The Formula for the Grant of Enktesis in Attic Inscriptions

Citation preview

*^ THE FORMULA

FOR THEGRANT OFENKTESIS ΠΝ ΔΓ

PREFACE

This work did not originally set out to be an epigraphical study. While working on problems of landed property as the economic basis of the Greek city state and on the significance of land ownership in the economio development of the polis, my attention was drawn by some observations of J. V. A. Fine and M. I. Finley, in their books on the horoi (see Bibliography,

p.XI), about the significance of the institution of enktesis, the privilege granted to foreigners, allowing them to acquire and own land and houses in the territory of the state concerned. It was M. I. Finley, in particular, commenting that enktesıs had not yet been properly explored from the economic point of view,*) who led me to a closer study of the institution. It soon became clear that the task was a very involved one. There are three groups of sources which can 1) Pp. 77—78 with Notes 16 and

17 on pp. 264—205. As far as enktesis has been

atudied at all, it was primarily. as a privilege, one of many granted to foreigners; or else as an important element in the honorary decrees for foreigners. Thus, apart from a few short entries in encyclopaedias, we find shorter or longer chapters, or at least references -to enktesis, in general studies of the privileges, or in studies of individual privileges, granted by the Athenian assembly (particularly of proxeny); in studies of

the status of different categories of foreigners in the Greek city states and particularly the

status

of the

Athenian

metics;

in some

works

on

Athenian

citizenship;

and

of

course in general treatises on Greek civil and private law. To the bibliography given by M. I. Finley, 2. c., and A. P. Christophilopoulos (see below), p. 251, we should add: U. E. Paoli, Nuovo digesto Italiano, s. v. "Enctesis" (1938); H. Schenkl, “De metoecis Atticis", Wiener Studien 2, 1880, pp. 161—225; V. Thumser, De civium Atheniensium muneribus eorumque immunitate, Vienna, 1880; P. Gerhardt, Die attische Metoikie im vierten Jahrhundert, Diss. Königsberg, 1933; A. Billheimer, Naturalization in Athenian Law and Practice, Diss. Princeton, Gettysburg, 1922; A. Diller, Race Mixture Among the Greeks Before Alexander, Urbana 1937; A. Krünzlein, Eigentum und Besitz im grie-

chischen Recht des 5. und 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr., Berlin 1963 (pp. 38ff.); A. P. Christophilopoulos, “Is καὶ oixíag ἔγκτησις πατὰ τὸ ᾿Αττικὸν Ölzarov””, Χαριστήριον cic * A. K. "OgAuvóov, vol. I, Athens, 1964, pp. 250—260 (I am grateful to the author for sending me an offprint

before the whole volume appeared, which allowed me to take his conclusions into consideration in the final phase of my own work). V

provide information about the history of the institution of.enktesis: the scarce explicit literary references, the occasional information implying grants of enktesis about people who owned land in a country whose citizens they were not, and finally the actual grants of enktes?s in the honorary decrees for foreig-

ners. Of these three groups of sources, the last is by far the most fruitful. Inthe inscriptions of dozens of Greek. States we have hundreds of grants of enktesis (or empasis, inpasis, and other dialeotal variants), material which has

never yet been systematically collected and analysed. The most significant,

though not the largest, group comes from Athens, gation.

and

it was

of inscriptions including grants of enkíesis, with

this group

that

I

began

my

investi-

The first essential for a profitable study of any institution for which we have.evidence mostly in fragmentary. inscriptions is of course as sound a textual and ‘chronological basis as. possible.. The series of decrees by the. Athenian assembly granting enkfesis, and consequently the-development of the formula for the grant, have never yet been treated. independently and as a whole. All we have are two brief summaries of the material, which were completein their

day. The first one by W.-F. Larfeld, in the second volume of his Handbuch der griechischen Epigraphik (Leipzig 1902), pp..794—795 and. 814—815; the second one by J. Kirchner in; his Sermo. publicus- decretorum. preprius UG 112, pars 4, fasc. 1, Berlin 1918) s.v. ἔγκτησις.

Then there are a few studies

of individual aspects of the problem: A. Dittmar (1890,: see: Bibliography. p. XI) dealt with the development.of the formula.and the.dates of its different types, in his work on the grants of crowns in Attic honorary decrees. A. C. Johnson (CLIP 9, 1914, pp. 417—441) dealt with the same aspect in his extensive notes to the first volume of the Editio Minor of IG. II/TII. A. Wilhelm, whose contribution to the reconstruction and. interpretation of individual inseriptions can be assessed from the frequent references to his work throughout this book, dealt in two of his papers with

some of the inscriptions, where the

grant of enklesis is accompanied by the clause xarà τὸν νόμον and with all inscriptions, where the grant is limited to a certain value

(Hermes

24,

1889,

pp. 328—336 and especially AU IT, 1916, pp. 9—23, No. V: "Zu der Verleihung der éyxtyotc in’ Beschlüssen der Athener"). Since these papers were written the material to be studied has grown, and greab progress has been made in Attic epigraphical studies. It is not enough to pay attention to new bibliography on individual inscriptions, as A. Lambrechts. and A. P. Christophilopoulos have tried to do at least in part.?) That this is 3) Christophilopoulos erroneously gives Leonardos' new edition of IG II*835 as ἃ new piece of evidence, so that this inscription appears twice in his list, as Nos. 49 and 59. For A. Lambrechts, Tekst en uitzicht, see the review by D. M. Lewis, Gnomon 32, 1960,

pp. 166—167, where there are important comments on the method used:

VI

so can be seen from some of the errors: that have found their way into their work. Both; for instance, accepted without further proof Wilhelm's proposal to connect {6 112371 with ZG 11?308, and Schweigert’s proposal to connect ZG 112372 with IG 11*289, which involved dating in 322/1 t wo inscriptions with a grant

of enktesis (IG II*308 and 289), although it is highly probable that Wilhelm was wrong

58—59).

and

certain that

Schweigert

Both

Lambrechts

and

was

(see below,

Christophilopoulos

pp. 57—58

and

further investigated

the meaning of the grant of enkiesis accompanied by the clause οὐκοῦντε (οἰκοῦσιν) Adenau), although it is most improbable that this clause ever existed in grants of enktesis (see pp. 139—140). Both writers used in their outline of the history of enktesis several inscriptions in which enktesis is probably & faulty restoration, and so on.

*.,. when one is studying formulae, absolute clarity and openness as to what can or cannot be regarded as a certain restoration are essential," D. M. Lewis wrote in his review of Lambrechts' book (p. 167). In my investigation

of the development of the formula of enktesis in Attic inscriptions I have endeavouréd to keep to this principle. 1 am fully. aware, however,.of the-weak-

nesses--and they may be -considerable—arising from the somewhat narrow

field which has engaged my attention here, in view of the way the study arose: the development of the formula of a single privilege. The series of decrees of the Athenian assembly in which enktesis was granted is only part of the

larger series of all those decrees conferring honours and privileges on foreigners. It would

be the correct approach to study the whole

series.

Hach

decree

of the Athenian assembly is a single unit and should be studied as such; this means in the case of honorary decrees studying all the privileges and

honours granted in the decree. In many cases I felt that a study of the development of other privileges, particularly of ateleia, isoteleia and related privileges, and of all those accompanied by the clause xarà τὸν νόμον, and in general a study of provenia, euergesia, epimeleia, prosodos, ete., would help in the solution of problems that defied me here. Another serious problem appears

to be that of the vagueness of nuances in the status of foreigners in Athens (or of our knowledge of them), which often makes it difficult to determine the status of individual beneficiaries of enktesis. Here I was forced to depend

on existing summaries, although I am well aware that some of them are'incomplete and hold the threat of error. I have tried to avoid these pitfalls by the greatest. possible discretion in all problems not directly concerned with enktesis,

for the publication of the whole series of Attic honorary decrees for foreigners, and a study of all the problems involved, would be a task of such proportions that it would

have

led me

indeed, have been beyond

too far from

my powers.

my

original theme, and might well,

I am therefore publishing this partial

study, in the hope that it will contribute to the broader study of the whole series of Attic honorary decrees for foreigners, and at the same time serve VII

as the foundation for a further study of enktesis as an institution; this I set myself as a further goal.?) . My conclusions are therefore deliberately extremely sober. As the title of this work shows, they concern only the development of the formula for tthe validity, both concerning honorary ‘decrees in “general, and concerning the. institution of enktesis, require further study of the sources. In discussion of the individual inscriptions the material on which the work is based is indicated as follows: O — original; Squ — squeeze; Ph — photograph; (Ph) — photograph in a publication. The bibliography and the notes are generally complementary to the Editio Minor of Inscriptiones Graecae or to the editiones principes (in Hesperia) of inscriptions recently found. Only in a few cases and where explicitly stated have other editions been used as the basis. I have only given the whole or part of the text of the inscription (except for the formula of enktesis, which is always given) where I suggest fundamental changes or where there is some special-reason. I have only made exceptions in the case of the four inscriptions not contained in JG?, of which I have repeated the whole text for the convenience of the reader. The apparatus criticus and the: commentary is also selective and usually restrictedto matters directly concerned with the.grant of enktesis: the formula, the year and prytany of the :détree, the name, place of origin and status of the beneficiary, his services to the state, etc. In those cases where I felt I could profitably add something to the general reconstruction or interpretation of the text, I have not of course observed this limitation. It remains to express my thanks to all those without whose help the book. would not have come into being. In the first place I should like to mention the late Professor-A. Salaé of Charles University, Prague, whose seminars first. introduced me to epigraphical problems. Dr. M. N. Tod gave me valuable help with the bibliography in the early stages of my work. The German Academy of Sciences, particularly Professor G. Klaffenbach and his assistants,

Dr. G. Dunst, Dr. R. Körner and Dr. E. Erxleben were kind enough to give me the opportunity of working in the Berlin collection of squeezes, and to help me in every way, and Professor Klaffenbach gave me the inestimable benefit. of his great experience throughout my work, in particular reading and commenting on the early version of the most important parts of the book. The grant for the academic year 1964—5 of a Junior Fellowship in. the Center for: Hellenie Studies, Washington, D. C., by the 'Trustees for Harvard University; Cambridge, Mass.; also made it possible for me to spend a month at:the Institute

3) Another very necessary task is an extensive study of honorary decrees other than the Attie. A. P. Christophilopoulos (op. cit. P. 250 Note 3) gives noto of his intention. to deal with this. ᾿

VIII

for Advanced Study in Princeton, N. J., and two months working in Athens. I wish to express my thanks partieularly to Professor B. M. W. Knox, Director of the Center for Hellenie Studies, Professor B. D. Meritt of Princeton and Professor H. 8. Robinson, Director of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, for their help, which enabled me to study at these institutions, and

my

gratitude

colleagues

for

all the help

there. The

and

encouragement

Director of the Epigraphical

I received

Museum in

Dr. M. Mitsos, showed exceptional kindness in allowing original inscriptions in Athens, and in arranging for the and photographs. I am grateful to him, as well as to Mrs. D. and the rest of the staff of the Epigraphical Museum, for which they met all my requests.

from

my

Athens,

me to study the necessary squeezes Peppa-Delmouzou the patience with 7

Professor K. Janáéek of Charles University, Prague, was kind enough to read the (Qzech version of my book and give me valuable advice on the general structure and on detailed points. Mr. D. M. Lewis of Christ Church, Oxford,

gave me both help and encouragement in the final stages of my work. I am particularly grateful to him for his opinion on the dating of the letter forms of the undated inscriptions, in which I am too inexperienced. He was kind enough to read the whole manuscript and contribute to its final shaping with many critical suggestions. To him, to all those named above, and to all friends and colleagues who helped me in my work but cannot be named here, I am sincerely grateful. It is certainly not their fault that weaknesses remain in the book. Finally I should like to thank Mrs. I. Urwin Lewitová for the care with which she has translated this difficult text, Mrs. E. Jandová for the patience with which she checked the manuseript, and all those who have helped to prepare the book for the press in the Department of Publications at the Charles University. -

CHARLES UNIVERSITY PRAGUE

IX

JAN PEOÍRKA

LIST OFWORKS QUOTED IN ABBREVIATED FORM

4. P. Austin, The Stoichedon Style in Greek Inscriptions, Oxford 1938. K. J. Beloch, Griechische Geschichte, I2—IV3, Strassburg—Berlin— Leipzig 1912—1927. H. Bengtson,

Griechische Geschichte von den Anfängen bis in die römische Kaiserzeit, 3. Auflage, Munich 1965. A. Billheimer, Naturalization in Athenian Law and Practice, Diss. Princeton, Gettysburg, Pennsylvania 1922. R. Binnebössel, Studien zu den Attischen Urkundenreliefs des 5. und 4. Jahrhunderts

Diss. Leipzig 1932. G. JM. W. W.

Busolt—H . Swoboda, Griechische Staatskunde, I3—II®, Munich 1920—1926. Clerc, Les météques athöniens, Paris 1893. B. Dinsmoor, 'The Archons of Athens in the Hellenistic Age, Cambridge, Mass., 1931. B. Dinsmoor, The Athenian Archon List in the Light of Recent Discoveries, New York 1939.

A. M. Dittmar, De Atheniensium more exteros coronis publice ornandi quaestiones epigraphicae, Diss. Leipzig 1890 (= Leipziger Studien XIII, pp. 65— 248). T. Dohrn,

Attische Plastik vom Tode des Phidias bis zum Wirken der großen Meister des 4. Jh. v. Chr., Krefeld 1957. F. Dornseifj—B. Hansen, Rückl&ufiges Wörterbuch der griechischen Eigennamen, Berlin 1957. S. Dow, Prytaneis. A Study of the Inscriptions Honoring the Athenian Councillors,

Hesperia Supplement I, 1937. V. S. Ferguson, The Athenian Secretaries, Ithaca 1898. W.S. Ferguson, Hellenistic Athens, London 1911. J. V. A. Fine, Horoi. Studies in Mortgage, Real Security,

and Land

Tenure

in Ancient

Athens, Hesperia Supplement IX, 1951. AM. I. Finley, Studies in Land and Credit in Ancient Athons, 500—200

B. C. The Horos-

Inscriptions. New Brunswick, N. Jersey, 1952. H. Francotte, De la condition des étrangers dans les cités grecques. Mélanges de droit public grec, Liége—Paris 1910, pp. 167—220. P. Guiraud, La propriété fonciére en Gréce jusqu'à la conquéte romaine, Paris 1893. : A. W. Gomme, A Historical Commentary on Thucydides, I—III, Oxford 1950—1956.

P, Haggard,

The Secretaries of the Athenian Boule in the Fifth Century B. C., Diss.

Missouri 1930. W. Hartel, Studien tiber attisches Staatsrecht und Urkundenwesen, Wien 1878. U. Kahrstedt, Staatsgebiet und Staatsangehörige in Athen, Stuttgart—Berlin

J. Kirchner, Prosopographia Attica, I—II, Berlin 1901—1903. XJ

1934.

J. Kirchner, Sermo publicus decretorum proprius, IG II/III?, pars IV, fasc. I, Berlin 1918,

pp. 36—67.

E

0008

'

«7. Kirchner, Imagines inscriptionum Atticarum, 2. Aufl., durchgesehen von G. Klaffenbach, Berlin 1948. A. Kuenzi, ’Exidoots, Diss. Bern 1923. A, Lambrechts, Tekst en uitzicht van de Atheense proxeniedecreten tot 323 v. C., Brussel 1958. R. Laqueur, Epigraphische Untersuchungen zu den griechischen Volksbeschlüssen, Leipzig—Berlin 1927. W. Larfeld, Handbuch der griechischen Epigraphik II, Die Attischen Inschriften,

Leipzig 1902. F. G. Maier, Griechische Mauerbauinschriften, I—II, Heidelberg 1959— 1961. K. Meisterhans—E. Schwyzer, Grammatik der attischen Inschriften, 3. Auflage, Berlin

1900. B. D. Meritt, The Athenian. Year, Berkeley—Los: Angeles: 1961. P..Monceauw, Les proxénies grecques, These, Paris 1885. M. P. Nilsson, Geschichte der griechischen Religion, I?—II?, Munich 1955PA — see J. Kirchner, Prosopographia Attica. J. Peéirka, Land Tenure and the Development of the Athenian Polis, GERAS G. ‘Thu. _ (Graecolatina Pragensia II, Acta Universitatis Carolinae, Phil. his. 1963, 1), Prague 1963, pp. 183—201. H. Pope, Non-Athenians in Attic Inscriptions, Diss., New York 1935. H. Pope, Foreigners in Attic Inscriptions, Philadelphia, Pa, 1947.

J. Pouilloux, Choix d’inseriptions grecques, Paris 1960. W. K..Pritchett —B. D. Meritt, The Chronology of Hellenistic Athens; Cambridge, Mass., 1940. W. K. Pritchett —O. Neugebauer, The Calendars of Athens, Cambridgo, Mass., 1947. W. K. Pritchett, The Attio Stelai.II, V: Real Property, Hesperia 25, 1956, pp. 261—276. W. K. Pritchett, Ancient Athenian Calendars on Stone (Univ. of California Publications

in Class. Archaeology, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 267—402), Berkeley—Los Angeles 1963.

A. R. Rangabé, Antiquitós Helléniques, I—II, Athens 1842—1855. J. G. Schubert, De proxenia Attica, Diss. Leipzig 1881. J. Sundwall, Nachträge zur Prosopographia Attica, Helsingfors 1910. R.Thomsen, Eisphora, Copenhagen 1964. A. Withelm, Attische Urkunden, I—V, Sitzungsberichte Akad. Wien

180,2 (1916), 202,5 (1925), 217,5 (1939), 220,5 (1942).

165,6

(1911),

A, Wilhelm, Urkunden dramatischer Aufführungen in Athen, Wien 1906. . E. Ziebarth, Beiträge zur Geschichte des Seeraubs und Seehandels im alten Griechenland, Hamburg 1929.

XII

CONTENTS

PREFACE LIST Of FORM

....... WORKS 4

INDIVIDUAL

$764

Br Br

QUOTED v

9

^2

^

9

»

BEE SEE

IN 9

$4

Ξ 3

^

^»

$*

ABBREVIATED *

a

$9

"

$4

«4

INSCRIPTIONS

IG Y? 68/69; 70 (SEG X 81; 84) IG I? 83 (SEG X 91) . "2 106 (+ Add. p. 303) '^6a.( IG II? 48 + Add. p. 657) '- Add. p. 303; GHI 86; SEG X 125) 118 SEG X83) ....... /p. 655; SIG* 120; GHI 100)

IG.

χω p.686)

IG II? o.

LP

Pl.1

.....-

i@iIeso ^ IG II? 83 IG 113 86 IG YI? 130 + EM 5416 | (SEG XIX 49) IG 1I? 132 IG II? 162be IG II? 174 (SEG X 115) IG 1I* 180 IG II? 184 IG 1I? 206 IG IP 214 IG 115 237 (+ Add. p. 659; SIG* 259; GHI 178) IG II? 265 IG 13 279 IG TI? 285 4- 414d? IG II? 287 IG 1I? 289 IG 13 308 IG II? 337 (SIG* 280; GHI 189) IG 113 342 E IG IT? 343 (-- Add. p. 659) XII

P1. 2

Pl. 10

Pl. 12 Pl. 11

IG II? 351 + 624 (Add. p. 660; SIG? 288; GHI Pouilloux:6). . IG II? 360 (+ Add. p. 660; SIG 304) IG II? 373 IG IT? 396 IG II? 422 IG 1X? 425 IG II! 426 IG II? 466 IG 113 505 (+ Add. p. 661; SIG? 346) IG II? 545 IG 1I? 551 ως IG IT? 554 (5163 329) . IG IP 564 IG II? 582 IG IF? 651 IG II? 660 IG II? 706 (+ Add. p. 665) IG, IP 722 . IG II* 723 . IG I? 725 (+ Add. p. 666) IG II? 732 (+ Add. p. 666)

198;

IG II? 768 (+ Add. p. 667) - 802 (+ Add. p. 667) .

IG II? 786 IGII*800 IG 118 810 IG II? 835 IGIDP 862 IGII*s84 IG II? 907 IG II? 947

(SIG? 475). . . ...... ( Add. p. 667) (+ Add. p. 68) ...... (SIG? 580). . . (-+ Add. p. 668) (+ Add. p. 669)

IG II? 1283 . . Hesperia 2, 1933, pp. 396—397

(No. 16) .

Hesperia 13, 1944, pp. 242—243 (No. 7) . Hesperia 15, 1946, pp. 159—160

(No. 16)

Hesperia 29, 1960, pp. 19—20 (No. 25) II. CONCLUSIONS.

.....

IIT. CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX PLATES

XIV

TABLE

68 70 72 74 75 77 77 78 80 81 84 85 89 91 92: 93 96 98 100 101 102 104 106 110 112 114 116 117 118 120 122 130 132 133 133 137 150 159

PI. 13

Pl. 14 Pl. 16 Pi. 17

Pl. 18 Pl. 20

PI.19 Pl. Pl. Pl. Pl. PI.

21 22 24 23 25

Pl. 26

I. INDIVIDUAL INSCRIPTIONS

SEG X 81 (IG 1268/69) O Squ —

EM

6611,

12830, 6622, 6621

Photograph of fragment 61) AJA squeezes

of all four fragments

40, 1936, p. 460 (J. H. Oliver); photographs from

Hesperia

14, 1945, No.

9, pp.

106—110

(B. D. Meritt).

Latest text (repeated with minor changes in SEG X) and commentdry, B. D. Meritt,. Hesperia, l. c., pp. 105 (sic)- 115.

SEG X 84 (IG 1770)

O Squ — EM 8184, 5186, 254 Photographs of all three fragments and editio princeps of fragment c, Ad. Wilhelm, AU IV, pp. 52ff, pl. 6—8, whose text (with ample commentary) completely supersedes Hiller's text in IG 15. The text of B. D. Meritt in Hesperia 10, 1941, pp. 320—326 adds. some corrections and variants, and is repeated with slight technical changes in SEG X (evre in 1.3 is apparently

a misprint for avrs and there are 28, not 18 free spaces in 1.18).

When planning their triple attack on Boiotia which ended in defeat at Delion in the autumn of 424, the Athenians were assisted by two groups of Boiotians: by Boiotian exiles and by pro-Athenian factions in Boiotian cities. This we are told by Thucydides (4.76.2—3): Τῷ γὰρ "Imnoxodrei xai ἐκείνῳ (sc. Δημο-" σϑένει) ta Βοιώτια πράγματα aad τινων ἀνδρῶν iv ταῖς πόλεσιν ἐπράσσετο,' βουλομένων μεταστῆσαι τὸν κόσμον καὶ ἐς δημοκρατίαν ὥσπερ οἱ ’Adnvaioı τρέψαι" καὶ Ἠτοιοδώρου μάλιστ᾽ ἀνδρὸς φυγάδος ἔκ Θηβῶν) ἐσηγσυμένου τάδε αὐτοῖς παρεσπευάσϑη. Σίφας μὲν ἔμελλόν τινες προδώσειν ...- ααιρώνειαν͵ δὲ, N ἐς ᾿Ορχομενὸν ... ξυντελεῖ, ἄλλοι ἐξ ᾿"Ορχομενοῦ ἐνεδίδοσαν, καὶ ol 1) In Meritt’s edition; fragment b in Hiller's edition = fragment d in Meritt. 2) “Two MSS. according to Hude (B and F) have ἔκ Oeorıörv in the margin as a variant for, ἐς. Θηβῶν ...; ib would certainly be more usual if the chief conspirator had been

from

Thespiai

(cf, e. g., ZG

1336). A. W. Gomme,

apparatus criticus in Hude's Editio Maior

1

(Teubner).

Hist. Comm. ILI, p. 537; cf. the

"᾿Ορχομενίων φυγάδες ξυνέπρασσον τὰ μάλιστα xai ἄνδρας ἐμισϑοῦντο Ex IIcÀoπογνήσου ..., xai Φωκέων μετεῖχόν τινες. τ The plan failed because of leakage of information and bad timing. Warned by Spartans who in their turn had received the information from a Phokian,

the Boiotians were able to secure Siphai and Chaironeia in time. Hippocrates’ attack on Delion came too late, so that in his attack on Siphai Demosthenes

had to face a eoncentration of Boiotian forces; the very core of the Athenian plan, and the fundamental pre-requisite for success, was the dispersal of these forces in three directions (Thuc. 4.89. cf. 76.4—5, and Gomme’s commentary ad loc.) “Ὡς δὲ ἤσϑοντο oi πράσσοντες τὸ ἁμάρτημα, Thucydides goes on, οὐδὲν ἐκίνησαν τῶν iv ταῖς πόλεσιν (4.89.2). Two Athenian inscriptions have been taken by modern scholars as referring

to the role of Boiotian exiles in the "Delion campaign": IG I*70 (first by Köhler in Hermes 31, 1896, pp. 137—141), by Hiller in 1924).

and IG I?68/9 (first "dubitanter"

The inseription ZG I?70 comprises honorary decrees for a man called Potamodoros, his son Eurytion and a certain Pythilles. The second of these decrees is dated in the spring of 424/3 by the secretary [®ai]vimxoc of the tribe Akamantis, the prytany of which?) is known (from Thucydides 4.118.11—12) to have partly coincided with Elaphebolion 423. The inscription /G 1?68/9, & very fragmentary one, probably comprises two decrees referring to some Boiotians who are not identified in the extant parts of the inscription. The first of the decrees was passed during the prytany of Áigeis in an unknown year; the second (according to a very plausible combination by B. D. Meritt) during the term of office of a certain DuAlfals Adxo, secretary of an unknown

tribe in an unknown year.‘) In addition we have another honorary decree for Eurytion

of Orchomenos

which

also

mentions

his father,

Potamodoros,

and

is dated 412/11 by the name of the archon Kallias.5) There can be little doubt that Potamodoros was one of the friends of Athens from Orchomenos mentioned by Thucydides. Indeed, Kóhler might be right in thinking that Potamodoros was their head. We are told in 7G I*103.6—8 that E$guríov καὶ 6 πατὴρ αὐτὸ ΠΠοταμόδωρος zai oi πρόγονοι αὐτῶν have been proxenoi and euergetai, and we have the remains of three decrees honouring 8) It wes'the eighth prytany of 424/3 according to B. D. Meritt, The Athenian Calendar in the Pifth Century (1928), pp. 87— 88; Meritt's dates in this chapter of his book have recently been challenged as a whole by W. K. Pritchett, seo BCH 88, 1964, p. 481 sub 5 (cf. also his notes in AJP 85, 1964, pp. 40—50), but the serial number of the prytany of Akamentis in 424/3 has no bearing on our argument.

^) Hesperia 14, pp. 110—111. 5) IG I?103

as restored by A. Wilhelm, AU IV, 1939, pp. 72—78, No.

text is repeated in SEG X 114.

2

XX XII, whose

them. In one of these, the first decree of IG 1370, unfortunately a very fragmentary one, the following privileges have been restored by modern scholars in the opening lines of the amendment of Arch[estratos] (il. 11 —13): Ad. Wilhelm:

ETOIX.42

évat δὲ [Ποταμοδόροι καὶ ἔγπτεσι) [v ᾿Αϑένεσιν zai] ἀτέλε[τανἹ H[oc εὐεργέτει γενομένοι ’ Al [ϑεναίο»ν5) B. D. Meritt:

ETOIX.42 Evar δὲ [Ποταμοδόροι yes ἔγπκτεσι]

[v ᾿Αϑένεσιν καὶ ἀτέλειαν] H[óaovsceo?) καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις e]

[ὑεργέταις} Wilhelm stated his reasons for restoring the grant of enktesis thus (p. 56): “Die Erwähnung der ἀτέλεια in Z.12 erlaubt zu vermuten, daß Potamodoros. ἔγπκτησις und dieses Vorrecht verliehen worden seien." It is true that in fifth century Athens ateleia and enktesis may have been granted together (in 106 1138, to a provenos; for IG I*106 see pp. 13—17), but both of them could also have been granted separately (enktesis in IG 17110, to cuergetat; for IG I?83 see pp. 8—12; ateleia in IG 1?153, to a person of unknown status, and in JG 1?154, to two proxenot; for IG 1?106a — 16 11248, see pp. 17—18). Moreover, as Meritt correctly pointed out, the formula restored by Wilhelm is without parallel in Attic inscriptions. We have no evidence of unspecified grants of enktesis. Meritt tried to avoid this objection by inserting γᾶς instead of καί in the formula. Unfortunately his suggestion is open to doubt for exactly the same reasons. Among the Attic enktesis inscriptions there are several cases referring only to a house (or houses), but no case of enktesis for γῇ only.3) I suggest, therefore, that the grant of enktesis should be removed from this

inscription, the more so because if Wilhelm (cf. his pp. 56—57) and Meritt are right in introducing Eurytion the son of Potamodoros into the amendment of Archestratos, another restoration seems to offer itself (cf. the idea behind. ®) Or Hfos ὄντι dvdgi ἀγαϑδι eis 'Adevatoc], Wilhelm in his commentary, p. 56; he points out that the expected form ἔς would give us a line one letter shorter, περί one

letter longer than necessary.*

7) H[ócorzsg] marked by a query in SEG X; questioned by A. Lambrechts, Tekst en uitzicht, p. 123; however, I was unable to find any discussion of ZG 1270 in her chapter

on ateleia and isoteleia, pp. 84—89. — The reading of the stone in lines 11—12 is clear except for H in line 12, which is not sure and should be dotted: the upper part of the "left vertical hasta and the middle eross-bar alone seem to be visible; an E, though improbable, is not absolutely excluded.

8) See p. 147f. The inscriptions IG II?337 reproduction of an unknown

3

(ἔγκτησις χωρίου) and IG 1131283

formula) are special cases; see pp.

137, 148.

(later

Kóhler's and Hiller's restoration of line 25, the wording of which was rendered

impossible by the new arrangement of the fragments): évas δὲ [Ποταμοδόροι xai vói Huei] [Zöovrior: xai] ἀτέλε[ ταν] x4. There remains much doubt about the restoration of this inscription®), and I

do not put forward my own proposal with any degree of certainty. Nevertheless I believe that it shows the possibility of other ways of restoring lines 11—12 without introducing the grant of emkiesis.19) We do not know when the first decree in /@ 1270 was passed by the Athenian assembly. It may be close in time to the second decree and date from the spring of 423, after the battle of Delion, but it may also well be an older decree the publieation of whieh was ordered by a second and more recent one. Certainly the fact that the man who proposed the amendments in both decrees was the same would speak for their close connection, but it is not decisive proof, the more So since it appears that Potamodoros and Eurytion were not in Athens when the first decree of IG 1270 was passed: (lines 4, 14 and 19; cf. Meritt, p.321), while they certainly were present when the second was passed (see e.g. ll. 26—28). The first decree of JG I?70 may therefore be older, and there is no reason why it could not have been passed before the battle of Delion. This, however, does not affect the restoration of privileges which it conferred on Potamodoros and his family. In the case of IG I*68/69 the situation is different. Here, in fact, Meritt’s8 restoration of privileges bestowed on Boiotian exiles stands or falls with his assumption that the decree cannot be dated before the battle of Delion. Meritt proposed the following text for the opening lines of the first decree, after the preamble (lines 5—6): [eet μὲν Osasubv

xai wave

ἄϊλλον Boworöv

Non—ZXTOIX., ca. 80 ὅσοι βο[εϑέσαντες ’Adevatdis ἔφυγον τὸν σφετέραν αὐτῶν]

| [Evan γῆς ἔγκτεσων καὶ oixias(?) ἐν ἑκά]στει τὸν πόλεον ἐς [- - -] Poll: 1,8

Ε - καὶ z]ö[v ἄϊλλον

Βοιοτὸν

ὅσοι

βόϊλονται)

(Rangabis),

Hiller; βόϊλονται per’

᾿Αϑεναίον γίνεσϑαι] Kirchner ap. Hiller coll. ZG II* 1.3. — L. ὁ - - στενΊ Kirchhoff, [ἐκά]oTev Hiller; but Meritt (p. 108 Note

98) is right about there being no doubt that ZTEI

$) Cf. Wilhelm, p. 59. 10) According to Wilhelm's restoration of IG 12103.12—13, ateleia (rather than aoteleia) was granted to Eurytion and his fathor Potamodoros (ef. his’p. 74 with Köhler, p- 141) in 412/1; this would mean a repeated grant of afeleía to both of them if my restoration of IG 1270 is sound, or in any ease to Potamodoros, if my restoration is wrong.

Recently

Wilhelm's

restoration

of line

12

of IG 12103

has

been

challenged

by

A. Lambrechts on other grounds (op. cit.! pp. 86—87), and Wilhelm himself added a query to his restoration of line 11. But I have not found any alternative solution and

there is nono to be found in Lambrechts, either.

4

is the right reading. On the other hand, I was not able to see more than an up right hasta (cf.: Kirchhoff and:Hiller) at the end of this line after zóAcov. Something like a faint trace of an upper ‘sloping stroke (on the place where one would expect the next

letter if tho letter after móAsov was as wide as an epsilon) might perhaps

be taken for

part of a sigma, but everything after nu is very uncertain.

-

There is no clear indication of date in the preserved portion of IG 1268/69, According to Meritt (p. 107), the lettering excludes an early date in the second half of the fifth century, while the type of heading (name plus patronymic plus &yeauudteve) as he very plausibly restores it, favours a date in the late .twenties (p. 111). As these points do not give us an absolute ferminus post (or ante) quem, Meritt looked for such a terminus in the content of the in-

scription, and thought that he had found it in the mention of the Boiotians in line 5. The success of the Athenian plan in Boiotia, Meritt argues, was dependent on the element of surprise. Hence “it is inconceivable that the Athenians embodied in a public decree terms or conditions which looked to the participation of Boiotian cities in the execution of the plan. Certainly a date before the battle

of Delion

many Boiotians for whom

is unreasonable,

but

after the battle there were

the Athenians may well have felt considerable

responsibility" (pp. 107—108). For it is likely, he goes on to say, that in addition to the Boiotian exiles already in Athens, many more who had participated in the Athenian plan were forced to flee their homes. The Athenians

could not settle them as a group, for they were not a homogenous group like the Plataians, for example; nor could tbe Athenians have afforded to do so in 424/83. “I believe that these refugees were encouraged to settle wherever they could find a good oportunity in any part of the Athenian Empire, and that the words [ἑκά]στει τὸν πόλεον in line 6 refer, not to cities of Boiotia, — with which the Athenians in 424/3 could hardly have had suitable diplomatic relations, — but to the cities of the Athenian.allies. One will remember that.the Spartans-in 431 helped the dispossessed Aiginetans by giving them land between Argos and Lakonia, but that many of the refugees found what asylum

they could in the rest of Greece (Thuc. 2.27). The Boiotian exiles in 424/3 faced a similar scattering. This decree may have been designed to give them individually such comfort as Athens could afford from the resources of her Empire." (P. 109.) Let us first examine the date of the first decree. First of all, it is necessary to differentiate between this and the second decree. According to Meritt's plausible reconstruction of the composite monument, it was the second decree, passed during the term of office of Phileas, which authorized the publication of the first — and hence older — one (cf. Meritt, p. 111). This means that the character of the lettering and the.type of the heading cannot be used to-support a date in the late twenties for the first decree. It is true, of course, that the element of surprise and hence secrecy was crucial for the success of the Athenian : 5

plan, and it is probable that the first decree of IG 1268/69 concerned help for a heterogenous group of Boiotian exiles (see ta óv[óp]ava in line 11): As far as I can see, however, this is about all that can be inferred from the poor fragments of the inscription with any degree of probability. There is nothing

in either decree that could be considered even a hint that the Athenians embodied in either of them “terms or conditions which looked to the participation of the Boiotian cities in the execution of the plan‘ of the campaign of Delion. And there is nothing there to contradict the assumption that the first decree dealt with Boiotian refugees who, as we know from Thucydides, had been settled in Athens before the campaign of Delion. Anticipating this objection, Meritt suggested that after Delion they lost any hope they may have had of being restored to their homes, and that their number was augmented by others who had to flee from their cities. 'This is

of course possible, but all we know forcertain from Thucydides is that they did not dare to move after their treacherous plans had been divulged. And, again from Thucydides, we know (Meritt himself adduces this passage in another context on p. 108, in support of his restoration [Θεσπιὄν] in line 5) that there were enough friends of Athens left in Thespiai after the battle of Delion to make the Thebans suspicious and make them dismantle the walls of the city in 423 (Thucydides 4.133.1; cf. J. A. O. Larsen, TAPA 86, 1955, p. 47—50). To sum up, I do not see any possibility at present of deciding whether the

first decree of IG 1268/69 was passed before or after the campaign of Delion: In my discussion of Meritt’s case for the latter eventuality I did not aim at excluding it absolutely. In my opinion the evidence is not decisive either way. My aim was to show that, this being the case, we cannot base the restoration of

IG 1768/69 on the assumption that we know the date of its first decree (cf.

Meritt, p. 113). I do not see any means of deciding whether some form of βούλομαι or βοηϑῶ or some other word should be restored in line 5 or whether τὸν πόλεον in line 6 should be taken as referring to Boiotian cities or to cities of the Athenian arche. Beyond ὅσοι flo[----] in line 5 any restoration is pure guess-work, though Meritt (pp. 107 and 113) is surely right that Kirchner’s suggestion ὅσοι βόϊλονται pet’ ' A9evatov γίνεσθαι] is odd whether we assume that the decree is later than Delion, or that it is earlier and should be read as a sort of appeal to the Boiotians to side with Athens. But fó[Aovra:] itself ‘(or some other form of the same verb) is by no means impossible granted that we.do not know anything about its predicate (cf. Meritt, p. 113). The same applies to [ἑκά]στει τὸν πόλεον in line 6. The fact that the Athenians did not

have “suitable diplomatic relations“ with the cities of Boiotia surely does not. preclude the possibility that they might be mentioned in an Athenian decree

dealing with Boiotian refugees in a context not known to us. Again, I domot see any means by which we could decide what kind of πόλεις was. referred to in line 6.

Up to this point I have been trying to show that the overall reconstruction of the beginning of the first decree of 7G 1268/69 proposed by Meritt, as well as the assumptions upon which it is based, are far from convincing. In addition I would now like to put forward some reasons for my belief that Meritt’s restoration of the beginning of line 6, which he himself marked with a query, is unlikely.) According to Meritt’s proposed restoration, the Boiotian exiles were given “the privilege of settling down in any part of the Empire” (p. 113), which he expressed by the formula [yes ἔγκτεσιν καὶ oixíag? Ev éxdjote: τὸν πόλεον. The technical meaning of this formula is more exactly rendered by saying that they are assumed by Meritt to have been given the privilege of acquiring and owning real estate in any part of the Empire, the term “acquiring” meaning legal acquisition by purchase or by any other act of legal transmission of property; such is the normal meaning of this formula all over Greece. This would not make much difference — although we may doubt whether this privilege would have been much comfort to the Boiotian refugees, most of whom had probably been forced to leave their fortunes behind in their home cities.12) What is more serious is the fact that although we know several hundred examples from the

whole of Greece where enktesis was granted, we know of no case in which one Greek state grants the right of enktesis in another Greek state. On the other hand, we do know of cases in which exiles were given land to live on; the Aiginetans and the Piataians mentioned by Meritt were such cases. In the first case &xsrecotot . . . τοῖς Αἰγινήταις οἱ Λακεδαιμόνιοι ἔδοσαν Θυρέαν οἰκεῖν καὶ τὴν γῆν νέμεσθαι... Καὶ οἵ μὲν αὐτῶν ἐνταῦϑα ᾧκπησαν, ot δὲ ἐσπάρησαν xarà τὴν ἄλλην “Ελλάδα. (Thuc. 2.27.2). The Aiginetans were given land “to occupy and cultivate, but not to own, perhaps** (A. W. Gomme, Hist. Comm. ad locum), but some

of them preferred to live elsewhere as foreigners; we have to assume in view of lack of evidence to the contrary. The Athenians

this,

gave the land of

Skione to the Plataians in 421, after having killed and enslaved the inhabitants

(Thuc. 5.32.1; he again uses the verb veueodar). In both cases the exiles were settled on a territory which belonged to the giver, whatever the title to ownership may have been. When they confiscated the land of their allies and gave it to their cleruchs or colonists, the Athenians were converting it into Athenian land. It seems to me that it was more practicable (I almost feel tempted to say “more

legal”) for one Greek state forcibly to confiscate the land “οὐ another than for it to find legal means to encroach on the most fundamental of the. rights of a sovereign Greek state, the right to reserve its territory for its own citizens. I am aware that to some extent the right answer to this general question 11) Cf. my remarks in GERAS

G. Thomson, pp.

195—196.

M) Meritt is aware of this difficulty and tries to overcome it by speculating about:

a gift of money to the refugees in line 32, p. 114. — As for the meaning of enktesis which does not imply a grantof land, see J. Pedirka, GERAS G. Thomson (1963), pp. 198—200.

7

:depends upon the correct interpretation of lines 25—41 of the Charter of the Second Athenian Confederacy,!®) and, still more generally, on the extent of Athenian

interference

with

the sovereign

rights

of her "allies" during

the

Peloponnesian war.) But whatever the answers to these questions may be, it is unlikely that the Athenians would have usurped the right to bestow in allied cities a privilege which even in its normal, legal form inside Athens itself was probably new in, say, the last third of the fifth century B. C. and which, certainly, was very rare even up to the end of the century (see pp. 137—138). And I propose that it should not be restored in a fragmentary inscription like IG 1?68/69, whose date we do not.know, in lines the general sense of which we

can only guess, and furthermore, in the very opening lines of à decree where some explanation of the reasons for the decree, or at least a description or definition of those who were going to benefit from it, might well be expected.15)

IG 1:83 (SEG X 91) O Squ Ph—EM A. Wilhelm, AU

6581—Plate

2

IV, pp. 78—80, No. XXXIII,

and B. D. Meritt, Hesperia

10, 1941,

pp. 326—327, both attempted a restoration of lines 16—24. — For factual comments seo A. W. Gomme, Hist. Comm. uttzicht, seo Note 5 below.

Thuc.

TU, pp.

679—080.

— A. Lambrechts,

Tekst en

This is a fairly large fragment from the right edge of & stele, and originally held twelve or thirteen stoichot and 24 lines of text; today only the extreme right edge is legible (3—5 stoichoi, in the lower third as much as 7 stoichoi). The remaining surface of the stone is completely destroyed, and even those places which are legible have suffered

33) IG 11243 = Tod, GHI 123; for an interpretation favourable to Meritt's theory see A. H. M. Jones, Athenian Democracy, Oxford 1960, p. 167. M) For one aspect of this problem seo G. E. M. De Ste Croix, “Notes on.Jurisdiction in the

Athenian

Empire",

CQ

11,

1961,

pp.

94—

112

and

268—280.

—

D.

M.

Lewis

reminds me that the scattered evidence, notably in the '*Attie Stelai", suggests widespread Athenian land holding in the Empire: at a minimum,

he assumes, the allied cities have

been forced to grant enktesis to Athenians. I readily agree that an allied city could have been foreed to grant enktesis to an Athenian —

or even to political exiles friendly to

Athens. But I still find it difficult to believe that the Athenian assembly could have granted enktesis of anything else but Athenian land, be it in Attica or elsewhere, whatever

the title of the Athenian state to own such land was. Enkiesis — or rather the right to own land on the territory of the citizen's own state — was an essential part of civic rights in all Greek

city states and as such probably reserved

to tho

diseretion of the

relevant states and their assemblies even in the Athenian arche. At least, I think, we have to assume this unless we have specific I maintain, does not contain such evidence.

15) On p. 114 Meritt invokes meaning of τὸν πόλεον in line indeterminable length plus five Provisions aiming at protection are very common in

8

evidence

to

the

contrary.

IG

1368/69,

lines 12—14 as further corroboration of his theory of the 6; but the passages are separated by a lacuna of surviving lines, and apparently have nothing in common. for friends of Athens in all parts of the Athenian Empire

fifth century

decrees,

ef. R. Meiggs

in CLR

63,

1949, pp.

9—12.

eonsiderable

damage,

so that

tho

letters!)

are shallow,

blurred,

and

at times

legible

only on account of the brownish discolouration. At many points,’ however, particularly in the first five lines, it is difficult to distinguish them from chance marks made by the wearing of the stone. This is unfortunately the case in line 22, where since Kirchhoff’s.

edition in IG I 44 a grant of enktesis is restored: The various editors of this inscription read in line 22: ETEXINA K. S. Pittakis, ZA 1842, No. 1068; TEZINA A. R. Rangabis, Ant. Hell. I, 1842, No. 298; TEXINA is given in Kirchhoff's facsimile in [G 144; in his lemma

we read:

"exseripsere Velsen et Koehler”; the apparatus criticus supplies the information that Velsen distinguished an upright hasta before the T; Kirchhoff's minuscule text reads [Zvx]rgow?; Hiller in [G 1588 prints [ἔγστεσιν A-- without stating which part of the doubtful K was preserved on the stone. It is very difficult to decide what letter preceded the T in line 22. The surface of the stone has flaked away at that point and in the resultant hollow a discolouration of the stone shows the letter E; it is visible even in the photograph.

Its cross-bars slope down towards the right, however, which conflicts with the form of epsilon used elsewhere in this inscription. When carbon is used the

cross-bars of the epsilon are practically invisible, while something like a faint trace of the lower sloping hasta of a K appears. It can be seen on the squeezes, too, although it is a little too long and starts a little too high if compared with : the kappa in line 16. The squeezes do not exclude the possibility of the reading E, but the lower cross-bar and part of the middle one are lacking. In view of the dilapidated state of the stone I consider it impossible to reach any cert-ainty as to what letter stood at this place in line 22. Pittakis had good reasons for his reading ETEZINA, however, whereas Wilhelm’s and Meritt’s reading [Zy]«rsciv, without marking the kappa as doubtful, is not borne out

‘by the stone. The degree of uncertainty in reading this inseription-is well illustrated by the letter

in this same line, between Z and N: all editors read it as J, and the upright hasta is indeed clearly visible. Nevertheless it is situated quite in the left half of its stoichos, immediately above the upright hasta of the E in the line below. The surface of this stoichos is also damaged, but the stone, the photographs and the squeeze would allow the reading E. In faet it is probably a chance fault in the stone; the iota in line 19 is also cut to the left side of its stoichos.

+

The editors of IG and I6? did not attempt a coherent restoration of this honorary decree of the Athenian assembly; the first to do so was A. Wilhelm, 1} They even 2 mm

are

larger than stated by Hiller:

0.012 m, in exceptional cases

higher, while the round letters are sometimes

1 mm

1 mm

or

smaller. The stoichedon:

10 vertical, not entirely regular stoichoi = 0.195—0.197 m; 5 horizontal stoichot = ' = 0.102—0.103 m. — In line 2 in Hiller's text two lost letters must be shown after the iota.

who restored lines 16—24. He decided on a length of 34 letters for each line, obviously on account of the formula in lines 18 and 20, already partially restored by Kirchhoff. Wilhelm’s proposed restoration is this: 6s

re

[2e

2l

39, l.l.

nnn ]\Xovro

EZTOIX.34

ἀναγράφσαι δὲ xai

[πρόξενον καὶ εὐεργέτεν “Adevaior] Ev στέλ [εἰ λιϑίνει καὶ ϑέναι ἐμ πόλει τὸν] γραμματ [£a τὸν τὲς βολξς" ...... 40... ] εἶπε τὰ u

20 [ἐν ἄλλα καθάπερ τῆι Poder Evar δὲ IT]oAvovo [ἅτοι óc ὄντι προχσένοι (oder: εὐεργέτει3) 10 δέμο v6] Adevuio [v ἐὰν βόλεται καὶ γὲς καὶ οἰκίας &y|wreow ^ A [ϑένεσιν, εὑρέσθαι δὲ καὶ ἄλλο Hóc]o ἂν déra [t &yaDóv- συνεπιμέλεσθαι δ᾽ αὐτὸν Ξ τ]οῖς στρ] 25 [aveyoic? κτλ.

Wilhelm was well aware that his restoration was hypothetical (the first sentence of his argument is a question, not a statement) and of his unusual proposal for line 22 he said on p. 79: “Den Zusatz ἐὰν βούληται m Z. 22 weiß ich allerdings an dieser Stelle in den entsprechenden Verleihungen der ἔγπκτησις nicht nachzuweisen. Es würde eine bezügliche Willenserklärung und ein Ansuchen

voraussstzen,

wie

ein

solches

auch

in zwei Beschlüssen

aus späteren

Zeiten, IG I1?907 (um 170 v. Chr.) Z. 7 ... und mit Bezugnahme auf ein bestimmtes Haus /@ 113810 (vor 230 v. Chr.) .. . vorgesehen ist." Wilhelm quotes

further parallels from JG II?237 of the year 338/7 the beginning of the third century B. 0.3)

and IG XI

543 from

B. D. Meritt in Hesperia l.c. accepted the principle of Wilhelm’ s restoration and for the most part the wording too; he suggested however that stoichedon 35° should be assumed: “The necessity for assuming an Ionic spelling πρόξενον instead of πρόχσενον in line 17 makes one wonder whether the readings should not in fact be given throughout with a length of line longer by one letter than that which Wilhelm employs.?) His line which seems to call more than all others for only 34 letters is line 22, where, however, he admits that the restored phrase 2) Of these documents the only real parallel would be in ZG 112907, which is too late,

however; and perhaps in IG 113810, which is also very late; but for αἰτησαμένῳ sco p. 143. In IG 112237.25 (see below, p. 49ff.) βούλωνται refers only to the choice of houses and "not to the grant of enktesis. Nor is IG XI 543.3-—9 concerned with a grant of enktesis: Hegestratos had already been granted enktesis, and had now expressed the desire to enjoy his right and acquire property on Delos and Rheneia (cf. Wilhelm, Hermes 42,

1907, pp. 331—332; P. Roussel, BCH 31, 1907, p. 371). 3) Wilhelm himself suggested as an alternative that some of the iotas could have been crowded into the adjacent stoichos, or that the iota in the word

could have been omitted.

10

καί before

εὐεργέτεν

ἐὰν βόλεται has no. parallel. It implies as Wilhelm suggests that Polystratos might have the privilege of possessing land and a house in Athensif he wished it, or if he asked for it, and Wilhelm

cites an example of later date,

JG I1?907,

line 7, to show the phraseology sometimes used with reference to such an application: δεδόσϑαι αὐτῶι γῆς xai οἰκίας Eyxıyow αἰτησαμένωι κατὰ τὸν γόμον. If the participle αἰτησαμένωι to which reference is here made is substituted in line 22 in place of the phrase ἐὰν βόλεται the length of line is increased by one letter; and I propose this standard of restoration with 35 letters in a line as somewhat preferable to the standard with 34.”*) Wilhelm finally put forward a third suggestion for the restoration of line 22 in 1949. As early as 1939 (p. 79) he had missed the title euergetes alongside the title of prowenos in line 21/22 (cf.

7G 1?82.12—17), and suggested therefore

in a letter to the editor of SEG X the reading [xai εὐεργέτει] instead of his original [ἐὰν Béderat] for line 22. His restoration is one letter longer than Meritt’s, and he may have assumed that one of the iotas was crowded into its neighbouring stoichos. At the start of all these arguments, however, a πρῶτον ψεῦδος stands unnoticed. Wilhelm did not mention—either because he did not notice it, or because

here too he assumed one iota would be crowded into the adjacent stoichos (cf. my Note 3 for line 17)—that in his original restoration line 22 has actually 35 and not 34 letters. Nor did Meritt notice this diserepancy, apparently thinking that line 22 has 35 letters in his own restoration, whereas in fact it has 36; consequently in the passage we have quoted above Meritt was really arguing not for but aguinst stoichedon 35. And Wilhelm's last proposal necessitabes 37 letters in line 22. In view of the fact that the whole reconstruction is à matter of hypothesis, I do not believe that we can reach any definite decision as to the length of the lines.5) If, however, Wilhelm's restoration is correct in principle, it appears to me that lines 18 and 20, in particular, suggest stoschedon 34. The restoration of line 17 remains unsolved, but that of line 22 can be solved by accepting

4) Pp. text also Hoc; 1. 23 thongs in

326—327; but cf. on this formula my commentary, Ῥ. 143 below. — Meritt's differs in the following lines: 1.17 πρόχσενον; 1. 18 ᾿ϑεῖναι; 1. 20 εἶναι; 1. 21 Hevoeoda:; 1. 24 dyadóv naga τ δέμο ἀποφαίνοντα. The orthography of the diphlines I8 and 20 is of course odd.

5) A. Lambrechts also rightly points out more than once that the whole restoration is hypothetical (op. eit., pp. 32, 121/2, 124); she expresses particularly strong doubts about Meritt's restoration of line 22 (p. 90 Note 2, cf. p. 124, although she does not notice the problem of line length) and about θεῖναι in 1.18: she would expect at this time

καταϑεναι (Ὁ. 117), which is certainly more common. On the other hand A. Lambrechts’ suggestion that the inscription might have been incised later than 403/2 (particularly p. 32—33,

152) is refuted.by the character of the lettering: the inscription is cut in the

Attic alphabet. 11

Wilhelm’s last proposal while dropping καί before γᾶς (cf. IG 11?8.17—18, also in a rider). We should then have a line of 34 letters: 20

[évaz δὲ IT]oAvavo [ἀτοι óc ὄντι προχσένοι τῷ δέμο 10] ᾿Αϑεναίο [v καὶ εὐξογέτει Yeo καὶ οἰκίας £y]xveaw ’A [ϑένεσι»"

If Wilhelm’s restoration is correct in prineiple, and if line 22 contained a grant of enktesis (as we have seen, the traces on the stone are far from clear)

then the formula which later became common probably was used. In any case, we have no reason. to consider IG 1283 proof of the existence of some sort of “Willenserklärung” in the formula, for granting enktesis in the fifth century B. C.5) The dating of the inscription is tied up with the identification of the person honoured in it. Kirchhoff had already identified [PJolystratos as Polystratos of Phlius, of whom we read in ZG 1582 of the year of archon Aristion (421/0), lines 12—17: καὶ ἀναγραφσάτο ( Aoréav tov ᾿Αλεὸν») πρόχσενον xai εὐεργέτεν ᾿Αϑεναίον καϑάπερ Πολύστρατον tov Φλειάσιον ἐστέλει Ardlverö γραμματεύς ... Kirchhoff therefore dated the inscription 7G 1588 in the same year, which was generally accepted. Köhler (AM 1, 1876, p. 172) noticed somewhat later that both Phlius and Alea lay on the way from Corinth to Sikyon and Mantinea, whence the great military road led on to Sparta, and that the name of the proposer of the decree in IG 1582, Thrasykles (PA 7317) was the same as that of one of the members of two Athenian delegations sent to Sparta in connection with the Peace of Nikias and the subsequent alliance (Thuc. 5.19.2; 24.1). Probably the reason why Polystratos and Asteas were honoured was that they had cared for the Athenian delegations travelling.through Phlius

and Alea on their way-to Sparta. The reason for the honour: paid in 7G I?83 has been lost, but in /G 1282 we read as the reason: δότε (Aovéac) εὖ ποεῖ ’Adeναίος xal ἰδίαι καὶ δεμοσίαι τὸν ἀφικνόμενον καὶ νῦν καὶ i» roe agdodev χρόνοι (Il. 9—12). Köhler’s view is extremely probable and was also generally accept-

ed. This would mean that,the man honoured was a deserving foreigner, not living in Athens, who was granted prozenia and ewergesia with full right. If the hypotheses given above are correct, the status of Polystratos was similar.

τοῦ -Tf therimes were not 34 letters long, and if-a grant of enktesis was nade, we should

have to assume an unusual formula which might have been possible at the end of the fifth century

(seo below, p. 138 with Note 4). Even

so, however,

a '"Willenserklárung" would not be a likely possibility.

12

a formula

including

IG 1:106 (+ Add. p. 303) O Squ — EM 6604 (frg. abc), 6624 (frg. d), 6624» (frg. e) The following additions to the bibliography should be noted:

A. Wilhelm,

AU

IV,

1939, p. 82. — O. Walter, "Ein Beitrag zur Aussprache des Griechischen”, Serta Hoffilleriana, 1940, pp. 101—103 (with a photograph of "frg. f"). — B. D. Meritt, Hesperia 21, 1952, p. 343 Note 4. — A. Andrewes, JHS 73, 1953, p. 8 (on the subject of the date). — W. A. McDonald, AJA 59, 1955, pp. 151—152 (on the restoration of the beginning of line 24).

The main part of this inscription, to which A. Wilhelm (JÓAI 21—22,

1922—1924,,

pp. 152—156) attributed altogether six fragments, is formed by threo joining fragments of the lower part of a stele (abc, now joined by plaster; the right edge is preserved). To the upper part of the stele, Wilbelm attributed frg. e and above it frg. d: on the . latter, part of the right edge of the stele is preserved, otherwise both fragments have

been. broken off all round and at the back; they do not join either on to each other or on to fragments abc. Wilhelm determined their position by the text and (in the case of frg. e) by the line of the lower break of the stone, which “ganz ähnlich verläuft wie die obere Bruchlinie" of fragments abc (pp. 155—166); I am afraid this last statement

is somewhat too categorical. ' I am of the opinion that there can be no objection to connecting frgs. d and e with fragments abe. The careful lettering is practically identical and the size of the letters and tho stoichedon pattern agree. The right edge of the lower part of the stele shows that the stele was wider towards the bottom:!) this would account for the fact that the

blank right margin of frg. d, which Wilhelm added to the upper part of the stele, is only 0.014 m wide compared with the width of ca. 0.021

m in line 18 on frgs. abc.

The sixth fragment presents problems, however. This is frg. / (EM 2622), which Hiller —- apparently by mistake — did not publish although he mentions it in the lemma: he speaks of “Fragmente sex”, naming them a, b, c, d, e, e

(sic), as his commentary shows: “e IG I 106; e adiecit Wilhelm qui composuit" and gives among his references *Goett. GA 1903, 774”. Hiller’s second frg. e

should thus be Wilbelm's frg. f. Wilhelm: himself first mentioned it in GGA, Lc., although not in connection with JG I?106; he ascribed the fragment to this inseription in J ÖAI 21—22,1. c., where he also published it for the first time. It forms the upper left corner of a ‘stele2), ending in a cornice without pediment. (cf. the photograph in Walter); part of the original top is preserved, ‘as well as part of the left edge of the cornice jutting out to the left and of the inscribed part of the stele, which is somewhat

narrower.

Wilhelm read and restored the fragment as follows: 1) The blank marginat line 18 is ca. 0.021 m; 0.38m lower it would be 0.028 m, if we project the right edge of the last stoichos downwards. over tho blank part.

. *) The height of tho fragment is 0.13m, its breadth 0.18 m (the cornice) and 0.107 m (the inscribed part of the stele);it is 0.07 m thick at the cornice while the stele is 0.055 m

thick; these dimensions do not represent the original thickness.

13

,

Na$zo[v ἐγραμμάτευε] Oleoi]

P Eiogfoe - - - - - - ]

Line 1 is cut on the cornice in large letters (ca. 0.02 m); the Y has been cut over the o (seo Walter).

In 1939 Wilhelm (AU IV, p. 82) confirmed his connection of frg. f to the inscription ZG 1?106. He is supported by O. Walter, who republished the fragment in 1940.3) The form of the letters in 1.3 (sic) and the spacing seem to him

good reasons for this. He sees similarities in the stonecutter's style (deeper ineisions at the ends of the strokes) but points out that the number of letters.

preserved is too small to allow us to consider it certain that frg. f should

belong to IG 12106.

|

In my opinion not only is it impossible to prove that frg. f belongs to IG 12106, but the assumption is improbable. Walter had already pointed out the problem of the length of line assumed for the heading on the cornice. The inscribed part of the stele was probably about 0.69 m wide, assuming 50 letters. to the line, while the jutting cornice would have been somewhat wider (0.72—0.73 m)*). Wilhelm's proposed restoration of the inscription on the eornice, however, would take up only about 0.6 m although the inscription begins more or less level with the left edge of the inscribed part of the block.

This means that instead of Wilhelm's

17 letters we would expect 420.5)

This difference is too big for it to be due to differing widths in the letters of the heading or differing. spacing, and too small for us to be able to add the

demotic to the name (cf.

IG I?2110; 115). The name as restored would appear

to be certain, however, for there is no evidence of any other name beginning

with Navzo-®). As for the lettering, comparison of the heading on frg.f with the subscript on frg.c (both are roughly

0.02 m high) cannot give reliable

3) Neither Wilhelm’s mention of the fragment nor Walter's edition of it are noted. in SEG X. *) Walter, who did not reckon with the stele tapering higher up, gives 0.7} m for the inseribed part of the block, which corresponds to the width of the stele at the height of frgs. abc, &nd, accordingly, 0.74 m for the width of the cornice. 5) Allowing the cornice a width of 0.74 m Walter counted + 21 letters. 9) Κράτης Ναύπωνος “αμπτρεύς (PA 8746), whom Wilhelm (p. 155) believed to be the father of our Naupon, was secretary of the treasurers of Athena in the year 4834/3 (IG 12233.18; 257.10 ete., cf. SEG X 185; 192 and 222, and B. D. Meritt, Athenian

Financial Documents of the Fifth Century, Ann Arbor 1932, p. 26). For the correct form. of:his patronymie (it is not Navrwy; the father of Krates is mentioned under this name in PA 10613) see Wilhelm GGA 165, 1903, p. 774. — A gravestone of the middle of the fourth century B. C. has been preserved, with tho inseription Aauntoeds (IG II? 6672); the father of Theodoros is also given in Nàórov (10614) according to the older reading. — The Naupon mentioned either in Sundwall's Nachträge to PA nor in Haggard's

14

Θεόδωρος Ναύπωνος PA under the name of EM 2622 is not Secretaries.

results because there are too few letters common to both. Nevertheless the slightly irregular Y of the subscript, which corresponds to the form of the Y in the rest of the text, differs considerably from the more

regular Y in

the

heading, where both the slanting strokes are rounded: it is this Y, however, which has been cut over the O, and it is not therefore necessarily typical. Finally there is the spacing to be considered: no decisive conclusion about the stoichedon measurements can be drawn from the existing three badly preserved letters in line 3 of fragment f, nevertheless the measurements show that the two stoichoi which have been preserved are only slightly less than 0.028 m, which would allow 0.014 m for one horizontal stoichos; this is considerably

more than the horizontal measurement in the stoichedon of fragments abcde

(0.013—0.0135 m).

Wilhelm restored 7G I°106 as a decree of the Athenian assembly benefiting exiles (line 25 [vó» ix -- ἐχσελ]ελυϑότον in Wilhelm's restoration, accepted by Andrewes) from one of the member cities of the Athenian arche on the

shores of the Hellespont or the Propontis, for it is clear from lines 16—19 that they were familiar with the Hellespont region." Fragments d and e seem from the existing remnants to have contained grants of honours and privileges. Assuming, then, that the persons honoured are identical with those mentioned in 11.16—17 and 23, Wilhelm suggested the following restoration of frg. d: [occ eee eee ee eee ἐπειδὴ ἄνδρες ἀγα]ϑί[οἵ e] [iow Πολυκλῆς καὶ Περαιεὺς καὶ 'Aowróflolog καὶ ἔργ]οι sai λ[6} [yoı περὶ τὸν δέμον τὸν ᾿Αϑεναίον καὶ viv καὶ ἐν τῦι πρόσθεν χρό [vor καὶ ἀποφαΐνοσιν αὐτὸς Hot στρατεγοὶ ὄντας προϑύμ]ος ποιξν 5 [ὅτι δύνανται ἀγαϑὸν ᾿Αϑεναίον τὲν πόλιν καὶ τὸν déuoly καὶ vei ἰστρατιᾶι χρεσίμος ὄντας, Evar μὲν αὐτοῖς ᾿Αϑένεσι ἀτἸέλειαν τ [6 μετοικίο, Eos ἂν κατίοσιν, καὶ ἔγκτεσιν yes καὶ οἰκία]ς ᾿Αϑένε {[or------------+-+-----++--+ eee eee nennen ] Stoichedon 50 was

established

by

Wilhelm;

it is guaranteed

for frgs. abe by lines

16—23, while for frgs. d and e the restoration of 50 letters in the line is based solely on the assumption that the fragments belong to the same stele as abc. In Wilhelm’s restoration

line

4 has

52 letters.

7) The preserved end δὲ thé’decree (frg. abc) contains 1) the decision to send Polykles,

Peiraieus and Aristobulos (their origin is not given) with a'trireme to help and advise the Athenian strategot operating in the Hellespont; 2) the decision to publish the decree; 3) the annulment of the decree concerning a man named Timanthes (we do not know what this was about); 4) an invitation to Polykles, Peiraieus and their

in the prytaneion. In view of the present whether proxenia was

15

granted

or not

state

of the

companions

inscription

(see Meritt, Andrewes).

we

to

a meal

cannot

decide

‚Wilhelm himself introduces his proposed restoration thus: “Die Größe der Lücken läßt eine völlig sichere Ergänzung nicht zu... Man Rest

eines

runden Buchstabens

in Z.1

für theta

genommen

mag, wenn werden

der

kann,

versuchen.” My own examination of the stone did not yield much new information: in line 5 the first letter (N) can be printed undotted, since the whole

of the right hasta is preserved, slightly raised, and the beginning of a slanting stroke is quite clearly visible. On the other hand today only the letters AOENE can be safely read in line 7. Before the A, of which only the tip is preserved, Pittakis recorded an almost complete sigma (Kirchhoff [G I 105 only reprints Pittakis’ text) and neither Wilhelm nor Hiller dotted it. Almost the whole of the stoichos in which we would expect to find is broken away from the stone; at best a trace of the upper sloping stroke of the & can be seen where the break comes, but personally I consider it very uncertain. This certainly does nothing to make Wilhelm's restoration of the enktesis in line 7 more certain. Wilhelm does not give his reasons, but quotes parallels from

7G 11?218,

237

and

545.

In the

first of these,

dating

from

346/58, the

Athenian assembly grahted a family of exiles from Abdera, who had appealed to them for help, the right [oix]e?v ᾿Αϑήνησιν. ἕως ἂν κατέλθωσι» εἰς τ]ὴν αὐτῶν (1.32—33). The second (338/7 B.C.) and third (321/0 B.C.?) cases are parallels for the restoration of the enktesis too: in IG I12237.24—320, according to a highly probable restoration, Akarnanian exiles were granted a temporary (wo

dv zareidwaı[v])

enktesis for houses chosen at will and were

relieved of the duty to pay the metoikion (see pp. 49—51). In IG 112545.11—13 there is an almost or entirely similar privilege — again ἕως ἂν x[av]éA2c[or] — restored for Thessalian exiles (see pp. 81—84). Here the only definite point is the relief from payment of the metoikion, while the grant of enktesis has been completely restored in accordance with JG II?237. The material we have at our disposal is thus nob extensive, nevertheless it does show that in the fourth century the Athenians did what they could to ease the life of friendly exiles in Attica. I see no reason why this should not have been the case at the end of the fifth century as well. Wilhelm's restoration of the enktesis is thus possible in principle, even if it cannot be proved. Even if it is correct in principle, however, we must still consider the actual wording of the formula as unknown. The parallels quoted all refer to enkiesis for a house, which is of course understandable in the case of exiles temporarily settled in Attica (particularly in

cases where the grant was made to a number of people at once, as in IG 112237 and 545: in IG I?106, however, as restored by Wilhelm, this was not the case); the formula Wilhelm proposes, however, refers to both land and house. There is too little of the text extant for us to come to a conclusion of any degree of

probability. Kirchhoff dated this inscription (frg. acde) written (even if not quite consistently) in the Attic alphabet, at the end of the period before Eukleides, 16

on the basis of the lettering and orthography.5) Wilhelm (J OAE 21 — 22, p. 154)

dated it between 411 and 408, on the grounds of the Athenian. strategoz in the Hellespont mentioned iin, it.°) During this time the Athenians were trying to regain their position in i the Hellespont, which had been shaken by the successes

of the Peloponnesians (Bengtson, GG?, p. 241). Andrewes (Lc.) defined the date more exactly as 409/8, because it was at the end of 409 that the regular strategos Thrasyllos (i.e. one elected in Athens) perhaps accompanied by. other regular strategot, joined the Athenian navy in the Hellespont,

where 7G 12106.

assumes them to be. This date is of course only a probable one.

IG 1106a (= IG 11748 + Add. p. 657) O Squ of frg. ὃ —

EM

2626.

Of the two apparently joining fragments of this inscription fragment a, copied and . published for the first time by Köhler in IG IT 5.73i, was no longer available to Kirchner when he was preparing the Editio Minor. Before this, however, the stone had been. studied in the » Inschriftensammlung des Nationalmuseums in Athen” by A. Wilhelm (JOA, 1, 1898, Beibl. col. 41) who connected it. with fragment b (ibid. e. 45) and made his majuscule transcript available to Kirchner. The text of both fragments was published as IG 11248. !

Kirchner’s reconstruction of the first five lines of the inseription reads (the _ letters underlined are from fragment b}: [..- 3...

τ]έλεσι [...:....2..-. 26... ren

[....9....] dvayoo[.........

1 XTOIX.40

28200000... οἰκία)

[c &ysrqotr]v καὶ ἀτέλειαν αὐτοῖν καὶ ἐκγόνοις, τὴν] [δὲ βολὴν τὴ]ν dei βο[λεγύοσαν [καὶ τὸς πρυτάνες xoi vj 5 [ds στρατη]γὸς ἐπιμ[έϊλεσθαι αὐτῶν, ἐάν το δέωνται] πτλ. Four years later, in the Addenda of IG 115, pars I, p. 657, Kirchner communi-

cated

Wilhelm's

unpublished

scription. In Wilhelm’s

and

more

complete

reconstruction

|

of the in-

version, based on the realisation that the decree was

voted for two persons (dual in lines 6 and 10), the first five lines read: .8) = occurs twice, i is not consistently used for the aspirate; Hiller's note on i.11 which is taken over from IG I 106: EIIIMEAE littera ionica”’ is incorrect, however: the old Attic lambda is clear (cf. B. D. Meritt—A. Andrewes, BSA 46, 1951, p. 205

Note 4) and in the sections of the inscription which have survived it is used without exception, the same as OZ. The older orthography of the pseudo- "diphthongs isi dropped once in line 19: évvBovdedoort[ac]. 5) Wilhelm attributed the lettering to the same hand as JG 13 398, of the (= Raubitschek, Dedications from the Athenian Akropolis 107) and IG II? p. 657 (= SEG X 117) from before 411/0. — Hiller believed Timanthes have been à man implicated in the affair with the herms, PA 13607, Andok.

17

year 408 To 73 + Add. (line 21) to 1.35.

,

[....8... τ]έλεσι [τοῖς αὐτῶν προξένω καὶ sdeoyér]

2TOIX.40

[a *Adnvaiwr] ἀναγράψαι καὶ καταϑέναι ἐμ πόλει- Eva] [: δὲ αὐτοῖν καὶ ἀτέλειαν 10 μετοιπκίο * Aósyvnoc τὴν] [δὲ βολὴν τὴ]ν ἀεὶ βο[λε]ύοσαν [καὶ τὸς πρυτάνες καὶ τῇ δ [ὸς στρατη]γὸς ἐπιμ[έϊλεσθαι αὐτοῖν ὅπως ἂμ μὴ ἀδιρ) [ὥνται"] κτλ. At the same time Wilhelm advocated a fifth century date for the inseription:

“den ich der schönen Schrift wegen (ganz ähnlich IG T, Suppl. p. 166, n. 62 b [= 12118; see photograph in Kirchner’s 1143, No. 41] aus dem Jahre 408/7, II? 142 [= I?, 1108] aus dem Jahre 410/9) trotz der Verwendung des ionischen.

Alphabets in die Jahre vor Archon Eukleides setze..." (JOAT 231—922, 1922— 1924, p. 153f). Accordingly, Wilhelm’s reconstruction of the inscription has been republished by Hiller as ZG I?106a.1) There is no commentary in any of the publieations of the inscription. It is not easy to decide whether some other privilege was granted to the two unknown

men,

besides ateleia in line 3, and whether Wilhelm

was right

in restoring ἀτέλειαν τὸ μετοικίο ᾿Αϑήνησι in line 32). The words &&eAnAvdorwv

éx τῶν πόλεων] in line 8 of IG 1?106a make it virtually certain that the men honoured were ‚political from the second half of of the metoikion only to ateleia, of the metoikion also IG I11?545, see pp:

exiles. We have later parallels, all of them dating the fourth century, both for the granting of aieleia political exiles (ZG II?211) and for the granting of and enktesis (IG TI?237, see pp. 49—51; probably ' 81—84)?) Thus the grant of ἔγπκτησις oixíac in.

IG T?106a cannot be excluded:

[ävajı δὲ αὐτοῖ]ν

καὶ ἀτέλειαν

καὶ Eyrrnaw

oixíac: τὴν | dé βολὴν] «tA. Nevertheless the necessity of dropping the words [td μετοικίο] and [᾿ϑήνησι], the second of which is very common in grants of enktesis down to the middle of the fourth century B.C. (see p. 139), seems

to me to favour Wilhelm's restoration and to make the granting of enktesis very improbable.

IG 17110 (+ Add. p. 303; GHI 86; SEG X 125) O 8qu—

EM

6601

For recent bibliography see GHI 86 + Add. p. 265; SEG X 125. To this can now be added: J. V. A. Fine, Horoi (1951), pp. 204—205. — J. and L. Robert, BH 1952, 46 (with.

reference

to Fine).

1) A. Lambrechts

—

J. Petirka,

GERAS

G. Thomson

(1963), pp.

dates the stele after 403/2, the decree itself before

198—200 403/2

(with (p.

152,

cf. 117 Note 1 and p. 125), apparently not realising that it was the lettering that caused Wilhelm to claim the inscription for the fifth century B. C. ?) Questioned by Lambrechts, p. 87, cf. 123, but on insufficient grounds. 3) For IG 12106, which would be our closest parallel if the restoration of that inscription is right, seo pp.

18

13—17.

reference to Fine). — On the person of Agoratos: L. Gernet in Lysias, Discours, Paris 1924, pp. 183—191. — U. E. Paoli, “Il'processo di Ágorato", RFIC 60 (N. S. 10), 1932, pP. 289—308. After & number

of editions the text of this inscription was esteblished

in the form

published by Hiller in IG I?. This was accepted without change by Tod, although he rightly pointed out that not all the restorations possessed the same degree of certainty. This applies particularly to tho very important lines 16 and 17; the former (in Dittenberger’s restoration) has two letters more than the stoichedon —- otherwise exactly observed — requires. Line 17 (in Dittenberger’s and Wilhelm's restoration) only achieves the necessary 36 letters by using the spelling βούλεται which does not follow the usage of the stonecutter.*)

This decree of the assembly of Athens of the eighth prytany of 410/9 praises. a certain Thrasybulos in return for unspecified services to the Athenian people and grants him a golden crown; the grant is to be publicly announced at the City Dionysia (l1.6—14). Two riders follow; the second (1.38—47) deals. with the procedure to be adopted in dealing with the corrupt practices in-, volved in the voting on a psephisma for Apoll[odoros]. Neither he nor Thrasybulos are identified more exactly. In the first rider Diokles proposed further privileges for Thrasybulos, including (according to the restoration suggested. for 1.15—17) Athenian citizenship. The rider then goes on: 2b

τὸς [δὲ ἄλλος, Ηόσοι τότε εὖ £]zoíecav tov de pov τὸν ᾿Αϑείναίον, ....19... Jw καὶ ᾿Αγόρατο ν καὶ Κόμονα [xai ...... Be. ] xai Σῖμον κα i Φιλῖνον zali ....8...]a, εὐεργέϊτα]ς [ἀἹναγράφ cat ἐμ πόλε[ι ἐν στέλει Aliiver τὸν γραμ[μα]τέ 30 a τίε]ς BoA£c. [καὶ &yxreot]v εἶναι αὐτοῖς ὄμπεδρ ᾿Αϑεναίοις, [xai γεπέδο]ν καὶ οἰκίας, καὶ οἴκεσ ἐν ᾿Αϑένεσι, [xat ἐπιμέλ]εσϑαι αὐτὸν τὲν βολὲν τὲν αἰεὶ β[ολεύοσαν κα]ὶ τὸς πρυτάνες, ἤόπος à » μὲ ἀδ[ικδνται) κτλ.3) |

ZTOIX.36

Velsen's restoration of11.30—33 was generally accepted and is very probably correct, although he suggests an unusual formula for the grant of enktesis..

The only uncertainty is in [γεπέδο]ν, which J. G. Schubert objected to on the grounds that the word y5xsóov only means land inside

the

city walls.®) He

1) The pseudo-diphthong ov is written ov only in the restored passage

in line 46fin.

3) The last two letters in lines 28 and 29 are no longer legible on the stone today. 3) De

proxenia

(1881),

p.

42

Note

1; Phrynichos

(Bekk.

διαφέρει γήπεδον οἰποπέδου. οἰκόπεδον γὰρ olxiag κατερριμμένης

Anecd.

I p.

ἔδαφος, γήπεδα

32

s.v.)

δὲ và ἐν ταῖς

πόλεσι ποοκείμενα, οἷον πηπία; Eustath. p. 436, 41—42: γήπεδον μέντοι τὸ ἐν πόλει προκείμενον οἰκίας οἷον κηπίδιον. Cf. Hesychios (Latte) Γ 513: νήπεδα: χωρία, κτήσεις.

19

therefore suggested restoring [ἐγγεέω]ν following the inscription now published, as IG: Bulg. Y 41:16 (3/2 century B:C., Odessos).4) None of these proposals can be excluded. As W. K. Pritchett has shown (“The Attio Stelae II, V: Real Property", Hesperia 25, 1956, pp. 263 ff.), the word γήπεδον is not common and does not occur in the speeches of orators,. but is probably to be found in the records of the Athenian poletai from 415— 413 ΒΟ: οἰκία [κειμένε ö]aö Movıyllar καὶ ysz]éóo ἔἕμισυ [πρὸς rv] τειχῦν, (SEG XIII 15= stele IV. 6—9).5) Pritchett came to the conclusion that the word means a “plot of ground or lot^, believing however that the exact meaning. could not be ascertained for lack of sufficient evidence. In the records of the poletai landed property was described as y:5zsóoviu the city or (if the restoration of the document in Note 5 is correct) in the inland demes. The parallel quoted in his own support by Schubert is far removed both in place and time. We know the adjective ἔγγειος in the meaning more or less of our “landed” from Athens as well: ἔγγειος οὐσία Lys. frg. 91 (Th.); Dem. 36.5; ἔγγειοι τόκοι Dem.

34.23. The expression

ta Zyyeia, however,

found

in Dem.

30. 30, does

not possess the meaning “landed property".9) Of the seven persons to whom enktests was granted by the decree of the Athenian assembly preserved in JG 5110, only Agoratos is known to us from other sources (PA 177). T. Bergk (Zeitschrift für Altertumswissenschaft 1847, 90]. 1099— 1104) had already discovered the connection between this decree and the account given by Lysias of the murder of the Athenian oligarch Phryni-

chos in the autumn of 411. In his speech accusing Agoratos Lysias declared that the deed was done by Thrasybulos of Kalydon with the assistance (according to Lysias the passive assistance) of Ápollodoros of Megara; Lysias sets ‘out to prove that Agoratos had no right to take ths glory for the death of Phrynichos to himself (13,70—71). Since all these names are to be found in IG 12110, there is little doubt that the Agoratos whom Lysias was accusing in his speech was identical with the Agoratos named among the persons to whom enkiesis was granted.") .'4) Cf. now also ZG. Bulg. I 42.4 (dating uncertain) and 43.29 of the first century B.C., both also from Odessos. 5) The evidence in SHG XIII 18 — stele VIL23—26 is not very reliable: [γέπεδον z]ai oftxta *A9]uovoz, £[vsgov yénedoly zo[i oixía^ Αϑμονοῖ]. 5) We find the expression κτήσεις ἔγγειοι xai οἰκίαι (IG IX 2.338.8—9) in Thessaly, too, ab the very beginning of the second century B.C. The word τὸ ἔγγαιον meaning

“Grundstück”

(in plural “Grundbesitz’’)

is found on papyri

from the fourth century

B.C. (Preisigke, Wörterbuch s.v.). Polybios 31.22.6 has κτήσεις ἔγγειοι contrasted with ἔπιπλα; a similar meaning in Dem. 30.30, 7) The speech was made some time between 400 and 398 B.C. (Gernet op., cit. p. 186 Note 1). Lycurgus, κατὰ Aswzodrous 112 (the speech. was made in 330), agrees with Lysias. Thucydides (8,92,2) did‘ not know the perpetrators of the deed, and mentions

only onc of their accomplices from .Argos, who was ‘caught but refused to betray the 20

In his thirteenth speech Lysias gave.us a highly-coloured account of the life of Agoratos, which was obviously biassed to fit the needs of the prosecution.

According to Lysias 18.27 Agoratos did not come from Attica; according to $3.18 and

64 he was

δοῦλος καὶ ἐπ δούλων:

his father's

name: was Eumares,

owned by Nikokles and Antikles. Agoratos was said to have had three brothers all of whom had been condemned to death and executed

(13.67—68

= 65—66

in the Gernet-Bizos edition). Agoratos appears to have lived in Peiraius (13. 23), In view of -his ulterior purpose the reliability of what Lysias says is doubtful; his information has. been variously treated. by different commentators.) Whatever his origin may have been, Agoratos could certainly not have been

a slave at the time when he was granted enktesis and euergesia. If it is true that at the end of the Peloponnesian war he lived in Peiraieus, he may have been a metic (Paoli, p. 301). We know nothing about the other men honoured here: like Agoratos they may also have been metics living in Áttica.?) . J. V. A. Fine believed that the inscription 7G [110 proved that the grant of enktesis always included a real gift of land by the state.) I have shown elsewhere!)

that this conclusion is unfounded.

* others. Plut. Alkib. 25.14 gives the wrong name for the murderer. For this and other details on which the sources do not agree, see the interpretation and bibliography given by Lenscheu, RE s.v. Phrynichos 3. — The exact relationship between IG 17110 and the decrees (decree) quoted by Lysias following $ 71 and $ 72 is a matter of discussion

and has provoked an extensive literature; see the many editions of the inscription. The basic contributions to the problem are those of A. Kirchhoff, Monatsberichte Akad. Berlin, 1861, pp. 601—608 (editio princeps of the composite inscription from Velsen's posthumous papers); H. Röhl, Hermes 11, 1876, pp. 378—381; G. Gilbert, Beiträge zur innern Geschichte Athens im Zeitalter des Peloponnesischen Krieges, Leipzig 1877, pp. 320—348; W. Dittenberger, $I@143 + Add. Corr. p. 659 and SIG? 50; I. M. Valeton, Hermes 43; 1908, pp. 481—510; for the latest brief summing-up seo M. N. Tod, loc. cit., and T. Lenschau, £c. 8) L. Gernet, J. c., pp. 183—184, is willing to agree that Agoratos was still a slave in 411 and erroneously seeks confirmation for this view in IG 1?110: he thinks that the

formula in ll. 32—34

“fait penser aux actes d'affranchissement"

(p. 184 Note 1). In

fact it is a common pr ivilege granted to deserving persons not of eitizen rank. U. B. Paoli, p- 292 is of the opinion that Agoratos had never been a slave.

9)

Cf. Röhl, pp. 379, 380. For the later history of Agoratos, who declared that he had

been made an Athenian citizen, see Lysias 18, together with Gernet’s commentary and the article by Paoli. '* 19) Horoi, p. 205. — Although this conclusion was immediately rejected by J. & L. Robert, op.cit.,it appears again in N. G. L. Hammond, JHS 81, 1961, p. 87; the latter

‘even ..defines enktesis wrongly as. the

grant to.a naturalised: citizen

of land in Attica.

11) In the article cited in the bibliography.

21

ἊΝ

ὲ

IG Π8 (SIG? 118; SEG X 83) O Squ Ph —

EM

6882 —

Plete 1

The two opposing hypotheses are sot out in the following articles: P. Foucart, BCH 12, 1888, pp. 163—169 (the first restoration of the text; the honoured man was Herakleides of Byzentium). — U. Köhler, Hermes 27, 1892, pp. 68—78 (the second the text; the honoured man was Herakleides of Klazomenai).

restoration

of

Editions of the text after IG II*8: H.T. Wade-Gery, Essays in Greek History, 1958, p. 207—211 (lines 3—17 only; the author supports Kóhler's hypothesis; first published in HStCIPh, Suppl. I, 1940) — D. Stockton, Historia 8, 1959, pp. 74—79 (Appendix;

the author points out that his text “is intended to illustrate the discussion in .this Appendix, and not to be taken as definitive”, p. 75; he revives Foucart's hypothesis). — H. Bengtson, Staatsverträge hypothesis).

II, 1962, No.

183

(he

is basically

in favour |

of Kohler’s

Further bibliography (unless already given in SEG X): K. J. Beloch, GG II 12, 1914, p. 377 Note 4 (doubts Köhler’s hypothesis). — F. Hiller, JG 1?1924, p. 291 (Fasti), li. 30—35 (Kirchner’s (sic) doubts about Kóhler's hypothesis). — P. Haggard, Secretaries, 1930, p. 33 (the first prosopographical support for Köhler’s hypothesis). — A. W. Gomme, AJP 65, 1944, pp. 331—332 (pointing out that the connection between JG 1158 and

the peace of Epilykos is hypothetical) — A. Lambrechts, Tekst en uitzicht, pp. 28, 31, 87, 123—126, 152.—H. Bengtson, GG", p. 228 Note 5 (in favour of Köhler’s hypothesis). — A. Andrewes, Historia 10,1961,p. 3 with Note 6 (in favour of Köhler’s hypothesis). — A. G. Woodhead, SHG XIX 16 (in favour of Kóhler's hypothesis). — H. B. Mattingly, Historia 14, 1965, p. 273 Note 2 (doubts about Kóhler's hypothesis). — A. E. Raubitschek, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 5, 1964, p. 166 (dates IG 1138 paullo ante 415; cf. SEG XI. X 43). j The

most

exact

evidence

of the state of preservation

of the stone

is given in the

facsimile in ZG II 5.5e (except for line 11in., where there is nothing preserved before JV, and line 21én., where before the £ the upper horizontal stroke of the preceding letter can be seen, i. e. Xegi); although several more letters can be read than shown in Stockton's text (it was taken over by Bengtson as far as tho preserved letters are concerned), none of the additional letters gives any help in completing the restoration. The most significant

contribution is perhaps the Z at the beginning of line 16, where ends of all three cross strokes are preserved, but even this only confirms the current restoration. — Below line 21 there is room for a few letters of the next line, but unfortunately the surface of the stone is so badly damaged that I could not find any traces of letters there.

In order to form an opinion on the textual basis for the hypotheses on the subject of the date of this inscription I submit an apparatus criticus for the relevant portions of the inscription. Line 5: ἢ) [Θ]εοκλείδης or [N]eoxAslöng Foucart p. {V]coxdeling only, Wilhelm first, Hermes 24, 1889, Neokleides PA 10631; of. the objections raised by A. followed by Kirchner and Bengtson; Köhler (and name

of the epistates; Haggard

165, Stockton [in his commentary; p. 116 Note 1 (believing him to be B. West, AJP 56,1935, p. 74 Note 7) Dittenberger) did not restore the

(}.c.) was the first to use —

with some caution —

the

Li

1) The apparatus criticus given for this line by Stockton and taken over by Bengtson

‘is inexact.

22

restoration of the name of Neokleides as an argument for the dating of the text, identifying him as the secretary of Aigeis in IG I*25 (SEG X 85) and IG I? 87(SEG X 80). She was followed — much more elaborately — by A. B. West (AJP 56, 1935, pp. 72—76) and

Wade-Gery (l. c., pp. 209—210); “The epistates is probably Neokleides, but he could be the politician mocked by Aristophanes... [PA 10631] ... as well as the secretary of 424/3" Mattingly, J. c. Line 6: Ἡρακλείδην [..5.. Βυξάντιον]Ρ Foucart; [τὸν (roy) KAaCouéwov] Köhler and all his supporters; "fortasse [τὸν é« Bulavrfov]?” Stockton in his apparatus criticus

“on p. 75; “Stockton’s suggestion

...

is improbable in face of the

(3,13) and Θοκυδίδ[ης] (12)” A. Andrewes;

inseription's

βολῆς

G. Klaffenbach (in Bengtson) rejects Stockton's

restoration for the same reasons; Mattingly (Lc.) suggests [τὸν ἀπὸ Bularclo]. . Line8:xal Bengison.

ὅτε Foucart, Köhler; xa2' ὅτε Dittenberger, Kirchner, Wade-Gery, Stockton,

Linel0/11:

[στρατιὰς xai ἐν zäloıw] Foucart; [πρεσβείας xai iv x|ào:] Köhler and the

supporters

of his theory;

Line 16/17: [xal τὴν

Stockton rightly does not restore.

εἰρήνην

Köhler, with the comment:

zali ἐς

“Ich muß

ἄ]λλο Foucart; bemerken,

[rdg

πρὸς βασιλέα ἔϊς re ἄ]λλο

daß mir ein anderes Beispiel der Ver-

bindung dureh te-ve in attischen Psephismen nicht erinnerlich ist. In metrischen Inschriften ist diese Verbindung nicht ungewöhnlich” (IG II? 3138, 11162); the supporters of his theory follow Köhler; Wilamowitz suggested [τὰς γενομένας xai | sig] using an orthography unusual in this inscription; Stockton does not restore here. Line 20—22: cf. Stockton, pp. 78—79; Wilhelm's restoration (AU IV, pp. 23—24),

accepted by Stockton and Bengtson xai ἐάμ πὸ Ball ϑανάτωι dnolddrn: ἦναι] περὶ αὐτᾶ τὴν τιμωρίαν xab|ázeg --} is indubitably preferable to Wilhelm’s earlier restoration (Hermes 24, 1889 p. 116 Note 1), accepted by Kirchner.

Fragments of two decrees by the Athenian assembly are preserved on this

inscription; of the first all that remains is a fragment of the formula of publication (ll. 1—2). The second decree, part of the preamble of which is preserved (ll. 3—6), gives Herakleides (the ethnic is lost) the titles of proxenos and euergetes for his services to the Athenian state (ll. 6—12; the most interesting part of this brief summary of his services has also been lost). A rider proposed by Thucydides, who mentions help given by Herakleides in diplomatic negotiations (ll. 13—17, the details again are lost, but [οἱ πρέσβες | of z]aoà βασιλέως ἥκ[οντες} apparently have reported on his help), grants Herakleides further privileges: [£va« * Hpax4e]

[(δη1] γῆς ἔγκτησιν καὶὶ οἰκίας ' A15vgod [» xai ἀἸτέλειαν καϑάπ[ερ τοῖς ἄλλοις np)

ZTOIX.

31

| !

20 [οξένο]ις" tA, These are followed by a grant of immunity for the person of Herakleides.

There can be no doubt about the wording of the formula granting enktesis; Herakleides’ descendants are not mentioned in it, . The lettering of the inscription witnesses that it was eut at the beginning of the fourth century (Kirchner IG IP?8: “Litterae volgares in.s. IV"; Meritt 23

agrees with this, iin Stockton, p 74): The Ionie alphabet iis used ánd the pseudo‘diphthongs | are “written in. the older orthography. 2) Since,in my opinion, the formulae used in the inscription cannot serve to date it, the dating depends ‚on the identification of the Herakleides concerned here; he is either Herakleides of Byzantium (RE s.v. Horakleides 11, Sundwall) or Herakleides of Klazomenai (RE s.v». Herakleides 1, Kahrstedt; PA 6489). It also depends on whether

the. reference to negotiations and σπονδαί with the king (Il. 13—16) is taken as referring to the peace of Antalkidas, 387/6 (or the peace made with the Thracian king in 390), or as referring to the peace of Epilykos of the year 423. I do not wish to recapitulate the discussion about these points here. It has been well summed up by Stockton, /.L., and I should only like to point out the several elements of uncertainty (for the most part Stockton also mentions them) which l believe make a definite decision impossible. ..The parts of the inscription which have been preserved give us nothing to go on as to how the two decrees were connected. We do not know whether the second decree continued, and if so, in what way. If both decrees referred

to the same person (Köhler), it does not follow from this who that person was or was not.

|

"Nor does it seem to me that prosopopraphical arguments. can serve as yet to prove either of the two hypotheses put forward (cf. Stockton, p. 77, as against West and Wade-Gery). It is only fair to say, though, that Köhler’s hypothesis was not based on these arguments, since the “exact” nature of the prosopographical approach would lead one to believe (particularly after Wade-Gery’s article) that it is the touchstone of the problem. A. W. Gomme, for example (AJP 65, 1944, p. 332) wrote of West’s and Wade-Gery’s identification of Neokleides: “if this identification fails, we know nothing about the contents or the date of the treaty mentioned" in IG II?8. Perhaps this standpoint should be changed to: unless this identification is proved... Because,

when’ 'H. Bengtson (GG?, p. 228 Note 5) claims that Wade: 'Gery's -conélusions are not refuted by Stockton, we have to object that they are not H. B. Mattingly has recently rightly pointed out.®) À would suggest, therefore, that in our present state of knowledge decide which of the two hypotheses is the right one. The second IG 1138 dates either from the year 424/3 or soon after, or from

proved, as we cannot decree in the fourth

3) With one exception, which seems however to be inevitable, in the restoration of line 11: [εἰς] (Kirchner, Stockton, Bengtson); [ἐς] (30 letters) was restored by Köhler and Dittenberger, and [περί] (32 letters) by Foucart and Wade-Gery,.who proposed

HEPITON.. ᾿ 8) "I am still not quite certain whether IG ID8

... is of 424/3 rather than

after

389 B.O."; cf. my apparatus criticus to line 5. I prefer this uncertainty to the declaration by Andrewes that IG 1128 is a "strong piece of evidence” for ‚the authenticity of the peace of Epilykos (i.c.). ᾿

24

‘century, ie. 387/6 or the’ yéars immediately following if it refers to the peace of Antalkidast), or 390 and the: yeàrs immediately afterwards if it refers to the hegotiations with the Thracian rulers Seuthes and Medokos. Since we cannot identify Herakleides with any certainty, we cannot determine his status either. If he was Herakleides of Byzantium, he was a political exile settled in Athens. We know nothing of Herakleides of Klazomenai but that he was eventually given Athenian citizenship. u

IG 1110 + 2403 (+ Add. p. 655; SIG? 120; GHI 100)" Fre. a: O Squ —

EM 8147

“It is impossible to give a wholly convincing restoration of this decree which is unique in character and of which well over half the.letters have perished even in those lines of which portions survive: no line preserves more than 39 letters out of the 856—890 which, scholars are agreed, each originally comprised." This general warning by M. N. Tod?) fully applies to line 9 of this important inscription where we read, after a lacuna of probably more than 50 letters: [— ἐἸγγύησιν καϑάπε[ο ᾿ΑἸϑηναίοις. Various restorations have been ventured for the lacuna before the word [&]yyüncw 3) by a number of scholars, in accordance with their overall reconstruction of the document. Most of those who think that ἐγγύησις was one of the privileges given to one of the groups of people who helped to restore democracy in Athens in 403 B.C. look for additional privileges in line 9 4): for isoteleia in view of Xenophon (Hell. 2. 4. 25) who says that tsoteleia was promised (σιστὰ δόντες) by the democrats to noncitizens who joined their’ cause (Kolbe,

Wilhelm,

epigamia (Wilhelm, Tod, Feyel) to go with

Tod, Feyel, Gluskina);-and

ἐγγύησις which

they conceived

as the right of fully legitimate marriage piving citizen status to the descendants of the person honoured. Accordingto Kolbe, the people honoured were given 1) But cf. Andrewes,

l.c.

1) Cf. GHI 100, and SEG XII, 84, for the bibliography, to which we should now add: L. M. Gluskina, Admucnue Metexn B Cops6e.3a BoccTaHOBNeHHe JIeMOKpaTHH V sexa no m. 9, VDI 1958, No. 2, p. 70—89 (cf. SEG XXI 218).

B

KOHIle

^ 2) At the beginning of his commentary in GHI, to which I refer tho reader for. fuller discussion of this decree. ' 3j There cannot be any doubt about the reading: ΓΓΥΗΣΙΝῚ isshown by older squeezes and can still be partly seen on the stone; D. Hereward’s’statement (BSA 47, 1952, p. 110)

is too strong, yet she does not question the generally .

accepted reading, either.

5) A different interpretation of ἐγγύησις in this document was attempted byP. Foucart,

who proposed in accordance with Xen. Hell. 2. 4. 25 [εἶναι

ἰσοτέλειαν

κατὰ

τὴν δοϑέϊσαν

αὐτοῖς E]yyünsw and somewhat differently by G. Mathieu, who proposed Tradra δ᾽ ἅπαντα εἶναι αὐτοῖς κατὰ τὴν "δοθεῖσαν" αὐτοῖς ἐϊγγύησιν; but cf. D. Hereward; op. cit., p. uz

Note 21, and L. M. Gluskina, op. cit., p. 83 Note 60.

25

[ἰσοτέλειαν καὶ γῆς xai οἰκίας ἔγκτησιν καὶ Eiyyönow. His reason for this restoration was that enktesis is often found in "Isoteliedekreten" (Kio 17, 1921, p. 245). This is of course true, but as in the case of ateleia (see p. 3), there is no fixed connection between the two privileges. Kolbe’s restoration of enktesis has not been accepted by any of the subsequent editors; but L. M. Gluskina, who does not put forward her own reconstruction of the text, would prefer it to epigamia.®) Given the state of the inscription, it is impossible to prove or disprove any of the suggested restorations of line 9. IG 1520 (+ Add. p. 656) O Squ — EM. 6938 Photograph of both fragmants in A. Lambrechts, Tekst en uitzicht, tab. VII. — Kirchner's text is repeated in H. Bengtson, Staatsvertráge, No 238 B.

In lines 5 1—2 of this inscription Köhler (IG II 44) once suggested [Y]äls καὶ οἰκίας #yxrnow ᾿Αϑήνησι οἰκ)]δντ[ἢ. His restoration was rejected by Dittmar, Cor. pp. 285—237, who felt that the formulae restored by Köhler are unusual, and by Kirchner, who read: [--τ- τ τ τττττττττττον-ν τὰ μὲν ἢ [Ada καϑάπερ] τῆι βολῆι, ἀναγράψαι δὲ Πα] [....8...Jov τὸν ....9.... πρόξενον] κτλ.

ΣΤΟΙ͂Χ.31

Koóhler's restoration is excluded by the stone: in contradiction to his facsimile,

the upright hasta of the first letter in line 52 is in the centre of its stoichos, and traces of the horizontal bar ofa T are, I believe, visible both left and right

from the vertical hasta: T may be printed without a dot. IG 11°53

O Squ — EM 6959 — Plate 3 . To the bibliography should be added three attempts to date this inscription by the forraulae: A. C. Johnson, CiPh 9, 1914, p. 418. —

W. B. Dinsmoor, AJA

36, 1932, pp.

157—160, particularly p. 159 Note 6. — A. Lambrechts, Tekst en witzicht, pp. 32, 34,

91 Note 2, 106 with Note 4, 114, 118, 164. Stoichedon:

10 horizontal

stoichot = 0,132 m,

5 vertical

stoichot = 0,0056—

0,096 m.

5) Op. cit., pp. 81—85. She conceives ἐγγύησις generally os "npaso BHCTyDETb c HopySHTeJIbCTBOM" quite unconnected with marriage; cf. LSJ. s.v.: “right of giving security” with reference to IG II?10. 26

Careful revision of the stone might allow slight changes in the record of preserved and lost letters, but is hardly likely to justify changes in the restored passages. — In line 4 τὸμ πολέμαρχον is quite clear. j

In the preserved part of this decree the Athenian assembly granted Philytos epimeleia, enktesis for a house,

ateleia (this latter, at least, to his descendants

as well) and the right to have cases tried by the polemarchos [καϑάπ]ε[0] vo[z]c ἄλλοις

προξένοις

(1.5): this

means that, either in the lost part of this

decree

or less probably by an earlier decree, Philytos was also granted proxenia. In 1.5ff the publication of the decree'Zu πόλη! is ordered, the cost (20 drachmas) to be borne by ὁ ταμέας. Finally (ll. 9—10) Philytos is invited ἐσὲ ξένια in ihe prytaneion. The formula for the grant of enktesis is intact: [2] 2 [va]. δὲ αὐτῶι xai οἰκίας ἔγκτησιγ xai ἀτέλ [eıav αὐτῶ!ε] καὶ τοῖς ἐπγόνοις ᾿Αϑήνησι κτλ.

ZTOIX.

34

Is it possible to say: from the contrast between αὐτῶι before the enktesis and αὐτῶι καὶ τοῖς ἐκγόνοις after the ateleia that enktesis was granted only to Philytos excluding his descendants while aéeleia was granted to him and to his descendants? It appears to me that the interpretation according to which αὐτῶι xai τοῖς ἐκγόνοις refers to both privileges and is only expanding the previous αὐτῶι, is at least equally acceptable.) | Our criteria for the dating of the inscription are the lettering, the orthography, ἐμ πόλην in line 7 and the title of the disbursing officer in ]. 8. Köhler

and Kirchner both dated the lettering at the beginning of the fourth century (Köhler, 16 II, pars I, p. 14: 403/2—377/6; Kirchner: *Atterae volgares initi s. IV”, "ante 387/6” because of Zu xóA in 1. 7). The orthography (consistent spelling of the pseudo-diphthongs 8,0) also points to. the beginning of the fourth century, most probably (although not inevitably) to its first two decades.?)

W. B. Dinsmoor brought the upper limit of the period in which ὁ ταμέας τοῦ δήμου financed the publication of the decrees down to 376°), and showed at the same time that the term πόλις was used in the publication formula up to at

least 375 (p. 160; the transition-period; when both ἐν πόλει and ἐν ἀκροπόλει were

used, he gives

as the years 386—374,.p. 158). This led him to ascribe

—~

1) Cf. similarly A. Lambrechts, p. 91 Note 2. 2) Meisterhans?, p. 6: εἰ — s “ziemlich konsequent"

till

380

B.C.;

ef.

McDonald

AJA 59, 1955, p. 152, on account of the spelling é in the formula for the invitation to the prylaneion: consistently till 390 B.C. 3) Op. cit., pp. 168—159

(on p. 159 he assumes that

ὁ ταμέας

without an attribute =

= ὅ ταμίας τοῦ δήμου); Johnson, LL, p. 421, distinguished three such periods in the fourth century and dated them ca. 384—387, 377—303, and 302—1; 7G 11253 was assigned

by him to the first of the three (p, 418).

27

yi G I1?53 to the period ‘following 376 B. C. (p. 159 Note 6). According dating of ἐν πόλει it would mean Soon after 376; but, it would be. to assume that by a combination of several criteria which are neither reliable nor precisely datable, taking into account the gaps in our (the official who. pays for the publication) and:the possibilities of variations (the orthography, ἐν πόλει against ἐν dxeondde:), the calculation will be exact to the year. A. Lambrechts fell:into this

to his own dangerous absolutely knowledge individual resulting danger to

some extent, when she combined the dates for the use of ἐν πόλει (ca. or: before

887, seep. 34; it is:not/ clear why, on pp. 113—114, she did not accept Dinsmoor’s correction), for the use of the. verb στῆσαι (from 387/6, pp. 117—118) and for the precise statement of the cost of the publication (from c«..390, but not earlier, p. 106) and arrived at the date 387/6 for 7G T1253 (p. 106 with Note 4; in.the table on p. 154 she more cautiously gives ca. 387/6). In particular any attempt to assume an abrupt and exactly datable change in such expressions as στῆσαι --- θεῖναι, ἐν πόλει ---- ἐν ἀκροπόλει which do not spring from changes in the political or financial administration of Athens are bound to lead to error.^)

It would seem, then, that this inscription can be assigned to the first third or perhaps the first quarter of the fourth century B.C. D.M. Lewis would not date

the

lettering

as far back

as in the nineties, noting, however, that the

quality of the work is not high. Philytos, whose native land we do not know, was a foreigner and, as we learn from 1l. 4—5, prowenos (cf. H. Pope, Non-Athenians, s.v.), not a metic If he had been a metic he would have come under the jurisdiction of the polemarchos automatically (Busolt—Swoboda, Gr. St. II, pp. 1094—5). j ome

4) This has often been said (and A. Lambrechts was at least partially aware of the danger herself), cf. e.g. Dinsmoor, L.l., pp. 157—8, on the transition period, and D. M. Lewis's review of Lambrecht’s book in Gnomon 32, 1960, pp. 166--167. — On p. 32

Lambrechts places JG 11°53 among the “wider” decrees (i.e. those with over 30 letters to a line); according to her these were decrees passed earlier than the year 403, destroyed under the Thirty and renewed on the renewal of democracy, for the most part between 403 and 394 (pp. 30—33, ef. 140). In the case of IG II253, however, this "criterion" is at variance with all the other criteria, and the author herself admits that the greater number of letters in the line cannot be explained in this inscription. The suggestion that the

common opening’ of the

publication” formula ‘1d OE ψήφισμα τόδε in this inscription

and iin IG 11269 perhaps implicitly refers to earlier decrees can only be called unfortunate

(p. 32). It would be more correet to admit that. thee length. of the lines can never serve as 8 criterion in this way.

28

ΕΝ

u

Il

ps

κι 1

E

nn "x

DUC

εν :^

M

O Squ Ph — EM. 6936 — Plate. 4

-

.

|

"

.

"For the. toxt of lind 14 see A. Wilhelm, AUY, 1942, No. XLVIII, pp. 128—129; ' Further bibliography: W. B. Dinsmoor, AJA 36, 1932, pp. 157—160 (the dating of ἐν ἀκροπόλει). — A. Lambrechts, Tekst en witzicht, p. 53 Note terminology used in the grant of proxeny). The served. (round cho? =

3; pp. 61—065

(on the

fragment is broken away on all sides, but ends of several shorter lines are preHeight, 0.39 m. Width, 0.36 m. Thickness, 0.145 m. Height of letters 0.01—0.011 m letters 0.009 m). Szoichedon: 10 horizontal stoichot = 0.159 m; 10 vertical stoé-: 0.175 m. .

[------- ἐπειδὴ ἀνὴρ ἀγαϑός - -]

1. [ἔστι περὲ τὴν πόλιν] τὴν ᾿ΑἸ ϑηναίων YY} [xai νῦν καὶ ἐν τῶι π]ρόσϑεν χρόνωι VY] [πρόξενον xai εὐε]ογέτην αὐτὸν YYYV] [xat ἐκγόνος e]fvfalı ᾿Αϑηναίω[ν vvvvvv] 5 [καὶ ἀναγ]οάψαι αὐτῶι τὴμ προϊξενίαν]

[ἐν στήλ]ηι λιϑνηι τὸν γραμματέα VV] ἱτῆς βολῆ]ς »ali σἸτῆσαι ἐν ἀκροπόλει ΥἹ

f...7...]xos e[Z]ae- τὰ μὲν ἄλλα v[vvvvv] [καϑάπερ) τῆι Bode ἕναι δὲ καὶ γῆς YY] 10 [ἔγκτησιην καὶ οἴκίας ᾿Ἐπιχάρει V[VVY] [αὐτῶι καὶ) éxydvoig καὶ πρόσοδον [VV] [πρὸς τὴν β]ολὴν καὶ τὸν δῆμον vvvv[vv] [δάν το dewv]rar οἱ δὲ πρυτάνεις YV[Y]

,

[οἱ ἀεὶ πρυτα]νεύοντες προσαγόντων. vacat 0,012 m

The inseription is cut stoichedon; line 14 shows that there was room on the stele for at least 29 columns, and line 5 has been convincingly restored to this

length. (The number of blank spaces at the end of each line in my text is based ' on this length of line.) All the rest are shorter, however, because the stonecutter was consistent in ending each line with a completed word. In line 12.

and 13 he even left6and 4 vacat at the end respectively, although he would. have had room for two words more in |. 12 (ἐάν. vo) and one word more in line 13.

(o). Does this mean that he was bearing in mind definite units in the sentence?’ Be that as it may, it makes Wilhelm’s restoration of lines 3 and 4 more accept- " able; both end prematurely (4 and 6 vacat respectively) although there! would be room for the next word, the conjunction xaf (the restoration is. practically certain), in both cases. L. 1: In accordance with his.restoration of lino 4 Wilhelm changed Dittmar’s restoration of the beginning of the inseription down to line 3in., accepted also by Kirchner, to

29 Li

P’Enrıxgdom, ἐπειδὴ ἀνὴρ ἀγαϑός ἔστι]; Epichares’

name may have been given

with the

ethnic. — After the letter N in line 1, close to the break, a faint trace of the end of the left sloping stroke of the following letter can be seen; it is & little to the left of the

imaginary continuation of the left vertical hastae of the E and N in the following two lines, i.e. exactly where the ends of the left sloping hastee in the three A's come in the same column. Line 3fín.—4 was

restored

by Wilhelm (1942) according to the traces visible in line 4

before ᾿ἀϑηναίων. Line 8in.: Part of the surface of the first two stoicho? preserved

has

been

damaged

quite deep in the stone, but both letters can be read with certainty. They have so far been read as PO, starting with Köhler; in his facsimile only part of the curve is printed jn the first letter. In fact what has been taken for part of the curve is only the outliné of the damage to the stone; in the centre of the stotchos an X can be seen almost in entirety, however. Its lower half (both strokes) can be clearly seen in the squeeze and the

photograph; the upper half is shallower, yet it has the same brownish discolouration as the other letters. This makes Köhler’s generally accepted reading [/Iópoavó|poc *) impossible.

The beginning of this decree of the Athenian assembly in favour of Epichares is lost. Epichares, whose services appear to have been described merely in & conventional formula (down to line 2), is granted the hereditary title of proxenos and euergetes (lines 3—4). The decree is to be-published, but it is not stated who is going to pay for the publication. By a rider proposed by an unknown orator Epichares and his descendants were granted in addition enktesis of land and house and the right to be heard in the council and the assembly, in case of need. The criteria for dating the inscription are the lettering, the orthography and the formulae used. Both Köhler and Kirchner assigned the lettering to. the beginning of the fourth century (Köhler JG II, pars I, p. 14: 403/2—377/6;

Kirchner: “litterae... bonae volgares initi s.

IV”: "ante a. 8787. D. M. Lewis

would prefer the first decade to the second and would not have the lettering dated as late as in the seventies. The orthography also points to the first part of the fourth century.?) Of the formulae used ἐν ἀκροπόλει would point roughly 1) The name of Pyrrhandros (of Anaphlystos, PA 12496) was restored without a question. mark although it was not by any means the only possibility: an incomplete survey of

10-letter names ending in -goc in Kirchner's PA alone shows that from the sixth to the fourth century B.C. the names Agathandros, Peithandros, Periandros, Amynandros, Anaxandros, Dioxandros, Akesandros, Aresandros, Onesandros, Peisandros, Teisandros,.

‘Thersandros were used in Athens. How unwise it is not to mark doubtful restorations is shown by the fact that this restoration found its way into historical studies without. any warning that it is mere hypothesis (S. Accame, La lega Ateniese dsl sec. IVa. Cr., Rome 1941, p. 68) and is even repeated without a query in RE s.v. Pyrrhandros 3, col. 82: (H. Gärtner, 1963).

3) But perhaps not to the very beginning: whereas

the pseudodiphthong ov is congis-

tently written o (Meisterhans?, p. 6: “Ziemlich konsequent" graphy of e is inconsistent (see above, p. 27 Note 2).

30

up to 360 B.C.), tho ortho-

to a time later than the first decade of the fourth century B.C.*) The inscription js thus probably from the first quarter (second decade?) of the fourth cen-

tury B.C. We do not know from what country Epichares came, nor what his services had been. His status was that of proxenos and euergetes.*) IG 11°83 O.Squ Ph — EM 6944 — Plate 5 This fragment, with part of the dressed left edge preserved, is unfortunately seriously damaged on the surface, which is crumbling still further. It is therefore possible that earlier editors (K. Pittakis, ' Eg. doy. 1860, No. 3728; U. Köhler and A. Velsen, IG IT 48)

were able to see several letters which have now disappeared. The carefully cut letters are somewhat larger than Kirchner’s figures record; forthe

most part they are

high, the round letters 0.008—0.009 m. The stoichedon is slightly for ten horizontal 0.221 m.

stotchoi

(calculated from

ca.0.11m

than

0.21 m

four sioichoi), while ten vertical stoichoi =

Kirchner accepted the restoration proposed by Köhler

igotéAecay) and Schenkl

more

(from [xai γῆς]), with

(ll. 3—8

as far as

17 letters to the line.1) The

length of the lines appears certain from lines 3—-7. Schenkl’s restoration raises. some problems, but in my opinion it is difficult to find a better one; and some of the readings given by earlier editors would seem to confirm it. For the sake of clarity I give below the whole of the short text together with the more important readings of the earlier editors. [---------+----- ] ΗΠ eue éy] npiodlaı τῶι δήμωι εἴ

A..IE Pitt., Vels, ...I Kö, Ki. HMOI Pitt., Vels. 101X0 Pitt., DIXO the others

vat αὐϊτὸν σιρόξενον x]

5

ai εὐεργέτην ’Adnval) ὧν xa[i αὐτὸν καὶ àxyó] voc, εἶϊναι δὲ αὐτῶι ic]

ALEVEP QNKCIA

Vels. Pitt.

3) Dinsmoor: from 386 B.C. onwards, op. cit., p. 158; ef. p. 160 with Note 7; he also summarizes the earlier views. — Σ τῆσαι (1.7) is also one of the “newer” formulae, Lam-

brechts p. 117—118, ef. p. 147; for her dating of the change definitely to the time ca. 387/6

(“En ce moment,

et presque

radicalement,

on passe..."

p. 147) see above, p. 28

with Note 4. — It was exceptional in fourth century Attic inscriptions to divide the lines by the word, so that this fact cannot be used to determine the date: see the figures collected

by S. Dow, AJA 66, 1962, p. 364. 4) There is no foundation for the suggestion made by H. Pope (Non-Athenians, p. 230) that Epichares may be the Epichares of IG II?1638.25 and 1645.9. 1) Diller, face Mixture, p. 137 Note 131, expressed doubts about the correctness of this restoration. It was defended by A. Lambrechts, Tekst en witzicht, p. 85 Note 2.

31

οτέλεϊιαν καὶ γῆς καὶo] [Πκέας [ἔγκτησιν * A055]

10 [nlow- τὸν δὲ γραμματέ) [a τ]ὸν τ[ῆἧς. βολῆς àvayo] [άψ]αι τὸ ψήφισμα τόδε] [&v] στ[ήληι λιϑίνηι - -]

ur. - KIAZ Pitt., Kó.?) .

ZINK Pitt., . “INT Vels., IN Ko., Ki. -.ONDPitt., .TONPVels.,..ON: Kö. .. AI Pitt., .. AIL Vels., . AI, Rö. .. ?TI Vels., ...

T the others.

Lines 1—2: The surface is lost. L. 3: At least the right upright of the first letter is visible.

L. (8)—9: “Littera initialis fuit aut I’ aut 2”, Köhler. anything

on the stone before

K;

almost the whole

I was unable to read

surface of the stoichos is

destroyed. The stroke which could be taken for the upper cross bar of a letter is too far to the right, and is probably a chance seratch in the stone. Schenkl (W St 2, 1880, p. 220 Note 147) assumed that the stonecutter had made a mistake

with his first letter and restored [wai γῆς xoi]|