. the Roman general appointed him as strategos of that city. This appointment took place in accordance with the common Hellenistic practice of sending representatives to cities as prefects for carrying out military functions. Lucullus deliberately repeated what Mithridates himself had instituted, because the local population was accustomed to the Mithridatic system and had no great desire for change. This is confirmed by a Mithridatic inscription from Olbia, where   Bengtson 1939–52, III, 163–4; Gauthier 1979, 88–9 no. 10; Şahin 1984b, 6 n. 9.   Welles, RC 12; Bickerman 1985, 192. 37   Taubenschlag 1955, 575; Cardinali 1906, 282; Bengtson 1939–52, III, 240–5; Oliver 1955, 90. 38   Allen 1983, 172, 177. 39   Jones 1937, 176: prefect of Anisa with a residence at Eusebeia; Magie 1950, 1353: a royal governor; Robert, Noms indigènes 458–9: royal official, governor or prefect. 35 36

New Lead Plaques with Greek Inscriptions from East Crimea (Bosporos)

431

the city strategos was at the same time ὁ ἐπὶ τῆς πόλεως, installed by the king of Pontos.40 City prefects are also found in the Roman period in the Kingdom of Bosporos: in Bosporan inscriptions we meet ὁ ἐπὶ τῆς Γοργιππείας, ‘the prefect of Gorgippia’ (CIRB 1115, 1119, 1129, 1132, 1134, 1214), ὁ ἐπὶ τῆς Θεοδοσίας, ‘the prefect of Theodosia’ (CIRB 36, 64, 1130). They were surely high-ranking governors of large cities with vast agrarian territories, united into broad administrative units of the kingdom, under the direct control of the Bosporan ruler. As in other Hellenistic states, they acted as intermediaries between the royal power and the polis communities, having responsibility for communicating the king’s orders to polis officials. That is why the rescripts of king Aspourgos to Gorgippia (early i AD) were addressed directly to Pantaleon and Theangelos, the king’s representatives (one of them surely the prefect of Gorgippia, though their position is not indicated). Polis officials were put under control of the prefects and carried out their orders, as well as those of the king. These governors, along with the administrative districts centred on large poleis, appeared in Bosporos when it became a part of the Kingdom of Pontos under Mithidates VI. Phanagoreia, the largest city in the Asian part of Bosporos, could also have a city prefect, strategos of the city at that time. The revolt in Phanagoreia against Mithridates in 63 BC was led by Kastor, “Mithridatis praefectus, qui Phanagorio praeerat” (Oros. vi 5. 2; cf. App., Mithr. 108). That revolt inspired the Romans to grant eleutheria to Phanagoreia, but around 50 BC it was abolished by Pharnakes II. Under Pontic rule the city minted coins, so the hypothesis of an administrative unit which had Phanagoreia at its centre seems well-founded. But unlike Gorgippia and Theodosia, Phanagoreia was deprived of any administrative functions in Roman times, being subject to the ‘prefect of the Island’, the royal governor of the administrative district ‘Island’, the modern Fantalovsky peninsula in the north-west part of Taman, in ancient times an island (νησσάρχης = ὁ ἐπὶ τῆς νήσου, CIRB 40, 697, 982, 1000).41 Phanagoreia lost its role as the centre of an administrative unit under Pharnakes II in reprisal for its anti-Mithridatic revolt and independence from Bosporos. It was his decision to place the city under the power of the royal governor, ‘the prefect of the Island’, who was responsible to the king of Bosporos. The same situation probably prevailed in the minor Bosporan cities, such as Akra. Under the Spartocids the power in Bosporan cities and villages (komai), in small towns and town-like sites, resided with the epimeletai (Polyaen. vi 9. 3). During the Pontic hegemony the king held supreme power and had the greatest rights over the land, and this brought into being a new structure of administrative rule, as in other Hellenistic states. In accordance with the new scheme towns which were not centres of administrative districts were made subject to the governors of royal lands (οἱ ἐπὶ τῆς βασιλείας) whose orders were implemented by other royal officials, οἱ ἐπὶ τῶν πόλεων. But, unlike magistrates of the same kind in large cities, who were subject directly to the king, these officials were subordinated to the regional governors. Botrys, the author of the letter on the lead plaque, could have been an official of this kind and probably addressed his letter to a local magistrate who had charge of temples and other public buildings in Akra. However, he was not directly concerned with this matter himself but gave orders to the subordinate official. We assume that Botrys’ official position, ‘the prefect of Akra’, was established in Bosporos   In the Mithridatic kingdom the city strategoi usually governed the subject cities, as at Istria (SEG XLVII 1125), Chersonesos Taurike (Avram 2002, 72), Olbia (Krapivina–Diatroptov 2005, 68); sometimes, as at Ephesos (App., Mithr. vii 48), this function belonged to episkopoi. 41   Kuznetzov 2007, 230–3. 40

432

Sergey Saprykin and Nikolai Fedoseev

during the period of Mithridatic rule and survived into the succeeding period. For that reason we propose to read line 1 as Βóτρυς ὁ ἐπὶ πóλε[ως τεταγμένος vel καθεσταμένος...], as in the many other Hellenistic inscriptions discussed above. Ὁ ἐπὶ τῆς πόλεως, a royal office, typical of Hellenistic kingdoms, shows that, at the turn of our era and in the early Imperial period, the Kingdom of Bosporos had all the appearances of a real Hellenistic state. The Greek cities had a measure of autonomy and politeia, limited to some degree by the royal power which installed in them officials whose express purpose was to monitor events there. The words ἱερὰ πάνυγ[ρα...], ὑπὸ ὑδρο[ποιοῦ? ...] along with the demand to secure or even save the buildings (cf. the middle/passive second-person singular imperative form σοῦ from the verb σεύω, ‘set in swift motion’, ‘to be put in quick motion’, ‘run’, ‘rush’, ‘hasten’, ‘speed’, etc.) show that Akra was in need of urgent measures to protect its sanctuaries and stoa from the encroachment of water and moisture. Porticos (stoai) existed in Bosporan cities (CIRB 1045; VDI 2007 (1) 230, Phanagoreia, ii-iii AD). A serious or worrying situation forced the officials to take speedy action (cf. the expression in l. 6, [......] ἀρὴ καὶ ἴσε ὀβρ[ίμῳ...], which means ‘trouble’, ‘calamity’, ‘disaster’, and ‘frantic’ or ‘frenzied’, presumably referring to wind or storm, a natural disaster which caused flooding and excessive damp). Ἀρή = ἀρά – the Ionic form with change of α > η – occurs as a linguistic anachronism in Bosporan phonetics in the late Hellenistic or early Roman periods (CIRB Add. p. 798); ἴσα = ἴσε with alternation of α > ε typical of Bosporan language in early Imperial times (see, for example, θίασος > θίεσος, i AD, CIRB 76, 82, 137). However, l. 6 can be restored as ὀβρ[ιμοεργῶι?....], i.e. ‘doing deeds of violence or wrong’. This message shows the city prefect’s concern with the encroachment of water or damp into the shrines and some of the other public buildings, prompting the order to the local official in charge of them to take preventative action. This inscription is very important for Akra, which is now almost completely submerged in the sea.42 Judging by its name, it was situated on the cape, while the part by the shore, now swallowed up by the sea, was already suffering from flooding in ancient times. Bosporos was sporadically affected by flooding, as we know from Pliny the Elder (NH ii 94), who told a local story about Antissa and Pyrra, cities on the Maeotic Sea (their actual location unknown) which were completely flooded by sea-water.43 So of the two texts published here, this second is a letter which supplements nicely the list of published and unpublished documents of this kind, chiefly private, discovered up to now in Bosporos.44

References Аgbunov, М. V. (1987) Аntichnaia lotsiia Chernogo mor’ia. Мoscow. Allen, R. E. (1983) The Attalid Kingdom. A Constitutional History. Oxford. Ameling, W. (1994) ‘Prosopographia Heracleotica’, in IHeraclea, 115–168. Аnokhin, V. А. (1986) Monetnoe delo Bospora (IV v. do n. e.–XII v. n. e.). Kiev. Audollent, A. (1904) Defixionum tabellae. Paris. Avram, A. (2002) ‘Ein neuer Stratege des Königs Mithridates VI Eupator im Taurischen Chersonesos’, Izvestiia na Narodniia muzei Burgas 4, 69–73.   Saprykin 1995, 406–7; Agbunov 1987, 107–8.   Blavatskii 1976, 12. 44   On the full list of epistolary documents from Bosporos and Olbia see Vinogradov 1998, 153–4; Saprykin–Kulikov 1999, 202; Dana 2007, 69. 42 43

New Lead Plaques with Greek Inscriptions from East Crimea (Bosporos)

433

Bengtson, H. (1939–52) Die Strategie in der hellenistischen Zeit. Ein Beitrag zum antiken Staatsrecht. 3 vols. Munich. Bickerman, E. (1985) Gosudarstvo Selevkidov. Мoscow. Blavatskii, V. D. (1954) Оcherki voennogo dela v antichnykh gosudarstvakh Severnogo Prichernomor’ia. Мoscow. Blavatskii, V. D. (1976) Priroda i antichnoe obshchestvo. Мoscow. Βlümel, W. (1989) ‘Neue Inschriften aus der Region von Mylasa (1988) mit Nachträgen zu I.K. 34–35’, Epigraphica Anatolica 13, 1–15. Βlümel, W. (1990) ‘Zwei neue Inschriften aus Mylasa aus der Zeit des Maussolos’, Epigraphica Anatolica 16, 29–43. Boltunova, A. I. and Knipovich, T. N. (1962) ‘Оcherk istorii grecheskogo lapidarnogo pis’ma na Bospore’, Numizmatika i epigrafika 3, 3–21. Canarache, V. (1957) Importul amforelor ştampilate la Istria. Bucharest. Cardinali, G. (1906) Il regno di Pergamo. Rome. Carradice, I. and Price, M. (1988) Coinage in the Greek World. London. Chaniotis, A. (1992) ‘Watching a Lawsuit: a New Curse Tablet from Southern Russia’, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 33, 69–73. Chan-Hie, K. (1972) Form and Structure of the Familiar Greek Letter of Recommendation. Ann Arbor. Corsten, T. and Huttner, U. (1996) ‘Münzen aus Laodikeia am Lykos (Phrygien)’, Epigraphica Anatolica 26, 43–51. Dana, M. (2007) ‘Lettres grecques dialectales nord-pontiques (sauf IGDOP 23–36)’, Revue des études anciennes 109, 67–97. Diehl, E. (1915) ‘Оl’viiskaia chashcha s nagovorom’, Izvestiia arkheologicheskoi kommissii 58, 40–56. Engelmann, H. (1987) ‘Inschriften von Erythrai’, Epigraphica Anatolica 9, 133–152. Exler, F. X. J. (1923) A Study in Greek Epistolography. Washington. Fraser, P. M. (1972) Ptolemaic Alexandria. 3 vols. Oxford. Gaidukevich, V. F. (1971) Das Bosporanische Reich. Berlin / Amsterdam. Gauthier, P. (1979) ‘Ἐξαγωγὴ σίτου: Samothrace, Hippomédon et les Lagides’, Historia 28, 76–89. Georgiev, V. I. (1977) Trakite i tekhniiat ezik. Sofia. Gindin, L. A. (1981) Drevneishaia onomastika Vostochnykh Balkan. Sofia. Grakov, B. N. (1929) Drevne-grecheskie kleima s imenami astinomov. Мoscow. Heinen, H. (1999) ‘Zwei Briefe des bosporanischen Königs Aspurgos (AE 1994, 1538). Übersehene Berichtigungsvorschläge Günther Klaffenbachs und weitere Beobachtungen’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 124, 133–142. Jones, A. H. M. (1937) The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces. Oxford. Jordan, D. (1978) ‘A Graffito from Panticapaeum’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 30, 159–163. Jordan, D. (1985) ‘A Survey of Greek Defixiones not included in the Special Corpora’, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 26, 151–197. Jordan, D. (1987) ‘A Greek Defixio at Brussels’, Mnemosyne 40, 162–166. Kovalenko, S. А. (1999) ‘О monetnom dele Khersonesa Tavricheskogo v pozdneklassicheskuiu epokhu’, Numizmatika i epigrafika 16, 108–131. Krаpivina, V. V. and Diatroptov, P. D. (2005) ‘Nadpis’ namestnika Mitridata VI Evpatora iz Ol’vii’, Vestnik drevnei istorii (1), 67–73. Kuznetzov, V. D. (2007) ‘Nov’ie nadpisi iz Fanagorii’, Vestnik drevnei istorii (1), 227–243. Leonhard, R. (1915) Paphlagonia. Reisen und Forschungen im Nördlichen Kleinasien. Berlin. Magie, D. (1950) Roman Rule in Asia Minor to the end of the third century after Christ. 2 vols. Princeton. Menkul, G. (1952) Paphlagonia. Eski Eserleri ve Arkeolojisi. Kastamonu. Merkelbach, R. and Şahin, S. (1988) ‘Die publizierten Inschriften von Perge’, Epigraphica Anatolica 11, 97–170. Naour, C. (1983) ‘Nouvelles inscriptions du Μoyen Hermos’, Εpigraphica Αnatolica 2, 107–141. Nollé, J., Şahin, S. and Vorster, C. (1985) ‘Katalog der Inschriften im Museum von Alanya’, Epigraphica Anatolica 5, 125–146.

434

Sergey Saprykin and Nikolai Fedoseev

Öğut, S. and Şahin, S. (1986) ‘Katalog der bithynischen Inschriften im Archäologischen Museum von Istanbul’, Epigraphica Anatolica 8, 109–128. Oliver, J. H. (1955) ‘The Date of the Pergamene Astynomic Law’, Hesperia 24, 88–92. Petrova, E. B. (2000) Аntichnaia Feodosiia. Istoriia i kul’tura. Simferopol. Petzl, G. (1994) Die Beichtinschriften Westkleinasiens, (Epigraphica Anatolica, 22). Bonn. Pridik, Е. М. (1899) ‘Grecheskie zakliatiia i amulety iz Iuzhnoi Rossii’, Zhurnal Ministerstva Narodnogo Prosvieshcheniia, December, 115–119. Ricl, M. (1991) ‘Hosios kai Dikaios’, Epigraphica Anatolica 18, 1–70. Şahin, S. (1984a) ‘Ein Kindersarkophag aus Umurbey im Museum von Izmit’, Epigraphica Anatolica 3, 108. Şahin, S. (1984b) ‘Ehrendekret für Hippomedon aus Priapos (Karabiga)’, Epigraphica Anatolica 4, 5–8. Saprykin, S. Iu. (1986) ‘Iz epigrafiki Gorgippii’, Vestnik drevnei istorii (1), 62–75. Saprykin, S. Iu. (1992) ‘Achaia’, in M. Zahariade (ed.), Lexicon of the Greek and Roman Cities and Place Names in Antiquity 1. Amsterdam, 58. Saprykin, S. Iu. (1995) ‘Akra 1’, in M. Zahariade (ed.), Lexicon of the Greek and Roman Cities and Place Names in Antiquity 3. Amsterdam, 406–407. Saprykin, S. Iu. and Kulikov, А. В. (1999) ‘Nov’ie epigraficheskie nakhodki v Pantikapee’, in Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoi Evropy 1996–1997 gg. Мoscow, 201–208. Saprykin, S. Iu. and Zin’ko, V. N. (2003) ‘Defixio iz Pantikapeia’, Drevnosti Bospora 6, 266–275. Saprykin, S. Iu. and Maslennikov, A. A. (2007) ‘Svintsovaia plastina s grecheskoi nadpis’iu iz Fanagorii’, Vestnik drevnei istorii (4), 50–61. Shkorpil, V. V. (1904) ‘Kеramicheskie nadpisi, priobretennie Kerchenskim muzeem drevnostei v 1901 i 1902 godakh’, Izvestiia arkheologicheskoi kommissii 11, 19–166. Shkorpil, V. V. (1908) ‘Тri svintzoviie plastinki s nadpisiami iz Ol’vii’, Izvestiia arkheologicheskoi kommissii 27, 68–74. Shonov, I. V. (2002) ‘О monetnoi chekanke Feodosii poslednei chetverty V- nachala IV v. dо r. kh.’, in Bosporskie issledovaniia 2, 327–332. Sokol’ski, N. I. (1958) ‘K voprosu o naemnikakh na Bospore v IV–III vv. do n.e.’, Sovetskaia Arkheologiia 28, 298–307. Solomonik, E. I. (1984) Graffiti s khor’i Khersonesa. Kiev. Tanriver, C. (1991) ‘Some New Texts recording Occupations’, Epigraphica Anatolica 18, 79–82. Taubenschlag, R. (1955) The Law of Greco-Roman Egypt in the light of the papyri, 332 B.C.–640 A.D. Warsaw. Tolstoi, I. I. (1953) Grecheskie graffiti drevnikh gorodov Severnogo Prichernomor’ia. Moscow / Leningrad. Tokhtas’ev, S. R. (2000) ‘Nov’ie tabellae defixionum iz Оl’vii’, Hyperboreus 6/2, 296–316. Tokhtas’ev, S. R. (2002) ‘Ostrakon s poseleniia Koz’irka XII Ol’viiskoi Khor’i’, Hyperboreus 8/1, 72–98. Tokhtas’ev, S. R. (2004) ‘Bospor i Sindika v epokhu Levkona I’, Vestnik drevnei istorii (3), 144–180. Tokhtas’ev, S. R. (2007a) ‘Iz onomastiki Severnogo Prichernomor’ia. XIX: maloaziiskie imena na Bospore (V–IV vv do n.e.)’, Vestnik drevnei istorii (1), 170–208. Tokhtas’ev, S. R. (2007b) ‘Novoe zakliatie na svintze iz Severnogo Prichernomor’ia’, Vestnik drevnei istorii (4), 48–49. Vinogradov, Iu. G. (1994) ‘New Inscriptions on Lead from Olbia’, Ancient Civilisations from Scythia to Siberia 1/1, 103–111. Vinogradov, Iu. G. (1998) ‘The Greek Colonisation of the Black Sea Region in the Light of Private Lead Letters’, in G. R. Tsetskhladze (ed.), The Greek Colonisation of the Black Sea Area. Historical Interpretation of Archaeology. Stuttgart, 153–178. Wuensch, R. (1897) Defixionum tabellae Atticae (IG III. 3. Appendix). Berlin. Yailenko, V. P. (1998) ‘Chelovek v antichnoi Ol’vii’, in Chelovek i obshchestvo v antichnom mire. Мoscow, 90–129. Yailenko, V. P. (2005) ‘Magicheskie nadpisi Bospora’, Drevnosti Bospora 8, 465–511.

Zhebelev, S. A. (1953) Severnoe Prichernomor’e. Issledovaniia i stat’i po istorii Severnogo Prichernomor’ia antichnoi epokhi. Moscow / Leningrad. Zograf, A. N. (1951) Аntichnie moneti. Moscow / Leningrad.

ASIA MINOR

ASALATOS AT KYME IN AIOLIS R. H. J. Ashton and N. V. Sekunda

Two recently recorded hemidrachms of Kyme in Aiolis preserve clearly the rare name Asalatos, a reading proposed by Masson for earlier specimens on which the beginning of the name was not clear. The name is otherwise known only as that of an Arcadian from Pallantion recorded on an inscription from Delphi of 359 BC. Its occurrence at Kyme is speculatively explained.

Friedrich Imhoof-Blumer published a fourth/third century BC silver hemidrachm of Kyme in Aiolis from the Berlin collection with the following description: Obv. Eagle standing r., head reverted; behind, ΑΡΑΛΑΤΟС. Rev. Forepart of horse galloping r.; above, ΚΥ; below, corn ear. The first letters of the name on the obverse are not clear, and Rudolf Münsterberg later reproduced the reading ΑΡΑΛΑΤΟС in doubting capitals in his compendium of names on Greek coins. The Sir Hermann Weber collection furnished a second, unillustrated, example, but on this only the letters …ΑΛΑΤΟС were said to be visible. The von Aulock collection provided an example, but again only the letters ...ΑΛΑΤΟС are visible (the von Aulock text proposes ‘…ΛΑΤΟС’, but the preceding alpha seems reasonably secure), and it seems likely that this coin is in fact the Weber specimen. Olivier Masson, noting that names ending -λατος are extremely rare, suggested that the true reading was ΑСΑΛΑΤΟС, with two lunate sigmas, on the basis of an otherwise unique occurrence of this name belonging to an Arcadian recorded on an inscription at Delphi. Hansjörg Bloesch published a further example of the issue in the Winterthur collection. He believed that the true reading of the name was ΜΕΙΛΑΤΟС, arguing that the die-engraver had first in error cut ΜΛΑΤΟС, the initial mu having broadly-spread hastae; the cutter had then added a lunate epsilon with eccentric middle hasta above the second and third hastae of the mu,    Sekunda expresses his appreciation of Elaine Matthews and the LGPN in his article elsewhere in this volume. For Ashton it is also a great pleasure to offer this short note in honour of Elaine Matthews, who (like the LGPN team as a whole) has always been generous in helping out onomastically-challenged numismatists.    Imhoof-Blumer 1897, 277 no. 2.    Münsterberg 76.    Coll. Weber 5484.    SNG von Aulock 1624.    Masson 1986, 62.    Coll. Winterthur 2822.

Asalatos at Kyme in Aiolis

437

and an oblique iota over the fourth hasta of the mu. With this ingenious reconstruction Bloesch ignored the fact that, although the lunate sigma occurs frequently on fourth-third century BC coins of Kyme, the lunate form of epsilon never occurs on them. Moreover, unknown to both Masson and Bloesch, another coin had been offered for sale by an American dealer in 1978, and this bears unambiguously the name ΑСΑΛΑΤΟС. The same coin was offered for sale again in mid-2008, and is now in Ashton’s collection. Finally, a further coin appeared on the market in late 2008 and now resides in the same collection: on it too, ΑСΑΛΑΤΟС is clear. Thus Masson’s insight is vindicated beyond doubt. It seems that the strange form of the legend on the Winterthur coin was produced as follows: the engraver initially carved ΑСΛΑΤΟС in error, and added an ill-formed Α as the missing third letter to fit within and alongside the first lunate sigma. The following are the specimens of this issue known to us (all illustrated below): 1. O1/R1 a. 1.87g

12h

b. 1.77g 2. O1/R2 1.82g 12h

3. O2/R2 1.77g 4. O2?/R3 1.60g 12h

Ashton coll.; ex Ebay 370125661321 (December 2008; Lanz, Munich). Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer. Ashton coll.; ex H. J. Berk (Chicago) Buy or Bid Sale 159 (3/6/2008), 187; John Twente coll.; A.G. Malloy (Salem, Mass.) Mail Bid Sale XII (25/4/1978) 409. On rev., corn ear off flan. SNG von Aulock 1624. Likely to be the same coin as Coll. Weber 5484 (not illustrated; 1.75g; ex Sotheby, Wilkinson and Hodge 10/7/1884, Whittall sale, 873 part). Coll. Winterthur 2822. Obverse die-link to 3 not certain.

The five coins thus seem to yield two obverse and three reverse dies. The series of hemidrachms to which this issue belongs cannot as yet be dated with any precision, but the consensus, based on its general style (never a reliable guide), is that it belongs between the mid-fourth and midthird centuries BC. The personal name Asalatos has been convincingly explained by L. Dubois, in his study of the Arcadian dialect. He saw an Arcadian name formed from α- σαλευτος, ‘non ébranlé’, derived from the verb σαλεύω ‘to rock, vibrate, oscillate’, which is best attested in derivative forms. Perhaps the best English translation would be ‘unshaken, unshakeable’ or ‘unflinching’, ‘unwavering’. The inscription from Delphi recording the name Asalatos, in this case an Arcadian from Pallantion, is found in a list of accounts of the Delphian naopoioi, a body of officials, not attested before 373 BC, who were in charge of the ingoing and outgoing expenses concerned with the reconstruction of the temple of Apollo and its subsidiary buildings. The first fragments of the text were found in 1896, but Asalatos appears in one of a number of fragments found later, and first published by Bousquet, who remarked on the curious nature of the personal name.10 The part of the list in which Asalatos is found dates to 359 BC. Given the extreme rarity of the name, it seems likely that the Asalatos of Pallantion and the man who signed the Kymaian coins were connected in some way, and even possible that they were one and the same person. How might that have come about?   Dubois 1986, 194.   Chantraine, DELG s.v. σάλος. 10   Bousquet 1942–43, 94–7 no. 2 = CID II 5, 21.  

438

R. H. J. Ashton and N. V. Sekunda

The most obvious occasion on which Asalatos of Pallantion could have been granted Kymaian citizenship would be if he had been in the east on mercenary service. The Arcadians were well known as mercenaries during the fourth century. Asalatos may well have been born in the early years of the century, a time when many Arcadian mercenaries would have been returning home after military service either against the Persians in the East, or under Dionysios tyrant of Syracuse in the West. The name would be eminently appropriate for a mercenary to give to his son. Asalatos in turn might have left for mercenary service in western Asia Minor some time after 359 BC, when there were plenty of opportunities for employment: for example, service on one side or the other during the tail-end of the Satraps’ Revolt; participation in Artaxerxes Ochus’ re-capture of Egypt, probably in 343 (in response to Ochus’ appeal to the Greek cities for help the Thebans dispatched 1,000 men, the Argives 3,000 and the Greeks living on the coast of Asia 6,00011); Philip II’s invasion of Asia; and Alexander’s invasion of Asia in 334. Both the mercenary regiments and allied contingents which accompanied the Macedonian armies would have included Arcadians. Asalatos could have participated in later campaigns in Asia, but if he was born near the beginning of the fourth century, he would soon be approaching an age unsuitable for military service. We hear, incidentally, of Kymaian mercenaries in this later period: one Euktemon of Kyme is mentioned as one of the leaders of the mutilated and branded Greek mercenaries whom Alexander met on the road to Persepolis in 331 BC;12 the name Euktemon is attested on much later Kymaian coinage.13 It is possible that Asalatos was an Arcadian commander befriended by a Kymaian mercenary commander who later arranged the grant of Kymaian citizenship. It may have been during any one of these occasions that Asalatos was awarded Kymaian citizenship: further speculation is unwarranted, and the history of Kyme in the third quarter of the fourth century is a complete blank. No incidents are recorded which may have caused the Kymaians to reward a mercenary commander who had helped their city. Asalatos of Pallantion and Asalatos of Kyme may well of course be different men and the Kymaian Asalatos could belong to the third century. In this case we could surmise that, for example, an ancestor of the Kymaian Asalatos had befriended the Arcadian Asalatos, and adopted the latter’s name into his family, or that a descendant of Asalatos of Pallantion, serving as a mercenary in the wars among the Diadochi or against the Celts in western Asia Minor, had somehow achieved Kymaian citizenship.

References Bousquet, J. (1942–43) ‘Delphes, comptes du quatrième siècle’, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 66–67, 84–131. Cawkwell, G. L. (1963) ‘Demosthenes’ Policy after the Peace of Philocrates. I’, Classical Quarterly 56 (NS 13), 120–138. Dubois, L. (1986) Recherches sur le dialecte arcadien. I, Grammaire. Louvain. Imhoof-Blumer, F. (1897) ‘Zür Münzkunde des Pontos, von Paphlagonien, Tenedos, Aiolis und Lesbos’, Zeitschrift für Numismatik 20, 254–288. Masson, O. (1986) ‘Quelques noms de magistrats monétaires grecs. V. Les monétaires de Kymé d’Éolide’, Revue numismatique 28, 51–63 (= OGS II, 521–533). Oakley, J. (1982) ‘The autonomous wreathed tetradrachms of Kyme, Aeolis’, American Numismatic Society, Museum Notes 27, 1–37.   D.S. xvi 44; Cawkwell 1963.   Curt. v 5. 9, 16. 13   Oakley 1982, 33. 11

12

Asalatos at Kyme in Aiolis

439

Figure 1. Catalogue nos. 1–4. Scale 2:1 approx. Photos: 1 a and 2, Richard Hodges; 1b Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; 3 after SNG von Aulock; 4 after Coll. Winterthur

ADRASTOS AT APHRODISIAS R. van Bremen

This paper argues that the name Adrastos, one of the most widely attested names in Aphrodisias, has an Anatolian – probably Lydian – rather than a Greek origin, despite its obvious etymological connotations in Greek, and is deeply rooted in the history of this culturally complex region. It further explores the connections between Adrastos and the Meter Adrastou, to whom a cult was dedicated in Attouda, Aphrodisias’ neighbour to the north, and more generally traces links between Adrastos, (Meter) Adrasteia and the toponym Adrasteia. The early history of the city of Aphrodisias in Caria continues to escape our full comprehension. Many parts of the puzzle are known but they do not yet fit together in a satisfactory way. The city’s location, to the south of the upper Maeander river basin, in the fertile Morsynos (modern Dandalas) valley, a border region between Caria, Lydia, Phrygia and Pisidia, predisposed it to a life of considerable cultural complexity. At the core of the future city was the sanctuary of a local goddess, whose archaeologically traceable existence goes back approximately to the sixth century BC. The material evidence, which includes a Lydian inscription, strongly suggests that at this time the sanctuary had close associations with the Lydian kingdom. Sometime in the course of the Hellenistic period the deity became identified with the Greek Aphrodite in a not very self-evident process whose details are obscure. As a city with a single name, Aphrodisias is attested only in the late first century BC. Its predecessor was a joint polity (a sympoliteia) of two local communities, the Plaraseis and Aphrodisieis. The precise date of the union is not known, but communis opinio is converging    This began as an article on Hypsikles, an unevenly distributed name whose popularity in Aphrodisias intrigued me and which I pursued with Elaine’s help. In the end, Hypsikles hardly gets a word in, having been pushed aside by Adrastos: a testimony to the enjoyable serendipity of the process of following names and the unexpected places that it takes one to. I thank F. Marchand, C. Melchert and A. Sommerstein for advice and information, A. Chaniotis and P. Thonemann for sharing unpublished work and ideas.    On the characteristics of the region, Robert, La Carie 17–52; for recent archaeological survey work, Smith–Ratté 1995, Ratté 2008; for cultural complexity, Ratté (forthcoming); on the Maeander valley Thonemann 2007.    De la Genière 1987 discusses the Lydian aspects of the Archaic sanctuary, Pierobon 1987 and Floriani Squarciapino 1987 the Sardian connection and the nature of the deity. On the history of the cult, see Brody 2001; on the cult statue, Brody 2007. Lydian inscription: Carruba 1970.    Reynolds 1982, 108; 1986; Chaniotis 2003, 70.

Adrastos at Aphrodisias

441

towards a date in the early second century, perhaps while the region was under Rhodian control, between 188 and 167 BC. We neither know on whose initiative or authority the sympoliteia was initiated, nor how many minor communities were absorbed into it, nor is it clear how and why the sympoliteia turned into a city with a single name. The double nature of the initial union, which may have existed for as much as a century, presupposes that, before teaming up, the Plaraseis and Aphrodisieis had separate existences and identities. Polis status is, however, attested only for the Plaraseis, who are known to have issued a small bronze coinage in their own name. The head of Zeus on the obverse and the double axe surmounted by an eagle on the reverse of this coinage suggest, as does the name, that Plarasa constituted the Carian element within the sympoliteia. That it was also the dominant community is shown by the fact that its name always precedes that of Aphrodisias, both in inscriptions and on coins. Its location was probably at Bingeç, on a plateau above the Morsynos valley, to the south-west of Aphrodisias. This, the “ingrat plateau d’Avdan” overlooks on its other side the deep gorges of the Akçay, the ancient Harpasos river, where Bargasa and Xystis were its nearest Carian neighbours. The attributes of Zeus (axe, thunderbolt, eagle) continued to feature on the joint coinage of the Plaraseis and Aphrodisieis throughout the second and first centuries BC, together with a trophy (on the early series) and the image of Aphrodite. The occurrence on the Aphrodisian basilica frieze, among other founder figures (Ninos, Semiramis, Gordios), of the Caro-Lycian founder-duo Bellerophontes and Pegasos further underlines this ideological orientation towards Caria. The find of a stone base inscribed Βελλεροφόντ[ην] κτίστην ὁ δῆμ[ος] suggests that the foundation stories told on the frieze were monumentalized also in a series of founder-statues. Similarly, the presence on the frieze of Gordios (‘Gordis’), founder of Gordiouteichos (located perhaps at Yazır, north of Bingeç and due west of Aphrodisias) may allude to that city’s own

   Chaniotis (forthcoming), with all refs. The two inscriptions for Rhodian hegemones which he discusses cannot show unambiguously that the issuing city was that of the Plaraseis and Aphrodisieis and so form a terminus ante quem for its foundation, even though I accept his point that the omission of the ethnic of the issuing community suggests that it was local. The Plaraseis alone, or the Pluareis, or the Gordiouteichitai, all attested as poleis in the early 2nd cent., are all possible. For the Pluareis and Gordiouteichitai as poleis in a decree of the late 3rd or early 2nd cent. found at Aphrodisias see IAph2007 2.506, with Drew-Bear 1972 (both give too low a date).    Reynolds 1982, Docs. 8–12, of the Triumviral period, all still have the double name.    For the coins see MacDonald 1992, Part II with pls. 1–4. The dates suggested for the Hellenistic coinage in this study are in need of revision. ‘Late second or early first century’ is given for the single Plarasean coin: this may have to be revised upward by as much as a century. The implications for the joint coinage are obvious. Types 29–32 (of the Plaraseis and Aphrodisians): O. double axe, R. trophy in incuse square, may well be early 2nd cent. There are implications for the closely related bronze coinage of Gordiouteichos, which is visually similar (type 1: O. head of Gordios; R. trophy; type 2: O. head of Zeus; R. archaizing statue of Aphrodite). On these coins see Drew-Bear 1972, 442–3.    On the plateau and the ‘torrentueux’ Akçay: Robert, La Carie 37–8.    Bellerophontes: Smith 1996, 56 and fig. 51; cf. Jones 1999, 142–3. The basilica frieze: Yildirim 2004 (who dates it to the late 1st cent. AD, contemporary with the basilica); others have seen it as a work of the 3rd cent. (Erim 1986, 26–7, 99–101 and Roueché 1981). Roueché suggests (118–19) that the frieze celebrates the status of Aphrodisias as capital of the newly created province of Caria–Phrygia. For Bellerophontes and Pegasos in Caria see Debord (forthcoming).

442

R. van Bremen

foundation history or more generally to its Phrygian identity.10 Not only the incorporation of Gordios on the frieze but also the iconography of Gordiouteichos’ early coinage (trophy, Zeus, statue of Aphrodite) indicate close connections with the communities that were to transform themselves into the city of Aphrodisias.11 The presence of Ninos (and Semiramis) on the frieze echoes Stephanus of Byzantium who tells us that Aphrodisias in Caria was first founded by the Pelasgian Leleges, and called Λελέγων πόλις, after which it was called Μεγάλη πόλις and then Νινόη after Ninos.12 The name recurs in a cult epithet of Zeus (Nineudios) of the Roman period. The historical reality behind these early ‘founding’ phases is irrecoverable. Ninos, son of Belos, suggests an Assyrian link, either directly or indirectly via the Lydian kingdom and Sardis.13 The period of Achaemenid domination (and colonization?) of this region appears to have left traces only in the survival of a number of Iranian names.14 Against the background of a history deeply rooted in the Anatolian past must now be set a feature that has recently been emphasized by A. Chaniotis. Among the names of the Aphrodisian elite, even among the families that claimed to have participated in the foundation of the city, we find no characteristic Carian or Anatolian names. Such names, he writes, “are in fact quite rare altogether in the inscriptions of Aphrodisias”. I quote him further: “Besides the widespread ‘Lallnamen’ (Ἀπφία, Ἀπφιάς et sim.), Blümel 1992, 30, registers only a few possible instances of indigenous names in inscriptions of Aphrodisias (Αβα, Ακασσων, Γεις, Μακος, Μοϊς, Πετινγας, Πηδισας, Πιττας). An Anatolian ‘couleur locale’ is recognizable in the names Κάϊκος and Χρυσάωρ”.15 Chaniotis’ assessment, in part based on new Hellenistic evidence,16 is that the onomastic record of Aphrodisias is dominated by traditional Greek names (both Doric and mainland Greek forms) already in the Hellenistic period, with a significant component of Macedonian17 and Iranian18 names. This implies that we may have to think of the new city as predominantly a foundation of non-indigenous settlers (Seleukid colonists?) with little input from, or at least little acknowledgement of, the region’s indigenous elements.   On the location see Ratté (forthcoming); on the relation with Aphrodisias, Chaniotis (forthcoming), nn. 43–6. St.Byz. s.v. Μίδου κτίσμα, ἀπὸ τοῦ παιδὸς Γορδίου· ὁ πολίτης Γορδιοτειχίτης. On Roueché’s suggestion, the Gordis on the basilica frieze would instead be the first king and ‘founder’ of Phrygia, father of Midas. 11   For the coins see above, n. 7. Chaniotis (forthcoming) discusses all the relevant evidence. The fact that Stephanus calls Gordiouteichos a Phrygian city and Aphrodisias a Carian does not exclude some form of association. 12   St.Byz. s.v. Νινόη. His entry for Μεγάλη πόλις repeats this line. 13   Laumonier 1958, 480–1 suggests a connection with Išhtar. 14   Debord 1999, 196: “la région relève de Kolossai à l’époque de la domination achéménide”. Cf. Robert, La Carie 79; Robert, Ét. anat. 353–4; Sekunda 1991, 114–23. 15   Chaniotis (forthcoming). 16   Chaniotis 1998, 248–50 (SEG XLVIII 1346; BE 1999, no. 479) mentions a new inscription from Bucakköy, on which see below, n. 25. Chaniotis (forthcoming) refers to another Hellenistic inscription. 17   Macedonian names: Ἀλέξανδρος, Ἀμύντας, Ἀντίοχος, Ἀντίπατρος, Ἄτταλος (possibly via an Attalid king); Μακεδών, Ἀπελλᾶς, Περείτας/Περίτας. See the indices of IAph2007. That most of these do very likely go back to settlers is shown by the sequences of Macedonian names over several generations (examples in Chaniotis 1998). 18   Chaniotis lists Ἀτραπάτης, Μιθραδάτης, Νάρδος and Φαρνάκης. The latter is to be restored in CIG 2827, which has Φαρμάκου. The name is attached to land (IAph2007’s index lists it as a toponym: Φαρμάκον): ἐπὶ Δοάσων καὶ Φαρν̣άκου χωρίω[?ν]. Δοάσων suggests Δόασα, on the analogy of Πλάρασα, Βάργασα etc. We can add the name Οὐμάνιος (IAph2007 8.30, with the discussion of Robert, Documents 349–53) and the female name Ὀδατις (IAph2007 13.501: late 2nd cent. BC). For Chaniotis these names belong to Iranians among Seleukid settlers; Debord 1999 argues for Achaemenid colonization, as did Robert. Cf. Briant 1996, 518–21 and Sekunda 1991 on the Persian diaspora. 10

Adrastos at Aphrodisias

443

More precise analysis is needed of the different components of the city’s onomastic record, and we should not lose sight of the possibility that indigenous families adopted Greek names, but Chaniotis is surely right that all we have to go on is an overall appearance of Greekness. And this, though not a fail-safe indication of origin, shows at the very least a conscious cultural choice. I am therefore not taking issue with his conclusions. My aim here is rather to explore the origin and cultural associations of one very popular Aphrodisian name, Adrastos, which is tacitly assumed to be Greek, or Greek-derived.19 I will argue that it is more likely an Anatolian name, and, moreover, one that had strong cultural resonances in this region.

Adrastos The name Adrastos is among the most widely attested at Aphrodisias, especially among the city’s elite. In the recently completed LGPN database for Aphrodisias, it is listed for 63 separate individuals, which puts it just below the top three most popular men’s names: Zenon (125), Apollonios (96), Diogenes (71) and ahead of Menandros (62), Artemidoros (56) and Attalos (56).20 But Adrastos differs from these ‘traditional’ Greek names in being far more limited in its general distribution: almost all attestations in Asia Minor come from just two cities, Aphrodisias and Herakleia Salbake (on the plateau of Tabai, to the south-east of Aphrodisias).21 In the rest of the Greek world the name is extremely rare: LGPN IIIA (the Peloponnese, Western Greece, Sicily and Magna Graecia) has just one, very early attestation at Argos in a list of damiourgoi, and the rest of the Greek mainland does not do much better.22 The Greeks, on the whole, were reluctant to adopt heroic names, and the epic fame of the Argive Adrastos may account for the name’s relative obscurity in the onomastic record of mainland Greece and the islands.23 Already at this stage we may therefore have doubts about a mainland Greek origin for Aphrodisian Adrastos. More than half a century ago, J. and L. Robert wrote that the name is “caractéristique des confins de la Carie et de la Phrygie: Aphrodisias, Attouda, Trapézopolis, Laodicée du Lycos, Antioche du Méandre: il est très souvent attesté à Héraklée de la Salbakè”.24 Thanks to the LGPN database we can now see that Aphrodisias and Herakleia are responsible for the lion’s share, with just under a hundred individuals between them, while Attouda, Trapezopolis, Antioch and Laodikeia have yielded just a few each.25 That a particular pattern of naming was in place well before the Imperial period is suggested by a still unpublished Hellenistic (late third–early second century BC?) list of names from Tolas Tepe, east of Bucakköy at the head of the Morsynos valley (perhaps ancient Syneta: the dedication is to a Διὶ Συνετηνῷ) 22 km to the north of Aphrodisias and c. 10 km east of Antioch   Chaniotis does not list it even among names that had a ‘couleur locale’.   Hypsikles, popular among the ‘founders’ kin’, is attested for 43 individuals in Aphrodisias. 21   Small pockets (fewer than 10) of the name are found at Kyzikos, at Miletos, and Sardis. 22   Argos: IG IV 614 (SEG XXI 336): early 6th cent. 23   Parker 2000, 56, notes, with qualifications, that heroic names are on the whole “rare and localized” in the Greek world. 24   Robert, La Carie 328; cf. 78: “D’autres noms, comme Μαρσύας, Ἄδραστος, s’étendent dans cette partie de l’Asie Mineure sur une aire qui unit notre région, ainsi que celle d’Aphrodisias, à la Kibyratide, à la Phrygie méridionale, non pas à la Carie centrale et occidentale.” On the name Μαρσύας (not, in fact, common in Aphrodisias), see now Catling 2004–9, 410–12. 25   Information from the database for LGPN VB, compiled by F. Marchand. 19 20

444

R. van Bremen

on the Maeander. In this list, eight men have the name Adrastos among a total of 122 who share between them 85 different names. Only Menippos (17), Athenagoras (15), Apollonios (11), Zenon (11), Menandros (11) and Artemidoros (9) score higher.26 At Aphrodisias, the name Adrastos occurs prominently among the small number of leading, or ‘founding’ families of the city (συνεκτικότες τὴν πόλιν/τὸν δῆμον vel. sim.), where it alternates with other favoured elite names such as Artemidoros, Hypsikles, Zenon, Attalos, Myon and Pereitas.27 One important bearer was Adrastos, son of Neikotimos, son of Artemidoros son of Zenon Hierax, honoured in the later first century AD in a decree of the neoi as ἀνὴρ μέγας, φιλόπατρις, φιλοπολείτης, κτίστης διὰ προγόνων. The city granted him the extremely rare honour of burial inside the city.28 Among the honorific decrees inscribed on his monumental herōon there is one for his grand-daughter, Tatia Attalis, daughter of Hypsikles Hierax, to whom the Aphrodisians granted a public funeral.29 Her uncle (Adrastos’ son and Hypsikles’ brother) Attalos Adrastos, bequeathed 122,000 denarii to the city’s patron deity as a foundation, in a highly complex financial document of the time of Hadrian or Antoninus Pius.30 Another wealthy Adrastos, son of Apollonios, son of Hypsikles, son of Menandros, son of Zenon, provided, in the reign of Domitian, “reservoirs and the water tanks in them, and the free flow of water throughout the city”. The second-century peripatetic philosopher Adrastos was another bearer of the name.31 Within the Aphrodisian epigraphic record (which is extremely poor before the first century BC) the name can only be traced back as far as the late second century BC. A Hypsikles son of Adrastos, son of Adrastos, son of Adrastos, son of Adrastos (Ὑψικλέους τοῦ Ἀδράστου τετάρτου) is dated to the last quarter of the first century AD, which takes his great-greatgrandfather back to the first half of the first century BC.32 A different, but possibly related, Ὑψικλῆς Ἀδράστου dedicated an architrave of the temple of Aphrodite in the first century BC. He may be the same man whose name features on coins of the Plaraseis and Aphrodisians of the same period.33 The letter of Quintus Oppius to the Plaraseis and Aphrodisians of 85 BC has an Ἀντίπατρος Αδράστου among the Aphrodisian ambassadors who came to meet 26   Chaniotis (forthcoming). The archaeological report for the year 1996 (Smith–Ratté 1998), to which Chaniotis’ note forms an appendix, discusses the site (241–2). See also Anderson 1897, 396–7, with the comments of Robert, La Carie 350–1. The remains are meagre: one may wonder if this ever really was a city. The inscription found by Anderson, who thought it showed that there was a city here (boule and demos honouring), has now been attributed to Aphrodisias (Chaniotis, per ep.). 27   Reynolds 1982, Appendix VI: ‘Founders’ Kin’ lists the families and gives the terminology; see also Chaniotis 2003; 2004, 381–3, and (forthcoming). The proportion of Macedonian names is significant. 28   IAph2007, 12.308; the burial: 12.5. Reynolds 1996, 121–6; Reynolds–Roueché 1992, 153–60. 29   The family’s genealogy was first reconstructed by Reinach 1906, 95 at no. 9; see Reynolds–Roueché 1992, 155. Chaniotis 2004, 411 gives a stemma of the family. IAph2007, 12.308 and 12.4 show that the nickname Hierax belonged only to Zenon, Nikotimos’ grandfather. His great-great grandson Hypsikles Hierax, Tatia’s father, is the first to have the name again. Tatia’s grandmother, and Adrastos’ wife, was Ammia, daughter of Attalos son of Pytheas (IAph2007 12.5) and of Tata, daughter of Diodoros, priestess of the imperial cult probably under the Julio-Claudian dynasty (IAph2007, 12.29, where the date is wrongly given as late 2nd cent.). 30   IAph2007 12.26; 12.1007. On the testament cf. Reinach 1906, at no. 142. Robert, La Carie 232–4; Hellenica XIII 119–25. 31   IAph2007, 12.314. Translation adapted from IAph2007. On the philosopher see RE s.v. Adrastos (7) and DPhA A 24. 32   IAph2007, 5.6 33   IAph2007, 12.405. Macdonald 1992, 63: Type 13 and 14.

Adrastos at Aphrodisias

445

the Roman proconsul on the island of Kos.34 However, the list of names from Bucakköy, in which the name occurs eight times, takes us back to the early second or late third century.35 We are dealing then, with a name that was continuously in use in this part of the Morsynos valley from at least the early second century BC to well into the fourth century AD. Can we trace it further still? Evidence suggesting an earlier connection of the name with the region comes from Attouda, Aphrodisias’ immediate neighbour to the north-east, where there was a cult of a Μήτηρ Ἄδραστος whose image on the city’s coins is that of a ‘potnia aux lions’.36 The site is located at Hisarköy, high up on the north slope of Mt. Kadmos (modern Babadağ). It was connected to Aphrodisias by a mountain track.37 Even though all attestations of the cult date to the Roman period, it is a safe assumption that this local Mother goes back to the early first millennium even if her specific epithet may not.38 The lions on the coins bring to mind the sculpted lions found in the archaic sanctuary at Aphrodisias.39 Attouda was a modest city, located away from the great road along the Maeander valley. It has a modest epigraphic record, with inscriptions dating largely to the Roman Imperial period. Its earliest (silver) coinage has been dated to the first century BC.40 In the mid-second century AD a member of one of its leading families (perhaps its only leading family), the Carminii Claudiani, married into the nearby Aphrodisian elite.41 A few decades later, the son and (second) wife of this Carminius held in their home city the priesthood of Attouda’s Meter. M. Ulpius Carminius Claudianus neoteros is on record as [ἱερέα θε]ᾶ̣ς Μητρὸς Ἀδράστου, as is his mother Carminia Ammia: καὶ ἱέρειαν θεᾶς Μ[ητρ]ὸς Ἀδράστου καὶ θεᾶς Ἀ̣[φροδεί]της.42 Another possible incumbent of the office was a certain Adrastos Tychikos (otherwise unknown): Ἄδραστον Τυχι[κ]ὸ̣ν ἱερέα θεᾶς [Μητρὸς Ἀδράστου].43 In the Roman period the city celebrated the Olympia Herakleia Adrasteia, which W. Ramsay interpreted as being in honour of Μήτηρ Ἄδραστος rather than named after a founder Adrastos. A fragment of a dedication from Herakleia Salbake may refer to the same deity.44 The inscriptions have long been known and the deity’s role as the main goddess of Attouda has been acknowledged, among others, by J. and L. Robert: “la Mèter Adrastos est la grande   Reynolds 1982, Doc. 3, b 7–8; IAph2007, 8.2 gives subsequent bibliography. For further attestations of the name in the 2nd/1st cent. BC see IAph 2007, 11.508; 12.201; 12.404; 1.4; 1.5; 1.6. 35   The date has been suggested by A. Chaniotis (above, n. 26). 36   Laumonier 1958, 474–5. For the inscriptions see MAMA VI 74 and 75, with Thonemann 2005. A standing goddess with lions is depicted on some of the coins: BMC Caria 66­–7 nos. 27–9 and pl. 11, 1. 37   Cormack in MAMA VI, xii. A description of the site also by Anderson 1897; cf. also Thonemann 2005, 77 and 2007, ch. 5. 38   Roller 1999, 49, points out that the lion is rare as an attribute of Phrygian Meter, who has birds of prey, but is common for the Neo-Hittite Kubaba and her Lydian derivative the Sardian Kybebe. 39   Probably of the 6th cent. BC and compared to similar lion sculptures from Sardis by de la Genière 1987. 40   Coins: BMC Caria 66 no. 1 with pl. 10, 9; Imhoof-Blumer 1901, 123. A Hellenistic royal (?) letter survives in a very fragmented state: MAMA VI 65. 41   For the story of the family’s successful rise see Thonemann 2005. 42   MAMA VI 74, 3 and 75, 3–6: For the dates and prosopography and an attempt at reconstructing the family, see Thonemann 2005, 83–4, and the stemma on p. 86. 43   SEG XXXI 1104. The games: MAMA VI 81. 44   MAMA VI 89 and pl. 29; Robert, La Carie 165–6 no. 43. Edd. pr.: [?Διὶ Σωτῆ]ρ̣ι̣ Ἄδραστ[ος] or [Μητ]ρ̣ὶ̣ Ἀδράστ[ῳ]. 34

446

R. van Bremen

divinité d’Attouda”.45 A. Laumonier went further: “Cette ville indigène était le centre de cultes importants, qu’on retrouve dans d’autres villes du voisinage: celui de Cybèle ou Mèter Adrastos est commun à Attouda, Brioula, Eukarpeia et Laodicée”.46 The sentence is ambiguous, but if it means that it was specifically the cult of one, the Attoudan, Meter which they all shared, then the statement is overconfident: his reference is to Imhoof-Blumer who notes that the coins of all four cities show images of a mother goddess flanked by lions, but she is without any title.47 Ramsay, referring to the well-known Herodotean story (below) wrote: “the name Adrastos is old Phrygian …. a very common name in this part of Caria under the Roman empire. Adrasteia is known as a nymph on Mount Ida, and as a name of Cybele at Cyzicos; in Greece the name was interpreted as an epithet of Nemesis, the Inevitable, but probably the Asian name was a different and non-Greek word, modified in Greek to give a suitable meaning”. 48 To my knowledge, neither the form nor the meaning of the name has been otherwise commented on, and Ramsay himself does not consider the particular form worth any further attention.49 While the compound adjective ἄ-δρασ-τος in the sense of ‘from whom one cannot escape’ is grammatically possible as a qualifiying epithet for a female deity, it does not in this form have any parallels either in the Greek world or in Asia Minor. Only Ἀδράστεια or Ἀδρήστεια occur: as a female deity on Phrygian Mt. Ida, a nymph on Cretan Mt. Ida, a toponym in the Troad, and (very rarely, pace Ramsay) as an epithet of Nemesis.50 Ἀδράστεια is never directly attested as qualifying a Meter (Meter Adrasteia in the manner of e.g. Meter Sipylene or Dindymene), although the assumption that a Kyzikene Mother went by this name is widespread and the poetically attested Idaean Ἀδράστεια was probably a ‘Phrygian Mother’.51 I propose therefore that the Attoudan Mother’s name was not in fact Μήτηρ Ἄδραστος at all, but Μήτηρ Ἀδράστου: Meter ‘of’Adrastos (which the texts allow), and was either a specific form of the Meter linked to Mt. Kadmos or ‘the’ Meter of Mt. Kadmos. This immediately places her in the company of other such titles: Cappadocian Μὴν Φαρνάκου attested in Strabo, Phrygian Μὴν Κάρου, whose sanctuary bordered on Attoudan territory to the east and whose image featured on Attoudan coins, Μὴν Τιάμου and Μὴν Ἀρτεμιδώρου in Lydia, Ζεύς Βαραδάτεω of Sardis, Ζεὺς Ἀρίου in Lydia, Ζεὺς Τρωσσου (in Lydia and Phrygia),   Robert, La Carie 166.   Laumonier 1958, 474, so also Graillot 1912, 356. 47   Imhoof-Blumer, KM vol. 1, 122–3, but he follows Ramsay in his attributions. By no means all of Attouda’s coins show the potnia figure. Some have the turreted head of a city goddess, others show Zeus, or the personified Demos, or Dionysos, or Men (ibidem, 122–6 with pl. 4, 26–8). Trapezopolis: BMC Caria 179 no. 11 with pl. 27, 8. On a Homonoia coin of the two cities two personified city-goddesses shake hands; they stand on either side of a Meter-type goddess, two lions at her feet: Franke–Nollé 1997, no. 90. 48   Ramsay 1895, 169–71. 49   For the assessment of Sittig, below, n. 74. 50   LSJ s.v. Αδράστεια gives only, and quite wrongly: “title of Nemesis”. For Adrasteia as a toponym near Kyzikos see below. For the Cretan nymph, or nurse of Zeus, see LIMC s.v. As a ‘Phrygian’ mountain Mother whose servants were Idaean wizards (γόητες Ἰδαῖοι, Φρύγες ἄνδρες.... εὐπάλαμοι θεράποντες ὀρείης Ἀδραστείης) she occurs in a fragment of the Phoronis cited in Schol. A.R. i 1129 (Phoronis fr. 2 West); in Aischylos’ Niobe (TGF III fr. 158) she is also linked to Ida: Βερέκυντα χῶρον, ἔνθ’ Ἀδραστείας ἔδος Ἴδη τε μυκηθμοῖσι καὶ βρυχήμασιν βρέμουσι μήλων, πᾶν δ’ ἐρέχθει πέδον. On the significance of the Idaean Dactyls on ‘Phrygian’ Mt. Ida see Blakely 2006, ch. 10, passim. 51   The Kyzikene Mother is never directly referred to by the name Ἀδράστεια. Hasluck 1910, 220–1 is speculative, using early and late sources indiscriminately. 45 46

Adrastos at Aphrodisias

447

Lydian Μήτηρ Ἀδιασσπουλου and Phrygian Μήτηρ Καλλίππου, as well as related forms like Μὴν Ἀξιοττηνὸς ἐξ Ἀπολλωνίου, or – ἐξ Ἐπικράτου.52 The names in the genitive most likely indicate the founders of the cults.53 Some were highly placed individuals, either Achaemenid officials (the Droaphernes who set up a statue to Ζεὺς Βαραδάτεω was hyparch at Sardis) or indigenous dynasts, whose name became attached to the deity whose cult they founded. Others may have had only local significance. In the absence of a proper study, it is difficult to know where the custom originated, how it relates to religious and political power structures, and what are its approximate chronological boundaries. To what extent the Achaemenid kings encouraged this ‘personal’ model of cult foundation is also a question that goes beyond this brief article.54 Whether this type of founder-deity can, or should, always be seen as a form of ‘Sippengott’, i.e. an ancestral god of a particular (family) group, as was argued by Gschnitzer, is not self-evident.55 What about chronology? The dedication of Droaphernes in Sardis can be dated to either 365 or 427 BC (depending on which Artaxerxes, II or I, one favours); in either case the Zeus itself must go back further since the Sardian text, however we interpret it, presupposes an existing cult.56 The cult of Μὴν Φαρνάκου at Kabeira may go back to the Cappadocian king and first Persian satrap Pharnakes (i.e. to the mid-sixth century), which would make it the earliest datable founder cult.57 We cannot date any of the others. By implication we cannot date the Adrastos who attached his name to the cult of the Attoudan Meter, although we have one possible context in the Herodotean story summarized below. In western Anatolia more generally, the name Adrastos can be traced back as early as the mid-sixth century (though see below for the name in a Homeric context). The earliest attestation of a historical Adrastos (in the Ionian form Ἄδρηστος) is in the first book of Herodotos (35–45), who tells the poignant story of the unfortunate son of the Phrygian Gordios, son of Midas. This Adrestos, exiled for the accidental murder of his own brother, arrived as a suppliant at the court of king Kroisos in Sardis. Having been purified of the murder, he inadvertently, on a boar-hunting expedition in Mysia, shot and killed Atys, the son of his host and purifier, so fulfilling a prophecy the king had received in a dream and which he had sought to circumvent. Much has been written on the close resemblance between the story of Atys and Adrastos and one of the versions of the myth of Attis and Kybele in which Attis is killed by a wild boar sent by a jealous Zeus (usually referred to as the ‘Lydian’ version), but the similarities may 52   On the different founders of Men cults see CMRDM III 67–8. Μὴν Φαρνάκου: Str. xii 3. 31; Μὴν Κάρου: Str. xii 8. 20; Ζεὺς Βαραδάτεω: Robert 1975, Gschnitzer 1986, Briant 1998, Debord 1999, 369–74; Ζεὺς Ἀρίου: TAM V (1) 535; Μὴν Τιάμου: TAM V (1) index s.v.; SEG XXXII 1221, XXXIII 1007, XXXV 1164, 1261, 1128; Μὴν Ἀρτεμιδώρου: TAM V (1) index, s.v.; SEG XXXI 993, XXXVII 1001, XXXVIII 1237, 1240; Ζεὺς Τρωσσου: Keil 1950; Drew-Bear 1976, 261–2 no. 16; Herrmann–Polatkan 1969, 58–9, cf. also MAMA VI 268; Μήτηρ Ἀδιασσπουλου: TAM V (1) 256; Μήτηρ Καλλίππου: Drew-Bear 1978, 42 nos. 10–11 with pl. 12. See also SEG LIII 1378 for a Μήτηρ Μενάνδρου at Miletoupolis, and SEG LII 1464 ter for a Cappadocian Ζεὺς Φαρνάουας, with Chaniotis 2005, 433–4 no. 6. 53   A view first formulated by Keil–von Premerstein 1911, 104 and followed by subsequent scholars. 54   But see CMRDM III 67 n. 5 and the argument of Debord (next note). 55   A study of these founder-cults is much needed. On the Achaemenid context see especially Briant 1998, Debord 1999, 369–74 and Mitchell 2008, 157–8. 56   Artaxerxes II: Robert 1975 and Debord 1999; Artaxerxes I: Briant 1998. 57   Debord 1999, 88–9 prefers this Pharnakes over Pharnakes I of Pontos (early 2nd cent. BC).

448

R. van Bremen

be superficial and may go back merely to common folk-motifs, as Lyn Roller has persuasively argued.58 As we saw, the name of Gordios, son of Midas, was attached to Gordiouteichos near Aphrodisias (St.Byz. s.v.) and it is therefore a possibility that it is his son with whose name the cult of the local Meter became associated.59 The name Attouda itself suggests a Phrygian name-giver, although probably not, as Ramsay in an over-enthusiastic retrojection of the GraecoRoman myth of Kybele and Attis would have it, the legendary priest/lover of Kybele.60 Atys/ Ates/Atas is a commonly attested Phrygian name, which occurs in Paleo-Phrygian inscriptions in different contexts, from religious and royal monuments to instrumentum domesticum. That it was also the name of the priest of the Meter at Pessinous, may well be a survival of the Anatolian custom of entrusting members of royal dynasties with priesthoods.61 Attouda/Attuda may be the ‘city of Atys/Ates/Atas’ but we need see in him no more than a mortal, though possibly royal, Phrygian (or Lydian) bearer of the name.62 In fact, Ramsay’s further insistance, that the name Adrastos is specifically ‘old Phrygian’ seems to rely largely on the Herodotos story and is not otherwise supported but it has left its mark on subsequent authors. It underlies, for example, Buckler and Robinson’s statement that the name is “common in Phrygia and is known in Lydia”.63 But neither Brixhe and Lejeune’s corpus of Paleo-Phrygian inscriptions nor the LGPN database show the name as at all common in Phrygia (beyond precisely the Antioch-Attouda-Aphrodisias-Herakleia border region) and I can see no justification for prioritising Phrygian origin, given that the root morpheme *atr(a)probably has a more general Indo-European–Anatolian background (see below). 64 The Lydian situation is different. Between the sixth and the early third centuries BC there is a steady trickle of attestations of the name in and around Sardis, both in its Greek form and in the Lydian equivalent: Atraśtaś, or Atraśaś.65 A near-contemporary of the Herodotean (Phrygian) Adrastos is the (Lydian) Atraśtaś, son of Sakardas, whose grave stele (now in the Manisa museum) is dated to c. 520–500 BC:66   Roller 1999, ch. 8.   Μίδου κτίσμα, ἀπὸ τοῦ παιδὸς Γορδίου’. Cf. LIMC s.v. Gordios. 60   Ramsay 1895, 169: “Men and Attis are deities of similar character…in the fact that the city where Men Karou is worshipped bears the name ‘City of Attes’ we may fairly see a proof of the ultimate identity of these two deities”. Laumonier (1958, 474) also linked the name of Attouda to Attis/Atys. On the pairing of Attis and Kybele in Graeco-Roman mythical tradition see Roller 1999, ch. 8. The occurrence of the identical toponym Attouda in the Mnesimachos inscription from Sardis (see below) suggests that seeing Attouda as a kind of hiera polis may not be the right interpretation. 61   Brixhe–Lejeune 1984, s.vv. Ata, Atas, Ates. Discussion in Roller 1999, 69, 70, 96, 111, 192–3 (Pessinous); 244–5. 62   Sekunda 1991, 117–18 discusses the location of the estates of the Lydian Pythios/Pythes, son of Atys (Hdt. vii 27–8) at Nysa/Pythopolis on the Maeander: this Lydian Atys (not necessarily the son of Kroisos, pace Sekunda) is another possible name-giver. On Pythios see also Briant 1996, 412. 63   Buckler–Robinson 1912, 29. 64   Although the information from the LGPN database for Phrygia is not yet complete, the general impression is confirmed by a search in the Packard Institute database of Greek inscriptions which shows five attestations, all from Roman Hierapolis (Hierapolis nos. 64, 71, 94, 95, 338), and the female name Ἀδράστιλλα in the same city (no. 93, with the variant Ἀδράστηλλα, no. 119). 65   Gusmani, LW 70: atraśt[aś]- (PN) (cf. Gusmani, LWE III 38 and 143). The personal name Atraśas, without the ‘t’ (if not a mistake) occurs in the possessive form Atraśali-, ‘of Atraśaś’: Gusmani, LW 70. 66   The translation is as in Dusinberre 2003, 232 no. 28; cf. 220. The Lydian text is Gusmani, LW no. 54. 58 59

Adrastos at Aphrodisias

449

This is the grave stele of Atraśtaś the son of Sakardas. And thus whoever destroys or mishandles it, he shall pay and whatever possessions of his thus to Artemis of Ephesos I consign.

A second Lydian inscription on a sculpted marble stele from the necropolis of Sardis is dated to 330/29 BC: This tomb and this stele are those of Atraśtaś, the son of Timle(ś)’, his heir from his own property erected it ….67

Pausanias (vii 6. 6) mentions the ‘Lydian’ Adrastos, in the context of the Lamian war (323/22 BC): I myself know of a Lydian called Adrastos who fought with the Greeks in a private capacity, not on behalf of the koinon of the Lydians. The Lydians set up a bronze statue of this man in front of the sanctuary of Persian Artemis, putting on it an inscription stating that Adrastos died fighting against Leonnatos on the Greek side.

The suggestion was made by Buckler and Robinson that this man might be identical to the Adrastos who features in the well-known early third-century Mnesimachos inscription from Sardis as one of two owners of estates in the plain of Sardis.68 This Adrastos is named as a former recipient of a farmstead at Tbalmoura, the oikiai of ‘the peasants and the slaves’, two paradeisoi and several more such properties.69 There is no proof that these two homonymous men were in fact one, even if the dates fit: all we can say is that the name was current in the highest Lydian circles. But it was common also lower down the social scale: in the same text among the slaves (οἰκέται) dwelling at Tbalmoura, we find an Ephesos son of Adrastos, and a Kadoas son of Adrastos (brothers?), and ‘among those at Periasasostra’ an Adrastos son of Maneas.70 As a slave name, Adrastos (in the form Ἄδρηστος) occurs in the late fifth century on the island of Chios, among other Anatolian names in a list of freed slaves.71 The root morpheme Atra- occurs as Adra- in the place-name Adramytteion or Atramytteion whose alleged founder was Adramys or Atramys or Adramytes, the brother of Kroisos and son of Alyattes. According to Strabo this city was ‘founded by Lydians’.72

  Discussion of text and date in Sardis VI (1) 54–5 L 26, with the comment of Littmann: “both names are probably Greek: Adrastos and Timolaos”. Buckler and Robinson, in Sardis VI (2) at no. 3, l. 2 agree on atraśta(ś): “probably the Lydian equivalent of Ἄδραστος…”, but they consider the father’s name timleś ‘Asianic’ referring to the tributary of the Maeander, the Τιμελης. On the name see now Gusmani, LW no. 3. The text is translated in Dusinberre 2003, 235 no. 52 (discussion: 93–4 and 221–2). Zgusta 1984 §1338 also links the personal name and the river and considers both to be Lydian. It is worth noting that the Timeles belongs to the territories of Herakleia on Salbake and Aphrodisias (the Yenidere?) and is represented on the coins of both cities: see Robert, La Carie 46–50. 68   Buckler–Robinson 1912, 29–30. 69   Dusinberre 2003, 123–5 with Appendix 2 no. 55: English translation, and bibliography. 70   l. 14: Adrastos the owner; 16–18: the slaves. 71   Robert, EEP 118–26; Forrest 1960, 188–9. The names are interesting, and the text has not received much historical comment. Among the names (ethnics?) are Φρύξ, Μίδας, Σύρος, Ἔφεσος, Κιλίκας, Οἰβαρης, Τίβειος and Παφλαγωνίδης Χάροψ. 72   Adramytes in Xanthos (FGrHist 765 F 4); Atramys in Dikaiarchos (fr. 53 Wehrli); cf. St.Byz. s.v.; Str. xiii 1. 65, 3–4. Cf. the discussion in Stauber 1996, vol. I, 129–30. Zgusta 1984 considers Adramytteion Thracian (§20–3); he lists (§20–1) Ἀδρασσός and (§20–2) Ἄδροττα, Ἄδρουτα. At §20–4: “Der lydische ON Ἀδρύη.....ist trotz Sundwall 46 griechisch: wohl mit α-privativum zu δρῦς, ‘Baum’, also der baumlose Ort”. For the city ethnic Ἀδρασσεύς see Heberdey–Wilhelm 1896, 127; 212; for the site at modern Balabolu: Alföldy-Rosenbaum 1980. 67

450

R. van Bremen

The name, then, has an undeniably strong Lydian connection, both culturally and geographically, from as early as the sixth century BC; and a Lydian/Indo-European–Anatolian etymology for its component elements, in particular *atr(a)-, can be assumed. Its approximate meaning may be something like ‘divine approval, sanction’.73

Adrastos/Adrasteia Zgusta, in Kleinasiatische Personennamen, does not list Adrastos as an indigenous name (unlike Gordios), and neither does L. Robert consider it one in Noms indigènes. Zgusta does classify the form Atraśaś (in Lydian script) as ‘Lydian’, but explains it as a personal name (PN) originating from the (Greek) heroic name (HN): “der wohl selbst als sekundärer Name PN Διγ‑ (hyphaeresis) is well attested both in Greek and in Hebrew renderings of Greek words, as we see in nîpolîn ~ Νε(ά)πολιν, or gîmatryā ~ γε(ω)μετρία), the name of the dubious art of explaining words according to the numerical value of the letters (Gr. ἰσόψηφον). On the other hand, shortened names formed with the suffix -ai (which is adapted into Greek as ‑αῖος: Βαρναῖος, Ζακχαῖος, Ἰανναῖος, Ματθαῖος, etc.) are common to all Semitic languages.10 In regions where these languages were spoken the suffix is also found in Greek or Latin stems: Ἀλεξαῖος,   Robert, Noms indigènes 534. It is not clear whether or not the name is Iranian, cf. Mitchell 2007, 162–3.   Βατταρᾶς (IG XII (6) 652) and Βαττάριον (Herod. ii 82) are formed on Βάτταρος.    Curbera 2004, 9–10.    My explanation of Βατακαρᾶς was adopted by the editor of the Samian corpus (IG XII (6) 652 comm.); his idea that the name is a corruption of Βατταρᾶς is unlikely.    Ilan 2002, 24 and 433.    A list of examples in Krauss 1898, 91–2. For the Greek dialects cf. Schwyzer, GG I 253 and 472. For later Greek cf. Διγενιανός (IKlaudiupolis 109), Δινύσιος (SEG XXXII 883), Θέδουλος (IG XIV 538), etc. Θήδωρος is well attested among Egyptian Jews between the 1st cent. BC and 1st cent. AD. 10   Lidzbarski 1908, 13–16; Ilan 2002, 23–4.  

Four Intriguing Names

603

Ἀντιπαῖος, dosthai (= Δοσ(ι)θαῖος), Μαρκαῖος, etc. It follows that Διγαῖος can be interpreted as a local variant of Greek Διογᾶς, that is as a local shortened form of Διογένης. One may compare the names Θαδδαῖος (Ev. Matt. x 3) or Κλωπᾶς (Ev. Jo. xix 25), which render Semitic shortened forms of Greek names in Θεοδ‑ and Κλεοπ‑.11 Interestingly, we know of a Διογένης who was a friend and advisor of Alexander Iannaios (τινα τῶν ἐπισήμων φίλον). He was a cruel person: in revenge for their support for Demetrios III’s invasion of Judaea, he advised Alexander to crucify 800 Pharisees. Predictably enough, after Alexander died he was put to death (J., AJ xiv 410 and BJ i 113). It is possible that the King’s general Διγαῖος was the same person as the King’s friend Διογένης: Syncellus’ source may have used the Aramaic form of his name, while that of Josephus the Greek. Examples of the normal form of a name alternating with the shortened form are found widely in ancient texts.12 We find a similar case in the figure of Alexander Iannaios, whose name appears in Greek sources as Ἰανναῖος, while in the Hebrew legend of his coins he appears as ‘King Jonathan’.

3. Λιπόδωρος in the Upper Satrapies In general, compound names are more easily explained than simple ones, but not all compound names are transparent. According to Diodoros (xviii 7. 5–6) a certain Λιπόδωρος was in charge of a unit of 3,000 men, which Alexander stationed in the Upper Satrapies of Asia (ἐν ταῖς ἄνω καλουμέναις σατραπείαις). As soon as they heard of Alexander’s death (June 323 BC), they mutinied. Editors have tried to correct this awkward name, and Dittenberger’s proposal Λητόδωρος can still be read in some modern editions. Long ago, however, Pierre Perdrizet pointed out that the name Λιπόδωρος was also attested on two sling-bullets from Cyprus. As the letter-forms point to the fourth century BC, Perdrizet quite plausibly proposed to identify the Λιπόδωρος of the bullets with the figure in Diodoros. The reading of the manuscripts, in any case, is sound.13 The name Λιπόδωρος needs an explanation. To see in its first part the name of the south-west wind (λίψ, λιβός) would produce a name without parallel in Greek and it would not explain the form with ‑π‑. It is also difficult to see a name formed like Ἀγαθόδωρος, as no fitting adjective is documented in Greek, or like Κλεόδωρος, unless we want to see a name formed from τὸ λίπος, ‘lard’. A connection with the river Λίπαρος in Cilicia (Antig. Car. 135) is morphologically hard to accept. A possible solution is to interpret Λιπόδωρος as a lexical item of the same type as φιλόδωρος or δεξίδωρος. Verbal compounds in λιπο‑ are documented in Greek from the fifth century BC. In the oldest examples the sense of the verb λείπω is still clear (λιπόναυς A., Ag. 212, etc.), but they progressively acquired a more general negative or privative sense (cf. λιπόθριξ = ἄθριξ, λιπότεκνος = ἄτεκνος, λιπόγλωσσος = ἄγλωσσος). They also seem to have formed pendants (antonyms) to the nouns in φιλο‑: λιπομήτωρ ~ φιλομήτωρ, λιποπτόλεμος ~ φιλοπόλεμος, etc.   Κλωπᾶς is often considered to be an (otherwise unknown) Semitic name, see e.g. Deissmann 1895, 184.   On this phenomenon see Crusius 1891 and Lidzbarski 1908, 5–6. 13   See Dittenberger 1896 and Perdrizet 1898. Today we know of at least 18 more sling bullets from Cyprus with the name Λιπόδωρος: Michaelidou-Nicolaou 1969–70, 361 (5 exx.); SEG XXVII 966 (1 ex.); XXVIII 1303 (10 exx.); XXIX 1581 (1 ex.); XXX 1606 (1 ex.); XXXV 1472 (1 ex.). In his edition of Diodoros P. Goukowsky (Budé, 1978) adopts the variant Λειπόδωρος (F), but the inscription on the sling bullets shows that Λιπόδωρος (R) should be preferred. 11

12

604

Jaime Curbera

Since the word δῶρον was commonly used in Greek not only for ‘gift’, but also for ‘bribe’, a noun *λιπόδωρος can be interpreted both as a synonym of ἄδωρος, ‘incorruptible’ (= ‘taking no gifts’), and as an antonym of φιλόδωρος / δεξίδωρος, ‘corrupt’ (= ‘fond of gifts’), a suitable word for a proper name. Both the verbal element λιπο‑ and the use of δῶρον in the sense of ‘bribe’ (the usual sense in Attic orators) are unknown in Greek onomastics and point in fact to a common noun that was used as a proper name. There is an Arabic proverb used of persons who bear honourable names, but whose characters are a poor reflection of their names.14 This may have been the case with Λιπόδωρος. After the revolt of his troops in 323, Πείθων was sent against them by the regent Perdikkas and found means to bribe Λιπόδωρος, who drew off his men during the battle and thus caused his friend’s defeat.

4. Ὀκτησίβιος at Syracuse In onomastics one often comes across unexpected twists and turns. After a transcription by Isidoro Carini,15 Georg Kaibel published as IG XIV 98 an inscription from San Giovanni in Syracuse, a catacomb used from the early fourth century to the early sixth century AD.16 Kaibel’s text runs: ἐνθάδε κῖτε Διονυσία τελευτήσα(σα) τῇ πρὸ ζ’ κα(λανδῶν) Σεπτεβρήον· ἐνθάδε κῖτε ὁ Κτησίβις. The man’s name, a syncopated form of Κτησίβιος, causes no problem, but the use of the article is unparalleled in the Christian epigraphy of Syracuse. To explain this, we can assume an emphatic sense,17 although nothing in the text (e.g. a civic or religious title) or in the inscription, which is shared by two persons, seems to justify this use of the article. The parallel of the first part of the inscription (where no article is used), and perhaps also a certain ingenuity in the field of Greek and Latin onomastics, led Carini to read a name Ὀκτησίβις. This reading removes the syntactical anomaly, but the resulting name is so odd that Kaibel did even not consider it worth mentioning. Nor would I, were it not for a papyrus of 489 AD recording how King Odoacer granted the vir inlustris Pierius three plots of land near Syracuse.18 The papyrus gives the names of the tenant farmers of one of these fundi (the so-called fundus Potaxia): Ianuarius and Octesibius (Octesib ium § I 3, Octe[si]bium § II 1). This document confirms Carini’s Ὀκτησίβις, while the inscription, in turn, confirms Tjäder’s reading.19 We can go further: the rarity of the name, the Syracusan origin of both persons, and the contemporaneity of the two documents, together make it tempting to suggest that the inscription from San Giovanni is the gravestone of the Octesibius of the papyrus. Needless to say, the coexistence of syncopated and unsyncopated forms (Octesibius ~ Ὀκτησίβις) does not mean that they are not the same person: the epitaph has the usual everyday form, while the legal document presents the learned and official form. More than one explanation for the name Ὀκτησίβιος suggests itself. A relation to Hesychius o 498 ὀκτήσεις· οἴσεις is tempting, but this gloss may be a corruption of ὀκχήσεις (poetic future

  Burckhardt 1830, 28 n. 107.   Carini 1876, 124 n. 32. 16   Führer–Schulze 1907, 55–9; Agnello 1958, 65–82. 17   Cf. CIJ I 333 = JIWE II 68 ἐνθάδε κεῖτε ὁ Εὐσέβις ὁ διδάσκαλος νομομαθής. 18   Tjäder 1955, 279–93 nos. 10–11. 19   “Die Lesung si statt ṃ ist wahrscheinlich, aber nicht ganz sicher” (Tjäder 1955, 438). 14 15

Four Intriguing Names

605

of ὀχέω). Octesibius could also be a case of vowel prothesis,20 or even a hybrid name combining Latin and Greek elements (cf. Basilioflora or Theodatus in Rome). In any case, in spite of the possible parallel of the Sicilian family-name Ottanà (< ὁ κτενᾶς?), I do not think that we have here a form where the article has become part of the name.21

References Agnello, S. L. (1958) ‘Probleme di datazione delle catacombe di Siracusa’, in Scritti in onore di Guido Libertini. Florence, 65–82. Burckhardt, J. L. (1830) Arabic Proverbs or the Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians. London. Carini, I. (1876) ‘Rassegna archeologica’, Archivio storico siciliano 3, 121–125. Crusius, O. (1891) ‘Die Anwendung von Vollnamen und Kurznamen bei derselben Person und Verwandtes’, Jahrbücher für classische Philologie 143, 385–394. Curbera, J. (2004) ‘Onomastic Notes on IG XII 6 (Samos)’, Glotta 8, 1–13. Deissmann, A. (1895) Bibelstudien. Marburg. Dittenberger, W. (1896) ‘Zu Diodorus Siculus’, Hermes 31, 320. Führer, J. and Schulze, V. (1907) Die altchristlichen Grabstätten Siziliens. Berlin. Hatzidakis, G. N. (1905) Μεσαιωνικὰ καὶ Νέα Ἑλληνικά. vol. I. Athens. Ilan, T. (2002) Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity. vol. I. Tübingen. Krauss, S. (1898) Griechische und lateinische Lehnwörter im Talmud, Midrasch und Targum. vol. I. Berlin. Lidzbarski, M. (1908) Ephemeris für semitische Epigraphik. II, 1903–1907. Giessen. Michaelidou-Nicolaou, I. (1969–70) ‘Ghiandi missili di Cipro’, Annuario della Scuola archeologica di Atene 47–48, 359–369. Mitchell, S. (2007) ‘Iranian Names and the Presence of Persians in the Religious Sanctuaries of Asia Minor’, in Old and New Worlds 151–171. Perdrizet, P. (1898) ‘Λιπόδωρος’, Revue de philologie 22, 305–306. Preger, T. (1891) Inscriptiones Graecae metricae. Leipzig. Rohlfs, G. (1984) Dizionario storico dei cognomi nella Sicilia orientale. Repertorio storico e filologico. Palermo. Tjäder, J.-O. (1955) Die nichtliterarischen lateinischen Papyri Italiens aus der Zeit 445–700. vol. I. Lund. Wiesenthal, M. (1895) Quaestiones de nominibus propriis quae Graecis hominibus in proverbio fuerunt. Barmen.

  Cf. the form ὀχτές (= χθές) from Trapezous cited by Hatzidakis 1905, 232.   Rohlfs 1984, 141: “Ottanà ME(ssina) assai frequente: corrisponde a Ottinà e Attinà cogn. calabrese = Ktenás cog. in Grecia: gr. ὁ κτενᾶς, pettinaro” [= comb-maker]. On the ‘agglutination’ of the article see Schwyzer, GG I 413.

20

21

ONOMASTIC RESEARCH THEN AND NOW AN EXAMPLE FROM THE GREEK NOVEL Nikoletta Kanavou

The honorand has long been an advocate of the value of the LGPN not just for ancient history and archaeology, but also for the study of ancient literature. The present paper seeks to offer confirmation of this by means of a case study. The first systematic discussion of personal names in the romance of Xenophon Ephesios was published in an article by T. Hägg (1971), who recognized the necessity of an investigation of the historical relevance of the names not just for the appreciation of the names themselves but of the novel as a whole; but his endeavours were hindered by the lack of a dedicated onomastic tool. In the present paper the effort is repeated, almost 40 years on, with the help of LGPN. Based on much more evidence than was available to Hägg, the discussion leads to more solid observations regarding the local and temporal relevance of the names than could have been formed originally. It is shown that nowadays a literary scholar’s onomastic researches are a much easier and much more fruitful task. The importance of the Lexicon of Greek Personal Names (LGPN) for the study of the use of personal names in ancient Greek literature can hardly be doubted. Literary onomastics focus on the aesthetic effect of names, primarily those that appear to be used in a non-conventional way and to have been chosen for their suitability to a bearer or context, or created for such a purpose. The vast majority of names used in literature, however, are drawn from real life, and therefore their function cannot be fully appreciated without the help of historical onomastics. It cannot be stressed enough that thanks to LGPN, consideration of historical onomastic material by literary scholars is nowadays much easier and potentially much more effective than it used to be. Examples always add to the value of statements, and the present paper will present a case-study to show the nature of the change in the scholar’s working method, and the improvement in both quantity and quality of results brought about by the use of LGPN. In his 1971 study of personal names and naming in Xenophon’s Ephesiaca, Thomas Hägg    For Elaine Matthews, with gratitude for making work for the project a highly educational and enriching experience. Thanks also go to Prof. T. Hägg for discussing and encouraging the prospect of this paper.    For the term as a designation of an established field of research see Debus 2002, 12.    Hägg 1971, 25–59. In what follows, references will be to the latest edition by O’Sullivan (Teubner 2005). Previous editions include G. Dalmeyda (Budé 1926) and A. D. Papanikolaou (Teubner 1973). The text is preserved in a codex unicus. For an introduction to the novel and an overview of the plot see Kytzler 1996, 336–59, and more

Onomastic Research Then and Now

607

showed full awareness of the importance of historical onomastics and devoted a section of his long article to the discussion of what he called ‘realistic’ names (i.e. names used in real life). Both date and place of the novel’s composition are only vaguely known; additionally, the lack of a historical setting in the romance may imply the absence of a historical criterion in the choice of names – but Hägg rightly expressed the hope that a closer look at the personal names themselves might throw more light on the motives lying behind their choice by the author, and on the possibility of local and temporal relevance. His account of the difficulties involved in this research serves as a vivid reflection of the state of things before LGPN: “In order to get an idea of the position of Xenophon’s names in the daily life of his times – whether they were in use at all for living persons and, if so, how common they were – I have searched for the names in epigraphical and non-literary papyrological material from Greek-speaking regions through Classical, Hellenistic and Roman times.” (p. 45)

This search could hardly be exhaustive, and Hägg underlined the limits imposed not only by “the lack of comprehensive collections of inscriptions from some regions” but also by “the lack of indices to certain existing corpora or to parts of them”. He presented his findings in a table, where name occurrences were placed in geographical groups according to where the inscriptions were found. However: “A general classification according to the ethnic origin of each bearer of a name was impossible, because only a minority of the persons is designated in this respect in the inscriptions. Nor has it, in view of the limited scope of this investigation, been possible to group the inscriptions according to their dates (dates are often not provided by the editors).” (p. 46)

Hägg underestimated the problem of the frequent lack of dates for inscriptions, assuming that a name that appears in the Classical period will carry on being used in Hellenistic and Roman times because of the “conservative naming customs” of the Greeks. This may to a large extent be true, but without dates it is impossible to tell how a name’s frequency fluctuates over time, if it was more typical of a certain period, and in the case of non-Classical names, when and how they started being used. Ηe then faces a further complication in tackling the epigraphic material: “Naturally, I have tried to avoid double recordings of the same person, which may have been caused either by actual repeated mentions of one person in the same or in different inscriptions or by the same inscription recurring in several of the corpora used.” thoroughly Ruiz-Montero 1994, 1088–138.    The date is placed in the 2nd cent. AD by most scholars (Kytzler 1996, 346–7; but O’Sullivan 1995, 2–9 thinks it should be dated earlier than the mid 1st cent. AD). The author’s identity is equally uncertain, and even the authenticity of his name has been doubted. See already Perry 1967, 170 with n. 17; Hägg 1983, 18–19; Kytzler 1996, 345–6; O’Sullivan 1995, 1 (“It is very probable that the author of the Ephesiaca was neither Xenophon nor Ephesian”). LGPN evidence shows that the name Xenophon is possible for an Ephesian: there are some 12 examples of the name in Asia Minor, five of which are from Ionia, possibly two from Ephesos; but Xenophon is a name with a wide distribution.    Hägg 1971, 35, 46–7, 55.    Hägg 1971, 45 n. 43; cf. 36. Because of these difficulties he only uses additional sources (other than the ones stated in n. 43) for names appearing to be uncommon after his initial survey, thus creating an inconsistency. The results are difficult to assess as they cannot be reduced to statistics (Hägg 1971, 52 and 54 n. 64a).    Hägg tests his assumption on the name Ἀριστόμαχος (1971, 46 n. 46) – but this name’s wide distribution, both geographical and temporal, can hardly be said to represent all Greek personal names, many of which are more strictly fixed in time and space.

608

Nikoletta Kanavou

Hägg’s endeavours reflect just the kind of work undertaken on a large scale by the editors of the LGPN project (and the numerous scholars involved in it): the study and classification of both non-literary (mainly epigraphical) and literary onomastic evidence, including the dating of the sources and regional attributions of individuals. Literary scholars thus save the time needed for such primary research and have immediate access to a fuller body of evidence than they could have themselves formed on their own. Onomastic discussion on Ephesiaca moved a step forward with Ruiz-Montero’s 1994 article on Xenophon of Ephesos, which made use of the first LGPN volume (Aegean islands, Cyprus and Cyrenaica). The second volume in the series (Attica) appeared in that same year, presumably too late to be used by the author. Between 1994 and the present day, three more LGPN volumes have appeared, making available the onomastic evidence for the whole of mainland Greece, the north of Greece up to the Black Sea regions, and Sicily and Magna Graecia; around the same time this essay is published, a fifth volume, on part of coastal Asia Minor, will also have seen the light of day. Their presence has raised much of the burden of work from the researcher’s shoulders, while simultaneously offering a much broader scope. Before entering into the details of the example, it is fair to note that LGPN’s onomastic pool is not all-inclusive. The criterion of regional affiliation, which has ensured the effective systematization of the material, has at the same time made inevitable the exclusion of individuals for whom there is no indication of civic or ethnic identity. These are a large and varied class, and often include slaves, who commonly belong to the prosopography of literary works, and are present in all five surviving extant novels. Names of unassignable individuals are held in the project database and are being considered for online publication.10 The project database also contains material from Near-Eastern regions (Syria, Palestine, Egypt) for which there are no firm publication plans.11 But although the project’s publication plan is not yet complete, LGPN’s vast body of onomastic material, both published and unpublished, is accessible through a multi-functional electronic database, which allows various kinds of searches. The internet too has provided a service: main entries of the volumes (including LGPN VA) are now searchable online, via the project website.12 It is clear that should Hägg or Ruiz-Montero have embarked on this topic today, their task would have been much easier. Indeed, in the light of the LGPN, information on real-life use of personal names in the romance of Xenophon Ephesios can be substantially updated. Hägg’s regional table will be replaced here by a table reflecting the more systematic taxonomy established by LGPN. Thirty-three personal names will be considered.13 Updated information concerns dates, frequency rates as well as   Ruiz-Montero 1994, 1105–9.   See further the Introduction to LGPN I by Peter Fraser. 10   In the meantime, the best source for slave-names (in the Roman period) is Solin, SS. 11   The main Onomastikon for Egypt (the only body of LGPN material not yet computerized) remains Preisigke 1922, supplemented by Foraboschi 1967; more recent additions are found in the Heidelberg papyrology project Wörterlisten (http://www.zaw.uni-heidelberg.de/hps/pap/WL/WL.pdf). 12   www.lgpn.ox.ac.uk. This search allows one to look for names with a particular root or termination, and it produces the volume numbers where names occur and their frequencies. The website further offers access to addenda and corrigenda to the published volumes, as well as to a new, fully updated version of the Attic material (LGPN IIA). 13   There is no reason to include Μεμφῖτις, Anthia’s Egyptian pseudonym (iv 3. 6), in onomastic searches; nor Μενέλαος (iv 1. 3), as it probably refers to a historical person (Hägg 1971, 26 n. 5).  

Onomastic Research Then and Now

609

geographical distribution.14 These may be used to indicate whether names have a distinctive temporal and/or local flavour. On the basis of frequency and geography, Hägg distinguished four different groups: 1) common names with a wide geographical distribution, 2) less common names, some of which have an uneven distribution, 3) names with single attestations and 4) unattested names. A fresh count of occurrences of names in the first category15 produces in most cases numbers twice as high, and in some cases even three times higher than Hägg’s (in square brackets): 446 [170] for Ἀριστόμαχος, 147 [69] for Εὔξε(ι)νος,16 151 [55] for Ἀνδροκλῆς, 95 [37] for Εὔδοξος, 82 [30] for Λάμπων, 91 [28] for Λυκομήδης, 47 [25] for Λεύκων. The peculiarity of the alleged absence of Ἀνδροκλῆς from Asia Minor17 may now be safely eliminated: there are no less than 11 occurrences in the LGPN database, dating from the Classical period onwards.18 Λυκομήδης, the name of the Ephesian hero’s father, is particularly common in Asia Minor: 33 out of its 91 occurrences come from there (though only two from Ephesos).19 Εὔδοξος, the name of another Ephesian (a doctor in Tarsos, iii 4. 1) has 14 attestations in Asia Minor, one of which is an Ephesian of the Imperial period. Λάμπων, the name of a slave (and forced husband of Anthia, ii 9. 3) in Antioch,20 and Λεύκων, the name of a slave to Anthia’s family in Ephesos,21 are not attested slave-names as such, but are both plausible choices for names of slaves from the point of view of etymology and semantics. Names meaning ‘shining’ were popular choices for slaves,22 while Λεύκων must belong to the group of slave-names suggested by skin or hair colour.23   The contents of columns ‘Egypt’ and ‘Syria’ in Hägg’s table will be revised as far as possible, making use of Foraboschi 1967 (not available to Hägg), the relevant parts of the LGPN database, and the Heidelberg papyrology project Wörterlisten. 15   Hägg 1971, 50. LGPN numbers are the product of online searches, with the exception of column VA/VB and material relevant to n. 14 above, for which the internal project database has been consulted. 16   Εὔξεινος in the novel (the name of one of the Phoenician pirates, i 15. 3). Ιn Hägg’s material always Εὔξενος, but several examples of Εὔξεινος have surfaced: two from South Italy, one from Scythia Minor, two from Ephesos (one belongs to a gladiator), one from Hadrianoi in Mysia and four from Egypt (LGPN); though Εὔξενος is attested from the Classical period, all examples of Εὔξεινος are of Imperial date. 17   Hägg 1971, 50. 18   Bithynia, Caria, Ionia, Pontos. Though it is the name of a Spartan in the novel (v 1. 6), and despite its wide distribution, it is never attested for a Spartan in epigraphical sources; it occurs more frequently in Attica (69) and the Aegean islands (37). 19   One is on a 4th cent. BC coin; the second is found in the Apocryphal New Testament (Acta Ioannis §19 ff.) for an Ephesian commander-in-chief – but this might be a fictitious person, given the novelistic character of the narrative. It is remarkable that both namesakes are introduced in a similar fashion: Habrokomes’ father is ἀνὴρ τῶν τὰ πρῶτα ἐκεῖ δυναμένων; the Lykomedes of the Acta is στρατηγὸς Ἐφεσίων, ἄνθρωπος τῶν εὐδαιμόνων. Central characters in novels are often bestowed with high social status; see further Junod–Kaestli 1983 vol. 1, 160–1; vol. 2, 682–4. 20   Among the name’s attestations are a couple from Egypt, of Hellenistic-Imperial date: Pelousion, BSA 56 (1961) 33 no. 89; Alexandria, Ph. vi 143. 9, 24; 145. 1 = RE (4). 21   It occurs there once in the 4th cent. BC; it has a further attestation in Ionia (Kolophon, late iv BC). Four further Asia Minor occurrences are from Caria (Miletos, early iii BC) and Pontos (three attestations, iv to ii BC). 22   Cf. Aglaus, Astrapton, Augazon, Phlegon, Photinus, Photis, Photion, Photus, Euphenges and the feminine forms Phlegethusa and Phlegusa (Solin, SS 399). From the same root as Λάμπων there is Lampas, Lampadio, Lampadius, presumably all inspired by lamps as household instruments and by the relevant slave functions (Solin, SS 539). 23   Cf. Leucus, Leuce and their opposites Melaena, Melaenis, Melitine and Melitinus (Solin, SS 400). Names from the adjective ξανθός also belong here; Xanthias is used repeatedly by Aristophanes (Acharnians, Clouds, Wasps, Birds, Frogs). 14

610

Nikoletta Kanavou

Some names in Hägg’s second group24 are clearly more common than originally thought, though for most of them a picture of uneven geographical distribution remains: Χρύσιον25 is the commonest with 55 attestations [14]. Kλεισθένης comes next with 35 attestations [11]. Ῥόδη has risen to 38 [18].26 Αll three are entirely absent from the regions covered by LGPN IIIB. 27 of the 55 examples of Χρύσιον, which first occurs in the Hellenistic period, are from Asia Minor; in the novel it belongs to an old woman from that broader region (iii 9. 4; but there is no real Χρύσιον specifically from Cilicia).27 Ῥόδη is the name of a slave and Anthia’s companion (ii 3. 1). Most of its attestations are from Athens and Asia Minor, including one from Ephesos of Imperial date,28 and there is evidence of it being used as a slave-name.29 Kλεισθένης, the name of a Sicilian meirakion (v 9. 3), never actually occurs in Sicily. Kόρυμβος, the name of one of the Phoenician pirates (i 13. 3), which first occurs in the Hellenistic period, has 25 attestations (from just [7]) but does not occur in either LGPN IIIB or IV. There are 18 (from just [3] in Hägg’s count) attestations of Πολύϊδος, the name of an Egyptian army officer (v 3. 1), seven of which are from Asia Minor.30 Περίλαος, the name of the προεστὼς εἰρήνης at Tarsos (ii 13. 3) has 21 [11], only one of which comes from Asia Minor.31 ῾Υπεράνθης, the name of a meirakion from Perinthos on the Thracian coast of the Propontis (iii 2. 2), has a total of 16 [9]: half of these come from the Aegean islands and none from the character’s city of origin.32 There are 10 [4] examples of Θεμιστώ, the name of the hero’s mother; only one of these comes from Asia Minor, from Hellenistic Miletos.33 Ἀγχίαλος, the name of a λῃστής from Laodikeia (iv 5. 1), has a particular relevance to Asia Minor. Six out of its 12 attestations are from there; five of them are from Pontos.34 Τhe two attestations of Ἀμφίνομος, another λῃστής name, in Hägg (Attica and Asia Minor) have risen to seven, with the inclusion of three from South Italy and Sicily, and three from Asia Minor.35 Aἰγιαλεύς, the name of a Spartan at Syracuse (v 1. 2), has risen from two examples in Hägg36 to five, two of which are from the Peloponnese (but not from Sparta).37 The personal name seems connected with the region, because of the place name   Hägg 1971, 50.   Xρυσίον in editions, but rightly accented Χρύσιον in LGPN. See Chandler 1881, 109: “In general, neuter proper names retract the accent.” 26   There are also 19 examples of the form Ῥόδα. 27   Its next highest frequency is in the Black Sea region (13 attestations, LGPN IV). The frequency of the name in this area was already noticed by Hägg (1971, 50). 28   Athens: 13, the earliest of which belongs to the late 6th cent. BC. In other regions the name does not occur before the Hellenistic period. Asia Minor: seven more attestations – Bithynia, Mysia, Caria, Lycia. It does not occur at all in central Greece (LGPN IIIB). Additionally, there are three Hellenistic attestations from Antioch (IG II² 8274; Maiuri, NS 149, 159). 29   Solin, SS 522, in a category of slave-names inspired by plant names. The form Ῥόδα occurs as a slave-name at Delphi and more widely in Phokis: FD III (3) 41; 415; 139; IG IX (1) 34. 30   Only one is from Athens and none from LGPN IIIA. 31   From Tralles in Caria, Imperial period (LGPN VB). 32   This name too is absent from LGPN IIIB. 33   Θεμιστ‑ names are widespread, but with a strong footing in Asia Minor. The similar feminine name Θεμίστα is only attested in Asia Minor: in the Troad (Lampsakos) and Paphlagonia (Hadrianopolis), in the Hellenistic period. Several other such names appear to be slightly more common in Asia Minor than elsewhere (e.g. Θέμιστος, Θεμισταγόρας, Θεμιστῶναξ). The rest of Themisto’s attestations are from the Aegean islands (3), Athens (2), Boiotia and Lokris (2), Argos (1) and S. Italy (1). 34   Two are mentioned in Hägg 1971, see his table. 35   Two from Galatia and one from Miletos, of the Hellenistic – Imperial periods (LGPN VB, VC). 36   Hägg 1971, 48–9, 52. 37   Achaia and Aigion, iii BC. The rest include one from Thrace and two from Asia Minor (iv to iii BC). The nearly 24 25

Onomastic Research Then and Now

611

Aigialeia/Aigialos in the northern Peloponnese and the two mythical Aigialeus: (1) a son or father of Adrastos the Argive and (2) the founder of Aigialeia.38 Of the names that appear with single attestations in Hägg:39 Μαντώ, the name of the daughter of the Phoenician pirate Apsyrtos (ii 3.1), occurs 18 times in LGPN evidence; the majority (16) are from Northern Greece and of Imperial date.40 Two are Egyptian, rarely used in the Greek world: Μοῖρις (the name of Manto’s Syrian husband, ii 5. 6) has nine attestations, three of which are from Asia Minor.41 Ψάμμις, the name of a βασιλεύς ἐκ τῆς ᾿Ινδικῆς who purchases Anthia at some point (iii 11. 2), has a total of 10, one of which is from Asia Minor (Pontos).42 There are no further examples to add for the name of Anthia’s mother, Εὐίππη, which has a unique attestation in the Peloponnese (ii AD).43 The names of the two protagonists, Ἁβροκόμης and Ἀνθία, are relatively scarce, and consideration of the evidence has to take into account doubts about their exact form and spelling. Most of the occurrences of Ἁβροκόμης in the manuscript are with a smooth breathing, but the rough breathing is rightly preferred by nearly all editors,44 as the name is clearly a compound of ἁβρός,45 and there are word plays to suggest that it was meant to be thus interpreted (e.g. i 4. 1, Λαβὼν δὴ τὴν κόμην ὁ Ἁβροκόμης). Hägg46 mentions one attestation from Italy (not in LGPN): IG XIV 1318 (undated), which in fact has the dative Ἁβροκόμᾳ. Ἁβροκόμας is found in LGPN evidence twice with the rough breathing47 and another four times with a smooth breathing.48 However, two of the relevant epigraphical publications have the rough breathing, and this should be preferred as the name is obviously Greek, not Persian.49 Ἀνθία is only attested twice, in Ionia and Egypt.50 identical Aἰγιαλός is more common (hardly in use before the Imperial period). 38   RE s.v. Aigialeus. Note also Aigiale, the name of Diomedes’ wife and sister or daughter of Aigialeus (1). 39   Hägg 1971, 50–1. 40   LGPN IV. The earliest example is from Tenos (early iii BC, LGPN I). There is a further attestation from Athens (i AD, LGPN IIA). 41   Two from Kolophon and one from Smyrna (late iv to iii BC. There are single attestations in LGPN I, IIA and IIIA; two in IV. 42   The rest are single attestations in LGPN IIA and IV (all iv–iii BC) and seven from Egypt. 43  Argos or Epidauros, LGPN IIIA. The masculine form Εὔιππος has occasional attestations (a total of 23) throughout, from the Classical period onwards; only four are from Asia Minor. 44   Following the 18th cent. scholar Tiberius Hemsterhuys; the only exception is Papanikolaou in the old Teubner (1973). Also in Suda’s lemma for Xenophon Ephesios the name has the smooth breathing, but is found with the rough breathing in App.Anth. i 224 c.2 (the same Habrokomes) and Aristain. ii 21. 4 (where the name must be borrowed from Xenophon’s character). 45   Cf. the adjective ἁβροκόμης (e.g. E., Ion 920); see Bechtel, HPN 6–7 for other names starting with Ἁβρο-. Words of similar sound starting with a smooth breathing (ἀβροτάζω, ἄβροτος) and phonetic changes from the Hellenistic period onwards, when the rough breathing was no longer pronounced, may have contributed to the confusion of breathings. Note that ἀ/ἁβρότονον ‘wormwood’ is found with either breathing. 46   Hägg 1971, 52. 47   Both examples are from Athens (LGPN IIA) and belong to the 4th cent. BC. 48   LGPN IV; one attestation is from the 4th cent. BC, the rest are Imperial. 49   SEG L 710A; XLVIII 801; smooth breathing in IGB I² 206 quater and CIL III 14206.18 (Roman form Abrocomae). Although it is the name of a son of Dareios in Hdt. vii 224 and of a Persian general in X., An. i 3. 20 (with the smooth breathing), it must be either Greek or hellenized. Cf. Macan 1908 ad loc.; How–Wells 1928 ad loc.; Justi 1895, 2; Robert, Noms indigènes 232–3 for further defence of the Greek character of Aβρ(ο)- names. 50   Ionia: Magnesia, iii-iv AD (LGPN VA). Egypt: Imp. (Foraboschi). Accented Ἄνθια in its first occurrence (i 2. 5) but nowhere else in the text. The form Ἀνθία ought to be preferred, as “proper names in ‑ια are paroxytone” (Chandler 1881, 28). The masculine form Ἀνθίας is more common, with five attestations mainly in the 4th and 3rd cents. BC (LGPN IIIA and IIIB).

612

Nikoletta Kanavou

The very similar Ἄνθεια was preferred by scholars in the past51 without strong reason, and is not adopted by recent editors. As a historical name it is equally uncommon.52 Finally, LGPN may produce new evidence for names listed by Hägg as totally unattested. When it cannot provide exact attestations, it may help determine whether unattested names (which are often of unusual construction and sound) are similar to historical names and thus likely either to have existed as historical names, or at least to have been inspired by historical names. Out of a total of thirty three in the novel, Hägg mentioned nine names as absent from epigraphical sources. Ruiz-Montero53 was able to find documentation for six of them, but the evidence he offers needs to be supplemented: 1) Ἀλθαία, the name of the old Rhodian woman mentioned towards the end of the novel (v 11. 2), occurs only in the form of an Aurelia Althea, attested in Rome.54 It is further made plausible by the masculine form Ἀλθαῖος, known only on the Aegean islands in the Hellenistic period.55 2) The name of the old military man who buys Habrokomes in Egypt, Ἄραξος (iii 12. 2), also occurs in the Roman form Araxus,56 and is clearly relevant to Ἄραξ, Ἀράξιος and Ἀραξία, all of which are attested in Asia Minor.57 3) Ἄψυρτος, the name of a Phoenician ἄρχων λῃστήριος (i 14. 7, ii 2. 1), has four attestations in South Italy of the Imperial period and two in Asia Minor.58 4) Θελξινόη is the name of a Spartan in the novel (Aigialeus’ sweetheart, v 1. 5), but is otherwise unattested; it is paralleled by Θελξίνοος, attested once in Hellenistic Sparta.59 5) Ἱππόθοος, the name of a λῃστής active in Cilicia, but originally a Θρᾴξ, has single Classical attestations on the island of Chios and at Perinthos.60 A contracted form Ἱππόθους occurs once in Classical Miletos (LGPN VB).   C. G. Cobet in A. Hirschig’s 1856 edition (Didot), followed by R. Hercher in the earliest Teubner edition (1858); the form was also used by Zimmermann 1949–50 and O’Sullivan 1995, prior to his edition of the text. 52   Single attestations in Chios (i BC, LGPN I) and Messene (?i AD, LGPN IIIA). This is the right accentuation: “proper names in ‑εια have the α short and retract the accent”, (Chandler 1881, 31). There is one Ἀνθείας from Classical Kerkyra (LGPN IIIA). Ἄνθια (Thespiai, iv-iii BC, LGPN IIIB) must be Boiotian for Ἄνθεια (the change of diphthongs to monophthongs is a peculiarity of this dialect, cf. Buck 153). 53   Ruiz-Montero 1994, 1107 n. 98 (mainly using LGPN I and Solin, GPR). 54   Solin, GPR 527. 55   LGPN I; cf. Hägg 1971, 53. Cf. the similar names Ἀλθημένης, attested three times in Thasos (v-iii BC), and the more common Ἀλθαιμένης (an ancient heroic name, linked with Kamiros and Argos, RE s.v.), which has a concentration in the Aegean islands, with 7 attestations on Kos and Delos c. 200 BC. (Further instances include two from Cyrene [Imp.], one Macedonian [iv BC] and one from Knidos [Hell.]). On this group see further Bechtel, HPN 35. 56   Solin, SS 385. 57   Ἄραξ: one attestation in Pontos, Imp.; Ἀράξιος: one attestation in Lydia, Imp., and the name of a bishop and a governor of Palestine (iv AD). Ἀραξία only appears in Byzantine Ephesos (LGPN). Hägg (1971, 45, 53) thought that the use of Araxos as a personal name evolved from the homonymous Peloponnesian cape; but the name of the Anatolian river Araxes is more prominent (RE s.v., cf. Araxa, the name of a city in Lycia). The location of the few attestations of the similar personal names reinforces this connection. Cf. Solin, SS 385 on the slave-names Araxes, Arax, Araxus. 58   One in Mysia (Kyzikos, Imp.) and one in Bithynia (iv AD, RE). It is further attested as a slave-name, presumably of mythological inspiration (the name of Medea’s half-brother): Solin, SS 327. 59   Cf. Hägg 1971, 53. The geographical relevance may be encouraged by the Peloponnesian attestations (LGPN IIIA) of the names Θελξαγόρας (Sikyon, Classical), and Θέλγων (two examples from Sparta, Imp.). 60   LGPN I (known to Ruiz-Montero) and IV. 51

Onomastic Research Then and Now

613

6) Κλυτός, ‘famous’ (accented Κλύτoς by LGPN editors),61 the name of a slave in the novel (v 5. 4), finds a parallel in the Roman slave-name Clytus.62 LGPN has collected eleven attestations, five of which are from Asia Minor.63 Of the remaining three: 1) Μεγαμήδης, the name of Anthia’s father, finds one example in Asia Minor.64 2) Κυνώ, the eymologically suitable name of Araxos’ μιαρά and ἀκόλαστος wife (iii 12. 3), is unattested, but plausible judging by the fair number of similar names, such as Κύνων, Κυνίας, Κύνα, Κύνας.65 3) The name of Ῥηναία, wife of Anthia’s last-mentioned admirer, Polyidos (v 5. 4), also remains unattested; it is only known as a geographical and an ethnic name (of an island near Delos),66 and is the only name in the novel to have no close similarity to existing personal names.67 Hägg’s general remark, “it is not possible to bind the author geographically by means of the personal names”,68 remains sound. The vast geographical spread of the novel’s action, which covers the Greek speaking world of the eastern Mediterranean, blurs the picture more. However, contrary to his conclusion,69 his initial hope that names might function as indicators of place and time was not entirely unjustified. More specifically: 1) Some names fit the regional affiliation of their novelistic bearer. This is hard to maintain for widespread names and names of even distribution, but not impossible for the few names that seem connected with a particular place: Χρύσιον, Aἰγιαλεύς, Ἀλθαία, Θελξινόη – though it remains true that the less common a name is, the more difficult it becomes to establish a firm geographical connection. Anthia’s false self-introduction as an Egyptian named Μεμφῖτις (iv 3. 6) reveals that the geographical significance of names did not escape Xenophon. 2) A few of the names used have a high concentration in Asia Minor: Λυκομήδης, Χρύσιον, Ἀγχίαλος, and to a lesser extent Ῥόδη, Ἄραξος, Κλυτός. More significantly, only seven of the novel’s names are absent from LGPN VA, a smaller proportion than for any other volume (13 from LGPN I, 14 from IIA, 12 from IIIA, 21 from IIIB, 12 from IV).   The name’s accentuation is a complex issue. Chandler (1881, 95) notes that “proper names in ‑τος retract the accent, except those in ‑ῡτος which are oxytone”. However, verbal derivatives in particular “are in such a state of confusion that no rule can be depended on, and all must be left to observation”, (Chandler 1881, 149). 62   Cf. Solin, SS 461. This is one of the slave-names denoting status, more specifically respectability and fame (cf. Docimus, Entimus, Eudoxus, Thaumastus; Solin, SS). 63   One from Miletos, three from Ephesos and one from Teos (iv to ii BC, LGPN VA, VB). LGPN IIIA: single attestations in Akarnania, Epiros and S.Italy (Hell. to Imp.). The name’s earliest attestation is in the 6th cent. BC, Corinth (heroic?). LGPN IV: one Hell.-Imp. attestation from Scythia Minor. Ruiz-Montero (1994, 1107 n. 98) mentions the one, erroneous entry in LGPN I (wrongly as Samos, correct entry under Ephesos). 64   Teos, ii BC. However, a unique attestation should not be used to bind a name with a specific location. 65   Notably the hypocoristic form Κυνίσκος is by far the commonest in the group with 34 attestations, more than half of which are from Asia Minor. There are several compound names with Κυν‑ but none are particularly common (commonest is Κύναγος, with 9 attestations altogether). See further Masson 1995–96, 286 and Bechtel, HPN 64. For Kyno as a place name (Hägg 1971, 53) see RE s.v. Kynopolis 1. 66   Hägg 1971, 53, RE s.v. Ῥήνεια (this is the main form of the island name, which is also called Ῥηναία. The ethnic names are Ῥηναιεύς and Ῥηναῖος). 67   The name Ῥῆνος is attested much later (v AD) for a bishop in Paphlagonia (ACO II. 6, 58). Another vaguely similar name is Ῥηνάγα, attested in Egypt for a slave (Preisigke 1922 s.v.). 68   Hägg 1971, 50. 69   Hägg 1971, 55. 61

614

Nikoletta Kanavou

3) Regarding Egyptian attestations, some names appear with noticeable frequency: Λάμπων, Λεύκων, Λυκομήδης; and it may not be coincidental that some of the rare names occur in Egypt: Κλυτός, Περίλαος and, most strikingly, Ἀνθία. Egyptian literature is known to have played a crucial role in the birth and development of the Greek novel, which remained popular there, as the evidence of papyri shows.70 Egypt is also one of the locations for the novel’s action (v 7). The Egyptian milieu therefore counts as a potential source of onomastic choices. 4) Several names start to be found or become fashionable or widespread in the Hellenistic (Χρύσιον, Kόρυμβος, Ῥόδη) and Imperial periods (Εὔξεινος, as opposed to Εὔξενος, Ἄραξος). The author’s date is therefore reflected in his onomastic choices. On the whole, it is perhaps fair to say that names give a clearer indication of a chronological period than they do of a place. Additionally, the following points may be made: 1) All the names employed in the romance are historical or at least historically plausible. Collective LGPN evidence confirms and reinforces Hägg’s assertion to this effect.71 This is not to underestimate the force of semantic motives;72 after all, as Hägg himself notes, the categories of significant and realistic names are not mutually exclusive, though different motives may alternate in supremacy.73 2) The names chosen for slaves are realistic, contrary to Hägg’s estimation.74 This does not mean that names used for slaves in the novel were restricted to the naming of slaves in real life, but that they were selected from within semantic categories thought appropriate for slave-names. The fact that some of these categories were broad enough for the names not to sound distinctive of slaves does not make them any less realistic as slave-names. A study of the names in Xenophon’s Ephesiaca in the light of LGPN confirms our view of the novel as a product of the Imperial period and suggests Asia Minor as a likely place of composition. By bringing to light further subtleties, such as the occasional appropriateness to a character’s geographical provenance and slave status, it also reinforces the old impression that the names were not random choices. It emerges that the historicity of the names was a decisive factor in their choice and use in the novel – and this could only be shown systematically with the help of the LGPN.

  See e.g. Reardon 1971, 311 ff.   Hägg 1971, 54. 72   Discussed by Hägg 1971, 36–9; Ruiz-Montero 1994, 1107–9; cf. Kytzler 1996, 354–5. 73   Hägg 1971, 35–6. Etymological expressiveness was certainly the strongest motive for the choice of the names of the two main heroes. Hägg (1971, 39–45) also mentioned the additional semantic weight placed on names by their use in older literature; but this is difficult to measure as it depends on the education and culture of author and readership. 74   Hägg 1971, 54–5. 70 71

Onomastic Research Then and Now

615

References Chandler, H. W. (1881) A practical introduction to Greek accentuation. 2nd edn. Oxford. Debus, F. (2002) Namen in literarischen Werken. (Er-)Findung – Form – Funktion. Mainz / Stuttgart. Foraboschi, D. (1967) Onomasticon alterum papyrologicum. Milan. Hägg, T. (1971) ‘The naming of the characters in Xenophon Ephesius’, Eranos 69, 25–59. Hägg, T. (1983) The Novel in Antiquity. Berkeley. Holzberg, N. (1995) The Ancient Novel: An Introduction. London. Ηοw, W. W. and Wells, J. (1928) A Commentary on Herodotus. 2 vols. Oxford. Junod, E. and Kaestli, J. D. (1983) Acta Ioannis. 2 vols. Brepols / Turnhout. Justi, F. (1895) Iranisches Namenbuch. Marburg. Kytzler, B. (1996) ‘Xenophon of Ephesus’, in G. Schmeling (ed.), The Novel in the Ancient World. Leiden, 336–359. Macan, R. W. (1908) Herodotus: the seventh, eighth, & ninth books. 3 vols. London. Masson, O. (1995–96) ‘Quelques anthroponymes grecs et leur morphologie: noms composés et noms simples’, Verbum 18, 281–288 (= OGS III, 315–321). O’Sullivan, J. N. (1995) Xenophon of Ephesus: his compositional technique and the birth of the novel. Berlin / New York. Perry, B. E. (1967) The ancient romances: a literary-historical account of their origins. Berkeley. Preisigke, F. (1922) Namenbuch. Heidelberg. Reardon, B. P. (1971) Courants littéraires grecs des IIe et IIIe siècles après J.-C. Paris. Ruiz-Montero, C. (1994) ‘Xenophon von Ephesos: ein Überblick’, in Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt. II. 34.2. Berlin / New York, 1088–1138. Zimmermann, F. (1949–50) ‘Die Ἐφεσιακά des sog. Xenophon von Ephesos. Untersuchungen zur Technik und Komposition’, Würzburger Jahrbücher für die Altertumswissenschaft 4, 252–286.

NAME

I1

IIA2

IIIA3

IIIB4

IV5

VA6 VB7

Egypt

                                       

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 0 0 1 0 134 0 11 0 20 0 0 3 1 0 9 1 1 0 17 9 14 1 0 1 1 2 0 2 4 8 3 0

0 2 0 0 0 0 1 69 0 0 0 0 77 0 36 0 35 0 0 2 0 0 7 0 12 0 12 8 19 1 0 1 4 1 0 13 0 4 10 1

0 0 0 1 2 0 3 18 0 0 1 0 73 4 15 1 23 2 0 2 0 0 9 4 4 0 5 4 8 0 0 1 6 0 0 2 3 1 2 0

0 0 0 1 0 0 0 8 0 1 0 0 82 0 12 0 24 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 6 5 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 4 0 0 0

0 0 4 3 1 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 20 0 1 0 7 1 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 3 9 4 16 0 2 2 4 0 6 3 1 13 1

0 0 0 6 2 0 3 11 1 0 0 0 31 2 14 0 27 3 0 1 0 1 8 5 8 0 14 6 33 0 1 3 1 7 0 8 4 2 27 1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 27 0 6 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 21 5 8 0 0 1 3 0 0 2 1 0 0 7

Notes to Table

Syria Palestine Armenia 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0

TOTALS 0 2 4 12 5 0 7 151 2 1 2 0 446 6 95 1 137 10 0 10 2 1 35 12 25 0 82 47 91 18 1 9 21 18 0 38 19 16 55 10

  Aegean Islands, Cyprus and Cyrenaica.   Athens and Attica; this is the revised version of LGPN II, incorporating addenda and corrigenda which are published on the project website. 3   The Peloponnese, Western Greece, Sicily and Magna Graecia. 4   Central Greece. 5   Macedonia, Thrace and Northern Regions of the Black Sea. 6   Coastal Asia Minor – Pontos, Bithynia, Mysia,Troas, Aiolis, Ionia and Lydia. 7   Coastal Asia Minor – Caria, Lycia, Pamphylia and Cilicia. Note that numbers in this column are provisional, and bound to increase. 1 2

the Roman calendar and its diffusion in the Greco-Roman East: The evidence of the personal name Kalandion Pantelis M. Nigdelis

This paper collects the epigraphic evidence for individuals bearing the names Καλανδίων and Καλανδία and related forms (e.g. Καλανδική, Κάλανδος, Καλανδάριος, Καλανδαρία) and investigates the reasons behind the choice of such names. Since the use of these personal names indicates familiarity with the word Kalendae, it explores the possible factors behind their use among a Greek-speaking population. While the reasons for selecting such names may vary, the primary factor is the birth of a child on the first day of a month, which Greeks and Romans considered sacred and connected with divine protection. Greek-speaking populations are suggested to have become familiar with the word Kalendae not by the adoption of the official Roman calendar (despite some synchronization efforts made in the reign of Augustus) nor through their contacts with the Roman provincial administration. Rather it was due to the diffusion of the (official and private) festival of 1st January (Kalendae Ianuariae) in the Greek-speaking East and the financial transactions between Greeks and their Latin speaking creditors who demanded interest on loans by the first of each month, to the extent that personal names were eventually derived from it. In contrast to other empires, e.g. the Chinese where the term “those who have received the calendar” was used for the conquered populations, the Roman empire never attempted systematically to diffuse or to impose by law its official calendar. In the eastern part of the empire at least, with its long history of civic life, the multitude of local calendars persisted to late antiquity. So far the only known interference is the well-known edict of the proconsul of Asia Paulus Fabius Maximus of 9 BC, in which it was recommended to the koinon of Asia to approve the adoption of a new provincial calendar to replace the Macedonian one (solar–lunar) in use. The proposed replacement was not the Julian calendar, since it provided for the preservation of the names of the months of the old calendar, but it relied on the Julian as far as its structure was concerned, beginning on the 23rd of September, the birthday of Augustus. The koinon of Asia, in compliance with these discreetly expressed orders and to prove its allegiance to the emperor,  

  I wish to thank Ilias Arnaoutoglou and C. P. Jones for their useful comments.   See Feeney 2007, 209.

618

Pantelis M. Nigdelis

decided by decree to implement the reform and to honour the proconsul. Attempts to reform local calendars and to adapt to the Roman calendar were carried out in other areas of the eastern part of the Roman Empire (e.g. Cyprus, or in some cities in Syria), but we do not know who had the initiative. In any case, all these efforts tended to synchronize the local calendars with the Julian. Nevertheless, and despite the consequences for some names of the months and days, they did not entail the abandonment of local calendars. If this was how time was expressed in the Greek polis, in the empire a different system prevailed. Wherever in the provinces the Roman administration, be it central or provincial, appears in official documents, time is reckoned in the official Roman way, that is by the names of consuls and Roman days (kalendae, nonae and idus). The Roman calendar was one of the essential criteria for defining Roman identity. That this perception was rooted in the consciousness of the inhabitants of the Greek-speaking eastern part of the empire results from the distinction made between Greek and Roman days in the decrees of the koinon of Asia mentioned above, as well as from some double-dated invitations to gladiatorial and wild-beast games of the third century AD in Macedonian cities, in which the local dating system accompanied by the adjective ‘Greek’ is cited next to the official Roman date. These texts demonstrate that segments of the population of the eastern provinces of the empire were using, for different reasons, the official Roman calendar. It is not the appropriate place to present in detail all the relevant (mainly epigraphic) testimonies of this trend. However, it suits the purpose of this volume to present any onomastic evidence that might confirm it, such as the personal names Καλανδίων, Καλανδία or the related Καλανδική, Κάλανδος, Καλανδάριος, Καλανδαρία used in the Greco-Roman East. These personal names are in fact transcriptions of the Latin cognomina Kalendio, Kalandio, Kalendarius, Kalandarius, which are in turn derived from the Latin kalendae. The purpose of this article is to collect all the cases of individuals bearing such a name from the provinces of the eastern part of the Roman Empire, in other words to study the history of the personal name Καλανδίων in the East. At the same time, it aims to investigate the reasons behind the selection of such a name. Finally, since the use of these personal names indicates    Today only parts of the edict and of two decrees of the provincial koinon survive. The relevant inscriptions were found in Priene, Maionia, Eumeneia, Dorylaion, and Apameia in Asia. Their most recent publication with ample commentary and research on the diffusion of the new calendar is due to Laffi 1967.    For the existing local calendars in the eastern part of the empire and their synchronization with the Julian calendar, see Samuel 1972, 171 ff. It seems that the initiative of P. Fabius Maximus was preceded by the introduction in the East of a similar calendar, a solar calendar on the model of the Roman. See the manuscript with the twelve year period, of an astronomical and meteorological nature, published by Boll 1900, 139 ff. For questions relating to the date of its introduction and by whose initiative, and the places where it was adopted, see in detail Laffi 1967, 42-6; cf. Samuel 1972, 183–4.    See Feeney 2007, 210.    See for example the copy of Apameia, Laffi 1967, 22–3 no. 6, 50–4: ἄρχειν τὴν νέαν νουμηνίαν πάσα[ις] ταῖς πόλεσιν τῇ πρὸ ἐννέα καλανδῶν Ὀκτωβρίων, ἥτις ἐστὶν γενέθλιος ἡμέρα τοῦ Σεβαστοῦ. ὅπως δὲ ἀεὶ ἡ {τε} ἡμέρα στοιχῇ καθ’ ἑκάστην πόλιν, συνχρηματίζειν τῇ Ῥωμαϊκῇ καὶ τὴν Ἑλληνικὴν ἡμέραν.    See for example IG X (2) (1) 137, 13–14 (Thessalonike, 141 AD) and IBeroia 68, 16–17 (Beroia, 229 AD).    This is the subject of the doctoral dissertation on which Mme. I. Kerametse works under my supervision. For the kind of epigraphic documents from the Greek East in which the Greek and Roman calendar are used see Nigdelis 1996, 59–63 with bibliography.    For the use of these names as cognomina in Latin inscriptions of the western part of the empire see Kajanto 1965, 219; Solin–Salomies 1988, 347 ff. and the reviews of Solin 2001, 193; 2004, 167; 2005, 162. For Greek personal names deriving from the Latin word kalendae see Pape–Benseler 595.

The Roman Calendar and its Diffusion in the Greco-Roman East

619

familiarity with the word kalendae, it is worth exploring the factors contributing to a Greekspeaking population’s use of the word and their more ready adoption of the name derived from it. *** The available documentation on the personal name Καλανδίων – Καλανδία in Greek testimonia of the Greek East relies almost exclusively on inscriptions, since literary sources and papyri preserve few, late cases of individuals bearing such names.10 Epigraphic testimonies come from the Roman provinces in the Balkans and in Asia Minor. In the Balkans, the personal names of this category appear in inscriptions from four provinces, Achaea, Macedonia, Thrace and Lower Moesia. In the province of Achaea the personal name Καλανδίων appears in three cities, Athens (6), Sikyon (1) and Kleitor in Arkadia (1). Athenian epigraphic testimonies are dated to the second or third centuries AD. The first known Athenian [Κ]αλανδίω[ν] (without patronymic) is listed in an ephebic catalogue dated c. 120 AD.11 The next is a Καλανδίων, son of Φάρος, an epengraphos ephebe mentioned without a demotic in a fragmentary ephebic catalogue dated c. 167/8 AD.12 In another ephebic catalogue, perhaps of the third century AD, a Καλανδίων Ἡρακλείδου is attested.13 The remaining three Athenians bearing the name are Roman citizens. The first is a Τίνδιος Καλανδίων, prytanis of the tribe Antiochis (demotic not preserved) just before 220/1 AD. The rare gentilicium, as well as the fact that it is not borne by any known governor or other official of the province, supports the view that he is a descendant or a freedman of an Italian family settled quite late in the city.14 The second belongs to an Athenian family which received the Roman citizenship in 212 AD, judging from the gentilicium Αὐρ(ήλιος). He is an epengraphos ephebe attested in an ephebic catalogue dated to 238–255 AD.15 Lastly, in an ephebic catalogue of 255/6 AD a homonym of the above (Αὐρ. Καλανδίων) is mentioned, of the tribe Pandionis, from an Athenian family which received Roman citizenship in 212 AD.16 There is one testimony for each of the other two cities of the province. In a funerary inscription of the first to second centuries AD from Kleitor in Arkadia the name Κάλανδος is mentioned without patronymic,17 while a Καλανδίω[ν] makes a dedication to Asklepios in the second-century AD at Sikyon (region of Phleious).18 In the province of Macedonia, four individuals bear this name, three in Thessalonike and one in Beroia. In particular, in the capital of the province we find an Αὐρηλία Καλανδία who, following a decision of the council and the people in the mid-third century AD, erected two altars in honour of her husband, Γ. Ἰούλιος Εὐφραντικός, a prominent member of local society   The name is borne by bishops of Antiocheia (see Zonaras, Epit. Hist. PI 648, at the time of the emperor Zenon, 5th cent. AD) and of Halikarnassos (see ACO II.1.2, 32. 5, council of Chalkedon, 451 AD). The name is preserved also in three documents from Karanis: see PMich IV 1, 224 (172/3 AD), OMich 189 and 781 (305/6 and 305/6? AD respectively). In the last two cases the name pertains to the same individual. 11   ΙG ΙΙ2 2018, 72. The correction of Pandion to Kalandion is due to Wilson 1992, E 152 (reference from online Addenda and corrigenda of LGPN II (18 September 2008). See www.lgpn.ox.ac.uk/online/downloads. 12   ΙG ΙΙ2 2060+2089+2155+2098 (= Μitsos 1973, no. 1 = SEG XII 115 col. II, 14). For the date see LGPN ΙΙ s.v. 13   SEG XII 137. 14   ΙG ΙΙ2 1817 col. I, 48 = Agora XV 466 Α, 48. This is the only occurrence of the personal name Tindios in Athens. Byrne (RCA 452) dates the catalogue c. 255 AD, while LGPN ΙΙ places it before 220/1 AD. 15   ΙG ΙΙ2 2220+2214+2213+2215 (= Mitsos 1973, no. 1 col. IIΙ, 110). For the date see LGPN ΙΙ s.v. 16   ΙG ΙΙ2 2245, 112. 17   IG V (2) 377. In LGPN IIIA the name appears as Κάλανδρος. 18   SEG XI 273. 10

620

Pantelis M. Nigdelis

who had been gymnasiarch and founder of two gerousiai of the city, as the second altar informs us.19 Another Καλανδίων appears in a fragmentary dedication of the second or third century AD found in the territory of the city (region of Pylaia).20 The third is a threptos (adopted son or slave) called Καλανδίων, attested on a funerary stele set over his tomb by his parents or masters, Λογισμός and Δαμονείκη.21 The only Beroian Καλανδίων occurs on a funerary relief stele of the early third century AD, on which are mentioned the deceased without patronymic and his mother Ἑρμιόνη who had erected it.22 The number of people called Καλανδίων is greater in the neighbouring province of Thrace. Inscriptions of the second or third centuries AD attest individuals from Pautalia (1), Philippoupolis (3), Serdica (1), Anchialos (1), Bizye (1), and Perinthos (1). The first is a dedication preserving the names of 18 members of an association of neokoroi of the temple of Asklepios in Pautalia from the village of Spinopara (mod. Konjavo) in its territory. The stele was erected on public land, donated by one of their colleagues. Among them is a Καλανδίων.23 From the territory of Philippoupolis a long list of mystai of a Dionysiac association (speira) found at Cillae (mod. Černa goro) and dated to 241–244 AD includes an Αὐρ(ήλιος) Καλανδίων son of Κάνδιδος and an Αὐρ(ήλιος) Τάταρος son of Καλανδίων, owing their Roman citizenship to the constitutio Antoniniana, as do the other 51 members, all Aurelii.24 At the emporion Parembole, a Ἰούλιος Καλανδίων set up a stele with his brother, the beneficiarius Ἰούλιος Ἀπολινάριος and his brother’s wife Οὐαλερία Πλωτεῖνα on their family tomb, perhaps in the second century AD.25 A Φλ. Καλανδίων is attested on the base of a statue at Serdica, which, with his siblings Αἰθάλη and Διογένης and a certain Antonios of Amaseia, he had erected in honour of Cornelia Salonina, wife of the emperor Gallienus (261–268). The Greek names of his siblings may indicate that his ancestors or masters were of Greek origin, granted Roman citizenship before the third century AD.26 At the village Aquae Calidae (territory of Anchialos) Αὐρ. Καλ[α]νδίων, son of Ἐλπιδηφόρος, dedicated an altar to Herakles,27 perhaps in the third century AD. The only inhabitant of Bizye to bear such a name belonged to its upper social stratum. In the late second or early third century AD, a certain Μ. Αὐρήλιος Χαρίτων, following a decision of the council and assembly, honoured his friend Μ. Αὐρ(ήλιος) Καλανδίων, son of Διονύσιος, priest of the imperial cult and talantarches, δι’ ὅπλων δόντα καὶ ἀνάληψιν καὶ ταυροκαθάψια. His title δι’ ὅπλου ταλαντάρχης indicates that he had paid for gladiatorial games (talantaious), and when he was crowned as a priest, he organized a festival whose programme surely included contests, in which ταυροκαθάψια figured, and perhaps distributions.28 The last and latest occurrence in Thrace of one of these names is from Perinthos. A Christian, Φλ(άβιος) Καλανδίων, of the city’s fourth tribe, is named in a funerary inscription of the third   IG X (2) (1) 195, l7 and 196, 8.   IG X (2) (1) 1007. The stele was decorated with a relief of a Thracian rider. 21   AD 26 (1971) Chron. 377 no. 2, cf. ΒΕ 1977, no. 273. LGPN dates the inscription in the 2nd or 3rd cent. AD. 22   IBeroia 236, cf. Tataki 1988, no. 461. The second text on the stele was inscribed later. 23   IGB IV 2192, 9, cf. IGB V 5865. LGPN IV dates the inscription to the 2nd cent. AD. 24   IGB III 1517, 43 and 54, cf. IGB V 5550. 25   IGB III 1512. LGPN IV dates the inscription possibly in the 2nd cent. AD. 26   IGB IV 1912. 27   IGB Ι2 383. The suggested date in LGPN IV s.v. is justified by the letter forms and the gentilicium Aurelius. 28   See Robert 1982, 154-8; Sayar 1983. Cf. SEG XXXII 660 and ΒΕ 1984, no. 265. I follow Robert’s interpretation; for the hapax ταλαντάρχης, Sayar, based on Hom., Il. x 209–13, argues that it refers to the honorand’s authority to decide on the life or death of the gladiator, a rather unlikely interpretation. As for its date, Pleket in SEG suggests the end of the 2nd or beginning of the 3rd cent. AD, based on the priest’s gentilicium and the form of expression. 19 20

The Roman Calendar and its Diffusion in the Greco-Roman East

621

to fourth (or fourth-fifth) centuries AD. The imperial nomen is a mark of his social standing, as it refers to the fourth-century Flavian dynasty, and distinguishes him from the mass of new Roman citizens bearing the gentilicium Aurelius.29 To the north of Thrace, examples of these names occur in the large, coastal cities of the western and northern Black Sea. In Lower Moesia they are found at Kallatis (1) and Istros (1). A Καλανδίων at Kallatis is secretary of an association of philokynegoi, whose names were inscribed on a stele dedicated by a soldier, Ἑρέννιος Ἀπολινάρ(ις) βενεφ(ικιάριος) ὑπατικ(οῦ), in honour of Gordian III and Furia Sabinia Tranquillina,30 between 238 and 244 AD. A fragmentary list of members of an association(?) from Istros, of the second half of the second century AD, records a Καλανδίων son of Γλύκων.31 The three examples from the northernmost city, Olbia are of interest. The name occurs as the patronymic of three members of the local elite, who belong to or lead the collegium of the generals and offer major dedications to the divine protector of the city. Earliest is a certain Ἀχιλλεύς, son of Καλανδίων, the senior general of the city, attested in a dedication of the first half of the second century AD.32 Of later date is a dedication by Στέφανος, son of Καλανδίων33 and Εὔπλους, son of Καλανδίων,34 perhaps brothers, also attested in dedications of the generals or heads of the collegium, dated to the second century AD.35 The onomastic evidence from Asia Minor paints a more varied picture than that found in the Balkans. Καλανδίων and related name forms appear in Greek inscriptions from the provinces of Asia, Bithynia-Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia and Lycia-Pamphylia. In the province of Asia, the name is attested in Lydia (2), Aiolis (1), Ionia (1), Phrygia (1), Caria (1) and the Cyclades (1). A funerary inscription of 296 AD, from an unidentified site in northeast Lydia, marked the tomb of an important family of the region, one of the brothers of the deceased, Αὐρήλιος Διογενιανός, having served as his city’s ambassador to Rome and the two Syrias. The deceased, Αὐρ(ήλιος) Καλανδίων, had died prematurely and is called πᾶσι φίλος (‘loved by all’).36 From the region of Saittai a funerary inscription of 225/6 AD mentions a woman called Καλανδική, who, with her husband Τρόφιμος, erected a stele on the tomb of their daughter Δωρίς.37 At Pergamon, a Κάλανδος occurs in a fragmentary list of persons of unspecified nature. The catalogue concluded with two names of sacred boys (i.e. sacred slaves), perhaps living in

29   See Asdracha 1996–97, 341 no. 171 = IPerinthos 186. Asdracha dates the inscription to the 3rd–4th cents. AD, while Sayar, editor of IPerinthos places it in the 4th–5th cents. AD. 30   ΙSM III 74 B, 19. 31   SEG XXIV 1118 = ISM I 197 Β, 3. The editors of SEG wonder whether this is a catalogue of the victorum in ludis musicis, while Pippidi, editor of ISM I, was inclined to take it as a list of the members of an association, because a secretary is present. 32   SEG XLVI 948 bis. 33   IOSPE I2 83, 9 in which he is referred to as στρατηγὸς τὸ β΄. 34   IOSPE I2 90, 3–4 = IOlbia 82 (οἱ περὶ Εὔπλουν Κ̣α̣λανδίωνος), 100, 6 and 175, 9. 35   Latyshev (IOSPE I2 p. 117) suggests that both persons were relatives. As for the date see the comments of Levin, editor of IOlbia, who dates IOlbia 82 to the 2nd cent. AD, followed by LGPN IV s.v. 36   See Petzl 2002, 99–102 and Petzl–Łajtar 2003, 45–9. See also SEG LII 1165. See Petzl–Łajtar 2003, 48–9 on the provenance of the stone and the career of Aur. Diogenianos. His embassy in the East may be associated with the war in 296/7 AD. 37   TAM V (1) 124, 2–3. The restored name [Κα|λ]ανδίων is not certain in a fragmentary funerary stele of unknown provenance (SEG XLIX 1742), where [Σ]ανδίων could be restored.

622

Pantelis M. Nigdelis

the sanctuary of Asklepios.38 To the south of Pergamon, at Ionian Ephesos, Δῶρος, husband of Καλανδαρία, set up a stele over her tomb.39 Names of this type are found scattered through other regions of Asia Minor. A Christian inscription found southwest of Dorylaion in Phrygia, names a deacon called Καλανδίων,40 while at Aphrodisias in Caria a gladiator of the sixth brigade named Καλανδίων is known from his funerary relief (ii-iii AD), a name well-known among people of his profession.41 Finally, on Melos in the Cyclades, a remote corner of the province of Asia, a Καλανδίων acts as secretary of some sort of association.42 In the province of Bithynia-Pontus there are two occurrences of the name. A funerary inscription from Apameia records the erection of a funerary stele by Καλανδία and her husband Ἑρμᾶς for their daughter Ἀγαπητή.43 A long inscription (post 212 AD) from Prusias ad Hypium honours a prominent citizen for his benefactions on the part of the phylarchoi, among whom is a certain Αὐρήλ(ιος) Κομμοδιανὸς Κάλανδος, phylarchos of the tribe Thebais44. There may be a third epigraphic testimony, uncertain but important for the occurrence of the name in the East,45 in a relief funerary stele from Kios, which names a couple ([Νι]κασίων, son of Νικασίων, and [Καλ]ανδία, daughter of Μενέλαος) and their son (Νικασ[ίω]ν). The monument is dated on stylistic grounds perhaps to the second century BC. Acceptance of the proposed restoration would make this the earliest occurrence of the name in the East. However, other restorations are possible.46 Καλανδίων and related names appear also in the provinces of Galatia (3), Cappadocia (1), and Lycia-Pamphylia (4). The name occurs twice in inscriptions from Ankyra. In the first, found around modern Cihanşah, Αὐρ. Ἀσκληπιάδης, son of Καλανδίων, with his wife erects a stele over the tomb of their son (post 212 AD).47 In the second, found around modern Çalçi, Καλανδ[ίων] is restored (i AD).48 In the province of Cappadocia, at Mistea, or Misthia, in Lykaonia (post 212 AD), Αὐρηλία Ἄννα, daughter of Ὀρέστης, provides a sarcophagus for a young slave Καλανδαρίων.49 In the province of Lycia-Pamphylia, Καλανδίων, either as a personal name or supernomen, occurs among prominent families of Balboura in northern Lycia-Kibyratis. Two individuals are attested on statue bases of victors in the Meleagreia, a local festival founded by a homonymous   IPerg 572; cf. p. 180. The inscription is undated.   ΙEph 2277 + Addenda p. 29; cf. ΒΕ 1981, no. 474. The inscription is undated. 40   ΜΑΜΑ V 187, 1. The inscription is undated. 41   Roueché 1993, no. 23 (ii–iii AD). The name Calandio is also borne by a gladiator in Rome; see SabbatiniTumolesi 1988, 114 II. 42   IG XII (3) 1099, where the verb ἀνέθεσαν is followed by the phrase ἐκ τοῦ κοινοῦ, evidently associated either with the name of an association or its common treasury (κοινόν). 43   ΙApameia 54. The inscription is undated. 44   IPrusias 6, 24–5. 45   IKios 58, cf. the comments of the same editor (T. Corsten) on ΙApameia 54. 46   For the various possible restorations (e.g. Πανδία, Σανδία, Μελανδία etc) see Dornseiff–Hansen 13. If the restoration is accepted, the use of a Roman name by Greeks at such an early date could perhaps be explained by members of the family coming from Southern Italy or Sicily and settling as traders already in the 2nd cent. BC. 47   INGalatia 348. 48   INGalatia 72. One may wonder whether the imperative εὐτύχει in the last line of the inscription does not impose a different reading such as νεικᾶς | νέε Καλανδ[ίων] which would mean that the name refers to a certain person. 49   See Denkmäler 20. For a possible meaning of the term θρεπτάριον, see e.g. the letter of 181 AD from Beroia (IBeroia 49, 11 ff.) in which two brothers address their sister: ἡμεῖς, κυρία ἀδελφή, ἐν πολλοῖς σοι χάριν οἴδαμεν καὶ νῦν βουλομένης σού τινας τῶν ἰδίων θρεπταρίων ἐλευθερῶσαι συνευαρεστοῦμεν καὶ συνκατατιθέμεθα. 38 39

The Roman Calendar and its Diffusion in the Greco-Roman East

623

local dignitary between 158–261 AD which initially included musical contests.50 They are Μουσαῖος τρὶς Τρω[ί]λου Μουσαίου Πο[λ]υδεύκους ὁ καὶ Καλανδίων, victor in the men’s wrestling between 170–180 AD,51 and Αὐρήλιος Καλανδίων Θόαντος δὶς Μηνοφίλου Θόαντος, victor in the boys’ wrestling c. 220 AD.52 The high social status of these people, who may be related,53 is manifest in the phrases relating to Mousaios: ἀνὴρ ἐκ τῶν πρώτων ἐν τῇ πόλει, συνγενὴς κοινῶν ἀρχόντων τοῦ ἔθνους, πατρὸς κοινοῦ ἄρχοντος. From Komba in northern Lycia two men, Γερόντιος and Καλανδάριος, offer prayers for the health of the bishop of Lycia, Μακεδόνιος.54 The inscription on a sarcophagus from the coastal city of Teimiousa in southern Lycia relates to two migrants from the neighbouring town of Kyaneai, who built a monument for themselves and other members of their families. Among those having the right to use the tomb are their spouses, one of whom is called Καλανδαρία.55 From Pisidian Termessos, there is a Καλανδίων, son of Κτοις, a priest named along with other important local personalities in an honorary inscription for the priest for life of the local cult of Asklepios (late ii/early iii AD).56 On Cyprus the dedicant of an undated altar at Kition consoles the departed with the phrase, Καλαδίων, εὐψύχι· οὐδὶς ἀθάνατος, well-known from other inscriptions.57 For the province of Crete-Cyrene the only testimony comes from the world of the gladiatorial arena; a fragmentary funerary epigram (ii–iii AD) from Gortyn marked the tomb of a gladiator, indicated in the phrase: [νῦν χθο]νὸς [Κρή]της πόλις Γορ[τύς με κα]τέχει μέγ[αν] ἐν σταδίοισι [καὶ πολ]λὰ καμόντα καὶ [με]γάλην πυ[γμήν].58 The cost was paid by his wife Παῦλα from the money he left and with the help of his comrades (ll. 12ff. σπουδ[ῇ φαμιλίας] μου καὶ συνεργασίας [ἐνθάδ’ ὑπό]κειμαι), one of whom played an important role.59 The dead man’s name is not preserved, but if Peek’s emendation is followed, he was the son of a Καλανδίων ([ἐ]ξ οἴκων Κ[α]λανδίων[ος? γεγένημαι]). However, this is not necessarily the case. It is far more plausible to interpret οἴκοι as the cellae,60   For this contest see Milner 1991, 23 with earlier bibliography.   Milner 1991, 29 no. 3 = SEG XLI 1345, 10 ff. The same person is named as victor on the base CIG 438 f = Milner 1991, 31 no. 4 = SEG XLI 1346, 11 ff., according to the restoration [Μουσ]α̣ίου γ΄ τοῦ κα[ὶ Καλανδίωνος] suggested by Milner. 52   Milner 1991, no. 10 = SEG XLI 1352, 11 ff. 53   Milner 1991, 30. 54   See ΤΑΜ ΙΙ (3) 175. The inscription is undated. 55   Petersen–von Luschan 1889, no. 107. The inscription is not dated but the letter forms suggests a date in the 2nd or 3rd cent. AD. 56   ΤΑΜ ΙΙΙ (1) 118. 57   IKition 2168. 58   IC IV 373. Cf. Peek 1977, 72–3 no. 4 = SEG XXVIII 741, with an improved reading of the inscription. Guarducci was the first to identify him as a gladiator, see IC IV p. 372. 59   Guarducci (IC IV pp. 371–2) argued, on the basis of parallels from Gortyn, that the woman at the end of the epigram is probably the partner of the dead, who pays the cost of burial ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων. In contrast, Peek (1977, 73) restores after the name Παῦλα the word τέκ[νῳ], adopting the reading ΤΕΙ (while Guarducci reads ΤΕ̣) and assumed that she is his mother. However, it was usual for the partner to provide the money from the peculium of the dead gladiator and for one of his comrades from the schola to take care of the inscription and erection of the stele. Following Peek’s reading (and accepting that 8–9 letters are missing in the left part of the inscription) the last two lines should be supplemented as follows: σπουδ|[ῇ φαμιλίας] μου καὶ συνεργασίας | [ἐνθάδ’ ὑπό]κειμαι. Παῦλα τε̣ ἐ̣[κείνῳ | ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων (vel similia) μ]νείας χάριν. The pronoun ἐκεῖνος is used quite often in funerary monuments, e.g. Nigdelis–Stephani 2000, 98–103. 60   For this meaning of the term οἶκοι see D.C. lxxiii 22 where it is said about the emperor Commodus: ἀνελεῖν ἐβούλετο τοὺς ὑπάτους Ἐρύκιόν τε Κλᾶρον καὶ Σόσσιον Φάλκωνα, καὶ ὕπατός τε ἅμα καὶ σεκούτωρ ἐν τῇ νουμηνίᾳ ἐκ τοῦ χωρίου ἐν ᾧ οἱ μονομάχοι τρέφονται προελθεῖν. καὶ γὰρ τὸν οἶκον τὸν πρῶτον παρ’ αὐτοῖς, ὡς καὶ εἷς ἐξ 50

51

624

Pantelis M. Nigdelis

thus the schola/ludus to which the gladiator belonged, and the name Kalandion as the owner of the schola (lanista).61 *** This review of the 44 occurrences of the name Καλανδίων and its related forms in Greek inscriptions helps us to formulate the following remarks, with regard to the history of the personal name in the Greek-speaking East. i) The personal name appears for the first time in the first century AD, the oldest dated example being that of the Athenian ephebe Καλανδίων (c. 120/1 AD).62 It is attested mainly in the second half of the second and the third centuries and only sporadically later. ii) These names occur principally in the main cities of the provinces, but are also present in smaller towns or villages. iii) The social origin and the legal status of such people are varied. Besides eminent citizens, such as Μ. Αὐρήλιος Καλανδίων, priest of the imperial cult at Bizye, or the aristocratic families from Thessalonike, Olbia and Balboura, there are people of much lower social status, including slaves, such as the gladiator at Aphrodisias. Noteworthy is the number of Aurelii, new citizens adopting the personal name and its related forms.63 iv) Regarding the origin of these people, only in one case (the Athenian Τίνδιος Καλανδίων) can the origin of the individual or of his ancestors/masters be traced to Italian immigrants. The remainder are persons bearing Greek or hellenized indigenous names. Discerning the reasons behind the choice of this kind of personal name is a difficult task, dependent effectively on hypotheses. It is sometimes associated with the Latin Kalendae, or with the Kalendae Ianuariae, that is the Roman festival of the New Year.64 The fragmentary evidence makes it hard to determine in each instance what led a father or a master (in cases of slave naming) to endow a child with this name. As already suggested, the name could be associated with the date of birth of the child, as with the Greek Νουμήνιος, Νουμηνία, etc. Greeks and Romans named their children after that day because they regarded Kalendae / Νουμηνία as a sacred day and consequently believed that their offspring would be under divine protection.65 αὐτῶν ὤν, εἶχε. E. Cary (Loeb) translates: “in fact, he had the first cell there, as if he was one of them”. 61   For the owners of such schools (sometimes themselves ex-gladiators) see Schneider in RE s.v. Lanista and Robert 1940, 285. For the names of the gladiators’ schools see Ville 1981, 296 n. 161 and Nigdelis 2006, 243. 62   For the doubtful case of the funerary relief (ii BC) from Kios, see above p. 622. 63   The imperial gentilicium Aurelius is borne by eleven out of fifteen Roman citizens who are named Καλανδίων or have a related name. Two Flavii, a Iulius and a M. Aurelius are also recorded. 64   On Mihailov’s view (1978, 75) that Καλανδίων, father of Αὐρ. Ταταρα in the album of a Dionysiac thiasos from Cillae, could have originated in Asia Minor, “Καλανδίων nous oriente dans une certain sens aussi vers les régions micrasiatiques”, J. and L. Robert (BE 1979, no. 277) observe “ces gens sont nés aux calendes romaines”. Robert 1980, 2 n. 8 commenting on the name Καλανδική accepts that “se rapporte à la fête des calendes romaines introduites dans les pays grecques, comme Καλανδίων… Καλανδαρία”. The editors of the inscriptions discussed above are divided between these two interpretations; the first is adopted by Petzl 2002, 101, the second by Asdracha 1996–97, 342. Corsten (IApameia 54) derives the name from the Roman kalendae and Milner 1991, 30 thinks it is a loan (calque) formed from the Latin cognomen Calendio. 65   See Wissowa in RE s.v. Kalendae. Cf. Plu., Mor. 269 F: οὕτω τῶν ἡμερῶν τὰς μὲν οἷον ἀρχὰς καὶ κυρίας ὥσπερ εἴρηται τρεῖς οὔσας ἑορτασίμους καὶ ἱερὰς ἔθεντο… Καὶ γὰρ οἱ Ἕλληνες ἐν τῇ νουμηνίᾳ τοὺς θεοὺς σεβόμενοι. See also below the passage of the Plutarchean treatise Περὶ τοῦ μὴ δεῖν δανείζεσθαι / De vitando aere alieno. For the sanctity of the names Νουμήνιος etc. and the naming of children, mainly boys, born on the first day of the month see Masson 1997, 68–72 with earlier bibliography.

The Roman Calendar and its Diffusion in the Greco-Roman East

625

In the case of the Kalendae Ianuariae such an association would convey the parents’ wish for a sweet, prosperous and lucky life for their child, just as people wished one another for the New Year in the exchange of sweets and gifts, including cash, or demonstrated in the lighting of lamps, accompanied by the characteristic blessing ‘annum novum faustum felicem tibi’.66 An altogether different sense may apply where names of this type are used for persons of a particular status. For example, a slave (man or woman) working side by side with the managers of a large estate (πραγματευταί / actores) could understandably be called Καλανδάριος or Καλανδαρία, by virtue of his/her employment in the calandarium (the estate’s finance office).67 The choice of the personal name Καλανδίων and its diffusion among the Greek-speaking population of the eastern part of the empire indicates that the term kalendae was familiar to them, although, as we saw, the Roman calendar never became official among them. To some extent this familiarity could have resulted from the attempts to synchronize the local Greek calendars with the Roman. But it could also be due to the occasional contacts Greek-speaking provincials had to have with the Roman provincial administration, for example if they wanted to protect their will by submitting copies to the governor’s archive.68 However, these explanations cannot adequately account for the diffusion of the term kalendae in the East. Some other more significant factor should have brought about its more frequent and regular use, for it to have taken its place in the everyday vocabulary of the provincials, as reflected in the use of the personal name Καλανδίων and related forms. Other avenues of everyday life could have been responsible for its introduction into Greek. The first was the festival of January 1st (Kalendae Ianuariae), attested in Greek and Latin sources from the second century AD onwards in its official form and later in its unofficial, private form. As an official festival for the well-being of the emperor and, by association, the empire, Kalendae Ianuariae is well attested in the East, for example in Pliny’s correspondence with Trajan.69 The earliest evidence known to me for its private form comes in an inscription on the sarcophagus of one P. Aelius Glykon, an inhabitant of Hierapolis in Phrygia, which dates to the late second or early third century AD and informs us that Glykon bequeathed the sum of 150 denaria to a local association of carpet-weavers for the grave-crowning ceremony, and that the revenues from the interest should be distributed, half during the festival of the Kalends on the 8th day of the (local) fourth month and half during the Jewish festival of Pentecost.70 From the fourth century   For this meaning of the unofficial, private festival of Kalendae Ianuariae see Meslin 1970, 36–50 (la fête romaine privée). It makes better sense to connect the name-giving with this aspect of the festival than with the official one. Otherwise giving such a name to a person would be meaningless. 67   For calandaria and their function see Oehler in RE s.v. Kalandarium (καλενδάριον). 68   See e.g. ΙΕph 2121, 4: ἔγραψα τὴν ἐπιστολὴν διὰ δούλου μου Διονυσίου, ᾗ καὶ αὐτὴ ὑπέγραψα ἐπὶ ὑπάτων Φαβίου Κείλωνος τὸ β´ καὶ Ἀν[νίου Λίβωνος, ἔχοντός σου ἐξουσίαν ἀντιγράψαι] ἢ ἀποθέσθαι εἰς ὁποῖα ἂν βουληθῇς ἀρχεῖα καὶ μὴ παρούσης ἐμοῦ; and l. 4: καὶ ἀπετέθη εἰς τὰ ἀρχεῖα πρὸ ι´ Καλ(ανδῶν) Δεκενβρίων Φαβίῳ Κίλ[ωνι τὸ β´ Ἀννίῳ Λίβωνι ὑπάτοις]. 69   See Plin., Ep. x 35–6 and 100. Cf. Sherwin-White 1966, 613. Meslin’s (1970, 33 ff) belief that the festival was transplanted only to North Africa must be mistaken given the passages of Pliny mentioned above and also specific Rabbinic texts concerning Roman Palestine; for the latter see Hadas-Lebel 1979, 427–30 and Graf 2002, 137. 70   See AEp 1994, no. 1660 = IJO II 196, 7–11: Ὁμοίως κατέλιπεν καὶ τῷ συνεδρίῳ τῶν ἀκαιροδαπισῶν στεφανωτικοῦ (δηνάρια) ἑκατὸν πεντήκοντα, ἅτινα καὶ αὐτοὶ δωσουσι ἐκ τοῦ τόκου διαμερίσαντες τὸ ἥμισυ ἐν τῇ ἑορτῇ τῶν καλανδῶν, μη(νὸς) δ΄, καὶ τὸ ἥμισυ ἐν τῇ ἑορτῇ τῆς πεντηκοστῆς. Concerning the identity of the festival Miranda 1999, 141 leaves the problem open; Harland 2006, 231–2 discusses the matter extensively but does not reach a conclusion. Recently Ameling (IJO II, 421) supposes that the Kalends of the inscription should be the official festival, because “die Kalenden in Kleinasien nicht den Jahresanfang markieren”. In my opinion, since 66

626

Pantelis M. Nigdelis

AD onwards literary evidence for the celebration of the private Kalendae Ianuariae in the East increases, mainly due to the severe criticism of its contents by certain Christian fathers.71 The second avenue for its introduction into Greek was through the everyday contacts between Greek and Latin-speaking inhabitants in the eastern part of the Empire, especially in their financial transactions. Thus, Greeks raising loans at interest from a Latin-speaking banker were obliged to adapt their vocabulary to his terminology. A passage from Plutarch’s Περὶ τοῦ μὴ δεῖν δανείζεσθαι (De vitando aere alieno), written after 92 AD, points in this direction.72 In this treatise Plutarch tries to dissuade his Greek readers from contracting sumptuous loans with the argument that anxiety about the coming of the next kalendae / νουμηνία (on account of the creditor’s demands rendered from the holiest to a black-lettered and hateful day), would thereby be avoided.73 The grounds for such anxiety were that kalendae (and, of course, νουμηνία) was the date for the payment of interest on loans.74 For the sake of our argument it is important to note that in the same treatise the identity of the creditors is given a few paragraphs below, where Plutarch explicitly says that they were not only Athenians but also citizens from the Roman colonies of Corinth and Patras.75

References Asdracha, C. (1996–97) ‘Inscriptions chrétiennes et protobyzantines de la Thrace orientale et de l’île d’Imbros (IIIe–VIIe siècles). Présentation et commentaire historique’, Ἀρχαιολογικὸν Δελτίον 51–52, Μελέται, 333–387. Boll, F. (1900) Catalogus codicum astrologorum Graecorum. II, Codices Veneti. Brussels. Cuvigny, M. (1981) Plutarque. Oeuvres morales, XII (1), (Budé). Paris. Feeney, D. C. (2007) Caesar’s Calendar. Ancient Time and the Beginnings of History. Berkeley / London. Graf, F. (1998) ‘Kalendae Ianuariae’, in F. Graf (ed.), Ansichten griechischer Rituale. Geburtstags-Symposium für Walter Burkert. Stuttgart / Leipzig, 199–216. Graf, F. (2002) ‘Pedestals of the Gods’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 141, 137–138. Hadas-Lebel, M. (1979) ‘La paganisme à travers les sources rabbiniques des IIe et IIe siècles. Contribution à l’étude du syncrétisme dans l’empire romain’, Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt II. 19.2. Berlin / New York, 397–485. Harland, P. A. (2006) ‘Acculturation and Identity in the Diaspora: a Jewish family and ‘Pagan’ Guild at Hierapolis’, Journal of Jewish Studies 57, 222–244. Kajanto, I. (1965) The Latin cognomina. Helsinki. Laffi, U. (1967) ‘Le iscrizioni relative all’ introduzione nel 9 a. C. del nuovo calendario della provincia d’Asia’, Studi classici e orientali 16, 5-98. the private form of the festival includes the cult of the Lares we are entitled to combine with it the aforementioned grave-crowning ceremony (and the feast that allegedly followed it). 71   See Meslin 1970, 96 ff and Graf 1998, 199 ff. 72   For this treatise see Russell 1973, 163–71, Cuvigny 1981, 1–10 and Marenghi 1996. For the date see Russell 1973, 169, followed by Cuvigny 1981, 8 and Marenghi 1996, 16-19. 73   Plu., Mor. 828 A: οὐδ’ ἀναμνήσει τῶν καλανδῶν καὶ τῆς νουμηνίας, ἣν ἱερωτάτην ἡμερῶν οὖσαν ἀποφράδα ποιοῦσιν οἱ δανεισταὶ καὶ στύγιον. 74   See Cuvigny 1981, 190 (notes complémentaires). 75   Plu., Mor. 831 A: τοκιστὴς ἢ πραγματευτὴς Κορίνθιος, εἶτα Πατρεὺς εἶτ’ Ἀθηναῖος. According to Russell 1973, 169 the speech was read in Chaironeia or another small city. Cuvigny 1981, 4–5 is inclined to accept the view that it was read in Athens. For the two colonies (Corinth and Patrai) and their place in the economic life of Greece see Marenghi 1996, 161.

The Roman Calendar and its Diffusion in the Greco-Roman East

627

Marenghi, G. (1996) No all’usura. Introduzione, testo critico, traduzione e commento, (Corpus Plutarchi moralium, 23). Naples. Masson, O. (1997) ‘Nouvelles notes d’anthroponymie grecque’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 119, 57–75 (= OGS III, 264–282). Meslin, M. (1970) La fête des kalendes de janvier dans l’empire romain. Étude d’un rituel de Nouvel An. Brussels. Mihailov, G. (1978) ‘Population et onomastique d’Asie Mineure en Thrace’, in A. Fol (ed.), Pulpudeva 2, 68–80. Milner, N. P. (1991) ‘Victors in the Meleagria and the Balbouran élite’, Anatolian Studies 41, 23–62. Miranda, E. (1999) ‘La comunità giudaica di Hierapolis di Frigia’, Epigraphica Anatolica 31, 109–156. Μitsos, M. Th. (1973) ‘Ἀπὸ τοὺς καταλόγους Ἀθηναίων ἐφήβων (VII)’, Ἀρχαιολογικὴ Ἐφημερίς, 87–92. Nigdelis, P. (1996) ‘Invitatio ad munera venationum et gladiarorum? (Notes on the Inscription SEG 39, 638 from Thessaloniki)’, Τεκμήρια 2, 59-63. Nigdelis, P. (2006) Ἐπιγραφικὰ Θεσσαλονίκεια. Συμβολὴ στὴν πολιτικὴ καὶ κοινωνικὴ ἱστορία τῆς ἀρχαίας Θεσσαλονίκης. Thessaloniki. Nigdelis, P. and Stephani, L. (2000) ‘Νέα ἐπιτύμβια μνημεῖα μονομάχων ἀπὸ τὴ Βέροια’, Τεκμήρια 5, 87– 107. Peek, W. (1977) ‘Kretische Versinchriften II’, Archeologia Classica 29, 64–85. Petersen, E. and von Luschan, F. (1889) Reisen im südwestlichen Kleinasien. II, Reisen in Lykien, Milyas und Kibyratien. Vienna. Petzl, G. (2002) ‘Neue Inschriften aus Lydien IV’, Epigraphica Anatolica 34, 93–102. Petzl, G. and Łajtar, A. (2003) ‘Eine lydische Familie aus der zweiten Hälfte des 3. Jahrhunderts n. Chr.’, Epigraphica Anatolica 36, 45–50. Robert, L. (1940) Les gladiateurs dans l’Orient grec. Paris (repr. Amsterdam, 1971). Robert, L. (1980) ‘Deux poètes grecs à l’époque impériale’, in Στήλη. Τόμος εἰς μνήμην Νικολάου Κοντολέοντος. Athens, 1–20 (= OMS VII, 569–588). Robert, L. (1982) ‘Deux épigrammes de Philippe de Thessalonique’, Journal des Savants, 139–162 (= OMS VII, 507–530). Roueché, C. (1993) Performers and partisans at Aphrodisias. London. Russell, D. A. F. M. (1973) ‘Remarks on Plutarch’s De vitando aere alieno’, Journal of Hellenic Studies 93, 163–171. Sabbatini-Tumolesi, P. (1988) Epigrafia anfiteatrale dell’Occidente romano. I, Roma. Rome. Samuel, A. E. (1972) Greek and Roman chronology. Calendars and years in classical antiquity. Munich. Sayar, M. H. (1983) ‘Ein Gladiatorenmonument aus Bizye (Vize) in Thrakien’, Epigraphica Anatolica 2, 144–146. Sherwin-White, A. N. (1966) The Letters of Pliny. A Historical and Social Commentary. Oxford. Solin, H. (2001) ‘Analecta Epigraphica’, Arctos 35, 189–241. Solin, H. (2004) ‘Analecta Epigraphica’, Arctos 38, 163–205. Solin, H. (2005) ‘Analecta Epigraphica’, Arctos 39, 159–198. Solin, H. and Salomies, O. (1988) Repertorium nominum gentilium et cognominum Latinorum. Hildesheim / Zurich / New York. Tataki, A. B. (1988) Ancient Beroea. Prosopography and Society. Athens. Ville, G. (1981) La gladiature en Occident des origines à la mort de Domitien. Rome. Wilson, P. R. (1992) A corpus of ephebic inscriptions from Roman Athens: 31 B.C.–267 A.D. Diss. Monash University.

ΗΡΟΠΥΘΟΣ Une pousse printanière pour Elaine Matthews ? Jacques Oulhen

Cet article est une enquête à propos des noms composés en -πυθος. Mettant en doute un composé théophore en rapport avec l’épiclèse apollinienne, l’auteur discute un éventuel rapprochement avec les noms à second élément en ‑φυτος, notamment le nom Ἡρόφυτος, et au terme d’une enquête minutieuse montre que l’on ne peut pas identifier de série d’authentiques composés en -φυτος. L’auteur propose de voir dans le composé Ἡρόφυτος non pas un composé théophore en Ἡρο‑, issu de Ἥρα, comme l’a suggéré Bechtel, mais de reconnaître dans le premier élément la contraction de ἐαρο‑, forme que prend normalement le nom ἔαρ ‘printemps’ en composition et d’analyser Ἠρόφυτος comme un sobriquet tiré d’un adjectif composé *ἐαρόφυτος (*ἠρόφυτος) ‘poussé au printemps’. This article examines compound names in -πυθος. Rather than theophoric names related to the epithet of Apollo, the author discusses a possible link with compounds in ‑φυτος, notably the name Ἡρόφυτος. Detailed study shows that true compounds in -φυτος do not exist. It is proposed to see in Ἡρόφυτος, instead of a theophoric compound in Ἡρο‑, from the goddess Ἥρα, as Bechtel suggested, a contraction of ἐαρο‑, the usual form of ἔαρ ‘spring’ in a compound, and to understand Ἠρόφυτος as a nickname from the compound adjective *ἐαρόφυτος (*ἠρόφυτος) ‘sprouting in the spring’. Le LGPN, dont Elaine Matthews fut, durant des années, la généreuse animatrice, permet, en facilitant l’accès à une documentation naguère éparse, d’étudier à nouveaux frais l’interprétation historique et philologique de maintes questions anthroponymiques. Je me suis, pour ma part, engagé dans une révision du Die historischen Personennamen des Griechischen bis zur Kaiserzeit de F. Bechtel. Si le vénérable ouvrage demeure, en effet, le fondement de toute étude onomastique, l’augmentation considérable de la documentation épigraphique et l’accumulation des corrections le rendent en partie obsolète. C’est à l’occasion de ce travail en cours que j’ai été amené à reprendre l’examen de quelques noms théophores composés, dont je présente ici le résultat pour honorer, modestement, celle sans qui tout cela ne serait aujourd’hui possible. 

  Je n’oublie pas le regretté P. M. Fraser.

ΗΡΟΠΥΘΟΣ

629

Depuis le mémoire fondateur de Letronne, les noms théophores ont été examinés à maintes reprises. R. Parker a, dans un article récent, repris le dossier du point de vue de l’historien de la religion grecque. Mais les noms théophores composés constituent aussi un banc d’essai privilégié pour aborder quelques questions importantes d’histoire anthroponymique. Qu’est-ce à dire ? De façon plus manifeste que d’autres éléments du lexique, les anthroponymes sont soumis aux pressions que lui font subir les stratégies sociales de distinction et de reproduction, dont ils sont l’un des instruments. Aussi est-il tentant d’interpréter les variations morphologiques et sémantiques qu’ils présentent comme le résultat des différents usages sociaux, dont ils sont solidaires. L’approche philologique se voudrait donc ici un outil de l’historien. Il demeure, toutefois, que ces variations s’inscrivent majoritairement dans une norme anthroponymique : tous les noms composés possibles n’existent pas et les noms composés irrationnels sont, au final, plus rares qu’on ne l’imaginerait. Aussi avant d’interpréter des composés rares d’apparence agrammaticale comme le produit des aléas de la transmission du nom – ou, pour le dire de façon schématique, comme l’expression de la priorité accordée aux intérêts sociaux sur la norme linguistique –, vautil la peine d’examiner préalablement s’ils ne peuvent relever d’une explication grammaticale. Tel est l’esprit de l’enquête que nous avons menée à propos des noms composés en ‑πυθος. Commençons par un point de grammaire. Les noms composés théophores possèdent cette particularité morphologique, que l’élément de composition théophore qu’ils comportent est toujours le premier membre du composé. Toujours ? Presque toujours, en vérité, puisqu’un petit nombre d’entre eux semble contrevenir à cet usage. Deux catégories sont clairement identifiables. La première catégorie, la plus ancienne, correspond aux noms comportant un second membre issu du nom d’un dieu-fleuve. Cette catégorie, presque exclusivement ionienne, regroupe deux types de composés : des dvandvas, dans lesquels le second membre du composé est toujours issu du nom d’un dieu-fleuve, et le premier du nom d’une divinité majeure ou du nom d’un dieufleuve10 ; et, d’autre part, des composés de type divers dans lesquels le second élément est issu du nom d’un dieu-fleuve11. La seconde catégorie, plus récente, correspond à des dvandvas, dont   Letronne 1851.   Parker 2000.    Privilégié, car l’absence de polysémie de l’élément théophore rend d’autant plus visible le caractère éventuellement irrationnel de certains composés. Sur cette notion, cf. Morpurgo-Davies 2000, 18, avec les renvois bibliographiques.    Sur ce point, cf. Bromberger 1982 ; Alford 1987 ; Bodenhorn–Vom Bruck 2006.    Dans une perspective plus linguistique et sur des objets différents, voir les remarques de Encrevé 1977 ; Laks 1983, 73–5 ; Brixhe 1996, 7–24. Ma perspective n’est donc pas tout à fait celle de “l’histoire par les noms” appelée de ses vœux par Robert 1962–63, mais vise plutôt à une histoire par le système onomastique.    Je me permets de renvoyer à Oulhen 2009, où cette hypothèse relative aux noms en -πυθος a d’ailleurs été brièvement résumée p. 119–20.    Cela n’est en effet valable que pour l’élément théophore spécifique issu du nom d’une divinité particulière (Ἀθηνο-, Ἀπολλο-, Διο-, etc.) et non pour l’élément générique issu de θεός que l’on trouve comme premier (Θεο-) et second membre de composé (‑θεος).    Ces noms ont été à nouveau examinés par Thonemann 2006 et Oulhen 2009. 10   C’est le type Διονύσερμος ou Νειλόμανδρος, si l’on admet l’analyse de Thonemann 2006 selon laquelle le second élément -μανδρος est issu du nom du dieu-fleuve Μαίανδρος. 11   Cette catégorie comprend des composés à rection verbale, du type Ἀρασίμανδρος (cf. Bechtel, HPN 63), et des composés d’analyse plus délicate : Ἀγλώμανδρος, Μεγίστερμος, Πολύερμος. Concernant Μεγίστερμος (IPerg 245), il faut peut-être reconnaître dans le premier membre le nom du fleuve mysien Μέγιστος (cf. Oulhen 2009, 117 n. 20).  

630

Jacques Oulhen

le premier ou le second élément est issu du nom d’un dieu égyptien12. Spécialement attestés, aux époques hellénistique et impériale, en Égypte – d’où ils se sont diffusés –, ces anthroponymes constituent une catégorie particulière, qui ne m’intéresse pas ici13. Certains noms isolés, qui n’appartiennent à aucune des deux catégories présentées ci-dessus, semblent toutefois constituer une exception. Quelques uns d’entre eux peuvent sans difficulté être éliminés14, mais une petite série résiste et fait problème à mes yeux. On connaît, en effet, quelques noms à second élément ‑πυθος : Δημόπυθος actuellement attesté à deux exemplaires15, Ἡρόπυθος dont on connaît une dizaine d’occurrences dans les régions ioniennes et à Kos16, Μητρόπυθος, enfin, hapax attesté à Périnthe, colonie samienne17. Or, il semble à première vue difficile de ne pas reconnaître dans ce second membre de composé l’élément théophore ‑πυθος en rapport avec l’épiclèse apollinienne. C’est, d’ailleurs, ainsi que Bechtel proposait d’interpréter ces trois anthroponymes18. L’interprétation est d’autant plus tentante que deux d’entre eux, Ἡρόπυθος 12   C’est le type Σεραπάμμων, Φοιβάμμων ou Σεραπόλλων. Le nom Ζηνίβενδις attesté à Érétrie est, quant à lui, absolument isolé, son origine, éventuellement thrace, est discutée, cf. Masson 1988a, qui plaide pour une interprétation grecque (dvandva) en rapprochant le premier élément du nom Ζηνιφάνης. 13   Cf. Hoepfner 1946 ; Dunant 1963 ; Swinnen 1968. 14   C’est le cas du nom Μενάρης dont le second élément est issu du terme ἀρή ‘bataille’ (cf. Bechtel, HPN 69) ; et je laisse évidemment de côté les cas où l’élément -άρης est formé sur le radical verbal des verbes ἀραρίσκω (e.g. Διάρης) ou ἀρέσκω (cf. Θεάρης, et implicitement pour l’interprétation Bechtel, HPN 194). L’hapax Φαινέστιος est plus problématique : attesté par Antiphane cité par Athénée (PCG II fr. 278 = Ath. i 26), cet anthroponyme est porté par un pédotribe athénien, dont Juba (FGrHist 275 F 80) fait l’inventeur du jeu de balle φαινίνδα. Les autres noms en -έστιος sont des sobriquets issus d’adjectifs composés dont le second élément est formé sur le terme ἑστία ‘foyer, banquet’ : Ἀνθέστιος (en relation avec le verbe ἀνθεστιάω), Ἐφέστιος (< ἐφέστιος ‘de la maison’) ; ou sur le terme ἐστώ : Εὐέστιος (< εὐέστιος ‘prospère’) si ce nom doit être distingué du Εὐίστιος attesté à Kopai (cf. LGPN IIIB). Le nom Φαινέστιος s’intègre mal dans ce cadre, mais il n’est pas question, en tout cas, de renvoyer à Ἑστία. Je reste perplexe : un hypocoristique sur un *Φαινέ-στ(ρατος) serait sans parallèles. Faut-il songer à une erreur de transmission manuscrite dans ce vers – dont la scansion fait d’ailleurs problème (cf. PCG ad loc.) –, peut-être motivée par la proximité du terme φαινίνδα (?), pour un Ἡφαίστιος, un Φαίστιος, voire un Ἐφέστιος ? Voir également infra, p. 642, pour les noms Κράτερμος et Κλευμάτρα (?). 15   Le premier exemple, daté du IVe s., est attesté à Athènes (cf. LGPN II), le second, daté du IVe/IIIe s., à Erythrées (IEK 22 B, 114, cf. LGPN VA). 16   Deux attestations à Erythrées (IEK 22, 128, IIIe s. ? ; IEK 381, 2, IIe s. ?) ; une à Colophon pour un historien de la fin du Ve s. (?) (cf. FGrHist 448 F 1) ; deux à Chios datées du Ve s. (cf. LGPN 1) ; deux à Éphèse au IVe s., l’une connue par Arrien (Arr., An. i 17, cf. infra), l’autre par une monnaie du IVe s. (cf. LGPN VA) ; deux à Magnésie au IIe s. (IMM 105, 4 et 6) ; une attestation à Potidée au IIIe s. (?) (cf. LGPN IV) dans une inscription funéraire (cf. Tod 1922, 181–3) ; une à Abdère, colonie de Teos, (cf. LGPN IV) ; trois enfin à Kos à l’époque hellénistique (cf. LGPN I et infra). Notons enfin que ce nom est attribué de façon erronée à l’archonte éponyme des décrets athéniens apocryphes insérés dans le Discours sur la couronne de Démosthène, 164–5 (cf. Wankel 1976, comm. ad loc.). 17   Cf. LGPN IV. La liste de noms dans laquelle cet anthroponyme est attesté est connue par une copie de Cyriaque d’Ancône, et n’est pas exempte d’erreurs de lecture. Mais ces fautes consistent exclusivement en l’oubli d’une ou deux lettres ou la confusion d’une lettre pour une autre de forme voisine (par ex. l. 12 : ΝΑΞΙΒΙΟΣ pour ναξίβιος, l. 23 : ΠΥΤΟΓΕΩ pour Πυγ̣όρ̣εω) ; dans ces conditions, je ne vois pas comment corriger le nom Μητρόπυθος à moins de supposer un autre hapax *μητρόπυθος tout aussi problématique. 18   Bechtel, HPN 192, 318, 390. Concernant Ἡρόπυθος et Μητρόπυθος, une autre hypothèse, qui consisterait à retrouver derrière l’élément -πυθος le nom d’un cours d’eau méconnu et à classer ces noms dans la première catégorie de noms décrite ci-dessus, est envisageable et serait assurément la plus économique. Mais, si Agathias le Scholiaste mentionne bien à Myrina, dont il était originaire, une rivière Πύθικος, il est le seul à nous en livrer le nom et rien ne prouve qu’il s’agisse bien d’un nom antique (cf. Tischler 1977, 123 : “Fluss in Lydien [Agathias Hist.p.9.5] bei Myrina, also entweder ein spätantiker Name des Kaïkos [so K. Ziegler, RE XXIV 550] oder des Titanus/Titnaios [so J. Keil, RE IV A 1481 sub Tisna], d.h. der heutige Bakir Cay oder der Koca Cay [Nr. 1] ”).

ΗΡΟΠΥΘΟΣ

631

et Μητρόπυθος, constitueraient des dvandvas théophores proches des catégories évoquées cidessus. Faut-il donc considérer que ces noms constituent une exception morphologique due aux aléas de la transmission anthroponymique et / ou à l’analogie des dvandvas, et admettre que les ‘normes’ de la composition sont un facteur subalterne dans la formation des anthroponymes composés, ou faut-il en revoir l’interprétation ? Les données relatives à un personnage historique permettent peut-être de résoudre la difficulté. Arrien raconte qu’en 334, une fois la démocratie rétablie par Alexandre, les éphésiens, “libérés de la peur que leur inspiraient les oligarques, se précipitèrent pour mettre à mort ceux qui avaient cherché l’intervention de Memnon, ceux qui avaient pillé le sanctuaire d’Artémis, et ceux qui avaient abattu la statue de Philippe placée dans le sanctuaire et fouillé pour expulser de l’agora le tombeau d’Hèroputhos, le libérateur de la cité”19. Or cet Hèropythos, héros de la démocratie, a été généralement identifié avec un Éphésien mentionné à une autre occasion par Polyen20. Dans son chapitre consacré à Mausole, Polyen rapporte, en effet, que Mausole, désireux de s’emparer de Latmos, se concilia par ses concessions les Latmiens, puis “au moment de partir pour Pygela, leur demanda une garde de trois cents hommes, parce qu’il craignait l’Éphésien Hèrophytos”. Que penser de cette variation onomastique ? A-t-on affaire à deux individus quasi homonymes distincts, auquel cas toute spéculation est vaine ? Au même individu et, dans ce cas, quel est son nom véritable ? Et la différence de dénomination s’explique-t-elle par un défaut de la tradition manuscrite ou par un flottement révélateur de la forme authentique du nom ? Une réponse absolument certaine à ces questions est au fond impossible21. Le contexte des deux épisodes historiques rapportés par Polyen et Arrien est, en effet, suffisamment différent pour que l’identification soit, au mieux, très vraisemblable. Quant à l’aspect philologique de la question, les textes nous livrent trop de noms mal transmis pour que l’éventualité d’une erreur puisse être définitivement éliminée22. Reste donc l’aspect anthroponymique de la question… Puisque les noms composés à second élément théophore constituent précisément, à nos yeux, la difficulté dont il faut rendre compte, examinons si des noms à second élément en ‑φυτος sont davantage acceptables… Indépendamment du passage de Polyen mentionné ci-dessus, un anthroponyme en ‑φυτος est effectivement attesté : Plutarque, d’après Ion de Chios, mentionne dans la Vie de Cimon un Samien dénommé Ἡρόφυτος23. Le nom est connu de Bechtel qui l’analyse comme un composé théophore en Ἡρο‑, issu de Ἥρα, et retrouve sans surprise dans le On peut, certes, imaginer les modalités selon lesquelles un fleuve originellement dénommé *Πύθος aurait reçu le nom Πύθικος, mais cela reste imaginaire. 19   Arr., An. i 17. 20   Polyen. vii 23 (Wölfflin-Melber) ; la leçon Ἡρόφυτον est toutefois une correction de Roth pour le Προφυτόν fourni par le Codex Florentinus (F), dont provient tout le reste de la tradition. 21   L’identification est toutefois admise par tous les spécialistes : cf. Hornblower 1982, 112 et note 46 (avec la bibliographie) ; Gehrke 1985, 59–60 ; Debord 1999, 388 n. 140. 22   Cf. e.g. Knoepfler 2005a, 2005b. 23   Plu., Cim. 9.1 (= Ion de Chios FGrHist 392 F 13). On ne saurait, en toute rigueur, exclure que cette occurrence soit, elle-même, une erreur de la tradition manuscrite de Plutarque, ou de sa source, pour Ἡρόπυθος. On connaît, en effet, chez Plutarque quelques anthroponymes aberrants. Ainsi dans la Vie d’Aratos, 41, Plutarque mentionne un Τρίπυλος (enregistré par Bechtel, HPN 557, avec un classement peu convaincant, cf. infra note 55), que les éditeurs ont généralement identifié au Τριτύμαλλος mentionné lors du même épisode par Plu., Cleom. 19. Mais l’un et l’autre hapax me paraissent peu vraisemblables, et, sans me prononcer sur l’identification (vraisemblable) et le nom qui doit être finalement conservé, je corrigerait volontiers l’un en Τρίτυλλος et l’autre en Τιθύμαλλος, sobriquet tiré du nom de la plante homonyme, attesté à Athènes (cf. LGPN II). Mais le nom Ἡρόφυτος est, lui, susceptible de recevoir une explication cohérente.

632

Jacques Oulhen

second élément l’adjectif verbal φυτός du verbe φύω24. Bechtel adjoint à ce petit groupe un autre composé Πρόσφυτος, et l’anthroponyme Φύτων qu’il interprète comme un hypocoristique. Mais quelques noms découverts depuis peuvent être joints à ce petit groupe qui doit être revu 25. – Le LGPN II enregistre un Ζω[φυ]τίδης (IIIe s.), qui doit être interprété comme le dérivé d’un sobriquet *Ζώφυτος, issu de l’adjectif composé ζώφυτος ‘fertile’. Rien là d’impossible ; mais ainsi restitué, ce nom est un hapax, qui, comme tous ses semblables, inspire a priori la méfiance. Sans avoir vu la pierre, je suggèrerais volontiers, avec une menue correction du Z en Σ, une autre restitution : Σ̣ω[κρα]τίδης. – Le nom rare Καλλίφυτος est enregistré dans le LGPN IIIA pour un exemplaire sicilien d’époque impériale transcrit sous la forme latine Calliphytus ; il est également connu en Égypte à la même époque26. La forme féminine est, en revanche, attestée à Érétrie dès le IIIe s.27. Ce nom, que Bechtel n’a pas enregistré, doit être interprété comme un sobriquet sur l’adjectif composé poétique καλλίφυτος28. Le nom Καλλιφυτίων, attesté à Dion, à l’époque impériale, confirme l’interprétation comme sobriquet29. – L’hapax Κλεόφυτος enregistré par LGPN IIIB est une forme restituée Κλ[εόφ]υτος30. Or, en l’absence de parallèles, et compte tenu du fait qu’il s’agirait ici du seul authentique anthroponyme composé en -φυτος, cette restitution me semble douteuse31. Si le upsilon a été bien lu, peutêtre faut-il retrouver une autre occurrence de Κα̣[λλίφ]υτος ? La lecture doit être vérifiée32. – Νεόφυτος est quant à lui bien attesté33. Il s’agit d’un sobriquet formé sur l’adjectif νεόφυτος ‘nouvellement planté’34. Mais le nom est attesté tardivement, et certaines des occurrences sont certainement motivées par l’usage du composé νεόφυτος en milieu chrétien, où il désigne le nouveau converti35.   Ce second élément peut aussi bien être formé sur la forme substantivée φυτόν, sur ce terme, cf. Perpillou 2004, 29–31. 25   Le nom Σαφύτας attesté à Tanagra (cf. LGPN IIIB) ne fait évidemment pas partie de cette série, mais doit être rapproché du Σαβύττας attesté en Thessalie (cf. LGPN IIIB), sur lequel cf. Masson 1979, 245. 26   Baillet, Syringes 890, 2. 27   IG XII (9) 387 : [Κ]αλλιφύτη (cf. LGPN I). 28   L’adjectif qualifie les saisons : ὥραις καλλιφύτοις dans le fr. 183 des Fragmenta Orphica (Kern) ; les fruits des ceps ou la vigne chez Nonnos, D. xlvii 38 et 197. 29   Cf. LGPN IV s.v. 30   IG IX (2) 517, 83. 31   Sur cette notion d’authentique composé anthroponymique, cf. Masson 1995–96. De fait, Κλ[εόφ]υτος (?) laisse supposer un composé *Φυτοκλῆς, dont il serait, par un phénomène propre à l’anthroponymie, la forme renversée. 32   Mais on pourrait aussi, en supposant une erreur de lecture minime – Y pour N – songer à un Κλ[εόφα]ντος (?). 33   Une attestation d’époque impériale (sans précision) à Amathonte de Chypre (cf. LGPN I) ; une attestation datée du Ve/VIe s. ap. J. C., à Némée (cf. LGPN IIIA) ; deux attestations du IVe s. ap. J. C. en Thrace (cf. LGPN IV), auquel on peut ajouter, sans prétention d’exhaustivité : IStratonikeia 1255 (non daté), ibid. 1038, 21 (Ier s.), dont la restitution n’est pas assurée ; MAMA VII 386 (imp.) ; IG XIV 2409.1 (imp.) ; Solin, GPR 1017 enregistre s.v. Neophytus au moins cinq occurrences datées du Ier au IIIe/IVe s. ap. J. C., et deux occurrences de Neophyta (IIIe/IVe s. ap. J. C.). 34   Cf. LSJ. Solin, GPR 1017, classe le nom parmi les sobriquets motivés par les Geburtsumstände. 35   Cf. Solin, GPR, qui enregistre plusieurs occurrences publiées dans les ICUR. Je me contente de renvoyer ici au Patristic Greek Lexicon de Lampe, s.v. νεόφυτος, et remercie chaleureusement ma collègue L. Foschia (Collegium Lyon/ENS) qui prépare une étude sur les noms chrétiens d’avoir généreusement répondu à mes questions à propos de ce terme. 24

ΗΡΟΠΥΘΟΣ

633

– Πρόσφυτος est un hapax attesté à Halicarnasse36. Classé par Bechtel parmi les composés37, ce nom doit plutôt être analysé comme un sobriquet directement formé sur l’adjectif verbal du verbe composé προσφύω ‘pousser en plus, pousser en s’appuyant sur’, voire, au sens figuré ‘confirmer’38. – Le LGPN IIIB enregistre enfin un curieux Φυτόλλων, qu’il est a priori tentant de rapprocher de ce dossier39. Buck, en commentant la langue de l’inscription, avait effectivement proposé d’y voir “a new and unusual type of hypocoristic from names in -λαος, cf. Ἕρμολλος, Κρίνολλος, and Boeot. Τιμόλλει, Τιμολλώ”40. L’hypothèse est séduisante, toutefois aucun *Φυτόλαος n’est, à ce jour, attesté, et, surtout, la consultation électronique du LGPN montre que les composés en ‑λαος n’ont pas donné lieu à la formation d’hypocoristiques exactement comparables à ce Φυτόλλων qui reste ainsi doublement isolé. Ce nom est donc douteux, et l’inscription doit être relue, ce que permet l’excellente photographie d’estampage publiée par l’éditeur princeps. Le texte est le suivant (l. 3–5) : πολεμαρχιόντων Καλλιφάνι|ος Βίττα, Φυτόλλωνος Μνάσην|ος ... Or, une révision attentive montre que le phi de *Φυτόλλων, dépourvu de haste verticale, est un omicron : les deux lettres ‑ΟΥ constituent la désinence d’un génitif thématique41. La séquence *Βιττάου est certes impossible, mais il y a place pour une lettre entre le alpha et le omicron (Βιττά[.]ου), et il me semble distinguer le bas d’une haste oblique droite, qui pourrait appartenir à un lambda, ou plutôt – en raison de l’inclinaison de la haste – à un khi ou un kappa. On connaît un nom Βίτταλος qui pourrait convenir42, toutefois, en regardant mieux ce bèta initial, je ne distingue absolument pas la haste ronde inférieure, et il faut plutôt lire là un phi43. On aurait donc, ici, au génitif patronymique, un Φ̣ίτταλ̣ος (?) ou un Φ̣ίττακ̣ος (?), l’un et l’autre attestés44. Que faire du reste ? Un nom *Τόλλων n’est pas absolument impossible, si on songe au Τόλλος eubéen, d’explication difficile45. Mais la photo montre qu’il y a place pour une petite lettre dans la cassure située entre la haste gauche du second lambda et le omega, et il me semble voir, le long de la cassure, la haste intérieure droite d’un mu. C’est donc une nouvelle occurrence du nom Τόλμων que je propose, avec prudence, de retrouver ici46. On éditera donc : πολεμαρχιόντων Καλλιφάνι|ος Φ̣ιττάκου (?), Τόλμ̣ωνος Μνάσην|ος. Quoi qu’il en soit, *Φυτολλων doit assurément disparaître du LGPN…   Judeich 1890, 252, no. 2, non daté (cf. LGPN VB, à paraître).   Bechtel, HPN 460. 38   Cf. LSJ. Les raisons à l’origine d’un tel sobriquet sont évidemment difficiles à déterminer, s’agit-il de désigner ‘l’enfant né en plus’, ou de décrire le trait de caractère de celui ‘qui sait pousser en s’adaptant’ (cf. l’adjectif προσφύης) ? 39   Le nom est attesté dans une inscription d’Halai de Locride orientale publiée dans Goldmann 1915, 446 no. 3, 4. 40   Buck 1916. 41   Le nom Βίττας, a priori viable, doit donc sans doute disparaître : le LGPN IV enregistre, en effet, avec prudence, un autre exemplaire possible de Βίτ[τα]ς, mais la restitution ne s’impose pas. Pour ces noms en Βιττ- cf. Robert, Noms indigènes 235–7. 42   Un exemplaire recensé par LGPN IV pour un homme de Panticapée au IIIe/IIe s. 43   Cf. l. 1 de l’inscription, le phi de Φίλωνο[ς]. 44   Pour Φίτταλλος deux exemplaires abdéritains datés du Ve s. sont enregistrés par le LGPN IV, mais d’autres occurrences, recensées par Masson 1984, 56, sont connues en Ionie ; un Φίττακος de Chios est enregistré par le LGPN I. O. Masson a examiné ces sobriquets et suggéré que ces noms en Φιττ- constituait la variante ionienne des noms en Πιττ-. La lecture de l’inscription locrienne proposée ici, si elle est exacte, ne confirmerait pas cette hypothèse. 45   LGPN I enregistre quatre exemplaires de ce nom à Érétrie, mais le no. 3 a été corrigé en Γολλος, d’interprétation également difficile, cf. SEG XXXVI 800. À propos de Τόλλος, cf. Bechtel 1913, 362. 46   Ce nom, rare, est déjà attesté dans la Béotie voisine, à Chéronée au IIe s., cf. LGPN IIIB. 36

37

634

Jacques Oulhen

On ne peut donc identifier une série d’authentiques composés en -φυτος. Φύτων, que Bechtel analysait comme un hypocoristique, et les quelques anthroponymes susceptibles d’intégrer cette petite famille de noms apparus depuis doivent, donc, être interprétés comme des sobriquets47. – Φύτων attesté dans plusieurs régions est un dérivé formé sur l’adjectif substantivé φυτόν ‘pousse, rejeton’48. Le genre neutre du substantif de base explique qu’il ne se rencontre pas tel quel comme nom d’homme. Un exemplaire féminin de Φύτον est en revanche attesté à Athènes (IIe s.)49. Trois autres noms pourraient être éventuellement rattachés à ce groupe50 : – LGPN II enregistre au moins un exemplaire sûr du nom Φυταῖος daté du IVe s51. Bechtel classait ce nom parmi les anthroponymes tirés d’ethniques en le rapprochant d’une notice d’Étienne de Byzance mentionnant la cité étolienne Φύταιον52. Mais plusieurs arguments contredisent cette interprétation : l’ethnique de cette cité n’est attesté épigraphiquement que sous la forme Φυταιεύς53, l’existence même de la cité à l’époque classique est douteuse54, enfin l’interprétation des deux autres noms réunis par Bechtel dans cette petite série ne convainc pas55. Il est inutile de songer à l’ethnique d’une autre cité, car l’existence des *Φύταιοι, dont une monnaie nous garantirait l’existence, me semble douteuse56. Selon le premier éditeur de cette monnaie, en effet, la légende Φυταίο̄ν doit sans doute être restituée : [Ἀ]φυταίο̄ν et attribuée à Aphytis57. Que faire dans ces conditions de notre Φυταῖος ? L’Athénien, dont nous examinons ici le nom, est fils d’Οἰνόβιος. Or, le parallèle mythologique de Phytios, fils d’Oineus (cf. infra), suggère de reconnaître un lien sémantique entre les noms du père et du fils. On imaginerait donc volontiers   Bechtel, HPN 460.   Un exemplaire crétois d’époque hellénistique (cf. LGPN I (1)) ; trois exemplaires eubéens hellénistiques (cf. LGPN I (2), (3), (4)) ; un exemplaire à Athènes au Ve s. avec la graphie Φύτο̄ν (cf. LGPN II) ; un exemplaire attesté pour le stratège de Rhegion mentionné par D.S. xiv 112, cf. LGPN IIIA ; un exemplaire d’époque hellénistique dans la cité de l’Oita Homilai (cf. LGPN IIIB). 49   Cf. LGPN II. Pour quelques noms d’homme neutres, voir toutefois Masson 1997, 62–6. 50   Je laisse de côté deux noms qui ne sont, à ma connaissance, pas attestés pour des personnes historiques : l’hapax Φυτεύς qui, selon Istros (FGrHist 334 F 40), cité par Étienne de Byzance, s.v. Φύτειον, était l’éponyme de la cité éléenne (sic) de Phyteion, et d’autre part l’hapax Φυτώ, nom supposé de la sibylle samienne, cf. RE s.v. Phyto. 51   Il s’agit de l’exemplaire no. 1 (= IG II2 2385, 81) ; l’exemplaire no. 2 (= IG II2 2461, 125) daté du Ier s. est restitué : [Φυ]ταῖος, mais d’autres restitutions sont également envisageables : [Ἀν]ταῖος ou [Ἀκ]ταῖος. 52   Bechtel, HPN 557. À propos de cette cité étolienne, cf. Hansen–Nielsen, IACP 388. 53   L’ethnique Φυρταῖος attesté dans un affranchissement delphique, SGDI 1949, 16, est attribué à Φύταιον par pure conjecture. 54   Je constate en tout cas que Φύταιον ne figure pas au nombre des cités étoliennes d’époque classique enregistrées dans Hansen–Nielsen, IACP. 55   Il s’agit du douteux Τρίπυλος (cf. supra, n. 23), que Bechtel rapprochait de manière peu convaincante d’un lieu-dit, proche d’Halicarnasse, mentionné par Arrien ; et d’autre part de Ματάλη, attesté à Thera (cf. LGPN I), que Bechtel rapprochait du nom de la cité crétoise Μάταλον, cf. Masson 1985, 198–9. Mais il me semble que le nom Ματαλίνη donné par Herondas (i 50) à l’un de ces personnages (cf. LGPN I) incite davantage à rapprocher Ματάλη du groupe des noms en Ματ‑ étudié par Robert, Noms indigènes 338–51. 56   M. H. Hansen (Hansen–Nielsen, IACP 1250) a, dans la page consacrée aux unlocated poleis, consacré à ces Phutaioi une brève notice (no. 1035). Elle doit, je crois, disparaître. 57   Hirsch 1884, spécialement p. 36–7 ; ces indications ont curieusement disparu du manuel de Head, HN2 252. Je remercie chaleureusement ma collègue et amie Anne-Laure Brisac (INHA) grâce à laquelle j’ai commodément obtenu les photocopies de cet article rare. 47 48

ΗΡΟΠΥΘΟΣ

635

derrière le nom un adjectif *φυταῖος formé sur φυτόν, qui désigne fréquemment la vigne58. Cet adjectif n’est pas attesté, on ne peut donc exclure de reconnaître dans ce Φυταῖος un nom parlant directement formé à l’intérieur du système anthroponymique sur le substantif φυτόν59. – Φύτιος est quant à lui attesté à plusieurs exemplaires60. Bechtel, rapprochant cet anthroponyme de la glose d’Hesychius : Φύτιος· Ἥλιος, ἢ Ζεύς, le classait parmi les sobriquets théophores. Soit. Mais, à ma connaissance du moins, cette épiclèse n’est confirmée par aucun document épigraphique. Je rappelle donc l’existence du personnage mythologique Φύτιος, fils d’Οἰνεύς, dont le nom parlant pourrait bien avoir donné naissance à l’anthroponyme historique61. Mais la date haute des attestations rhéginiennes – si elles sont authentiques – cadre mal avec cette interprétation; on supposera donc aussi bien un dérivé anthroponymique en ‑ιος sur φυτόν. – LGPN I enregistre, enfin, un nom Φυτα[λ]ῖν(ος)62. Le nom, s’il a été bien lu, peut être interprété de plusieurs façons : un dérivé en ‑ῖνος sur l’adjectif φυτάλιος ‘productif, fécond’63, ou le substantif φυταλιά64 ; un dérivé en ‑ῖνος sur le nom du héros attique Φύταλος65 ; ou un sur-dérivé en ‑ῖνος sur un sobriquet *Φυτ-αλος, forgé sur φυτόν (cf. Βατταλῖνος, Μικαλῖνος). Difficile de trancher pour une série si peu productive66. Dressons un petit bilan : le seul authentique composé anthroponymique à second élément ‑φυτος (Κλ[εόφ]υτος) est douteux ; quant aux autres noms, ce sont des sobriquets directement issus d’adjectifs composés. L’examen des noms susceptibles d’être interprétés comme des hypocoristiques montre qu’ils peuvent tous être analysés comme des sobriquets ou des dérivés de sobriquets. Il n’existe donc pas de série vivante de composés anthroponymiques en ‑φυτος. Quelle conséquence cela a-t-il pour l’analyse de notre Ἡρόφυτος ? Si le constat précédent est juste, il paraît difficile, comme l’a fait implicitement Bechtel, de faire de Ἡρόφυτος le composé ‘irrationnel’ de deux éléments (Ἡρο‑ tiré de Ἥρα et ‑φυτος) appartenant à un stock d’éléments susceptibles d’entrer librement en composition. Si les parallèles précédents incitent donc à identifier Ἡρόφυτος comme un sobriquet, issu d’un adjectif composé, quel sens lui donner ? Faut-il, tout précisément à Samos, imaginer un ‘rejeton d’Héra’67 ? Le rapport problématique   Pour ce sens, cf. Perpillou 2004, 23–39. Le composé d’époque impériale, φυτήκομος, ne prouve pas l’existence d’un nom *φύτη (cf. Schwyzer, GG I 438–9) dont cet adjectif serait dérivé, mais le suffixe ‑αῖος s’est ajouté à des thèmes nominaux divers (cf. Chantraine, Noms 48–50). 59   Les parallèles anthroponymiques complètement satisfaisants sont rares : le suffixe ‑αῖος a servi de manière très épisodique à former des hypocoristiques (e.g. Ἱππαῖος, cf. LGPN IIIA), et surtout des sobriquets, qui s’appuient, dans leur immense majorité, sur un substantif féminin en ‑η (e.g. Τολμαῖος de τολμή) ; quelques exceptions toutefois : Σιμαῖος sur σῖμος. 60   Le nom Φύτιος est attesté à trois reprises à Athènes (cf. LGPN II), dont le plus ancien date du IVe s., mais le premier exemplaire enregistré est partiellement restitué Φύτ[ιος], or une restitution Φυτ[αῖος] est également possible. Le nom est aussi attesté à Tégée au IIIe s. (cf. LGPN IIIA). LGPN IIIA enregistre, enfin, deux exemplaires dont l’un serait, selon la Suda (Ι 80, s.v. Ibykos), celui du père du poète Ibykos, et l’autre, d’après Jamblique celui d’un philosophe Pythagoricien. 61   Hécatée de Milet, FGrHist I F 15 (= Ath. ii 35, cf. Paus. x 38) rapporte comment Phytios reçut de son père ce nom parlant, en raison de la pousse miraculeuse de la première vigne qui précéda sa naissance. 62   IG XII (9) 191 B, 38, daté du IVe s. 63   Selon Pollux i 24, cité par le LSJ, l’adjectif qualifie certaines divinités. 64   Puisque le terme φυταλιά désigne également la saison des semailles (cf. LSJ), on pourrait songer à un adjectif temporel, comparable à ἐαρινός > Ἐάρινος. 65   Cf. Paus. i 38. 66   D’autant que d’autres restitutions sont théoriquement envisageables : *Φυτα[ρ]ῖν(ος) ? voire *Φυτα[κ]ῖν(ος) ? 67   Ma collègue N. Guilleux me suggérait per litteras de maintenir l’interprétation théophore, et de reconnaître, 58

636

Jacques Oulhen

d’Héra à la maternité68 et, surtout, l’absence totale de nom théophore parallèle, sans interdire absolument cette interprétation, ne la favorise guère à mes yeux. Si Ἡρόφυτος n’est donc pas un nom théophore, que faire du premier élément ? C’est peut-être du côté du printemps qu’il faut chercher. *Ηρο‑ peut-il être analysé comme la contraction de ἐαρο‑, forme que prend normalement le nom ἔαρ ‘printemps’ en composition69 ? L’Ionien ne pratique généralement pas la contraction des voyelles [e] et [a] en hiatus70. Le sobriquet Ἐάρινος / Ἐαρίνη, attesté sans contraction à Éphèse, Érythrées et Smyrne dans des inscriptions d’époque impériale, semblerait à première vue le confirmer71. Plusieurs cas de contraction sont toutefois attestés dans les textes épigraphiques, et Hoffmann a fourni le catalogue des formes contractes de ἔαρ attestées chez les poètes et prosateurs ioniens72. Il n’est donc pas absurde d’analyser Ἠρόφυτος comme un sobriquet tiré d’un adjectif composé *ἐαρόφυτος (*ἠρόφυτος) ‘poussé au printemps’73. De fait, bien que cet *ἐαρόφυτος ne soit pas attesté, quelques indices montrent qu’il était viable. Des textes littéraires, d’abord, à défaut d’assurer formellement l’existence d’un syntagme constitué, attestent clairement l’association sémantique et lexicale – au fond sans surprise – du printemps et de la croissance biologique74. Pindare dans son dithyrambe articule étroitement les deux termes ἔαρ et φυτόν75 : εὔοδμον ἐπάγοισιν ἔαρ φυτὰ νεκτάρεα (‘les pousses embaumant le nectar annoncent (conduisent) le printemps parfumé’). Mais surtout, Homère, dans la fameuse comparaison qui introduit la réponse de Glaukos à Diomède au chant VI de l’Iliade (146–149), lie, de façon significative, génération humaine, croissance végétale et printemps76 : οἵη περ φύλλων γενεή, τοίη δὲ καὶ ἀνδρῶν. | φύλλα τὰ μέν τ᾿ ἄνεμος χαμάδις χέει, ἄλλα δέ θ᾿ ὕλη | τηλεθόωσα φύει, ἔαρος δ᾿ ἐπιγίγνεται ὥρὴ· | ὣς ἀνδρῶν γενεὴ ἣ μὲν φύει, ἣ δ᾿ἀπολήγει (‘Telle la naissance des feuilles, telle celle des hommes | Les feuilles, tantôt le vent les épand à terre, tantôt l’arbre, | Dans sa croissance, les fait pousser, au moment où arrive la mutatis mutandis, dans cet Ἡρόφυτος le parallèle féminin du jovien Διοτρέφης. J’ai hésité. 68   Cf. Detienne 1976 ; Bonnard 2004, 62–4. 69   Je laisse volontairement de côté la question de l’aspiration initiale que comportent nos éditions. Les esprits rudes et doux qu’elles présentent ne reflètent, au mieux, que l’interprétation faite par les sources des copistes médiévaux et ne sauraient constituer une objection définitive. Comme me le fait d’autre part remarquer Nicole Guilleux, la confusion éventuelle était d’autant plus facile que l’Ionie psilotique, d’où le nom Erophytos semble originaire, ne prononçait pas différemment les éléments de composition Ἠρο‑ de ἐαρο‑ et Ἠρο‑ de Ἥρα. 70   Hoffmann, Gr. Dial. III 458–9 ; Bechtel, Gr. Dial. III 51–65 ; Thumb–Scherer 257–8 ; Lejeune 1972 § 298. 71   IEph 1564 ; 2539 ; IEK 311 ; ISmyrna 304. Encore faut-il remarquer que les formes contractes de ce nom sont exceptionnelles même là où elles étaient attendues (Attique). À basse époque, en tout cas, on peut se demander si la fossilisation d’une forme non contracte ne s’explique pas, en partie, par le refus d’éviter la confusion que la forme féminine Ἠρίνη risquait d’entretenir avec le nom Εἰρήνη. Je constate ainsi, à Athènes, que l’occurrence la plus ancienne du nom Ἐαρίνη (cf. LGPN II (2), Ve/IVe s.) est contracte (cf. Threatte I 171), tandis que les occurrences d’époque impériale ne le sont pas (cf. LGPN II (1) et (3)). 72   Hoffmann, Gr. Dial. III 459–61 ; Bechtel, Gr. Dial. III 54. Sans voir là une preuve, je note que les vers de Mimnerme où la métrique exige la forme contracte, associent précisément ἔαρ et φύω : frg. 2 (West), 1–2 : ἡμεῖς δ᾿, οἷα τε φύλλα φύει πολυάνθεμος ὥρη | ἔαρος, ὅτ᾿ αἶψ᾿ αὐγῆις αὔξεται ἠελίου (‘Quant à nous, pareils aux feuilles que la saison fleurie du printemps fait pousser, lorsqu’elles croissent en hâte sous les rayons du soleil …’). Le passage est inspiré d’Homère (Il. vi 146–9) cité plus loin. 73   L’interprétation du Pape–Benseler s.v, qui traduit ‘Frühling’ mais maintient un esprit rude, est bizarrement contradictoire. 74   Auquel on ajoutera le passage inspiré d’Homère de Mimnerme cité supra, note 72. 75   Pi., Dith. fr. 75, 15 (Snell) (= CUF, Dyth. 4). 76   Hom. Il. vi 144–9. Pour la valeur de la particule δέ (v. 148), cf. Chantraine 1953, 358. Outre sa portée gnomique, la réponse de Glaukos joue, dans le contexte, sur la double acception biologique (‘naissance, génération’) et sociale (‘lignage’) du terme γενεή.

ΗΡΟΠΥΘΟΣ

637

saison du printemps ; | De même pour la lignée des hommes, l’une pousse, l’autre disparaît à jamais’). Cette association – lexicale et sémantique – suggère qu’un adjectif *ἐαρόφυτος, dans la lignée des noms associant végétation et génération humaine (e.g. Θάλλος), était susceptible de fournir un anthroponyme. Cet adjectif n’est certes pas attesté. On connaît, en revanche, dans la poésie hellénistique, un adjectif rare ἐαροτρέφης ‘poussé au printemps’77, qui crédibilise l’existence de cet *ἠρόφυτος dont l’anthroponyme serait le seul vestige. Une enquête rapide montre, en effet, que les adjectifs parallèles et quasi homonymes en ‑φυτος et ‑τρέφης sont nombreux, aussi l’attestation de l’un rend-elle l’existence de l’autre plus vraisemblable78. Le LGPN II enregistre, enfin, à Athènes un nom féminin qui pourrait indiquer que le nom ἔαρ n’était pas étranger à l’anthroponymie. Un vase attique daté des années 490 porte, en effet, l’inscription peinte suivante : ΕΡΟΣΑΝΘΕΟΚΑΛΕ, dans laquelle on a voulu retrouver un kalosname : Ἠροσάνθη καλὴ79. Si cette lecture est exacte, le nom correspondrait exactement, pour le sens, à Ἠρόφυτος. Mais elle ne va pas sans quelque difficulté. Le maintien dans cet anthroponyme de la forme déclinée (ἔαρος), au lieu du thème nu avec voyelle de liaison (ἐαρο‑), fait de ce nom un ‘semi-composé’80. Cela n’est certes pas impossible, mais la coexistence de deux formes (ἠροσ‑ / ἠρο‑) dans une série de composés aussi peu productive pourrait faire difficulté81. La suppression nécessaire du omicron, tenu pour superflu, est également gênante82. Il est donc tentant de proposer une lecture alternative, et si l’on veut bien retrouver ici le nom féminin ἄνθη83, on lira l’inscription comme suit : ἤρος ἄνθη, ὠ καλή : ‘Floraison du printemps, ô tu es belle !’. Il reste, je l’admets, que ce type d’acclamation n’a, à ma connaissance, pas de parallèles dans ces kalos-inscriptions84. L’existence d’un nom Ἠροσάνθη, qui offrirait un parallèle bienvenu à notre Ἡρόφυτος, sans être exclue, demeure néanmoins problématique. Le nom Ἠρόφυτος, pour isolé qu’il soit, ne semble donc ni morphologiquement, ni sémantiquement aberrant. L’hypothèse selon laquelle il devrait être corrigé d’après le nom Ἡρόπυθος, effectivement attesté par la documentation épigraphique, ne s’impose donc pas. L’hypothèse inverse mérite en revanche d’être examinée. Si le point de départ de l’enquête repose en effet sur l’idée que le Ἠρόφυτος (?) de Polyen doit être identifié au Ἡρόπυθος d’Arrien, la réponse négative éventuelle à cette question prosopographique ne remet pas en cause le fait que des composés à second élément théophore constitueraient une exception notable. Or, si l’on admet que le nom *Ἡρόφυτος, généralement compris comme un composé théophore sur le nom   Le terme est attesté chez Moschos ii 67 où il qualifie des prairies : λειμώνων ἐαροτρεφέων et dans les Orph., L. 616, où l’adjectif qualifie un fruit : ἐαροτρεφέος μήλοιο. 78   Je ne donne ici que quelques exemples tirés de la consultation de Buck–Petersen : ἀρτιτρεφής / ἀρτίφυτος ; νεόφυτος / νεοτρεφής ; ὀρεσσίφυτος / ὀρειτρεφής. Certes, les composés en ‑φυτος et ‑τρεφής ne sont exactement synonymes, puisque les uns qualifient normalement des végétaux, tandis que les autres qualifient normalement des animaux ou des hommes, mais l’adjectif ἐαροτρεφής appliqué aux prairies et aux fruits montre que la distinction n’est pas rigoureuse. 79   Le nom est enregistré chez Brenne 2000, 36. 80   Cf. Taillardat 2007. 81   Il faut toutefois signaler l’existence du nom mythologique parlant Ἠροσώρα déjà signalé par Beazley, ARV2, 1614 et 1312, cf. Immerwahr 1990, 116 no. 803. Le maintien de la forme Ἠροσ‑ avait toutefois, devant voyelle, l’avantage d’éviter les contractions susceptibles d’obscurcir le sens du nom. 82   Wernicke 1890, 14, suivi par Klein 1898, 171, suggérait le monstrueux : *Ἐροσανθεώ. 83   Comme le signale les dictionnaires, le terme est donné comme attique par le lexicographe Moeris (p. 187, l. 9). 84   Je remarque que le formulaire de l’inscription peinte sur l’autre face de ce vase est, elle aussi, exceptionnelle. 77

638

Jacques Oulhen

d’Héra, est un Ἠρόφυτος sobriquet formé sur un adjectif poétique ‘poussé au printemps’ non attesté, il vaut la peine d’examiner si Ἡρόπυθος ne peut être analysé de même. L’aspiration initiale que présente le texte d’Arrien, comme on l’a vu plus haut pour Ἠρόφυτος, ne constitue pas un obstacle à l’identification des deux noms ; aucune des occurrences épigraphiques du nom n’oblige en tout cas à transcrire le nom avec une aspiration initiale85. La confusion ‑φυτος / ‑πυθος paraît, à première vue, d’explication plus délicate. Or, je propose de reconnaître dans le second membre de composé du nom théophore supposé Ἠρό-πυθος, le traitement phonétique par métathèse d’aspiration d’un (Ἠρό)-φυτος originel86. Le phénomène, sporadiquement attesté dans un grand nombre de dialectes, est bien attestée en Ionien oriental87. Si mon interprétation est juste, le point remarquable, ici, est la ‘fossilisation’ de ce traitement dans un nom propre. Je n’ai pas de parallèle anthroponymique exact à proposer, mais les formes à métathèse fossilisées du nom de tribu Ὄπληθες (= Ὅπλητες) attestée à Milet, ou de l’épiclèse d’Artémis Κιθώνη (= Χιτώνη), également milésienne, fournissent, je crois, à leur manière, des parallèles onomastiques acceptables88. Mais une combinaison onomastique entre générations semble à première vue invalider notre hypothèse. Deux des citoyens de Cos portant le nom Ἠρόπυθος (?) sont en effet familialement liés à des individus dont le nom comporte, sans ambiguïté possible, l’élément théophore Πυθο‑89. Le grand catalogue d’Halasarna enregistre, en effet, le nom de deux individus : Ἡροπύθος Πυθονίκου ματρὸς δὲ Καλλιστράτης Τιμοξένου90, et Πολύμναστος καὶ Πυθόνικος τοὶ Ἡροπύθου ματρὸς δὲ Θευδοσίης Πολυμνάστου91. Peut-on raisonnablement imaginer que deux individus aient indépendamment choisi de combiner les éléments de composition de leur nom ? La difficulté est moindre, si l’on admet que ces deux Ἠρόπυθος (?) ne sont qu’une seule et même personne, et que, pour l’une de ces occurrences, le lien onomastique est simplement hérité ; mais la difficulté demeure92. L’homonymie inter-générationnelle partielle (‑πυθος / Πυθο‑) est-elle aussi la preuve irréfutable d’une identité étymologique qui annulerait l’hypothèse présentée ici93 ? La question est importante, et sera traitée ailleurs plus systématiquement, je me contente ici de présenter   Il ne s’agit évidemment pas d’une preuve absolue : aucune des occurrences du nom n’est précédée d’une occlusive sourde dépourvue de report d’aspiration. 86   La différence de quantité entre ‑πῡθος et ‑φῠτος ne peut être invoquée dans ce dossier, car aucun des noms en ‑πυθος n’est attesté dans un texte métrique. 87   Schwyzer, GG I 269 ; Lejeune 1972, 59–60 § 47. Pour les exemples ioniens : Bechtel, Gr. Dial. III 94 ; Thumb– Scherer, 266 ; mais à propos du nom Φίττων invoqué dans ce dossier, cf. les remarques prudentes de Masson 1984, 56. Pour les exemples attiques, cf. Threatte I 464–8. Schwyzer, loc.cit., intègre précisément dans ses exemples : “Φύτιος für Πύθ.” et renvoie à Schulze 1895. Or, Schulze ne fait référence à aucun texte, mais renvoie à Maas 1891, que je n’ai pu consulter, mais que je soupçonne d’être, dans la lignée d’Usener, une réflexion théologique sur la nature originelle d’Apollon. 88   Pour le dossier milésien, voir commodément Jones 1987, 320–2. À propos d’Artémis Κιθώνη, cf. Milet VI (1) 202, avec les compléments et références de Milet VI (1) 199, et SEG XXXVIII 1213. 89   Que Πυθόνικος soit un authentique composé anthroponymique, ou – ce que je crois – un sobriquet issu du terme composé πυθόνικος n’a pas d’importance ici ; sur la question des théophores en ‑νικος, cf. Oulhen 2009, 128–30. 90   Paton–Hicks 368 II, 12–14. Je suis pour ces deux occurrences l’aspiration proposée par l’éditeur. 91   Paton–Hicks 368, III, 41–5 ; pour la date du document, cf. Habicht 2000, 314–17. 92   C’est, à la suite de Pugliese-Caratelli 1963–64, le choix du LGPN I. À propos du no. 3, il faut écrire : c. 240 BC, Klee p. 4 I A, 2 : ([Ἠρ]όπυθος, f. ? [Πυθόνικος]) et ajouter : “ = no. 4 ?”, car la restitution du nom du fils repose uniquement sur cette identification. 93   Sur cette question, voir les communications réunies dans Blanc–Christol 2007. 85

ΗΡΟΠΥΘΟΣ

639

quelques-uns des exemples de rencontres pseudo-étymologiques entre le nom d’un père et celui de son fils recueillis au hasard de mes dépouillements94. On connaît, à Athènes, un certain Θηραμένης, fils de Θηριππίδης95. Or, si le premier membre du nom du fils est sans conteste issu du nom θήρα ‘chasse’, celui du nom paternel est d’interprétation ambiguë. Bechtel avait, en effet, classé le nom Θήριππος parmi les noms issus de θήρα, mais une autre interprétation est possible. Sur le modèle des noms en Ἠρι‑, L. Dubois a, en effet, proposé de reconnaître dans l’élément de composition Θηρι‑ l’aboutissement phonétique de Θερσι‑96. Le nom Θήριππος peut donc en toute rigueur être interprété comme l’évolution phonétique de Θέρσιππος97. Ce classement est plus vraisemblable encore si l’on examine de plus près l’hapax Ἱπποθηρίδης98 porté par un athénien d’Acharnai, et classé, lui aussi, par Bechtel sous l’entrée θήρα. On connaît, en effet, à Athènes quatre exemplaires du nom épichorique Ἱπποθέρσης, dont deux exemplaires sont précisément attestés … à Acharnai. Dans ces conditions, il me semble plus économique d’interpréter cet Ἱπποθηρίδης comme l’évolution d’un *Ἱπποθερσίδης dérivé de Ἱπποθέρσης, plutôt que comme la forme suffixée d’un *Ἱππόθηρος, ou d’un *Ἱπποθήρας non attesté99. Si cette analyse de Ἱπποθηρίδης est exacte, elle vient corroborer notre interprétation de Θήριππος. Le cas de ce Θηραμένης, fils de Θηριππίδης, montre que des éléments de composition homonymes transmis entre générations ne sont, malgré les apparences, pas nécessairement identiques ni apparentés étymologiquement. Mais cet exemple n’est pas isolé. Bechtel déjà avait attiré l’attention sur cette Ῥόδιον Ῥοδίππου Épirote du IIe / Ier s., dont le nom, selon lui, était un sobriquet formé sur le nom de la plante, tandis que celui de son père, composé, comportait un premier membre issu du nom de l’éponyme de Rhodes : Ῥόδος100. Mais cet exemple n’est pas absolument convaincant101. En revanche, Bechtel invoquait comme parallèle l’exemple béotien de Δωρίμαχος Δωροθέου dont les premiers membres, quoique quasi identiques, sont, comme on sait bien, dépourvus de tout rapport étymologique puisque l’un est issu de δόρυ ‘lance’, et l’autre de δῶρον ‘don’102. L’évolution phonétique qui obscurcissait l’étymologie de l’élément Δωρι‑, et l’analogie des noms dans lesquels la voyelle finale de timbre [i] ou [o] pouvait, en synchronie, apparaître comme une variante libre expliquent assurément cette combinaison intergénérationnelle pseudo-étymologique.   Ces rencontres de noms ont déjà été remarquées ; à propos d’un exemple cité ci-dessous, Bechtel, HPN 395, renvoyait à Neumann 1908, 10, dont les exemples ne me semblent pas tous pertinents. 95   Cf. LGPN II. 96   Dubois 1986, 256. 97   Le nom Θέρσιππος est attesté dans plusieurs régions, cf. LGPN passim. 98   Cf. LGPN II. 99   L’interprétation me semble confortée par le fait que les appellatifs composés en ‑θηρος ou ‑θήρας, dont le premier membre est issu d’un nom d’animal, remplacent un syntagme à construction transitive : ‘qui chasse tel animal’, cf. par ex. d’après Buck–Petersen : λαγοθήρας, ὀρτυγοθήρας, μυόθηρος etc… Or, si les chevaux grecs sont domptés ou mis sous le joug, il ne me semble pas qu’ils soient jamais chassés. Les ‘θηρευταὶ τῶν ἵππων’ mentionnés dans une inscription d’Olbia (Dubois, IGDOlbia 24, 12) sont une exception notable en pays scythe. 100   Bechtel, HPN 395, cf. LGPN IIIA (3). 101   Il existe, en effet, quelques composés en ‑ιππος dont le premier membre est issu d’un terme lié au monde végétal : Μύριππος (cf. LGPN IV), Θάλιππος et Θάλλιππος (cf. LGPN II et LGPN IIIA), Ἄνθιππος, mais sur ce nom, cf. infra 640. Inversement, Ῥόδιον peut éventuellement être considéré comme un hypocoristique, cf. pour m’en tenir à des exemples à peu près contemporains : Ἕρμιον (cf. LGPN I), Ζεύξιον (cf. LGPN II), Ἡγήσιον (cf. LGPN II). 102   Malgré Bechtel, HPN 144, il n’y a pas de raison de distinguer les noms à premier élément Δωρι‑ (