Agora Athenei vol 11 Inscriptiile

THE ATHENIAN AGORA

RESULTS OF EXCAVATIONS CONDUCTED BY

THE AMERICAN SCHOOL OF CLASSICAL STUDIES AT ATHENS

VOLUME XV

INSCRIPTIONS

THE ATHENIAN COUNCILLORS

BY

BENJAMIN D. MERITT AND JOHN S. TRAILL

THE AMERICAN SCHOOL OF CLASSICAL STUDIES AT ATHENS

PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY

1974

PUBLISHED WITH THE AID OF A GRANT FROM MR. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR.

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data (Revised) American School of Classical Studies at Athens.

The Athenian Agora. Includes bibliographies. CONTENTS. v. 1. Portrait sculpture, by E. B. Harri-

son. v. 6. Terra- cottas and plastic lamps of the Roman period, by C. Grandjouan. v. 15. Inscriptions: the Athenian councillors, by B. D. Meritt and J. S. Traill.

1. Athens. Agora. I. Title. DF287.A23A5 913.38'5 54-5697 ISBN 87661-215-X

PRINTED IN GERMANY at J.J. AUGUSTIN, GLtCKSTADT

PREFACE T he inscriptions found during the American Excavation of the Athenian Agora between 1931 and

1970 are to be published in comprehensive form in five volumes, numbered XV-XIX in the Athenian Agora series. This present volume, XV, containing the records of Athenian councillors and their officers, is in large measure made up of the so-called Prytany Inscriptions which, as a class, formed the basis for a study by Sterling Dow in 1937.1 We continue the study to include those texts found since Dow's publication as well as all texts found earlier, published by Dow and others, and we add the bouleutic lists to the known prytany decrees and prytany dedications.

Volume XVI, edited by A. Geoffrey Woodhead, is to contain other decrees; volume XVII, edited by Donald W. Bradeen, will contain the funeral monuments; volume XVIII, edited by Daniel J. Geagan, will contain dedications and monuments of Roman date; and volume XIX will comprise all other inscriptions as well as Addenda to the first four volumes of the series. We hesitate to refer to these volumes as a final publication, for there will certainly be many new texts and many changes and improvements in old texts before the exploration of the Agora comes to an end.

The editors have had to decide in what format and with how full a commentary to present the inscriptions. The very bulk of the Greek epigraphical text makes brevity in presentation desirable. The important element, always to be borne in mind, is that the texts be published accurately and clearly. We have spared no pains to this end. Wherever possible we have examined every stone (some are no longer preserved), either individually or together, and many doubtful passages have been subjected to long scrutiny. In this volume, as in the volumes to follow, the aim has been to approximate in general the pattern of the Berlin Corpus in matters of commentary and reference. However attractive many avenues of exploration may seem in the exploitation of these texts, our purpose has been to avoid long discussion and to concentrate on the presentation of the evidence so that it will be available to those who may wish to follow out in more detail some special study. This volume contains many improvements in readings and restorations. We have included texts found by our predecessors as well as those found in the American Excavation of the Athenian Agora, with references and brief comment where necessary. It is well known that these prytany documents, with rare exception, were all set up originally in the Agora, and they must make one single Corpus for convenience in comparative study.

All texts are given in full, and for those from our own excavations reference is given to the photographs or drawings which were regularly printed in the preliminary publications, chiefly in Hesperia, rarely else- where. Since these illustrations are readily available it has not seemed reasonable to repeat them here.

Pertinent commentary on this class of document is of necessity largely prosopographical. Since the same names often appear more than once it has seemed to the authors that the most convenient form of reference for the reader is a listing of the prosopographical material in index form rather than in repeated mention on each occasion where a name occurs in the commentary on individual and separate inscriptions. The Prosopographical Index, then, serves in fact as the principal commentary for most of the texts.

Other important information to be drawn from the study of the Prytany Inscriptions concerns the political organization of the Athenian state. There is extensive new light on the phylai, the demes, and on their

1 Prytaneis, Hesperia, Suppl. I, 1937, pp. iv + 258.

PREFACE

representation in the Council, as well as on their population and geographical distribution. The evidence has been assembled by John Traill in a separate study to appear as Hesperia, Supplement XIV.

The authors express their appreciation to the Field Directors of the Agora Excavations, T. Leslie Shear (1931-1945) and Homer A. Thompson (1946-1967), for placing these epigraphical documents at their disposal for study and publication, and, since the death of Professor Shear, to the constant encouragement and help of Professor Thompson and the efficient staff whose headquarters have been established in the Stoa of Attalos. The Stoa also houses the epigraphical collection and the records. Our gratitude is expressed to Mrs. Andreou Demoulini, until recently the custodian and keeper of the records, who has been unfailing in maintaining a constant liaison when it has been impossible for us to be in Athens ourselves. We are also grateful to the present Field Director, T. Leslie Shear, Jr., for permission to include the prytany documents from the 1968-1970 excavations. The facilities of the National Epigraphical Museum have been always at our disposal, with the expert help and counsel of its Directors, Markellos Th. Mitsos and Dina Peppa-Delmouzou. Our warm thanks are also due to them. We should like to acknowledge our indebtedness especially to two others who have worked on these texts, Sterling Dow in Hesperia, Sup- plement I and Harry J. Carroll, Jr. in his doctoral dissertation on the Athenian bouleutai (Harvard, 1954), particularly in Nos. 1, 7, 12, 13, 15, 20, 23, 32, 36, 37, 47, 48, 52, 53, 58 and 492 where we have followed closely Carroll's suggestions for dating and commentary. Finally, we express our thanks to the Canada Council, who provided a fellowship enabling John Traill to spend the year of 1969-70 in Greece, and to Terry Ellen Traill for her patient and invaluable help on the Prosopographical Index.

Inscriptions in the Epigraphical Museum are recorded by their inventory numbers, designated with the letters E. M. Inscriptions found in the American Excavations of the Athenian Agora are also recorded with their inventory numbers, designated by the letter I. Places of discovery are noted with reference to the standard grid of the Agora excavations, reprinted here as Plate 2.

BENJAMIN D. MERITT JOHN S. TRAILL

September 10, 1971

EDITOR'S NOTE:

The Editor of the volume wishes to join with the authors in expressing warmest appreciation to all the members of the J. J. Augustin firm for the devoted care, the patient understanding, and the con- summate skill which they have brought to the printing not only of this volume but also of the earlier volumes of this series and other volumes published by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens over a quarter of a century.

L. T. S. M.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE ......................................................................... ..... V

ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................... ............... ......... ix

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 1

I. PRYTANY AND BOULEUTIC INSCRIPTIONS FROM THE PERIOD OF THE ORIGINAL TEN PHYLAI (1-56)..... 25

II. PRYTANY AND BOULEUTIC INSCRIPTIONS FROM THE MACEDONIAN ERA (57-152) .................... 65

III. PRYTANY INSCRIPTIONS FROM THE CREATION OF ATTALIS TO THE SACK OF ATHENS BY SULLA (153-262). 137

IV. PRYTANY INSCRIPTIONS FROM THE SACK OF ATHENS BY SULLA TO THE CREATION OF HADRIANIS (263-322). 211

V. PRYTANY INSCRIPTIONS AFTER THE CREATION OF HADRIANIS (323-491) ............................ 247 APPENDIX (492-494) .......................................... ........................... 339 INDICES ......................... .... . ................................................... 347

PROSOPOGRAPHICAL INDEX OF GREEK NAMES ........... ..................... ......... 349 INDEX OF DEMES, ETHNICS, PHYLAI ........ ....................................... 469 INDEX OF MONTHS, GODS, FESTIVALS ...................................................... 477

CONCORDANCES ........................................... ............................... 478 A. Inscriptiones Graecae, Editio Minor ................................................... 478 B. Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum ...... ...................................... 479 C. Hesperia AND SUPPLEMENTS ............................................................ 480 D. OTHER PUBLICATIONS ......................... ....................................... 483 E. EPIGRAPHICAL MUSEUM NUMBERS ............ . ......................................... 483 F. AGORA INVENTORY NUMBERS ......................................................... 484

PLATES

ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

A.J.A. = American Journal of Archaeology A.J.P. = American Journal of Philology A.P.F. = J. K. Davies, Athenian Propertied Families 600-300 B.C., Oxford, 1971 Abh. Ak. Berlin = Abhandlungen der preufiischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosophisch-historische Klasse Agora = The Athenian Agora, Results of Excavations conducted by the American School of Classical Studies

at Athens, Princeton I = Evelyn B. Harrison, Portrait Sculpture, 1953

III = R. E. Wycherley, Literary and Epigraphical Testimonia, 1957 XIV = Homer A. Thompson and R. E. Wycherley, The Agora of Athens, 1972

XVII = Donald W. Bradeen, Inscriptions, The Funerary Monuments, 1974 The American Numismatic Society, Museum Notes Ant. Hell. = Antiquites Helleniques. See Rangabe 'Apx. AEXTrfov = 'ApXaioXoylKov AEX-rTov, 1888-1892 'Apx. 'E?. = 'ApXaioooyiKi 'Eqprllspli Archdologischer Anzeiger zur Archdologischen Zeitung Archaeologisches Intelligenzblatt Archeologia Classica Ath. Mitt. = Mitteilungen des deutschen archdologischen Instituts. Athenische Abteilung 'ATlva, an Athenian newspaper, cited for 1860 To& 'AOrivaiK&, published at Athens by the hXAAoyos T-rC 'Avlvafcov 'ATivalov, a'yypacgca w repioslK6O B.C.H. = Bulletin de Correspondance Helldnique B.S.A. = The Annual of the British School at Athens Bodnar, Edward W., Cyriacus ofAncona and Athens, 1960 (Collection Latomus, XLIII) Bulletin of the History of Medicine C.I.G. = Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum, Vol. I, Berlin, 1828, edited by August Boeckh Carroll, Harry J., Jr., Bouleutai: An Epigraphical and Prosopographical Study of the Lists of Athenian Councillors

- - (Diss. Harvard), 1954 Chandler, Richard, Inscriptiones Antiquae, pleraeque nondum editae: in Asia Minori et Graecia, praesertim

Athenis, collectae, Oxford, 1774 Chandler, Richard, Travels in Greece, Oxford, 1776 Xaptcrriplov EiS 'Avaacraatov K. 'Opa&vSov, II, Athens, 1966 Chronology of Hellenistic Athens. See Pritchett and Meritt Clas. Phil. = Classical Philology Cyriacus of Ancona (ed. Moroni). See the citation of Edward Bodnar's volume on Cyriacus, above Davies, J. K., Athenian Propertied Families 600-300 B.C., Oxford, 1971 AErTiov (or AEXr.) = 'ApXalOXoyiKOV AEXriov, 1915 - Deubner, Ludwig, Attische Feste, Berlin, 1932 Dinsmoor, William Bell, The Archons of Athens in the Hellenistic Age, Cambridge, Mass., 1931 Dinsmoor, William Bell, The Athenian Archon List in the Light of Recent Discoveries, New York, 1939 Dittenberger, Sylloge3 = Wilhelm Dittenberger, Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum, third edition, Leipzig, 1915-

1924 Dodwell, Edward, A Classical and Topographical Tour through Greece, 2 vols., London, 1819


Dow, Sterling, Prytaneis, Hesperia, Supplement I, 1937 Dumont, Albert, Fastes eponymiques d'Athenes, Paris, 1874 'E7TevlvIaiK&, I, Athens, 1932, edited by K. Kourouniotes 'Ep. 'APX. = 'EyprlTEpis 'ApXacioXoyiKi Eranos, Acta Philologica Suecana F. Gr. Hist. = Felix Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, Berlin, 1923 - Ferguson, William Scott, The Athenian Secretaries, 1898 (Cornell Studies in Classical Philology, VII) Fouilles de Delphes = Lcole franfaise d'Athenes, Fouilles de Delphes, III, 2: tpigraphie, Inscriptions du Tresor

des Atheniens, Paris, 1909-1913 Froehner, W., Musee national du Louvre, Les inscriptions grecques, Paris, 1865 Geagan, Daniel J., The Athenian Constitution after Sulla, Hesperia, Supplement XII, 1967 ripas 'ATrcoviov KEpagonoi.7ouv, Athens, 1953 ('ETatpecia MaKeSovKcoV X'rrouvS)v, 'ETrrorlTiov1Kal TTpayILa-

-rEacl, elipa O0l7ooy\Olq Kal OeEOoylKl1) Gilbert, G., The Constitutional Antiquities of Sparta and Athens, London and New York, 1895 Gomme, Arnold W., The Population of Athens in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries B.C., Oxford, 1933 Graindor, Paul, Album d'inscriptions attiques d'epoque imperiale, Paris, 1924 Graindor, Paul, Athenes sous Hadrien, Cairo, 1934 Graindor, Paul, Chronologie des archontes Atheniens sous l'empire, Brussels, 1922 Guarducci, Margherita, Epigrafia Greca, II, Rome, 1970 H. (cited in the indexes) = Hesperia Harv. St. Cl. Phil. = Harvard Studies in Classical Philology Harv. Th. Rev. = Harvard Theological Review Hesperia, Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens Hicks, E. L., The Collection of Ancient Greek Inscriptions in the British Museum, I, Attika, London, 1874 Hignett, Charles, A History of the Athenian Constitution, Oxford, 1952 Hondius, J. J. E., Novae Inscriptiones Atticae, Leiden, 1925 I.G., I = Inscriptiones Graecae, Vol. I: Inscriptiones Atticae Euclidis anno vetustiores, Berlin, 1873, edited by

Adolph Kirchhoff I.G., II = Inscriptiones Graecae, Vol. II: Inscriptiones Atticae aetatis quae est inter Euclidis annum et Augusti

tempora, Parts I-V, Berlin, 1877-1895, edited by Ulrich Koehler with indexes by Johannes Kirchner I.G., III = Inscriptiones Graecae, Vol. III: Inscriptiones Atticae aetatis Romanae, Parts I and II, Berlin,1878-

1882, edited by Wilhelm Dittenberger I.G., VII = Inscriptiones Graecae, Vol. VII: Inscriptiones Megaridis et Boeotiae, Berlin, 1892, edited by Wilhelm

Dittenberger I.G., XII, 8 = Inscriptiones Graecae, Vol. XII, Part 8: Inscriptiones Insularum Maris Thracici, Berlin, 1909,

edited by C. Fredrich I.G., 12 = Inscriptiones Graecae, Vol. I, editio minor: Inscriptiones Atticae Euclidis anno anteriores, Berlin, 1924,

edited by F. Hiller von Gaertringen I.G., II2 = Inscriptiones Graecae, Vols. II-III, editio minor: Inscriptiones Atticae Euclidis anno posteriores, Ber-

lin, 1913-1940, edited by Johannes Kirchner Inscr. Delos = Inscriptions de Delos (Academie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres), Paris, 1926 - Kahrstedt, Ulrich, Untersuchungen zur Magistratur in Athen. Studien zum offentlichen Recht Athens, II, Stutt-

gart, 1936 Kerameikos, III = Werner Peek, Kerameikos, Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen, Vol. III, Inschriften, Ostraka, Fluch-

tafeln, Berlin, 1941 Kirchner, Johannes, Imagines Inscriptionum Atticarum, ein Bilderatlas epigraphischer Denkmdler Attikas, second

edition, edited by Giinther Klaffenbach, Berlin, 1948 Kirchner, Johannes, Prosopographia Attica, 2 vols., Berlin, 1901-1903 Klio, Beitrage zur alten Geschichte Knipovitch, T. N., Levi, E. I. et al., Inscriptiones Olbiae 1917-1965, Nadpisi Olvii 1917-1965, Leningrad, 1968 Kraay, Colin M., Coins of Ancient Athens, Newcastle upon Tyne, 1968 (Minerva Numismatic Handbooks, 2) Kraay, Colin M., in Colin M. Kraay - Max Hirmer, Greek Coins, New York, 1966 Kroll, John H., Athenian Bronze Allotment Plates, Cambridge, Mass., 1972 Larsen, J. A. O., Representative Government in Greek and Roman History, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1955

(Sather Classical Lectures, Vol. 28) Le Bas, Philippe, Inscriptions: Megaride et Peloponnese = Philippe Le Bas - W. H. Waddington, Voyage

archeologique en Grece et en Asie Mineure, Vol. II, Paris, 1870

x


Meier, M. H. E., Commentatio Epigraphica, Halle, 1852 Meisterhans, K., Grammatik der attischen Inschriften, third edition, revised by Eduard Schwyzer, Berlin, 1900 Meritt, Benjamin Dean, The Athenian Calendar in the Fifth Century, Cambridge, Mass., 1928 Meritt, Benjamin Dean, Athenian Financial Doccuments of the Fifth Century, Ann Arbor, 1932 Meritt, Benjamin Dean, The Athenian Year, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1961 (Sather Classical Lectures, Vol. 32) Meritt, Benjamin Dean, "The Chronology of the Peloponnesian War," Proceedings of the American Philo-

sophical Society, CXV, 1971, pp. 97-124 Meritt, Benjamin Dean, "Polyeuktos and Philoneos," The Classical Tradition: Literary and Historical Studies

in Honor of Harry Caplan, Ithaca, New York, 1966 Meritt, Benjamin Dean, H. T. Wade-Gery, and Malcolm Francis McGregor, The Athenian Tribute Lists, Vol. I,

Cambridge, Mass., 1939 Moretti, Luigi, Iscrizioni agonistiche greche, Rome, 1953 N.P.A. = J. Sundwall, Nachtrdge zur Prosopographia Attica, Helsingfors, 1910 (Oversigt af Finska Vetenskaps-

Societetens Fbrhandlinger, LII, B 1) NEov 'Aiilvaiov, Athens, 1955 The Numismatic Chronicle O.G.I.S. = Orientis Graecae Inscriptiones Selectae, Leipzig, 1903, edited by Wilhelm Dittenberger Oliver, James H., The Athenian Expounders of the Sacred and Ancestral Law, Baltimore, 1950 Oliver, James H., Marcus Aurelius: Aspects of Civic and Cultural Policy in the East, Hesperia, Supplement XIII,

1970 Oxford Classical Dictionary, second edition, 1970 P.A. = Johannes Kirchner, Prosopographia Attica, 2 vols., Berlin, 1901-1903 Parke, H. W., A History of the Delphic Oracle, Oxford, 1939

tliorrwcop, ocuyypaiua qnptoAoylKbv Koi -'ratSaycoyiKov irro6 2. KouvJavoi8ou, K. EavOorroouov, A. T. Maupo- qpv58ou

Philologus, Zeitschriftfiir das klassische Altertum Pittakys, K. S., L'ancienne Athenes ou la description des antiquites d'Athenes et ses environs, Athens, 1835 Pittakys, K. S. (with D. Charames and P. Eustratiades), 'Enrypaqoal a&vK8oTro avaKouvq)eeTcal KaQI EK8oOEToea

TrrO TOU apXatloAoylKo ov Xxoyov. puAXk5itov rrpcoTOV. 'EwTypaqail Ev T-ri oiKia TrjS Aouil'Ns TcoixC avacKoAvueToilai, Athens, 1851

Pococke, Richard, Inscriptionum Antiquarum Graec(arum) et Latin(arum) Liber, I: Inscriptiones Antiquae, London, 1752

nlo7hEov, 'ApXaioXoyiKOv lTTplO8IK6v Pouilloux, Jean, Laforteresse de Rhamnonte, Paris, 1954 Pouqueville, Francois Ch. H. L., Voyage dans la Grace, Paris, 1820 TTpaKTIKr Tris Ev 'A0itvais 'ApXatoAoylKuS 'ECratPEas Pritchett, William Kendrick, The Five Attic Tribes after Kleisthenes (Diss. Johns Hopkins), 1943 Pritchett, William Kendrick, and Benjamin Dean Meritt, The Chronology of Hellenistic Athens, Cambridge,

Mass., 1940 Pritchett, William Kendrick, and Otto Neugebauer, The Calendars of Athens, Cambridge, Mass., 1947 R.E.G. = Revue des rtudes Grecques Rangabe, A. R., Antiquites Helleniques ou Repertoire d'Inscriptions et d'autres Antiquitds decouvertes depuis

l'Affranchissement de la Grece, II, Athens, 1855 Raubitschek, Antony E., Dedications from the Athenian Akropolis, Cambridge, Mass., 1949 Reinmuth, O. W., The Ephebic Inscriptions of the Fourth Century B.C., Leiden, 1971 Rev. Arch. = Revue Archeologique Robert, Louis, Collection Froehner, I: Inscriptions Grecques, Paris, 1936 Ruck, Carl A. P., The List of the Victors in Comedies at the Dionysia, Leiden, 1967 S.E.G. = Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum Sarikakis, Theodore Chr., The Hoplite General in Athens (Diss. Princeton), 1951 Sitzb. Akad. Berlin = Sitzungsberichte der preufiischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosophisch-historische

Klasse Spon, Jacob, Voyage = Voyage d'Italie, de Dalmatie, de Grece et du Levant fait aux annees 1675 et 1676 par

Jacob Spon .... et George Wheler, 3 vols., Lyon, 1678 Sundwall, J., Nachtrdge zur Prosopographia Attica, Helsingfors, 1910 (Oversigt af Finska Vetenskaps-Societetens

Forhandlinger, LII, B 1) T.A.P.A. = Transactions of the American Philological Association

xi

xii ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

Thompson, Homer A., The Athenian Agora, A Guide to the Excavations and Museum, The American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 1962

Thompson, Margaret, The New Style Silver Coinage of Athens, New York, 1961 Traill, John S., The Political Organization of Attica, A Study of the Demes, Trittyes, and Phylai, and their Repre-

sentation in the Athenian Council, Hesperia, Supplement XIV (forthcoming) Walter, Otto, Beschreibung der Reliefs im kleinen Akropolismuseum in Athen, Vienna, 1923 Wiener Studien, Zeitschrift fur klassische Philologie Wilhelm, Adolf, Attische Urkunden, V: Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, philosophisch-historische Klasse.

Sitzungsberichte, CCXX, 5, Vienna and Leipzig, 1942 Wilhelm, Adolf, Beitrdge zur griechischen Inschriftenkunde, Vien, Vn 1909 (Sonderschriften des sterreichischen

archdologischen Institutes in Wien, Vol. VII) Wilhelm, Adolf, Urkunden dramatischer Auffiihrungen in Athen, Vienna, 1906 (Sonderschriften des dsterreichischen

archdologischen Institutes in Wien, Vol. VI)

INTRODUCTION

THE COUNCIL AND THE PRYTANEIS Kleisthenes established a Council of Five Hundred at the initiation of his political reforms at the end

of the sixth century B.C. The councillors were chosen by lot, fifty from each of the ten new phylai. These were named after eponymous heroes designated by the priestess at Delphi.' The phylaiwereErechtheis, Aigeis, Pandionis, Leontis, Akamantis, Oineis, Kekropis, Hippothontis, Aiantis, and Antiochis. They presided in turn over the affairs of state, dividing the year as nearly as was possible into ten so-called prytanies of 36 or 37 days each based upon an approximate solar year. Such at least was the scheme during the Peloponnesian War, where the epigraphical evidence is sure, and down to 408/7 B.C.2 After this the separate year of the prytanies, the conciliar year, was abandoned and the year of the ten prytanies was made coterminous at beginning and end with the lunar year of twelve, or thirteen, months.

The order in which the prytanies held office during the year was determined by lot.3 The only known exception to this rule of procedure was in the year 408/7 B.C.,4 in which the prytanies held office in reverse of the official order. One speaks of the "official" order because this was the order in which the names of the dead were inscribed, prytany by prytany, upon the public funeral monuments, and because it was the order in which the secretaries KTOr -rrpuTavEav followed year after year in cyclical rotation when a predetermined order was used for the dating of decrees of the Council and Demos.5 There were times when the reverse of the official order was employed in the cycles and times when it was only partially followed, either forward or in reverse.6 Prytany cycles were used in many ways, and a knowledge of them, in all their complexity, is essential to the understanding of much of Athenian constitutional practice.

The fifty members of a prytany were called prytaneis. Individually each prytanis could hold office twice, but in the best period of Athenian history not thrice, and indeed not twice in succession because of the necessity of passing a scrutiny, or ieOuva, at the end of one term before commencing another. The pre- siding officer of the prytaneis was the prytanis par excellence, often called the erlo-raTrms Tcov rrpuTavecov. He was chosen by lot for one day only. There were other officers of the prytany, some chosen by the prytaneis from their own number, like the raicvas T-rjV rpUTaVECOv and the ypaIuaOaTEJS Trrov TrpuTavEcov, and some career officers, like the herald and the flutist, who held office throughout the year for

1 Aristotle, 'AO. UloX., 21, 6; Charles Hignett, A History of the Athenian Constitution, 1952, p. 131; H. W. Parke, A History of the Delphic Oracle, 1939, pp. 166-167.

2 For the approximation of the year of the Council to the solar year see B. D. Meritt, The Athenian Calendar in the Fifth Century, 1928, passim. Opinions have varied as to the beginning date of the approximation. Meritt has urged the date of the reforms of Kleisthenes (op. cit., p. 124; idem, The Athenian Year, 1961, p. 203 note 4), after some misgivings (Hesperia, V, 1936, p. 376). W. B. Dinsmoor thought use of the solar year began with the reforms of Meton in 432 B.C. (The Archons of Athens, 1931, p. 327 note 1). The evidence for the Peloponnesian War is now outlined fully in B. D. Meritt, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, CXV, 1971, pp. 97-124, where the final date 408/7 B.C. for the separate conciliar year is also fixed. 3 Aristotle, 'AO. TTo7., 43, 2.

a Meritt, The Athenian Calendar, pp. 99-100; T.A.P.A., XCV, 1964, p. 208. 5 The cycle of rotation by phylai of the secretaries who gave their names to the Athenian decrees was discovered by William

S. Ferguson, The Athenian Secretaries, Cornell Studies in Classical Philology, VII, 1898. It is commonly known as Ferguson's Law and has been of immense help in the study of Hellenistic chronology. With some exceptions and modifications, such as occasional cycles of allotted order, the scheme is now applied continuously down through the imperial period as well. See James A. Notopoulos, A.J.P., LXIV, 1943, pp. 44-55; Hesperia, XVIII, 1949, pp. 1-57. But see also below, p. 19, note 66.

6 The reverse of the official order, for example, was followed for the secretaries of the Hellenotamiai from 439/8 to 430/29; B. D. Meritt, H. T. Wade-Gery, and M. F. McGregor, The Athenian Tribute Lists, I, 1939, pp. 567-568.

INSCRIPTIONS: ATHENIAN COUNCILLORS

all the prytanies and indeed for terms of more than one year. Attached to the prytany were also certain officers of the Council as a whole, who might or might not be members of the prytany with which they served, but they held office for one year only. Such, for example, were the Secretary of the Council and Demos, the Undersecretary, and the Treasurer of the Council. These various officers and others had the privilege of dining with the prytaneis in the Tholos and were known collectively as the a&icrnro.7

EARLY PRYTANY INSCRIPTIONS The history and development of the prytany inscriptions with decrees has been traced through the Hel-

lenistic Age and down into the time of the Early Empire by Sterling Dow.8 But no decrees, either of the Council or of the Demos, are recorded with the earliest inscriptions honoring prytaneis. The practice of inscribing an honorary decree or decrees began with the overthrow of Demetrios of Phaleron and the re- establishment of democracy in Athens in 307/6 B.C.9 It is significant that the practice came to an end with the conquest of Athens by Sulla in 86 B.C.

There had been dedications by prytaneis and inscriptions of prytany lists without the attendant decrees in the fifth and fourth centuries. Indeed, this practice may have gone back as early as the time of Kleis- thenes and the establishment of the ten phylai. But the earliest text of this kind now known is our No. 1 of 408/7 B.C., a dedication of the prytaneis of Erechtheis who were victorious in their competition in the archonship of Euktemon. In 393/2 B.C. the prytany of Antiochis was victorious (No. 2). It is evident that the award of victory went to the prytany which, throughout the year, had best served the interests of the state. The award was made by the Demos (Nos. 3, 9, 13, 14), but it could also be made by the Council, as is stated, for example, in No. 5. The names of the prytaneis might or might not be recorded on the monu- ment of dedication,?1 and frequently there is no mention of who decided on the relative excellence of the various phylai. When mention was made, the crown of victory could be given on occasion by both Council and Demos (Nos. 26, 28, 30, [32], 38, 41, 44, 47, 51, 57) and once (No. 35), withjudgmentrenderedby the Demos, the award of the crown was again made by the Council and Demos together. There were also dedications of lists of Councillors (Nos. 20, 42, 43, 56) and of officers of the Council or of the prytany, either severally (No. 19,34,53) or individually (No. 24). The councillors of Pandionis in 348/7 B.C., themselves praised, in turn praised their treasurer (No. 26), a practice which in principle became regular procedure in the future when the enabling decrees were also inscribed, after 307/6 B.C., in addition to the names." Outside Athens itself, the councillors of Teithras (No. 45) were praised, about 330 B.C., by their fellow demesmen and their stele was set up in the deme from which they came.

THE REGISTER When the decrees of the Council and Demos were first inscribed after 307/6 B.C. there were no stereo-

typed formulae. Nor were decrees added to the complete bouleutic lists, of which large parts of three are preserved (Nos. 61, 62, 72). The norm established in 307/6 was maintained down to 201/0 B.C., when the phyle Attalis was created, and after which the regularity of deme representation was abandoned.12

7 For the distinction between these and the honored guests of the state who dined in the prytaneion see Sterling Dow Prytaneis, Hesperia, Suppl. I, 1937, pp. 23-24. 8 Ibid., pp. 1-30.

9 The earliest such decree (No. 58, below, Dow's No. 1) preserved has been found to belong not to 327/6 but to 305/4 B.C. 10 The record of such names has come to be called the Register. 11 The dedication No. 57 is the only prytany inscription of normal type without a decree known to us after 307/6 and before

imperial times. 12 In the Hellenistic era new determinations of dates of inscriptions are offered by Meritt for the years from 204/3 to 167/6 B.C.

in tables to which he has made modifications in Hesperia, XXXVII, 1968, pp. 235-236 and in 'ApX. 'E., 1968, pp. 93-94, 96-97, 102-103 (cf. T.A.P.A., XCV, 1964, pp. 239-240, and also for 184/3 Hesperia, XL, 1971, pp. 308-311). New dates and new restorations in the third and second centuries B.C. are now discussed in Hesperia, XXXVIII, 1969, pp. 107-108 (298/7), 109 (297/6), 108 with notes (295/4), 109-110 (280/79), 110 (279/8), 112 (265/4-256/5). 418-420 and 432 (254/3), 425-427 and 440 (220/19, 219/8), 432-437 (288/7, 269/8, 255/4, 253/2, 251/0, 238/7, 233/2-230/29, 223/2), 439-440 (222/1, 221/0), in Hesperia, XL, 1971, pp. 109-111 (217/6), and in Hesperia, XLI, 1972, pp. 43-46 (210/09 and 209/8), 46-49 (188/7).

2

INTRODUCTION

Names in the Register, which was an essential part of every prytany inscription after the beginning of the third century, were arranged by demes in columns (usually three or four) with the deme to which the Treasurer of the Prytaneis belonged placed first and the deme to which the Secretary of the Prytaneis belonged placed second. The names of the Treasurer and of the Secretary followed immediately under the deme captions to which they belonged. There were rare exceptions. The names were given with patronymics down to about 225 B.C. (No. 122) and thereafter without patronymics (e.g. No. 125) except occasionally to distinguish homonyms. The line of cleavage is not precise, and in 223/2 B.C. one text (No. 127) is without patronymics while another (No. 128) records them. This absence of patronymics persisted until after the time of Sulla (No. 264). Thereafter they were regularly indicated. Again, the line of de- marcation is not precise, and there are exceptions.

PLACE OF ERECTION OF THE STELAI

The texts, as they develop through the third century, show a regular progression as to their place of erection: from 305/4 to 283/2 B.C. they were set either in front of or near the Bouleuterion (Nos. 58, [66], 71), and after 280-275 B.C. they were set in the prytanikon (PI. 1; Nos. 77ff.).13 Only Nos. 220 and 221 of this latter group before 130 B.C., both of 164/3 B.C., were set up in a precinct not designated as thepry- tanikon, and they are quite exceptional as being inscribed on the backs of kleroteria. After 130 B.C. and down until the time of Sulla the decrees were set up oi a&v EuKxaipov ' (Nos. 246, [248, 249, 252, 254], 258, 261).14 One variant restoration (No. 263) gives [oi &av F.rrcpavEc-r]aTov At. After Sulla the stelai with decrees were erected ?v -rTCI pOUAeuTrnpico (Nos. 264, [265], 268, 278, [279]).

The prytanikon may well have been congested with the "rank upon crowded rank," as Dow puts it (op. cit., p. 1), of these inscribed stelai, and this may have been in part the reason for the changed formula of 130 B.C., but old stones probably made way for new, and there is some evidence for specific stelai which did not stay in place forever. Two stelai, from the archonships of Philinos and Menekrates respectively (254/3 and 220/19 B.C., Nos. 89 and 130) were found in 1968 used as cover slabs over the drain running from the Southwest Fountain House (H 14).15 They were incorporated also into the fabric of a small house just southwest of the Middle Stoa (Shear, op. cit., pp. 416-417), a house which was already in existence when the Middle Stoa was begun in the second quarter of the second century. One of the stelai (No. 89) has an erasure of its reference to the Macedonian Royal House. This dates from the damnatio of 201 B.C. Since both stelai were placed over the drain together it follows that they were still in their original position in the prytanikon later than 201 (when one of them suffered erasure; the other had no reference to the House of Macedon) and that they had been taken from the prytanikon and used as slabs over the drain before (or when) the small house was built that had to be destroyed when the Middle Stoa was erected, probably in the first quarter of the second century.l6 The life of No. 130, therefore, as a prytany inscription, from 220/19 down to some date later than 201 B.C., could have been perhaps twenty-five years but hardly more than fifty. The life of No. 89 could have been a generation longer.

13 The prytanikon was frequently confused, even in antiquity, with the prytaneion. The testimonia have been collected by R. E. Wycherley (Athenian Agora, III, Literary and Epigraphical Testimonia, 1957, pp. 166-174, 179, 184) and the archaeological evidence available in 1935 was presented by Eugene Vanderpool (Hesperia, IV, 1935, pp. 470-475; see Dow, op. cit., p. 27). It is quite clear that the prytanikon-the noun seems peculiar to Athens-was identical with the Tholos and its precinct. This change of place of erecting the stelai is perhaps to be connected with the rehabilitation of the Tholos, the construction of a new enclosure wall at the north side of the Tholos precinct, and the erection of the Propylon to the Bouleuterion, all datable on archaeological evidence to a time late in the first quarter of the third century B.C. Cf. Homer A. Thompson, Hesperia, VI, 1937, pp. 160-167; Hesperia, Suppl. IV, 1940, pp. 86-88, figs. 62, 63; Athenian Agora, XIV, p. 33.

14 No. 246 was formerly restored oi &av [-rrrniteiov ETvoal aifviTyrat]. Cf. Vanderpool, Hesperia, IV, 1935, p. 470 note 1. There is no evidence that this restoration was ever used.

15 John S. Traill, Hesperia, XXXVIII, 1969, pp. 418, 425; for the place of finding see T. L. Shear, Jr., ibid., p. 417. 18 Homer A. Thompson, The Athenian Agora, A Guide to the Excavation and Museum, 1962, p. 106; Athenian Agora, XIV, pp.

67-68.

3


THE DECREE OF THE DEMOS

The normal prytany text of the third and second centuries and of the first century down to the time of Sulla consisted of two parts: (1) a decree of the Demos praising the prytaneis as a group and awarding them a golden crown, and (2) a decree of the Council praising the officers who functioned during the prytany.

We consider here first the decree of the Demos. This so-called "first" decree, in which the Demos praised the prytaneis as a group, was motivated by a report from the prytaneis to the effect that they had done their duty in making the customary sacrifices before the meetings of the Assembly.'7 If there were other special sacrifices that fell due during their term these might or might not be mentioned as well. In No. 70, of the early third century, the prytaneis of Akamantis had also sacrificed the Stenia and the Chalkeia which fell due in the month of Pyanopsion when they were in prytany. In 283/2 B.C. the formula had not as yet be- come stereotyped, but the report of the prytaneis to the Demos was recorded as motivating the award to them by the Demos of a golden crown: [irepi oJv M]youatv oi TrpuTaVeis T[4S AiaVTri8os VrrEp T-OV iEp]CV Jv ?0uov T-ra npo ?:KA[rai&cv -rri TrnS lTpUTavEias].18 The praise from the Demos cited the prytaneis for having sacrificed well and zealously [Kc=aos Kcal liXoTincos] and for having taken care of all the other duties which were incumbent upon them: [Kal -rTOv 6MAcov] ElrtimleEXriv[Tai drravTcov e$v auTrol Kca90Kov v].

About 280-275 B.C. No. 77 gives the first evidence of any special praise for the Treasurer and Secretary of the Prytaneis. This comes from the two citations which follow the decree of the Demos praising the prytaneis as a group. In 273/2 B.C. (No. 78) the phraseology continues to expand. The sacrifices before the meetings of the Assembly were to Apollo Prostaterios Kao TroS 6&7oiS e eoTS ols n-r`T[ptov 'iv]. These other gods and goddesses came later to be specified more particularly, though occasionally the simple formula Tros OEoTs olS TrTC-plOV iv is found, as in No. 80 of 271/0 and in No. 81 of 267/6 B.C. In this latter text the prytaneis, who must have held the first prytany of the year, sacrificed also the Kronia to Zeus and (if our restoration is correct) helped in the Panathenaic procession. They were praised in the usual way for having done with zeal and decorum all that the laws and the decrees of the Demos enjoined upon them and they were given a golden crown, as usual, for their piety toward the gods and their zeal toward the Council and the Demos of the Athenians.

The inscriptions of 257/6 and of 256/5 B.C. mark clearly the distinction between the two decrees of the Council and of the Demos respectively (Nos. 84-87), and in 254/3 B.C. (No. 89) the mature form of both types has begun to take shape. In 256/5 B.C. (No. 87) Artemis Boulaia can be first restored along with Apollo Prostaterios in the decree of the Demos as the recipient of the usual sacrifices reported by the prytaneis to the Demos. About 240 B.C. (No. 111) and in 235/4 B.C. (No. 115) supplementary sacrifices were offered to the Saviors (XcoTirpes) Antigonos and Demetrios.19

Quite exceptionally a sacrifice to Zeus Ktesios was mentioned in 190/89 B.C. (No. 171), conducted with the assistance of his priest. In one text of 182/1 B.C. (No. 183) there is mention of supplementary sacrifices to Artemis Phosphoros and to Athena Archegetis, while in another text of the same year (No. 184) the sacrifice to Artemis Phosphoros is recorded but no mention is made of Athena Archegetis. She does not appear again in the prytany decrees. Artemis Phosphoros recurs, usually but not invariably, sometimes simply as T-rei ooxpopco (e.g., No. [1971 of 177/6 B.C. and in Nos. 199 and [2001 of 175/4 B.C.) immediately after Artemis Boulaia, and sometimes in a supplementary list (rarely) as in No. 240 of 140/39 B.C. This latter text has also an unusual reference to the Stenia for Demeter and Kore and to sacrifices for Theseus and Apollo Patroos. Without incidental additions the full formula about the end of the second century was TO-rc -re 'Arrtacovi TrCOt npoo-ra-rpicot Kaci T1 'ApT-risi Tre BovXa(iaii Kal TreI coap6pcoi Kal TroTS &a0oiS

17 In 284/3 B.C. (No. 69) the Demos, after a probouleuma of the Council, praised the councillors of Aigeis (here called pouAr-rao, not irpurTveits) and crowned them with a golden crown. The phyle of Aigeis then in its own right praised its own councillors. This is not a decree of the Council or Demos but simply a decree of one of the phylai.

18 The later formula began irArp &5v rraocyyVaovoiv otl wrpr&vEs--. "9 Reference to the Saviors in No. 85 of 256/5 B.C. is now eliminated by a change in restoration in lines 13-14. See Dow, op. cit.,

p. 48, and Wycherley, Agora, III, p. 56.

4

INTRODUCTION

OEois ols Tr&rptov ?v. But other special sacrifices and special services continue to be mentioned, like the rrtvvux;is for Athena Ergane at the Chalkeia in 118/7 B.C. (No. 253).

The prytaneis were regularly praised for sacrificing for the health and safety of the Council and Demos, 9p' yiEIal TSrij povASs Kcal TroU 8iou. Mention of this ritual performance appears first in No. 70 in the

early third century and is regular thereafter, with or without the additional specification -TO 'Aqrvatcov.20 This was always a provision of the "first" decree passed by the Demos in praise of the prytaneis. In 273/2 B.C. the sacrifice was made to include "all others who were well disposed to the Demos" (No. 78), a mag- nanimous gesture which was repeated in No. 79 of about the same date and in No. 80 of 271/0 B.C. It is reasonable to suppose that Athens, in the period of her freedom before the Chremonidean War, regularly made this gesture to her friends.21 There is at present no evidence to the contrary.

After 263/2 B.C. the formula reverted to mention simply of the Council and Demos (No. 84 of 257/6), with obsequious additions to include the Macedonian Royal House (Nos. 89, 110, 111, 115) in this period of Macedonian supremacy. In the late thirties mention of the Royal House was omitted. Demetrios II was having trouble with his eastern enemies,22 and Macedonian influence was on the wane. The texts in the twenties refer only to the Council and Demos (No. 120), and twice not even to them (Nos. 121, 128). All references to the Macedonian Royal House were supposedly expunged in the damnatio of 201 B.C.; some were overlooked and escaped erasure.

Mention of the women and children in the formula for health and safety makes its first sure appearance in 222/1 B.C. (No. 129), and they also appear in texts (Nos. 130,132) where the sacrifices normally credited to the prytaneis as a body are credited to the Treasurer of the Prytaneis. Yet the health and safety of the Council and Demos are the concern of the Demos in Nos. 134, 135, 138, 147, regularly down to the end of the third century.

Athens now developed closer and closer relations with Pergamon and with Rome. The Macedonian phylai were abolished, and the new allies were heralded in the prytany decrees by the addition of Kal -rTCOV oau,ltlaXcov in the health and safety clause. This occurs regularly in the early second century, its first appearance in a surely dated inscription being in No. 167 of 193/2 B.C. It was Dow's belief that there was, in fact, an actual alliance with Rome, a suggestion now strengthened by the mention of a special sacrifice to the Demos of the Romans in No. 180 (184/3 B.C.). With some variations and with some omissions, the formula with the allies, then with the friends and allies (-rwiv piXcov KaCi ovijal6VXiov) and finally, in full, ET' Oylieai Ka1 O'coTh|piaC TT]S POV7AUS Kal( TOUr 8rlou Kali Trral8cov Kcal yuvaiKov Kal TCAV cpiAcov KCa Ocaru[aXCoV continued down to the time of Sulla.

THE DECREE OF THE COUNCIL The decree of the Council, for the sake of convenience, has come to be called the "second" decree. This

was the decree in which the Council praised the prytaneis and their officers. It was differentiated from the decree of the Demos and achieved status in its own right about 257/6 B.C., or perhaps a little earlier as shown by the indirect evidence of citations by the Council and phyletai (largely restored, but inevitable) in 279/8 (No. 76), by the prytaneis about 280-275 (No. 77) and by the Council, along with the Demos, and the prytaneis about 260 B.C. (No. 83). The separate decree of the Council appears clearly in 257/6 (No. 84).

There is no way of telling a priori in any given text which of these two decrees will turn out in actual point of time to be first and which second. The decree of the Demos was usually, but not always, placed first upon the stone. But whether first or second in time the motivation for the decree of the Council came

20 Dow, op. cit., pp. 9-11. 21 Dow notes Athenian praise of an archon (I.G., II2, 929) in the early second century who had distinguished himself for sacrifices

[vy' iyieafo Kal ac-rrlpiat -ro] Sfov u To 'Aeq[vaicov Kal rraiSo0v Kal yuvalKoxv Kal T-rv A7,cov 6ooti sicrl piA]oi Kcal EsVOUS [TCOI 6iS.rcoi Trl 'AOrkvacov]. But this is not a prytany decree.

22 Dow, op. cit., p. 11, note 2.

5


from the prytaneis themselves. In the decree of the Demos the introductory formula was usually vrrep cv &rTrayyAovru v ol rrprTarveiaS Triis l 'I Ioovrisos (e.g.) vrrnp TrcOV eQatcov c&v gIov Ta -rpo T-OV 6KKAQaiCov -- KT. (No. 243 of 135/4 B.C.) and in the decree of the Council the formula was ETrriSi oi rpuTavTFis TrS '1mrroocovriSos (e.g.) Kai o0l &EiorTroI &raivcacVTES Kai cT-rpavc6boaVTS &TrropcaivoucIv T?t pouvet TOV Tapicav

Ov ETXovro ^ avrcov --- KT. (also No. 243 of 135/4 B.C.). The Demos, in its decree, praised all the prytaneis; the Council, in its decree, praised first their own Treasurer and Secretary and then the other officers who made up the panel of the &eaicroi. The Register of the prytaneis of Hippothontis (e.g.) follows the second decree, and below the Register were inscribed mst of the citations. The Treasurer of the Prytaneis and the Secretary of the Prytaneis had their crowns of olive between the two decrees, on left and right respectively, awarded by the Council. Between them was the gold crown of the prytaneis, awarded by the Demos. This was the normal arrangement, the sequence of crowns and citations corresponding to the text of the decree. But the order was not invariably followed. In No. 243 the Trea- surer of the Council was placed, irregularly, between the two decrees. He thus broke the one-to-one corres- pondence in order between the names in the decree and the sequence of citations. In this case in point of time the decree of the Council came first (Gamelion 22= Prytany VIII 4), the decree of the Demos came second (Gamelion 29 = Prytany VIII 11). The prytany of Ptolemais was eighth, immediately following the prytany of Hippothontis, which was honored. Other examples of prytany decrees in which the honors voted by the Council preceded the honors voted by the Demos are found in Nos. 128,130,23173,187, and 261.

On the other hand there are decrees of the Demos which precede in time the decrees of the Council (Nos. 120, 129, 184,24 206, 220). In Nos. 225 and 254 both decrees were passed on the same day. In No. 254 both decrees were passed by both bodies. No. 225 is unique in that both decrees were passed only by the Council, though the citation by the Demos in lines 25-27 leads us to suspect that T-r pouAe may have been written by mistake for -rTCOI 56icoi in line 5 and that the restoration in line 10 should be with T-rCo Sficol rather than with -rT pouXeT. Nos. 238 and 239 are exceptional in that the two decrees were cut on separate stones.

The praises which the prytaneis bestowed upon themselves and their officers before reporting to the Council and Demos were not inscribed. There is one example (No. 69) of a decree of a phyle in which the phyle praised their own prytaneis and crowned them with a golden crown; but this came after the awards by the Council and Demos (see above, p. 4) and not before.

TIMING OF THE DECREES

There is no set rule which controls the time when the Demos might honor the prytaneis. They might wait until the prytaneis were out of office and then vote honors during the following prytany. The longest delay for which there is evidence is the vote of honors on the 24th day of Pandionis for the preceding prytaneis of Kekropis (No. 165 of 197/6 B.C.). Nos. 207 and 212 record honors on the 23rd and 22nddays, respectively, of the succeeding prytany.25 On the other hand the Demos might, and on one occasion did, vote honors to the prytaneis as early as the eleventh day of their term of office (No. 89 of 254/3 B.C.): 'EKaTrovpaicovoS evEK&reI, vEKvreI-ri T"rS Trpvravicas. The prytaneis of Aigeis were praised and awarded a golden crown for doing something which they could no more than have begun to do. The meeting of the Assembly on Hekatombaion 11 was the first meeting of the year. The prytaneis may indeed have sacrificed to Apollo Prostaterios and Artemis Boulaia and to the other gods to whom it was customary to sacrifice, and the Demos, as stated in the decree, may have accepted the blessings which the prytaneis

23 The decrees were labeled incorrectly on the stone. The decree of the Council was in the fifth (not the sixth) prytany. The confusion is explained by J. S. Traill, Hesperia, XXXVIII, 1969, pp. 427-428.

24 The Demos praised the prytaneis of Akamantis late in their own prytany. The Council never praised their officers during their own term except during the last prytany of the year (No. 187); hence the decree of the Council (not preserved) must have come later. See also No. 220.

25 Dow's citation of the delay in 125/4 B.C. until the 24th day of the succeeding prytany (his No. 91, op. cit., p. 7) must be with- drawn, for the date on the stone (No. 249) is [-rer]&pTe Kr[al] SEKrt&-l 'ris wTrpravEiaS.

6

INTRODUCTION

proclaimed as manifest in the sacrifices for the health and safety of the Council and Demos and the Royal House of Macedon, but they had only one meeting of the Assembly on which to base their praise. This is implicit not only in the date (11th day of the prytany) but also in the definition of the sacrifice in line 7. The singular of the noun is used both for the sacrifice and for the meeting of the Assembly: v-rrip TS tOucia s eOuov -rTa -rrpo K-nalcias instead of the normal formula lrn&p TCOv euncf,v cov geuov Ta 1rpo T-roV iK2rqaicov (e.g. No. 120, lines 10-11). It is apparent that the Demos was impatient to register its loyalty and to pay its homage to Antigonos and his family. The performance of Aigeis for the rest of their term was taken for granted, and we are left with the conviction that these praises not only here but in general must have been rather perfunctory and very much of a mere formality. The Council, on the other hand, never praised the officers of a prytany while that prytany was still in office except during the last prytany of the year (No. 187).

THE XYAAOrEIl TOY AHMOY

Quite exceptionally, the ovAJoyETs TOir 8iS'ov appear twice in prytany dedications of the fourth century, once being themselves honored with crowns by the Council and the Demos (No. 19 of 351/0 B.C.) and once honoring others, if our restoration is correct (No. 33 of 344/3 B.C.). They themselves voted praise and a golden crown to two of their own numbers in 324/3 B.C. (I.G., II2, 1257). They were thirty in number, three from each phyle (presumably one from each trittys), who performed the function of getting the meetings of the Assembly in order.26 This function was taken over in the third century B.C. by the prytaneis themselves, who were regularly praised at first for doing all that the laws and decrees of the Demos expect- ed of them27 and then later more specifically for caring for the convening of the assembly,28 in addition to the sacrifices and their other duties. These vMuoyeTs are known only in the latter half of the fourth century and they play no further part in the prytany inscriptions.29

THE AEISITOI IN THE CENTURIES BEFORE The aeisitoi, some of them at least, are known from

century (bold numbers are those of this volume): (1) No. 12 (400-350 B.C.) = LG., IP2, 1740

[ypal]]lkaT?us T-ril pouvAi Kac TCOI 86rlcoi, line 64 [&VTi]ypacE6ts, line 66

(2) No. 34 (343/2 B.C.)= L.G., IP1, 223 C [ypapir]aT]E[i]s KaTa Tr[pUra]vefav, line 1 frIT TO yra i q(opyaaTa, line 3

r TO Or EopK6v, line 530 povuiXs Traaat, line 7

(3) No. 43 (335/4 B.C.) = I.G., 12, 1700 ypapliaTEvs KaTa rrpUTavsiav, line 227 ypao,iaTrES TC-rOI S1icoI, line 228 &vaypaqpEIS, line 229 WTI Tra Prly{ctiiaTa, line 230 &vTiypapEC5S, line 231 TaifcraS TT1l pouvfi, line 232 rTaiiaS TrCOv 5i TO a&v&OrC a, line 233 Kilpug, line 234

the prytany CHRIST dedications of the late fourth

26 See U. Koehler, Ath. Mitt., VII, 1882, p. 105; F. Hiller von Gaertringen in W. Dittenberger, Sylloge, III, 1920, No. 944B, note 10.

27 Cf. No. 66 of the early third century, lines 4-7: [h^iAcrE reio0av 6a K Kal KaX Kal 8]lKalco[s T-rV TE Ouo'itav &araCTcov KOd TC-r 6&7cov 6rr&]v-cov 5v [airroTs o T rE v6pol Kal -r& yrlo'ia.crra Trp]oo,iAL I[ov]. 28 No. 89 of 254/3 B.C. (and thereafter): rntii^Arlvrai Si Kal Tris [cruA]Aoyfis TOU 8ilfou v KoXoOcoS T'roTS v6pios.

29 See I.G., II2, 1257, 1496, and 2821; see also Nos. 19 and 33. 80 The office hrl -r6 0?cOpIK6 was probably abolished in 339 B.C. when the theoric was converted into a military fund. See Ferguson, The Athenian Secretaries, p. 38.

7


(4) No. 53 (324/3 B.c.) = Hesperia, X, 1941, P. 43, No. 11 [&pxJcov, line 9 [y]paalTha-r*s -r&St 8'licAt, line 11 [&v]aypCapei*s, line 13 KQT-ra 1Tp1rrpvavFwav], line 16 EIrri -ro*S v6'[ovS], line 19

(5) No. 58 (305/4 B.C.) = Hesperia, Suppl. I, 1937, pp. 31-36, No. 1 LyPavvaTqI*s PouMjis Kca4i] 8pIou, line 32 [K,fjpv~ PoU]7]fis 1K]Cal 8.ov, line 34 [-crapa]s -srii P[oukfis], line 36 KcaT& rrp[vrravEfav], line 76 irri Tr[o*S v6o.tou], line 78 &a4r[ypaq)Es], line 80 Erri -ra y1prvp)i1aaa], line 82 ex[vaypa]?e*, line 84

There were also appendices to the full catalogues of Councillors which named officers of the Council: (6) No. 61 (304/3 B.C.)

Six names, one of them the [Kfipvu PovuMis i

INTRODUCTION

OFFICIALS PRAISED In the early lists from the fourth century there are no officers primarily responsible to the prytaneis

themselves; they are officials of the Council, though of course they served during the various prytanies of the year. The officers whom the prytaneis praised from among their own number were invariably and first of all the Treasurer of the Prytaneis and the Secretary of the Prytaneis. These came first in all the records of praise and in the physical ordering of the inscribed citations upon the dedicated stelai.

After the praise of the Treasurer of the Prytaneis and the Secretary of the Prytaneis, the second decree praised other officers as well: the Priest of the Eponymos, the Secretary of the Council and Demos, the Flutist, and the Treasurer of the Council. These were not always in the same order, though the order indicated here is typical. In the early third century there was considerable variety, both in fact and in formula. In 256/5 B.C. (No. 85) Nikokrates was both treasurer of his phyle (Aigeis) and treasurer, elected by the Council, of the entire Council. On recommendation of the prytaneis who had themselves praised and crowned their treasurer, the Council also praised him, as well as the Secretary of the Prytaneis (but there is no mention of a crown). They quite irregularly praised another of the prytaneis, described as &K TorCV (pvhTcov, and then in quite normal fashion praised the herald. The Council then proceeded to praise Nikokrates in his capacity of Treasurer of the Council. His name appears first in the Register, though he deserved that place already as Treasurer of the Prytaneis where the name of his deme headed the list. The deme of the Secretary of the Prytaneis was next in the Register, as was normally the case. We are not told how Kallikrates (&c TCOV qvuXTe-rv) was honored, and it is noticeable that many of the officers were not named in the decrees, though the Secretary of the Council and Demos and the Assistant Secre- tary received citations below the Register. No. 86, of the same year, approached more nearly the later normal form, but there were no citations between the decrees. In this inscription lines 117-120 probably name the ?K TaoV upVATc.V (see the commentary ad. Ioc.). Two years later No. 89 has a normal decree of the Demos, followed immediately by the decree of the Council in which the TrelXoTnlrnjivos EI (a[uToros] (that is, to the Prytaneis) corresponds to the &K T-rv yv?e-rcov of No. 85, who was also excep-

tionally honored. There are no citations preserved on the stone, but the names and the crowns could have been added in paint. There was room between the two decrees and below the Register for them to be recorded.31

About the middle of the third century Nos. 98 and 99 mention for the first time the Priest of the Epony- mos.32 The Treasurer of the Council now also has a high priority both in the decree of the Council and in the citations, which march paripassu. All citations are here at the end, none in the middle between the decrees. No. 100 has between the decree of the Council and the Register the normal three citations which later come between the two decrees. This is a progressive step in the development of the form. No. 100, of about 250 B.C., carries the last mention of the special honoree SK T-r6v (vp-rTcoV.

The Treasurer of the Council continues to remain high in the list of special officers until the beginning of the second century (No. 162). For some reason obscure to us he usurped in 228/7 B.C. the position usually reserved for the Secretary of the Prytaneis (No. 120). He is paired with the Priest of the Eponymos in 223/2, 222/1, 220/19, about 220/19 and 215/4, and in 210-201 B.C. (Nos. 127-132, 138). But in a text (No. 137) which must date between 211/0 and 202/1 B.C. the title of -ragiaS T-ri povfis does not occur. He is likewise absent from the known text of 203/2 B.C. (No. 147) and once even in the early second century (No. 160). In the year 193/2 B.C. (No. 168) he is at the very bottom of the list, but his position was erratic. In 135/4 B.C. (No. 243) he is at the bottom of the usual panel but is followed by five other officials, and about 128 B.C. (No. 248) the position again favors some measure of prestige.

There are many variations in arrangement and form in the citations, and the order of them is a useful indication of relative date. This ought not, however, to be pressed too closely, and it must be weighed

31 Traill, Hesperia, XXXVIII, 1969, p. 421, pl. 109. 32 His name also appears, though not so designated in the citation, in No. 83, lines 20-23 (ca. 260 B.C.).

9


against such other criteria as letter forms, word division, and the use of patronymics with the names in the Register. The career of Euthymachos of Kerameis first as Undersecretary of the Council and Demos in 193/2 B.C. (No. 168) and then as Secretary, an advance in station, about 190 B.C. (No. 170), is more important for determining relative dates than the order of citations for the Treasurer of the Council, low in No. 168 and high in No. 170. Dow's citation of No. 194 of 178/7 B.C. as typical in form and content for the developed style of the mid third century is justifiable and instructive.33 We reproduce his schematic design here.

DESIGN OF A DEVELOPED INSCRIPTION: No. 194 OF 178/7 B.C. Acroteria Pediment Moulding

FIRST DECREE Passed by the Demos

Awarding a gold crown to the prytaneis as a group

Special citation 1. General citation. Special citation 2. Crown awarded by the Crown awarded by Crown awarded by the Boule to the Treasurer the Demos to the Boule to the Secretary

of the Prytaneis Prytaneis of the Prytaneis

SECOND DECREE Passed by the Boule

Awarding an olive crown especially to the 1. Treasurer of the Prytaneis, then to the 5. The Undersecretary, 2. Secretary of the Prytaneis, 6. The Herald of the Boule and the Demos, 3. The Priest of the Eponymos, 7. The Flutist, and 4. The Secretary of the Boule and the Demos, 8. The Treasurer of the Boule

REGISTER OF THE FIrFY PRYTANEIS ARRANGED IN COLUMNS UNDER DEMOTICS

General scheme: A. The demotic of the Treasurer of the Prytaneis B. The Treasurer's name C. The other prytaneis from the Treasurer's deme D. The demotic of the Secretary of the Prytaneis

E. The Secretary's name F. The other prytaneis from the Secretary's deme G. The panels for the larger demes H. The panels for the smaller demes

I I

Special citation 3. Special citation 4. Special citation 5. Special citation 6. Crown awarded Crown awarded by Crown awarded Crown awarded by by the Boule to the Boule to the by the Boule to the Boule to the the Priest of the Secretary of the the Under- Herald of the

Eponymos Boule and Demos secretary Boule and Demos

Special citation 7. Crown awarded by

the Boule to the Flutist

Special citation 8. Crown awarded by

the Boule to the Treasurer of the Boule

Setting line Part of stele which was set into base

33 Dow, op. cit., p. 4.

10

INTRODUCTION

THE FLUTIST The flutist makes his first appearance in the prytany lists soon after 225 B.C.. His position in the order

of citations is never high; he is not always cited, and at first his name and title come at the end of all the citations (No. 126). At times he shares this honor of being last with the Treasurer of the Council (cf. e.g., No. 194 of 178/7 B.C.). But whether or not he is actually last the order thus established became standard down through most of the second century, until other offices were added in the ranks of the deictrot with resultant much longer lists.

The flutist belonged to a professional guild, and his career with the Council continued for spans of more than one year. A knowledge of the names and sequences of the flutists is an aid in determining the dates of these prytany texts which might have left no other sure evidence. The known flutists, from their first appearance in 223/2 down about to 40-30 B.C., are shown in the following table:34

THE FLUTIST IN THE PRYTANY INSCRIPTIONS

223/2 B.C. [Ae?iAaos 'AXaitEs] 223/2 [AeSi(aos 'Aaiteas] 220/19 AESi?aos 'AXaIEsO ca. 215/4 [AESi?aos 'AXaiEOs] ca. 210/09-201/0 NEOKlfis BEpEVIKuir[s] 203/2 NE[oK]Xfis BepEVEiKdS1s ca. 200 NEoKX[f] BEpevy[K]fIs beginning of 2nd century [NeoK].Xis BEpEv[IKl8rls] beginning of 2nd century [NeoK,fsi 'AcKCXr'rrtiaou BEpevmKdris] beginning of 2nd century [NEoKAris 'AorX]nFrtiabou BerpEsvmxiSs] 193/2 [NEoKAjs BEpEVlKi8rS] ca. 190/89 rNEo0AfiS] BepEVIKdi8S 189/8 NEoKj[s BEpEvIKiirs] 180/79 NEoAfj[s BepEVIKfSis] ca. 180 rNEoKAfj BE?p]viKinST before 178/7 [Neovifis BepsviKisIS] before 178/7 [NeoKAfis 'AcrKlritdaou BEpEvlKt]85Sf 178/7 KKMtKpmSrrs opaKloS ca. 176/5-170/69 [KaA]IKpaT'Ms KaaMtKp[6rrov 0opKIos] ca. 176/5-170/69 KatxKp&nrM Ka[R7tKpcrrou OopiKtos] 173/2 KctaAKparm S OopfKiOS ca. 173/2-165/4 [KAti]Kp&6r[Trj KcAlxKp6rov GopiKlos] 169/8 KacMtKpar&s OopiKtos 168/7 [KaA]Xi1Kpa[rrS eopiKios] 168/7 KcaAoK pa&rrs opiKtos 166/5 [KaAXxKp&rrs eopKIoS] 167/6 vel 165/4 KoaMtK pcT[s OoptKios] 164/3 [KcApcTrp&sr 0]opfKto[S] 164/3 [KacAtKp&rrs eopiKIoS] 161/0 [KcAiKpTrls 0OopfKiOS] 155/4 TxXvcov (!r1yate[iS] ca. 155 TXvcov AFovros i)yalieO ca. 150 Tfxvcov c(lryai*is 145/4 [ee6ocopos OivaTos] 140/39 eE65copos Otvaxos 135/4 'Hyias YKal[pco]v[f]851s 135/4 ['Hy]ia S KapBoav[{85s] 97/6 [NE]oKAfi BEpEvtIKi8rs 95/4 'A0rv67TroXA AaliTrpeOs ca. 40-30 B.c. Ai66copos Ar[---]ov 'AAcoTrKlEv

31 For an earlier tabulation ibid., p. 18.

No. 127 No. 128 No. 130 No. 132 No. 138 No. 147 No. 151 No. 158 No. 160 No. 162 No. 168 No. 170 No. 173 No. 187 No. 189 No. 191 No. 193 No. 194 No. 204 No. 205 No. 206 No. 210 No. 212 No. 213 No. 214 No. 216 No. 217 No. 220 No. 221 No. 222 No. 225 No. 226 No. 236 No. 239 No. 240 No. 243 No. 244 No. 259 No. 261 No. 284

11


Evidence for the flutist is scarce from the prytany lists for the remainder of the first century before Christ and for the first century after Christ. During these years a flutist is known from the archon lists to have been associated with the office of the archon.35 He had the title aoAXrri's down to the very end of the first century after Christ; the archon list naming him first as tEpaOXns is later.36 The flutist was still listed in the prytany records in A.D. 96/7 as auAinTri's (No. 312, OfRTIros [M]EvicrKov KoAcovieEv). Down to this date, whether in the prytany lists or in the archon lists, he was always a citizen and his demotic was regularly inscribed.37 The aucir?'rs was succeeded by the iepaurl7s (No. 330 of A.D. 135/6). The title is restored, but with reasonable certainty, and the name is given without demotic. In No. 367, of A.D. 165/6, the incumbent was Eucharistos of Epieikidai, who continued to serve (his name should be restored in No. 369 of A.D. 166/7) until A.D. 168/9 (No. 372) when he was replaced by Epigonos (No. 373). See below p. 20. These were skilled professionals, who, in addition to other duties, took part in the ceremonies of sacred and festival occasions.38

Competence in playing the flute was the primary requisite for the iepaActi s, and for his humble station Athenian citizenship was not necessary. There is no evidence that the flutist assigned to the archon was the same as the flutist listed among the aEioT-rot of the Council and Demos.39 The idea of identification has come, in part, from an erroneous interpretation of No. 410, together with the prytany lists Nos. 424 and 42640 and the archon list I.G., 1I2, 1736a, where the name of the ispacAirns has been restored as ['Ep6J8]copos.41 The date of L.G., II, 1736a was given by S. Dow as "med. s. Ilp."42 A date in the first century has been suggested by D. J. Geagan in his study of the post-Sullan Athenian Constitution,43 but we question whether the title of ikpatAriS can be justified in the archon lists or in the prytany lists before the time of Hadrian.

Our preference is to count the itpaunrS of the archon as distinct from the iepauAnTs of the acEia-ot records, as befitting the dignity of the archon's position, and in conformity with the known evidence. The archon had his own herald, amply attested, as distinct from the herald of the Council and Demos, and we hold that the same differentiation should be made in the case of his flutist.

THE PRIEST OF THE EPONYMOS There has been a natural inclination to expect the priest to be a member of the phyle for which he served.

This was not always the case, but there is not enough evidence to allow the formulation of any fixed rule. The known priests and their phylai, indicated by Roman numerals, are shown here together with the phylai which they served, also with Roman numerals:

ca. 260 Xcborpoaros EOCppacvopos 1TTpiOofiSr VIII No. 83 serving Oineis VIII

ca. 250 'Apiorrcbwvpos 'AptaocoVilOU fIt0eUS IX No. 98 serving Erechtheis III

ca. 250 [-- ----- Ai]yliEus XII No. 100 serving Antiochis XII

223/2 [SEvoAi- S Eivi]5Oos Eflr-rTos VII No. 128 serving Akamantis VII

222/1 E'poou7iSrs TToT'artos VI No. 129 serving Leontis VI

35 Daniel J. Geagan, The Athenian Constitution after Sulla, Hesperia, Suppl. XII, 1967, pp. xii-xiii. 36 Hesperia, III, 1934, p. 173. Cf. also Geagan, op. cit., pp. xii-xiii. 37 A demotic is to be restored in L.G., II2, 1728, line 10. 38 Geagan, op. cit., p. 109. 39 Suggested by Geagan, op. cit., p. 109. 40 J. H. Oliver, Hesperia, XI, 1942, p. 35; Notopoulos, Hesperia, XVIII, 1949, pp. 15-16. See the commentary below on No. 410. 41 Hesperia, XVIII, 1949, p. 41. 42 Hesperia, III, 1934, p. 175. 43 Op. cit., p. xii.

12

INTRODUCTION

220/19

ca. 220

ca. 215

ca. 211/0-202/1 203/2

beginning of 2nd century

before 178/7

178/7

ca. 176/5-170/69

ca. 176/5-170/69

173/2

169/8

168/7

166/5

161/0

155/4

ca. 155

mid second century

140/39

135/4

135/4

95/4

135/6

194/5(?)

E(jEvoS 'OaeEv V serving Pandionis V

'AvSpo[lK]qis pE9T[Tio]s VII serving Akamantis(?) VII

[----- TT]aiavl6s V serving Kekropis X

Priest not named AucI[voS] 'Axapv?Es VIII

serving Oineis VIII 'OpeoKXis 'AXaltis vmI

serving Oineis VIII [OpacTrTa os Koafov 1r]pyi't[los] II

serving Hippothontis IX ep&acrrrros KaX?iov rapyirTTioS II

serving Hippothontis IX [-------] llniaXi8nsi XI

serving Antiochis XI Opa&cimrros Kao[iou] rapyqTT-ros II

serving Hippothontis IX 'AS{EiavTro 'IKaptsOS XII

serving Attalis XII ['Av]'TrKAiS TTrAArlvEs XI

serving Antiochis XI Atoviaos EirrTupiSrl IV

serving Leontis IV 'AAfi[cov MapaOcbvios ?] X

serving Aiantis X [----I]ols K Ko[Xcovo]u II

serving Aigeis II NIKO6IaXOs T62[ ....] Mupplvocnos III

serving Pandionis III KacIXas (no demotic) II?

serving Hippothontis IX KaMia[s] II?

serving Erechtheis I 'A,imcbvios 'Avap7orinos XI

serving Antiochis XI Op&carrwo Koaf[ou FapyiTrrTn II

serving Hippothontis IX [Op&acTrroS FapyilrTos] II

serving ? AtKalt6rroAlS rTlapcorTa5rs I

serving Kekropis VIII ['AonA,rrr]ia68S 'Yyeivou ['Ava]qAXomnos XII

serving Antiochis XII [..]vrls MapaecOv[ios] XI

serving Aiantis XI

The table shows that eighteen times the phyle was represented by one of its own men and nine times by a priest from a different phyle. The proper representation comes both early and late.44 Pritchett's claim45 that Dow had given conclusive evidence46 that the priest need not be a member of the phyle honored before about 169 B.C. needs revision in the light of the evidence now available, as does also Dow's claim47 that

44 The only two examples from Roman imperial times show in fact the priest from the same phyle. 4 A.J.P., LX, 1939, p. 260. 46 Op. cit., p. 16. 47 Loc. cit.

No. 130

No. 131

No. 132

No. 137 No. 147

No. 156

No. 193

No. 194

No. 204

No. 205

No. 206

No. 212

No. 214

No. 216

No. 222

No. 225

No. 226

No. 231

No. 240

No. 243

No. 244

No. 261

No. 330

No. 424

13


from 169/8 B.C. the priest always belonged to the proper phyle. Kekropis had trouble finding a priest among its own citizens. Hippothontis had some special association with Thrasippos of Gargettos and his family. One can only guess at what it was. There is no evidence for continuous service by any single priest. Thrasippos may have served twice within the year 135/4 B.C., but there is no reason to believe that he served more than twice. However irregular the service of the priesthood may have been, there is no reason to doubt its existence earlier than 229 B.C.48 Indeed, its existence is epigraphically attested, even in these documents, in the first half of the century. The priest was not an indispensable officer, like the Treasurer of the Prytaneis and the Secretary. He may not always have been praised. In No. 137 his name is not recorded, and he was occasionally absent from the list and from the citations. He might (No. 212, No. 225?) or might not (Nos. 129, 130, 214, 240) be a prytanis in his own right as well as Priest of the Prytaneis.

The Priesthood of the Eponymos fell into eclipse from the time of Sulla to the time of Hadrian. There is no inscription so far discovered which names him between 95/4 B.C. and A.D. 135/6. In A.D. 135/6 he is among the aeisitoi (No. 330, lines 24-26): ['Avot'rr]a5rlans 'YyEivov ['Ava]Xo5r-lTos. In later years the Priest of the Eponymos appears only once (No. 424, lines 14-15), A.D. 194/5(?). Though the evidence is scanty, there is no compelling reason to doubt the existence of the priesthood. The main problem is that of relating the priesthood to the new office, that of the errcobvuos who bore the expenses for the prytany after the collapse of the endowment set up by Claudius Atticus and his wife.49

THE HERALD OF THE COUNCIL AND DEMOS Another career officer, the Herald of the Council and Demos, is important for the dating of prytany

decrees. The office was held continuously from the late fourth century (No. 58 of 305/4 B.C.) down to 140/39 B.C. (No. 240) by members of one family, all bearing the name Eukles or Philokles. The demotic was TpiVel.EEs down to about 215 B.C. and after that BepEvutKiKns (Nos. 137-205), reverting to TpIvEE.s^S from 173/2 to 140/39 B.C. (Nos. 206-240). The demotic BEpEviKiSls recurs in 97/6 B.C. (No. 259), but the spell had been broken, and other names with other demotics follow after 135/4 B.C. (No. 243). Down to the end of the first century the known heralds of the Council and Demos are:

305/4 B.C. 304/3 303/2 281/0 ca. 260 256/5 256/5 254/3 ca. 250 235/4 223/2 223/2 222/1 220/19 ca. 215 ca. 211/0-202/1 ca. 210/09-201/0 end third century 203/2 ca. 200

[ECn

INTRODUCTION

beginning second century beginning second century beginning second century beginning second century 193/2 ca. 190/89 189/8 185/4 180/79 ca. 180 before 178/7 before 178/7 178/7 ca. 176/5-170/69 ca. 176/5-170/69 173/2 ca. 173/2-165/4 169/8 168/7 168/7 166/5 167/6 or 165/4 164/3 164/3 161/0 155/4 ca. 155 145/4 140/39 135/4 97/6 95/4 ca. 45-30 ca. 40-30 ca. 40-30 ca. 29/8-22/1 ca. 20 end first century

[EOCKAf ECrnKfov BspviKir8ls] ECOKAis BEpEVIKfi5[S [En,AfiS En,A]fovs [BspeviKi6ns] En


is to be restored. He was an officer of long standing, known already in the fourth century in the texts Nos. 12, 43 and 58 of this collection, but his appearance again here in the latter part of the second century is something new and ushers in a new era. The tendency was now for inclusive statements of services well performed and for an expanding list of officers named by the Council as worthy of praise. In 135/4 and in 131/0 B.C. (Nos. 243, [246]) added to the dcwrypayEvs were the dvarypapE5s, the 'trri -r& yqJrl(raTa, the Trr'i TO &rr6pprnTov, and the ypapotaTeCIS KaTa rpuTravEiav. Whether these additional officers were praised in

the decree of the Council about 128 B.C. (No. 248) and in the decree of the Council in 104/3 B.C. (No. 254) we cannot now know, for the texts are incomplete. The new texts were developed incoherently in the early first century, where all restraint in the naming of officials for praise seems to have been relaxed. In 97/6 B.C. (No. 259) there appear priests of the eponymous heroes (Ptolemaios and Attalos) and at least one other priest (line 96). These are inserted into the panel of aeiarTol, all in the nominative case, in what seems chaotic order. The hard core of the extended list, however, is present and appears as such in the citations. It is this hard core of aceiorlroi who deserve the citations, no matter how many new names and titles appear in the list itself.

In No. 260 of the early first century the various priests were grouped between the Secretary and Trea- surer of the Prytaneis on the one hand and the more conventional long-standing titles on the other. In No. 261 of 95/4 B.C. the conventional extended form of the panel was resumed. The long lists of priests are absent.

PAYMENTS FOR THE STELAI

Payments for the inscribed stelai differ as the third century progressed. In 305/4 B.C. the official who paid was the rTapias TroiU 8iwov (No. 58), who makes his last appearance as paymaster for stelai of any kind in 302/1 B.C. (I.G., II2, 505). The Plural Board of Administration (ol ?ETrI Tri 5ioiKciaei) paid in the years of Athenian nationalism from 288 to 263 B.C. (cf. Nos. 77,78), and they were followed by the Single Officer of Administration (o6 -rri TT-r SIOIKtISI ) from 262 down to 229 B.C., when Athens was dominated by Macedon (e.g., Nos. 88, 89, [104, 1151). In fact, the Single Officer continued to pay for prytany stelai continuously down to 184/3 B.C. (No. [1811), but there were exceptions, like No. 135 of 214/3 B.C. with the Plural Board.

The first appearance of the Treasurer of the Military Funds (-raldias TC-Ov rpaT-ricOTiKcOv) comes in No. 168 of 193/2 B.C.52 In 180/79 B.C. (No. 187) the payment was made by the Plural Board alone. Dow thought (op. cit., p. 12) that the Plural Board was somehow subservient to the Treasurer of the Military Funds, but that they never assisted him in paying for the prytany stelai. This opinion must be revised in the light of later evidence. About 185 B.C. the Plural Board and the Traliias Tcov c-rpa-rcTlKc$ov together made payment, and the T-raiacS TCOv coarpaoTco-rcv acted alone in 182/1 B.C. (Nos. 178 and 184). The Single Officer also continued to pay (Nos. 194, 206), but at about this time the Treasurer of the Military Funds began more and more to take over the obligation of payment (No. 196, soon after 178/7; No. 212 of 169/8), with his title sometimes shortened simply to T -rapiav (Nos. 204, 205, 214). Henceforth the paymaster was the Tcalfcas T-rCV crpo-TcoTKcov, with paradoxical cases (Nos. 206,240) in which the Treasurer of the Military Funds and the Single Officer of Administration were both recorded, separately, as paymasters for the same stele. The last naming of any paymaster is of the T-raicas T-rC o-Trpa-rcoTrcov in 95/4 B.C. (No. 261). After Sulla the prytaneis were no longer praised, and no paymaster was named in the setting up of the type of memorial which came into use after the destruction of Athens.

THE PRYTANY LISTS AFTER SULLA A distinct break in the series of prytany inscriptions came with the conquest of Athens by Sulla in 86

B.C.53 The change in the character of the prytany inscriptions coincides with the cessation of the minting 52 Meritt once thought this date too early (Hesperia, XXXII, 1963, p. 18). 5a Dow, op. cit., p. 25; Geagan, op. cit., p. 92.

16

INTRODUCTION

of Athenian New Style Coinage. Margaret Thompson has argued that the New Style Coinage began with the proclamation of freedom to Greece by Flamininus in 196 B.C. and ended with the sack of Athens and the suppression of freedom by Sulla in 86 B.C.54 She has defended her limits55 against a suggestion by David M. Lewis for later dates.6 Colin M. Kraay has favored Miss Thompson's dates57 and later those of Lewis, especially his lower limit.58 The terminal date of 86 B.C. for the coinage is strongly supported by the epigraphical evidence for the complete suppression of freedom in Athens at this time. It should be remembered also that the extensive and irregular sequence of intercalary years in the second century as determined by Miss Thompson's numismatic evidence is almost precisely (and can be made entirely so) the same as that determined by the epigraphical evidence.59 This correlation is broken by a shifting of the dates. Moreover, the epigraphical record which testifies to an elaborate celebration of the Ptolemaia at Athens in 152/1 B.C. agrees with the numismatic evidence. If the coins are dated later there is no corresponding celebration at Athens (the epigraphical evidence is against it) honoring Ptolemy.60

After Sulla the prytaneis praise their Treasurer and beg the Council to allow them to dedicate a painted portrait of him, appropriately inscribed. There is no action by the Demos and no praise of the prytaneis. No. 264 is a typical example of an early post-Sullan decree.

The motivation was expressed in representations made by the prytaneis and the aeisitoi to the Council on behalf of their Treasurer, who had performed the necessary sacrifices for them. The Council granted praise to the Treasurer and crowned him with an olive crown and also granted to the prytaneis the privilege of dedicating a painted portrait of him in the bouleuterion (Ev -rTCO puAeTv-rpioi) with the ap- propriate dedicatory inscription. The decree was to be inscribed by the Prytany Secretary and set up in the bouleuterion. Then followed the roster of names of the prytaneis and aeisitoi. The expense of the sacrifices had been met by the Treasurer of the Prytaneis (e.g., Nos. 278, 281) ?K -rOV i6icov.61

About 46/5 B.C. (No. 281) a new introductory formula made its appearance: -iTI S r Trp6oo8ov 0roiq- oau&EvoI ot TrrpuTavEIS TTIS 'EPEXOEiSos Kal oi aioCiTo1 oi hri 'ATroAiISOS &apXOVTOS o SraiVEC'avTS --- KTr. But the older form recurs and the substance of the decree remains essentially the same, though with phrases that are reminiscent of pre-Sullan days; the sacrifices are on behalf of the Council and Demos and the children and wives and friends and allies.62 These sentiments belonged in earlier times to the decree of the Demos (cf. e.g. No. 225 of 155/4 B.C.) and not to the decree of the Council which praised the Treasurer. The Treasurer continued to bear the expense of the sacrifices.

THE PAINTED PORTRAIT

The authorization of the painted portrait of the Treasurer continued into the time of Augustus and the portrait itself was variously dedicated: in the Bouleuterion (No. 264 of 80/79 B.C., lines 7 and [11]; No. 268 of 57/6 B.C., lines 8 and [13]; No. 289a of ca. 25 B.C.), in the Stoa of Attalos (No. 265 of 74/3- 63/2 B.C.), in a designated spot in the Bouleuterion (No. 277 of ca. mid first century B.C.), where the prytaneis asked (No. [270] of 53/2 B.C.; No. 281 of 46/5 B.C., lines [13] and 19-20), in the Asklepieion

54 Margaret Thompson, The New Style Silver Coinage of Athens, New York, 1961. 55 Margaret Thompson, Numismatic Chronicle (Series 7), II, 1962, pp. 301-333; The American Numismatic Society, Museum

Notes, XI, 1964, pp. 119-129. 56 David M. Lewis, Numismatic Chronicle (Series 7), II, 1962, pp. 275-300. 57 Colin M. Kraay in Kraay-Hirmer, Greek Coins, New York, 1966, p. 325, "The silver coinage of Athens probably came to an

end when the city was besieged and sacked by the Roman general Sulla in 86 B.C. ---- another view, however, would allow the coinage to continue until about the middle of the first century B.C."

58 Colin M. Kraay, Coins of Ancient Athens (Minerva Numismatic Handbooks, 2), 1968, pp. 12, 21-22. 59 B. D. Meritt, The Athenian Year, p. 181. 60 Miss Thompson discussed this synchronism, or the absence of it, in The American Numismatic Society, Museum Notes, XI,

1964, pp. 119-129. 61 In No. 278 the citation reads -rTOV Taiiav T-riS ycpvA, but the decree makes clear that he was the well-known treasurer of the

prytaneis 6v av-rol eiAowrro i lau-rvTv. He may, of course, also have been the Treasurer of the Council, as was the case with the prytany treasurer in No. 85. No painted portrait was asked or granted.

62 It has been claimed that the Treasurer is never said to offer the sacrifices on anyone's behalf (Dow, op. cit., p. 25). This statement must be revised.

17


(No. 295 of Augustan date; No. 301 of the late first century B.C.), and in the Gymnasium of Ptolemy (No. 304 of a little before A.D. 19, lines 8 and 17-18). There is no reason to believe that the prytaneis did not receive from the Council approval for the site requested for the portrait; so restorations have been made accordingly in the epigraphical texts (Nos. 264, 268, and 281). The portrait in the Gym- nasium of Ptolemy is the last of the dedications of portraits of which record is preserved. Individual officers were also praised by the prytaneis, who more and more, however, confined themselves to self- praise and to praise of their Treasurer. They regularly inscribed their own names on herm or pillar or stele, and these lists of names, including the eponymos of the phyle, finally became the standard for the praise of the prytaneis and the aeisitoi in the second century after Christ.

THE AEISITOI IN ROMAN TIMES The post-Sullan types of prytany monuments have been studied by Daniel J. Geagan.63 It is difficult

to follow the development during the latter part of the first century before Christ and during the first century of the empire, but for many years the praise of the treasurer of the prytaneis was perpetuated, as authorized by vote of the Council. About the middle of the first century after Christ (No. 310) the Council ceased to vote this praise to the treasurer of the prytaneis nor did the prytaneis vote, as they had sometimes done (No. 273 of about 50 B.C.), praise to their secretary. In No. 313, for example, the prytaneis of the phyle Attalis and the aeisitoi in the archonship of Annios ---- honored their own men with crowns and inscribed their names "thinking it to be just that noble men should be inscribed by them." They cited, among others, the &ycovoerTris of the Great Eleusinia, the ineiAnrTr'is 'irS Trr6AEcoS, the carparrryos arrEi rT orrWa, and the p ratliaS -rs pouAfs. The introductory decree was more and more abandoned. In the second century there was a brief return to the decree of praise in the very exceptional case of Claudius Atticus (No. 322, ca. A.D. 120), but after this interlude, and for one or two adjacent years, the date was usually given by the name of the archon and the number and name of the prytany, after which followed the register of the phyle.

All through the period stretching from Sulla to Hadrian the lists have many mentions, or citations, of various officers who were praised by the prytaneis. Until after Hadrian's time there was great irregularity and many different individual officers, some of them not members of the Council, were praised:

aycovo0eTTrl T&v Ey&xAcov 'EAuaivicov (No. 313, first or second century after Christ) d&vriypacpes (No. 284, ca. 40-30 B.C.; No. 311, end of first century after Christ; No. 330, A.D. 135/6) aXrTivnu S (No. 284, ca. 40-30 B.c.; No. 312, A.D. 96/7) ypacl-cuEiuS (No. 290, ca. 29/8-22/1 B.C. -the demotic shows that he does not belong to the phyle

in prytany -; No. 311, end of first century after Christ) ypacaX-rEis PousAf i Kai 6Biou (No. 330, A.D. 135/6) ypaia-rus C KaTa TrpUTvavEiav (No. 284, ca. 40-30 B.C.) ypaicaT-rEU Troi SUJPOU (No. 293, ca. 20 B.C.) ypapL-aTeUVs TOr ov veSpfov (No. 307, early first century after Christ) ETrri oKIa6'os (No. 330, A.D. 135/6) ?1iETiE 'rTns rS iroc6Eco (No. 313, first or second century after Christ) EmTrlo-raTs T-CV 1TpUT-&vEov (No. 320, imperial times) ErrcbvvuioS (No. 292, 21/0 B.C.; No. 318, age of Augustus) iepaucTrs (No. 330, A.D. 135/6) iEpeVUS rTOU ArrcovUiou (No. 330, A.D. 135/6) iEpEVs Tc-rov Ocopo6pcov (No. 275, mid first century B.C.)

a Op. cit., especially pp. 92-116, who gives a full account of the aeisitoi on pp. 103-112.

18

INTRODUCTION 19

KijpvU -rS pouMs (No. 290, ca. 29/8-22/1 B.C.; No. 293, ca. 20 B.C.; No. 296, end of first century B.C.)

KYipuv Pouhsfi KCal 8rIou (No. 286, ca. 40-30 B.C.) Kipvu TrS p[ouAfis Kai TOU 81STpov (No. 282, ca. 45-30 B.C.; No. 287, ca. 40-30 B.C.; No. 305, first

century before or after Christ). Also called simply KipUv TfrS povuAfi or Kipvu poOUSAfs Kai 8SiLrou, qq.vv.

TrEpi 7rTO pija (No. 312, A.D. 96/7; No. 330, A.D. 135/6). This officer, under his new name, was the same as the ypaljoa-rrvs KcaTa TrpuravEiav (Geagan, op. cit., p. 107)

o-rpaTrrny6o (No. 312, A.D. 96/7), different from the orpaTrrlyos Eri Ta o'rrcAa orpamTiyos Trri Tra oTrXa (TroCS 6rTXEi'TaS) (No. 267, shortly before 60 B.C.; No. 284, ca. 40-30 B.C.;

No. 290, ca. 29/8-22/1 B.C.; No. 293, ca. 20 B.C.; No. 300, end of first century B.C.; No. 312, A.D. 96/7; No. 313, first or second century after Christ)

T-raitas riS pouvjs (No. 287, ca. 40-30 B.C.; No. [290], ca. 29/8-22/1 B.C.; No. 313, first or second century after Christ)

Ta-iacS rfis pouXfis Kal TOrU o8 jou (No. 293, ca. 20 B.C.) -rTaias TrIS iEpas SiaTa&XEcos (No. 287, ca. 40-30 B.C.; No. 307, early first century after Christ) 'racdiaS rjS puvAMS (No. 282, ca. 45-30 B.C.) TacciaS (To$v irrpUTavEcOV) (No. 267, shortly before 60 B.C.; No. 290, ca. 29/8-22/1

Documents

Agora Athenei vol 11 Inscriptiile