Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-mzp66 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-07T16:56:04.812Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Notes on Attic Inscriptions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 September 2013

Michael J. Osborne
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the Addendum to the editio minor Kirchner quotes with approval the opinion of Wilhelm that the two fragments published separately as IG ii2. 121 and IG ii2. 185 belong together. As far as I have been able to ascertain, this suggestion has never been withdrawn. There are, however, a number of reasons which make it clear that this proposed join must be rejected.

Both pieces are of white marble and are housed in the Epigraphical Museum at Athens. IG ii2. 121 (= EM 6958) constitutes the top right part of a stele and has a right edge preserved. The dimensions are: maximum height 0·366 m., maximum width 0·222 m., maximum thickness 0·151 m. The surface is rather badly worn. Part of the bottom of a heading in large letters (of 22 mm. height) is preserved at the very top. Below this there is an uninscribed space of 0·113 m., followed by the remains of some six lines of text which comprise part of the prescript of the decree.

Type
Research Article
Information
Annual of the British School at Athens , Volume 66 , November 1971 , pp. 323 - 332
Copyright
Copyright © The Council, British School at Athens 1971

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Acknowledgements. I should like to thank Mrs. D. Delmouz-Peppas, the Director of the Epigraphical Museum in Athens, for according me the facilities for a study of the inscriptions mentioned in this article.

1 Cf. Ferguson, The Athenian Secretaries 19 ff. The prytanizing tribes for 357/6 B.C. are very imperfectly known. Prytany VI was held by either Acamantis or Pandionis, (IG ii 2. 121Google Scholar), prytany VIII by Hippothontis, (IG ii 2. 122Google Scholar), prytany IX by Aigeis, (IG ii 2. 123Google Scholar = Tod, GHI ii. no. 156).

2 Cf. (e.g.) IG ii2. 654 (= EM 13292). The verticai chequer measurement is rather irregular on this stele anyway, but a gradually increasing chequer measurement from top to bottom is detectable. The average (over 10 full stoichoi) is c. 0·0193 m. at the top, increasing to c. 0·0205 m. at the bottom. There are also plenty of examples of a narrowing or widening horizontal chequer. Cf. (e.g.) IG ii2. 493 (top fragment = EM 482) where the horizontal chequer measurement (taken over 10 full stoichoi) consistently broadens (from 0·0130 m. on the left side to 0·0140 m. on the right side).

3 e.g. the position and shape omicron; the shape of mu (sloping sides on (a), straight sides on (b)).

4 The decree for Evagoras of Salamis (IG i2. 113+SEG x. 127; xii. 38) is possibly another example, though it is to be noted that the reference to the children in this decree is wholly restored. But since this is a fifth-century example (of c. 410 B.C.) and does not have a clause recording the it does not affect the issue here.

5 On the see Dow, S., HSCP lxvii (1963) 38 ff.Google Scholar

6 Johnson, , CP (1914) 248 ff.Google Scholar and AJA xviii (1914) 163 ff., considers that the first appearance of the is to be found in IG ii2. 336 Decree I (334/3 B.C.). But the clause is almost wholly restored and the grounds for accepting it are far from conclusive. Cf. Wilhelm, , AM xxxix (1914) 266.Google Scholar In addition, IG ii2. 405, which does not have this provision, has now been redated to the year 334/3 B.C. by Schweigert, , Hesperia ix (1940) 339 f.Google Scholar Hence, even if the restoration is allowed to stand in IG ii2. 336 Decree I, Johnson's idea of a period c. 334–332 B.C. in which a was required is ruled out (and IG ii2. 336 has to stand as an exceptional case).

7 Klio v (1905) 155–79. Cf. Hellenistic Athens, passim.

8 AJA xviii (1914) 163 ff., especially 178 ff.

9 Indicated by the qualifying phrase or an equivalent phrase. Cf. n. 6 above.

10 AM xxxix (1914) 257 ff.

11 Op. cit. 281 ff. He believes that the inscription of the details of the grant was fairly unimportant. According to him the detailed ramifications followed naturally from the statement of the grant, whether or not they were actually recorded. But cf. pp. 305 f. in this volume.

12 IG ii2. 392, 393, 394, 395, 398 (b); SEG xxi. 311 (= IG ii2. 384+EM 12564), unfortunately containing only the heading and part of the prescript; SEG xxi. 310 (firmly dated to the fourth prytany of 319/18 B.C.); and, possibly, SEG xxi. 353 (= IG ii2. 378+EM 12764). This last is the subject of considerable dispute between Dow, S. (HSCP lxvii (1963) 44 f.Google Scholar, Hesperia xxxii (1963) 342 ff.), who dates it to 321/20 B.C., and Meriti, B. D. (Hesperia vii (1938) 99Google Scholar, Hesperia xxxii (1963) 429), who argues for 294/3 B.C. IG ii2. 391 is a confirmation of a grant made in 333/2 B.C. and does not contain the regular formulae for a grant.

13 i.e. IG ii2. 394, 395; SEG xxi. 310; and SEG xxi. 353 if it belongs to this period. In all of these examples the stone breaks before the end of the decree is reached.

14 On IG ii2. 392 and 393 there is an uninscribed space beneath the final clauses of the decree. So these two clearly cannot have had the clause.

15 Hesperia xxxii (1963) 339.

16 Cf. p. 305 in this volume, where these points are argued more fully. The clause figures in all but five such decrees from c. 369/8 B.C. until the later third century; in four of these (IG ii2. 438, 712, 805; SEG xxi. 345) it could have been added as an amendment (as it is in IG ii2. 448 (I); cf. IG ii2. 575). Only in IG ii2. 710 (early third century B.C.) is it lacking. In later third century practice the requirement was replaced by a regular judicial scrutiny.

17 And, if it was a new point in the procedure, the likelihood of its appearance might be deemed still greater.

18 This decree could be dated earlier; cf. Dow, S., HSCP lxvii (1963) 78 ff.Google Scholar

19 Possibly to be dated to 304/3 B.C.; cf. Johnson, , AJP xxxvi (1915) 432.Google Scholar

20 AJA xviii (1914) 178 f.; cf. AJP xxxvi (1915) 432 ff.

21 In IG ii2. 493+518 it is whereas in IG ii2. 496+507 it is The precise details concerning the financial officials at this point are somewhat obscure, and the suggestion that in the short period between the two decrees there was a change of government which led to the appearance of both the and is not easy to uphold. On the problem of the financial officials, cf. Pritchett, , Hesperia ix (1940) 108 ff.Google Scholar, x (1941) 270 ff., with further references.

22 AJP xxxvi (1915) 433 n. 2.

23 Hesperia ix (1940) 109 n. 38.

24 It is certainly true that the case for separation is not as straightforward as Johnson's extremely casual comments suggest. But there are a number of anomalies which deserve recording. The horizontal chequer measurement is not as steady as Pritchett's words might imply. Measured over groups of ten full letters on centres, the horizontal chequer on IG ii2. 493 broadens regularly from left to right. In the first few lines it is c. 0·0130 m. at the left, as against 0·0140 m. at the right. Towards the bottom of the piece it is 0·0133–0·0134 m. at the left broadening to 0·0140 m. at the right. The horizontal chequer on IG ii2. 518, which forms part of the bottom right of the inscription, is c. 0·0134 m. Given the data from IG ii2. 493, one might reasonably have expected a broader chequer measurement at this point. Vertically there is also a slight difference; on IG ii2. 493 the average is c. 0·0137 m., on IG ii2. 518 it averages 0·0135 m. But this is hardly a significant divergency.

The breadth of the right margin may also be an important point in this discussion. If the two pieces do belong together, then the right margin must be taken to broaden out rather drastically from the top of the stele to the bottom. On IG ii2. 493 the right margin is 7 mm. wide at the very top, broadening to 11 mm. at the bottom of the fragment: i.e. a broadening of some 4 mm. over 18 lines of text. In IG ii2. 518, however, the margin on the right is c. 22 mm. (pace Pritchett, loc. cit., who gives the distance as 16 mm.). This constitutes a very considerable broadening indeed, though the full significance of the point depends somewhat on the amount of text that is reckoned to be lost between the two fragments. The indications are that not much is lost. In the top piece the preliminary clauses are completed and the award of the honours has begun. The citizenship grant might plausibly be considered to be the next item on the honours list. If so, only a few lines at most may be taken as lost. In these circumstances the width of the margin on the two pieces does seem to be significant and surely constitutes an argument against the joining of the fragments.

As regards the details of the letters one of the problems of comparing IG ii2. 493 with IG ii2. 518 is that the surface of 518 is rather badly worn. This makes it difficult to get a clear picture of the characteristics of the letters on this fragment. However, a close examination of the two pieces (using the stones and also squeezes) does seem to suggest a few tiny differences in detail. On IG ii2. 518 the epsilon seems to have a different appearance from that on IG ii2. 493; the central cross bars are longer in the former than the latter. The top part of the rho also seems to be fuller in IG ii2. 493, and the sigma in the last line but one of IG ii2. 518 is rather ill-cut and very tall (in IG ii2. 493 the sigma is a neatly cut letter).

The sum of these small points might perhaps be taken to justify some hesitation about the acceptance of this join, if they do not actually necessitate its rejection.

25 The decree was passed on the thirty-first day of prytany XII (303/2 B.C.). The is to take place under the thesmothetae of Nicocles' archonship (302/1 B.C.) Cf. Wilhelm, op. cit. 274 ff.

26 Perhaps it was an extraordinary provision in this individual case, or, alternatively, it might have been the prototype of what was later to become (in modified form) the regular formula.

27 It was not required in IG ii2. 643, which is dated to 298/7 B.C. Cf. Meritt, , Hesperia ix (1940) 80 ff.Google Scholar, no. 13.

28 Though it does not replace the second vote in the assembly, as is sometimes suggested. This is a later change.

29 AJA xviii (1914) 178.

30 It would have to be quite late in the period, however, since SEG xxi. 310, which does not have the provision (unless it was added in an amendment!), belongs to the fourth prytany of 319/18 B.C.

31 As is the case in [Dem.] lvii. 59 ff.

32 The status and contents of this measure have excited considerable controversy, in which the protagonists are Diller, A., TAPA (1932) 193ff.Google Scholar; CP xxx (1935) 302 ff.; Race Mixture among the Greeks (Illinois Studies xx (1937)); and Gomme, A. W., Essays in Greek History and Literature (Oxford, 1937) 67 ff.Google Scholar

The measure is dated by Androtion fr. 52 (Jacoby, FGH 324) and Philochorus fr. 52 (Jacoby, FGH 328) to the year 346/5 B.C.; so too Dion. Hal. Dein. 11. It is referred to a number of times by Aeschines in the speech against Timarchus (Aeschines i. 77, 86, 114), and the speech against Euboulides in the Demosthenic corpus ([Dem.] lvii) was probably delivered as a result of the measure.

It seems clear that the measure provided for an extraordinary general of all of the demes. There is some dispute as to whether the measure was a or a and whether there were other (broader) provisions. Diller argues that it was a and that it had two provisions, ‘one for the perpetual particular scrutinies and one for the immediate general scrutiny, both alike admitting the appeal which was the keystone of the whole institution’ (CP xxx (1935) 311). Gomme, however, thinks that there were two quite separate pieces of legislation: firstly an (earlier) general law allowing both sorts of scrutiny, and secondly the decree of Demophilus which was an application of the general law.

In [Dem.] lvii. 7 the measure is referred to as a and this seems to be correct. As regards its provisions, these seem to have been extended by modern writers somewhat rashly. Clearly there had been extraordinary general in the demes before the decree of Demophilus, as in the case of the lost register of the deme Halimous already mentioned—and surely such a procedure must have always been possible without the need for special legislation in such circumstances. In addition it seems highly unlikely that the law regulating entry to the deme that is mentioned by Aristotle, Ath. Pol. 42 should have formed part of Demophilus' legislation (as, for example, Diller argues). This must go back earlier, and I am inclined (with Jacoby, FGH iii (b) Suppl. ii, Notes 144 f. ad Androtion fr. 52) to associate this with the motion of Aristophon, as emended by Nicomenes, of the year 403/2 B.C. Indeed I can see no good reason for thinking that Demophilus' measure was anything other than an extraordinary on a particular occasion. As such it will have merely provided on a general scale for what had before this been done in individual demes in certain special circumstances (such as on the occasion of the loss of the deme register).

33 Cf. n. 32 above.

34 It is sometimes claimed (e.g. by Pritchett, , Hesperia x 1941) 272 n. 16Google Scholar) that the restriction in citizenship awards was a result of this decree, or the enabling legislation for it. If so, the connection is wholly obscure. There is nothing in the decree of Demophilus (as far as can be ascertained) which can be taken to refer to naturalized citizens or to the naturalization of foreigners, though it is, of course, true that any living naturalized citizens and the descendants of such will have had to produce their credentials at the general But this is quite a different matter from saying that the decree of Demophilus actually laid down provisions concerning the naturalization of foreigners. If it did, and there is no positive reason for thinking that this is the case, then per impossibile there is no conceivable way of ascertaining, still less of proving, the point.

35 Klio v (1905) 155 ff. Cf. Hellenistic Athens, passim.

36 Cf. Johnson, , AJA xviii (1914) 179.Google Scholar

37 [Dem.] lix. 89 ff.

38 Fuller discussion of this point is beyond the scope of this note and is reserved for more detailed treatment else where.

39 Pittakys, AE no. 370; Rangabé, Antiquités helléniques no. 526; Koehler, , IG ii. 397.Google Scholar

40 As indeed Kirchner records in his comments on IG ii2. 718 (though not in those on IG ii2. 804).

41 For the wording cf. (e.g.) IG ii2. 801.