1Students of Attic epigraphy are indebted to Stephen Tracy for his lifelong work on Athenian letter-cutters. His research has concentrated mainly on the cutters, who were active from the middle of the 4^th century BC to the 1^st century BC. His intention to extend his study further into the first half of the 4^th and the 5^th centuries BC is evident in two of his articles: one dealing with three cutters of the 5^th century BC1 and the other studying a major, as Tracy calls him, cutter of the late 5^th-early 4^th c. BC, the cutter of IG, II², 172. So far the career of this cutter has been documented from 409/8 to 386/5 and the number of decrees and inventories attributed to him by Tracy has shown that he was very active. To this hand should be attributed four more inscriptions, two published and two unpublished ones.

2I shall begin by presenting the two published inscriptions.

3The first inscription (fig. 1) is a decree of 422/1 moved by Alcibiades in honor of a certain Polypeithes from Siphnos. He is praised together with his ancestors Kallaischros and Stesileides for his good services to the Athenians. Polypeithes is not otherwise known, but his descendants, also named Kallaischros and Stesileides, are well attested in fourth century Athens; it is possible that they were isoteleis3. The decree was re-inscribed, probably just after the overthrow of the regime of the Thirty and the restoration of democracy in Athens (404/3). It should be noted here that in fact the stone preserves partially two decrees: at the top, part of the last two lines of a later decree whereby the Athenians renewed the honors granted to Polypeithes and ordered the grammateus to inscribe also the earlier one, i.e. that of 422/1 moved by Alcibiades of which follows (approximately thirteen lines survive). This decree is important for two reasons: a) it is so far the earliest evidence for the participation of Alcibiades, in Athens’ public stage; and b) it compels us to redate the proxeny decrees IG, I³, 91 (for the Knidian Proxenider) and 92 (for the Thessalian Kallippor) to 422/1. The decrees show the same secretary as the Alibiades decree.

4The second published inscription that should be attributed to the same cutter will be discussed here in more detail as its first edition seems not to have become widely known.

5Stele (MA 7018) of white marble broken at the top right and bottom. The left side is preserved. Found on the Acropolis near the Nike bastion. (fig. 2).

6Height (pres.) 0.23 m., width (pres.) 0.115 m., thickness 0.07 m.

7Letter height: 0.009 m. Stoich. hor. 0.013, vert. 0.0128.

8Ed. Koumanoudes 1963 [1965], 151-153. A brief mention including a photograph is made in Ergon 1960 [1961], 12, plate 13.

9Cf. Agora, XVI, no. 30.

10403/2-378/7 (?)

11Stoich. 26

-------------------------

[ ]ΚΟΣΙ[18]
[τ]òν δῆμον [18]
ίας ἕνεκα [τῆς ές τον δῆμον τòν ’Αθ]-
ηναίων κα[ὶ 16 π]
5 ρόσοδον π[ρòς τὴν βολὴν καὶ τòν δ]-
ῆμον τòν ’Α[θηναίων πρώτοις μετὰ]
τὰ ἱερά’ κα[λέσαι δὲ επὶ ξένια τòς]
πρέσβες τ[ 13 ἐς τò π]-
ρυτανεῖο[ν ές αὔριον’ ἀναγράψαι]
10 δέ καὶ τὰ ό[όματα τῶν πρέσβων ἐ]-
ν τῆι στήλη [ι]
Οἵδε έπρέ[σβευον
ΤΙΜΩΝΑΞ []
Πυθαγό[ρας]
[...][]

-------------------

12Suppl. Koumanoudes || 1fin.-2 [έπαινέσαι δὲ I τ]òν δῆμον [τòν ethnicum] Matth. coll. IG II² 107.14-15 έ[π]α<ι>νέσαι τòν δῆμον τòν Μυτιληναίων άρε[τ]ῆς ἕ[νεκ]α [τῆ I ς ές τòν δῆμον] τòν ’Αθηναίων cf. IG, II², 466, 29; ethnicum ex vss. 4, 8 et 12 undecim litteras tenere cogitavit Koum. || 2-3 [εὐεργεσ] I ίας vel [ἀνδραγαθ] I ίας Koum., coll. Wilhelm 1942, 17-30, IG, I ³, 101, 35 and 39; IG, II², 25, 3; 145, 4 || 4 [καὶ εἶναι ethnicum π] I ρόσοδον Koum. coll. IG, II², 5, 6-7, 103, 36-38 [καὶ εἶναι αύτοῖς πρόσοδ]ο[ν πρòς [τ]ὴ[ν βουλὴν καὶ τòν δῆμον πρ]ώ[τ]οις [μετὰ τὰ ἱερά]; cf. etiam IG, II², 107, 15. || 7in.-9 [τòς] I πρέσβες τ[ῶν --] Koum. coll. IG, II², 41, 12-15 [καλέσαι δὲ τòς πρέσ] I βες τῶν Βυζ]αντί[ων ἐπὶ ξέν I ια] ές τò πρυτανεῖον ἐς [αὔρ] I ιον; πρέσβες τ[õς --] etiam arridet | 12 Οἳδε ἐπρέ[σβευον --] ethnicum in casu genetivu sequeretur, cf. IG, II², 34, 38 [οἵδ]ε ἐπρέσβευον Χίων; 41.22/23 οἵδε ἐπρέσβευον Βυζαντ[ί] I ων. | 13 Τιμῶναξ sive Τίμων ’Αξ[--] Koum. || 15 litterarum partes extremae superiores servantur.

13The stoichedon of 26 letters is based on the restorations of lines 3, 5-7 and 9-10, which seem certain.

142 [ἐπαινέσαι δὲ καὶ I τ]òν δῆμον [τòν ethnicum]; the infinitive ἐπαινέσαι appears (I limit myself to the Attic decrees of the 1st half of the 4^th cent.): 1) at the beginning of the motion after the verb εἶπε(ν) and before the rationale of the decision, cf. IG, II², 28, 4; 107, 37.2) after the rationale of the decision and the phrase έψηφίσθαι (δεδόχθαι) τῶι δήμωι, by which the Athenian demos is asked to decide on the motion cf. IG, II², 34, 12, Schweigert 1938, 278-279, no. 3) after the rationale and the phrase4 γνώμην δὲ ξυμβάλλεσθαι τής βουλῆς,, etc., where by the Athenian boule is asked to introduce its opinion to the Assembly, cf. IG, II², 110, 12.

15In general, the length of the rationale can be brief, cf. IG, II², 107, 12-14, or extended, cf. IG, II², 34, a, 1-11. Therefore when the rationale precedes and the infinitive ἐπαινέσαι follows, as seems to be the case in this decree, it is not possible to estimate the number of lines missing before the first preserved line. For this reason any restoration of the first line would be speculative5.

16Koumanoudes held the opinion that from lines 8, 4 and 12 it is possible to infer that the ethnic would have consisted of eleven letters (e. g. in l. 8 the restoration would run as τ[òς vel τ[ῶν ethnicum])6. This could be possible, if one accepts that in l. 4 the infinitive to be restored would have the form εναι (and not εἶναι), a form which is found in the decrees of this period, and that the ethnic in dative (12 letters) followed, and not the pronoun αὐτοῖς, for the latter, cf. IG, II², 107, 15; 4566, 19. The restoration in l. 2 of an ethnic consisting of 11 letters favors a short restoration in ll. 2/3, e. g. [εὐνο] ίας7. The word depending on the preposition ἕνεκα is found alone, without being followed by ἀρετ ὴ or φιλοτιμία in very few decrees of the classical period, see IG, II², 351, 24 and Camp 1974, 322-323, no. 3, ll. 12-138 (in both foreigners are honored). Nevertheless εὒνοια is found not only as describing the positive disposition of individuals towards the Athenians, but also of foreign cities, see Thuc. 6.88.1; IG, II², 42, 5 and 708, 4.

17Since the first letter of l. 12 projects one space (stoichos) to the left, the ethnic in genitive should occupy 13 spaces in order to fill out the entire length of the line; thus if the ethnic had eleven letters, we have to accept that there were two vacats at the end of the line.

18In ll. 8 sqq. the ambassadors of a foreign state are praised and the Athenian demos orders that their names be inscribed on the stele. This shows that the partially preserved decree is part of a treaty of Athens with another state.

19As regards the date of the inscription, Koumanoudes proposed the year 378/7 on the basis of lettering, grammar (πρέσβες, [βολήν], [τός]) and content of the inscription. In 378/7 the Second Athenian League was founded and thus he implicitly suggested that this decree is a treaty between Athens and a foreign state whereby the latter joined the League.

20The attribution of the decree to the cutter of IG, II², 17 would suggest a date earlier than 378/7, since his career is securely attested only until 386/5 (IG, II², 31). However this fact alone cannot determine the date. The inscription could be dated to the beginning of the fourth century BC, or be contemporary with the League’s foundation year. Koumanoudes could be right in considering it one of the documents pertaining to the Second Athenian League; alternatively it could also belong to a treaty similar to that with the Chians of 384/3 (IG, II², 34). In view of this uncertainty I am inclined to date it between the years 403/2 and 378/79.

21I shall now turn to the first of the two unpublished inscriptions10 that should be attributed to the same cutter.

222. MA 7847. Fragment of a stele of white marble broken on all sides. It probably comes from the Acropolis but the exact findspot is unknown. It is kept in the storerooms of the Acropolis Museum. (fig. 3).

23Height (pres.) 0.115 m., width (pres.) 0.118 m., thickness (pres.) 0.04 m.

24Letter height: 0.008-0.009 m.

First two decades of the 4^th cent. BC

25Stoich.

vacat c. 0.05 m
[Ἒδοξεν τῆ]ι βολῆ[αὶ τῶι δήμ]-
2 [ωι 6]ς ἐπρυ|τά[νευεν --]
[6 ἐγ]ρμμάτ[υεν --]
4 [ 9 ][.][---]
-----------------------------

26The stoichedon presented here is tentative. It cannot be determined with certainty; it could range from 22 to 26 letters depending on the length of the name of the tribe in prytany. If Aigeis or Oineis is restored, the stoichedon could be 22 letters, whereas if the tribe in prytany was Hippothontis, the stoichedon would be 26 letters.

273 The prescript’s type shows11 that after the verb ἐγραμμάτευεν in l. 3 the epistate’s name with the corresponding verb and the archon’s name with the verb ἦρχε(ν) would follow, cf. IG, II², 2, 4-8 (403/2), 23, 4-5 (388/7). Alternatively the archon’s name and the verb ἦρχε(ν) would come first followed by the epistate’s name with the corresponding verb, cf. IG, II², 1, 56-57 (403/2) (the latter example also includes the demotics of the secretary and the epistates). It is also possible that the archon’s name was omitted, cf. IG, II², 6, 4-7 or that it was written only in the superscript, cf. IG, II², 13.

284 The preserved traces of letters cannot belong to the verb ἦρχε(ν); the same is not true for [ἐπεστ][ε]. On the other hand, several proper names could be restored12 such as e. g. [Εὔπο] [ς|], [Καλ][μ][δων], [Καλ][τ][λης], [Καλ][ξ][νος], etc. The name [Ξεν][ν][|τος] is also possible, who could be the archon of 401/0, if we accept a stoichedon longer than 22 letters.

29If the letter traces of l. 4 belong to one of the other names mentioned, this would be the epistates’ name and then even a 22-letter stoichedon13 allows the restoration after the verb ἐγραμμάτευεν (ll. 3 fin.-4 in.) of a short archon’s name14 and of the corresponding verb.

303. In the last part of my paper I shall present a new fragment that joins with IG, II², 80, which has been attributed by Tracy to the cutter under discussion. IG, II², 80 (fig. 4) is a decree in honor of a certain Epichares of unknown origin. It is broken on all sides. The new fragment joins to its lower left side and preserves the beginning of lines 11-14. It was kept until recently in the storerooms of the First Ephorate (20 Thrasyllou st.) with the inventory number Π 153.

31The fragment (fig. 5) is of white marble, broken at the top, the right side and the bottom; part of the left side and the back are preserved. It was found on June 20, 1988 at 13 Erotokritou st. in the Plaka.

32I present below the text of the two now joined at the EM fragments (a = EM 6936 + b = ΠΛ 153) (fig. 6). The letters of the new fragment are underlined.

33Fr. a: height (pres.) 0.388, width (pres.) 0.35, thick. 0.142-0.150; fr. b: height (pres.) 0.27, width (pres.) 0.16, thick. 0.155-0.16 (on the back side of the stone the thickness along the preserved left side decreases at the edge to 0.133 m.).

34Lett. height: 0.010-0.011, (O) 0.09; Stoich. hor. 0.015, vert. 0.0166.

35Edd. a Pittakys 1835, 484-485; Pitakes 1853, 1062, no. 1998; Rangabé 1842-1855, 462; IG, II, 41; IG, II², 80; Pecirka 1966, 29-31, pl. 4 (SEG, 24, 78); b ineditum. Cf. Dittmar 1891, 102-103; Wilhelm 1942, 128-129, no. 48; Tracy 2003b.

36409/S-3S6/5 (?) B.C.

a
[.. 4 .. περὶ τὴν πόλιν] ὴν [θηναίων^vv]
[καὶ νῦν καί έν τώι π]ρόσθε[ν χρόνωι ^vv]
[πρόξενον και εύε]ργέτην α[ύτόν ^vvvv]
[καὶ έκγόνος ε][α]ι 'Αθηναίω [^vvvvvv].
5 [καὶ ἀναγ]ράψαι α ὐτῶι τὴμ προ[ςενίαν]
[έν στήλ]ηι λι[ί]νηι τόν γραμμα[τέα ^vv]
[τῆς βολῆ]ς κα[ὶ σ]τῆσαι έν άκροπ[όλει^v].
[ 7 ]χος ε[ἶ]πε τὰ μὲν ἅλλα ^v[^vvvvv]
[καθάπερ] ῆι βολῆι εναι δὲ καὶ γ[ς ^vv]
10 [ἔγκτησι] καὶ οικίας Έπιχάρει ^v[^vvv]
b [αύ]τῶι κα[ὶ] έκγόνοις κα ὶ πρόσοδο [^vv]
[π]ρòς τὴν βολὴ κα ὶ τòν δῆμον, ^vvvv[^vv]
έάν το δέω[ν]ταΓ οί δέ πρυτάνεις ^vvv[^v]
οί άε ὶ πρυ[τα]vεύοντες προσαγόντω
15 έπάναγκες.
vacat 0.115
stoick. 23-29

37Spatia vacantia in fine singulis versibus definivit Pečirka. || Suppl. 1-4 in. Dittmar, 5-10, 13 fin.-14 in. Pittakes 1853 et post eum Koehler, qui etiam 13 in. suppl. et marginem sinistram definivit.|| ante vs. 1 [άναγράψαι I τόν δείνα, ἐπειδὴ ἀνήρ ἀγαθός I ἐστι περὶ τὴν πόλιν] Dittmar, [ἀναγράψαι I ’Επιχάρην] Kirch.; supplementum infinitivi recte rejecit Wilhelm, et ’Επιχάρην, ἐπειδὴ άνὴρ άγαθός, proposuit || 4 med. legit et suppl. Pecirka post Wilhelm, qui [εἶναι] proposuerat; 4 tin.-5 in. ordinem disposuit Pecirka || 8 in. legit Pecirka; [Πύρρανδ]ρος Koehl. falso. || 15 litt. ΑΓΚΕ in rasura scriptae sunt et in spatio trium litterarum.

38Since each line ends with a complete word15, the lines have no equal number of letters. As Pecirka noted, since l. 14 has 29 letters, there was room on the stele for at least 29 letters so that there were lines with vacats at the end, cf. IG, II², 181.

39The new fragment determines the beginning of the lines to the left and confirms restorations in lines 11-14, but also adds unexpectedly one more line at the end.

4015 ἐπάναγκες c.f. IG, I³, 73, 31-33 πρόσοδον αὐτõι ν[αι πρòς τὲμ βολὲν] καὶ τòν δɛÞ[μ]ον’ h I [ο]ι δὲ στρατεγοὶ κα[ὶ hοι πρυτάνες έπά]ναγκες προ[σαγ I όν]τον; 78, 59-61 περ ὶ δέ τδ ἐλαιο απαρχές χσυγγράφ I σαςΛάμπον ἐπιδειχσάτο τɛÞι βολɛÞι έπὶ τɛÞς ένάτες πρυτανείας^.I hε δὲ βολὲ ές τòν δɛÞμον έχσενενκέτο έπάναγκες. The adverb is used rarely in Attic decrees after the 5^th century; there are two examples from the 4^th century16, see IG, II², 1629, 240 and SEG, 28, 103, 42, and four from the late Hellenistic and early Roman period, SEG, 15, 108, 51 (= IG, II², 1100, 50); 1339, 10, SEG, 21, 494, 43 and 31, 122, 43.

41It is possible that the word ἐπάυαγκες suggests that the decree belongs to last decade of the fifth century BC; thus I would place it in the period of the attested career of the cutter under discussion, i.e. between 409/8-386/5 BC.

42Postscriptum. IG, II², 70 could possibly be added to the dossier of this cutter.