Version classiqueVersion mobile
OpenEdition Books

Studies in Greek epigraphy and history in honor of Stefen V. Tracy

 | 
Gary Reger
, 
Francis X. Ryan
, 
Timothy Francis Winters

1. Athens and Attica

Chapter 7. Methodology in Fifth-Century Attic Epigraphy

Harold Mattingly

Texte intégral

  • 1 Tracy 1990, 1995, 2003. He explained his methods in Tracy 2000, 67-76.
  • 2 Tracy 1984.

1Stephen Tracy’s expertise with epigraphic hands and schools has enabled many “floating documents” to be firmly dated in the Hellenistic period1. He has not yet dealt with the fifth century except for one brief foray, which produced an interesting result: the first Athena Nike decree (IG, I3, 35) was cut by the man responsible for part of the Promachos accounts ca. 445 BC (IG, I3, 435)2. Until Stephen or a gifted pupil can deal seriously with this earlier period, we shall have to make do with such other formal criteria that we can devise. That is the purpose of my present offering. I start with a text that has become notorious of late.

The Egesta Treaty (IG, I3, 11)

  • 3 Bradeen & McGregor 1973, 71-91.
  • 4 Chambers et al. 1990.
  • 5 Henry 1992, 1995, 237-240, 1998, 45-48, 2000. Mitchell 1998, 373-374, thought that Henry might be (...)
  • 6 Pritchett 1972, 159-164.
  • 7 Meritt 1978, 284-289.
  • 8 See IG, I3, 2, pp. 220-221 (add. to 165): Henry 1983, 283, n. 31; Henry 2000, 95-96.
  • 9 Walbank 1978, 190, no. 35 and 231, no. 43.
  • 10 In IG, I3, 82, 42-44, of 421/0 BC the poletai are also omitted, unless they came unusually after t (...)
  • 11 See IG, I3, 91, 27-29 and 85, 3-4. The date of 91 is assured by IG, I3, 2, add. 227, bis. Woodhead (...)
  • 12 See Schweigert 1937, 322-333.
  • 13 IG, I3, 78, 20 (χιλίαισιν): 61, 38 (μυρίασι) and 84, 10 and 17 (χιλίαισιν and ταμίαισιν). For the (...)

2For a long time this was given to the archon Habron of 458/7 BC because of its “early” lettering (rounded tailed rho and three barred sigma)3. But since Chambers, Gallucci, and Spanos brilliantly brought photo-enhancement and laser beam to work on the stone, most scholars have agreed that IΦON can be read in line 3: the archon is Antiphon and the date 418/7 BC4. Alan Henry has been almost alone in urging agnosticism: no more than ON, he thinks, can be safely read5. I will leave this contentious issue aside here, for there is other good evidence for the date. In 1972 Pritchett published a new fragment of IG, I3, 85 and restored the inscription with a stoichedon line of 35 letters: in his lines 15-16 he read ἐπὶ χσένια ἐσ τò π[ρυτανεῖΊον ἐς τòν νομιζόμε]νον χρόνον. His only parallel was IG, I3, 11, 14-15: καὶ ἐπ]ὶ χσένια τὲν πρεσβείαν τõν ’Ε[γεσταίον I ἐς πρυτανεῖον ἐς τòν] νομιζόμενον χρόνον 6. In 1978 Meritt proposed a line of 32 letters and in his lines 16-17 he read: [.. καὶ] ἐπὶ χσένια ἐς τò π[ρυτα Ι νɛÞον ες τòν εἰρεμέ]νον χρόνον 7. This variant did not win favor–partly because of the rare spelling – πρυτανɛÞον – and Lewis and Henry rightly preferred Pritchett’s version. Indeed his text was virtually taken over as IG, I3, 1658. Now how closely can IG, I3, 165 be dated? Hiller and Lewis put it before 420 BC apparently because of the rare dative δρ] I αχμαίσι in lines 4-5. Walbank regarded its lettering as of the 420s9. It omits the poletai from the publication clause in lines 5-11. This oddity is found also in IG, I3, 75.30-2 of 424/3 BC, in 80, 14-20 of 421/0 BC and in 84, 26-8 of 418/7 BC10. This criterion suggests a dating-bracket. We may now probe further. The normal ἐς αὔριον for invitations to the Prytaneion is found in 422/1 and in the last prytany of 418/7 BC11. IG, I3, 165, with its unusual ἐς τòν νομιζόμενον χρόνον, might fall in this gap. What prompted it could be the unparalleled invitation found in IG, I3, 149. In his republication of IG, I3, 49 Woodhead separated the two fragments and produced two fining clauses and two invitations to the Prytaneion in the same decree. It does not seem very likely and I prefer to go back to Schweigert’s improvement of the IG, I2, 49, text12. Its date can be circumscribed by the rare χι[λί]α[ισι δρα]χμαῖς in line 10: parallels are known from 425/4,424/3 and 418/7 BC13. In lines 14-15. Schweigert read [καλ]έσαι δὲ καὶ επ[ὶ χσένια.. I... .]δεν ἐς τò πρυ[ταν]εῖ[ο]ν ἔος ἃν εἶ [Ἀθένεσιν]. This open-ended invitation (“as long as lie is (in Athens?)”) would be countered by ἐς τòν νομιζόμενον χρόνον, with recall to the normal “tomorrow”. Now IG, I2, 49 / IG, I3, 149 can, I fancy, be dated 419/8 and the two examples of ἐς τòν νομιζόμενον χρόνον to the following year. IG, I2, 49/IG, I3, 149 includes the poletai in lines 1-3, though they are still omitted in the penultimate prytany of 418/7 BC (IG P 84, 26-28). But there is clearly some overlap with this usage. Poletai are also included in IG, I3, 11, 11-14 earlier that year.

  • 14 My argument is made for IG, I3, 165, but inevitably involved 11.
  • 15 See Bauer 1918, 193-195: Papastavrou 1957 and Panatoniou 1971, 43-45 (Philip): Meritt 1947, 312-31 (...)
  • 16 See Mattingly 2000, 131-133 and Thc. 4.118.4.

3The date of IG, I3, 11 is now surely confirmed as 418/7 BC14. Strangely scholars were so long content to separate two examples of a most unusual phrase by as much as thirty years. But such blind spots are by no means unparalleled. IG, I3, 67 was long assigned to a treaty between Perdikkas’ brother Philip and Athens c. 432 BC or to arrangements between Athens and Mytilene or Methymna c. 427 BC15. But lines 6-11 exactly repeat lines 7-10 of the Halies treaty of 424/3 BC and I therefore claimed the text as part of the treaty between Athens and Troezen, which is known from a clause of the One Year’s Truce of that year16. More scholarly myopia may be discerned in treating the next document.

The Miletos Decree (IG, I3, 21)

  • 17 Koumanoudes 1876/7, 82-83 and 162.
  • 18 IG, I, Suppl., p. 62, 22, a. For scholars’ acceptance see Barrojn 1962, 1 (“this securely dated de (...)
  • 19 Meyer 1989, 31-32 and 264, A, 1; Lawton 1995, 19-21 and 112-113, no. 63. Professor Akiko Moroo of (...)
  • 20 See Mattingly 1971, 32, 1996, 322. κακοτεχνεῖν is found elsewhere neither in fifth-century nor fou (...)
  • 21 See Bradeen & McGregor 1973, 67-68.

4Koumanoudes its first editor dated it 426/5 BC because 0of the archon Euthynos in lines 61 and 8617. But Kirckhoff argued that on its lettering (three-barred sigma and V) it must be much earlier and he therefore emended Diodoros’ archon for 450/49 BC (12, 3, 1) from Euthydemos to Euthynos. In this he was followed by most scholars18. But there has been dissent. Marion Meyer plumped firmly for 426/5 BC in 1989 and Carol Lawton has expressed grave doubts about the 450/49 dating19. I pointed out long ago two close links, between IG, I3, 21 and 68, a decree of the one certain archon Euthynos. IG, I3, 21, 40 ἐπιμελετ[ɛÞσι seems to look back to IG, I3, 68, 38-50 (appointment of epimeletai) and 21.48 and 68.43 share the very rare verb κακοτεχνεῖν20. Can one believe that coincidentally these parallels stemmed from two archons called Euthynos? There remains, however, one apparently strong argument for keeping IG, I3, 21 in 459/49 BC and that is the silence of Thucydides about troubles in Miletos in the 420s21. We must now look closely at evidence associating Thucydides’ narrative with texts showing three-barred sigma.

Thucydides and the three-barred sigma

  • 22 See ATL, 3, 282-284; Bradeen & McGregor 1973, 94-99; ML, 121-125, no. 47.
  • 23 Thuc. 3.34 and my argument in Mattingly 1979, 333-334 = Mattingly 1996, 174-175. Piérart 1978, 171 (...)
  • 24 IG, I3, 283, col. II, 23-25; col. I, 94-96; 289, col. I, 40-42.

5IG, I3, 37 (with three-barred sigma and V) has been dated c. 446 BC and linked with signs of discontent at Kolophon, discerned from the tribute quota lists22. But the οἰvισταί of line 42 suggest connection rather with the troubles of 428/7 BC, which Athens ended by settling the exiled Kolophonians at Notion: Athenian οἰκισταί were dispatched to make the necessary arrangements for their new home23. It is true that Notion does not appear in the extant text of IG, I3, 37 and indeed the editors excluded it in line 26-27 [.. τò] δὲ ἀργύριον ὀφέ[λοντον Κολοφόνιοι καὶ ΛΙεβέδιο]ι καὶ Διοσιρῖται κ . .. The insertion of Lebedos, however, seems gratuitous. I would suggest instead [.. τò] δὲ ἀργύριον oφέ[λοντον ΝoτιɛÞς καὶ ΚολΙοφόνιο]ι καὶ Διοσιρῖται. These three communities are grouped together only in the quota list of 428/7 BC, which reflects Thc. 3.34. Later they stay together, but with the Kolophonians at their head24. This would seem to be the first case where Thucydides’ text relates closely to a document with three-barred sigma.

  • 25 Oliver 1933, 494-497.
  • 26 Mattingly 1961, 173-174 = Mattingly 1996, 34-35; Jameson 1983-2003, 27-28.
  • 27 Thuc. 5.19.2, and 24.1 with Andrewes and Lewis 1957, 179. For members of the prytany as proposers (...)
  • 28 See Gomme’s chronological table in Gomme 1956, 719. The tenth prytany in 426/5 BC was Erechtheis ((...)

6The treaty between Athens and Hermione (IG, I3, 31) has been dated c. 450 BC because of its three-barred sigma25. But, whereas all Sparta’s Argolid allies were raided by the Athenians in 430 BC, Hermione alone was spared in 425 BC the more serious raiding from Methana. I have argued that a treaty (IG, I3, 31) had intervened and recently Michael Jameson has supported my case26. The prytany was Antiochis and the proposer was probably Leon. He may well be the representative for Antiochis on the peace commission of 422/1 BC. It was not unknown for members of the prytany in office to propose the probouleuma27. The campaign against Corinth and the Argolid was apparently launched in the first prytany of 425/4 BC, so that the agreement with Hermione was probably made in the ninth prytany of 426/5 BC28.

  • 29 See Meritt 1936, 360-362 (on the lettering: rounded tailed rho and three-barred sigma).
  • 30 Mysichides and Bakchides are doubtfully Attic (also unique). See LGPN, II, for the evidence.
  • 31 Meiggs’ tables in Meiggs 1966, 92 and 94 show only Quota List 4 (IG, I3, 262), IG, I3, 27 and 511.

7The mason who cut IG, I3, 31 was also responsible for the Sigeion decree (IG, I3, 17). This has part of an archon’s name, which has been restored as Antidotes of 451/0 BC29. But the two texts cannot be put as much as twenty-five years apart. The archon could, however, be Antiochides of 435/4 BC. The 23 letter stoichedon line imposes the reading in lines 5-6 στάτε Ἀν[τιοχίδες ἦρχε.. I.]χίδες ε[ἶ]π[ε]. The eight-letter orator causes great difficulty. Only Euakides and Leochides are available and they are both unique in Attic prosopography. This would seem to rule out Antiochides as the archon30. This leaves only Antiphon (418/7 BC). Now IG, I3, 11 and 17 are among the few texts which display both rounded tailed rho and three-barred sigma. The evidence of IG, I3, 31 for 17 brilliantly confirms 418/7 BC as the date for Egesta31.

  • 32 Meritt & Wade-Gery 1963, 102.
  • 33 Lawton 1995, 20, 59, and 114, no. 60.
  • 34 Sicilian Messana is always Messene in Thucydides.

8IG, I3, 148 is a fragmentary relief from the head of a decree. There is a threebarred sigma in the secretary’s name and two four-barred sigmas in the label MEΣΣE[.]. Meritt and Wade-Gery, against the opinion of experts on Attic sculpture, who favored the 420s, still wanted to keep it c. 446 BC32. But Carol Lawton has recently argued strongly for the 420s. She compared the pose of the standing female figure to the driver of the mule-cart on coins of Sicilian Messana from c. 430 on, who is likewise sometimes labeled MEΣΣANA (with four-barred sigmas)33. Thucydides 3.90 records an alliance between Athens and Messana in 427/6 BC and IG, I3, 148 is surely part of this document34.

  • 35 See Thuc. 6.6.1-2, 19, 5, and 11.7.
  • 36 His language has not been noted sufficiently.
  • 37 Wilamowitz 1883, 135 with n. 10; Thuc. 6,75,4 and 81-87.

9It is time to return to IG, I3, 11. Much has been made of the fact that Thucydides seems unaware of an Egesta alliance only a few years before the Sicilian expedition. But he was well aware that it formed the basis of Egesta’s appeal to Athens in 416/5 BC35. Nikias’ racist remarks on the Egestans – “foreigners and barbarians” – make best sense in reference to recent allies, still on probation and suspect36. As Wilamowitz saw, Thucydides’ narrative has one direct link to IG, I3, 11. He recognized Euphemos, proposer of the rider (line 15), as the Athenian spokesman at Kamarina in 415 BC His intuition was discounted because it did not tally with the 454/3 BC dating which he still maintained37. Now it fits perfectly.

  • 38 For service in Greece see Oliver 1935, 190-191; Mattingly 1976, 42 = Mattingly 1996, 396; ATL, III (...)
  • 39 For the garrison in Miletos see Lewis 1954, 24 with n. 19; Bengston 1962, 64, no. 151; Bradeen & M (...)
  • 40 If the military section extends beyond line 15[’Αθέ] ạζε in line 16 and [’Αθέ] αζε ho[ in line 19 (...)
  • 41 See Thuc. 4.42.1, with 53.1 and 54.1 (hoplites). Note IG, I3, 21, 11: ὅπλα παρέχεσθαι. The secreta (...)

10What can we say now about IG, I3, 21 and Thucydides? Lines 10-15 contain preparations for a hoplite force, its equipment and pay. Most scholars have thought of a Milesian force that would serve under Athens in Greece38. But others look for an Athenian garrison in Miletos39. The emphatic Ἀθέν]αζε τοῖς στρ[α]τιό[τεσι..] in line 15 surely supports the first view: the movement is from Miletos to Athens, not the reverse40. Now in the first prytany of 425/4 BC. Thucydides records Milesian hoplites serving under Athens against Corinth and the Argolid. Preparations for them must have been made in the last prytany of 426/5 BC, which was Erectheis. The prytany of IG, I3, 21 has eight letters and the archon is Euthunos. It cannot be Kekropis or Antiochis, since their secretaries had names of ten and eight letters this year: IG, I3, 21 had six at most41. Erechtheis, the last prytany of 426/5, remains. Thucydides is not entirely silent about Miletos in the 420s. His narrative dovetails with the military provisions of the settlement. After these documents with three-barred sigma I move to two key texts showing mainly developed lettering.

The Chalkis Decree (IG, I3, 40)

  • 42 ATL, III, 285-290; ML, 138-144, no. 52.
  • 43 Schol. on Wasps, 718 (716 D); Jacoby, FGrHist, 3, B, Suppl., 1, 504 and 2, 467.
  • 44 See ML, 144, no. 52; IG, I3 91 (nu) and 99 (lambda).
  • 45 Compare IG, I3, 40, 40-41: ἈντικλɛÞς εἶπε ἀγαθɛÞι τύχει τɛÞι Ἀθεναίον ποɛÞσθαι τòν hόρκον with Thu (...)

11Scholars normally date this 446/5 BC and link it with the collapse of the Euboian revolt42. But Philochoros recorded an Athenian campaign against Euboia in 424/3 BC and should not have been rejected out of hand43. Thucydides’ silence is not decisive, as we have seen with the Milesian troubles, the lettering is not conclusive for the earlier date, as Meiggs and Lewis claimed. Slanting nu is found 422/1 BC and slanting lambda as late as 410/9 BC44. Rounded, tailed rho is vouched for the 420s by IG, I3, 11. Several formal points support a date later than 446/5 BC and one is a strong argument specifically for 424/3 BC45.

  • 46 IG, I3, 364, 20-21 and Thuc. 1,51,4; Plut., Per., 32,3. The Drakontides of Wasps, 157, may be Aphi (...)
  • 47 For Eupolis’ play see PCG, V, no. 231 and the other fragments.
  • 48 IG, I3, 65, 7-8.
  • 49 IG, I3, 73, 9-10 and 39-40.
  • 50 For Nikias’ brother see MacDonald 1962, § 15-16 and p. 74-75.

12Perhaps we should follow Philochoros. On this assumption men named in the decree can be plausibly identified. Drakontides (epistates of Antiochis) is the general of 433/2 BC, who later attacked Perikles46. Hierokles (lines 64-66) is the chresmologos from Oreos lampooned by Eupolis in his Cities c. 422 BC and by Aristophanes in his Peace of 422/1 BC Nothing suggests that he was active as early as the 440s and he is significantly not noticed by any earlier poet47. Antikies (40-69) may be the man who proposed a rider to the decree for Apollonophanes the Kolophonian in 427 BC48. Archestratos, proposer of a rider (70-79) could be the man who proposed two riders for Boiotians in 424/3 BC49. Diognetos in this context can only be Nikias’ brother50.

  • 51 IG, I3, 14, 23-24.
  • 52 IG, I3, 48, 17-20.

13In their oath the Chalkidians swear not to revolt from the Athenian people nor to follow another’s lead (lines 21-23). The Erythrai Council in c. 452 BC swore not to revolt from the Athenian plethos or the plethos of Athens’ allies nor to follow another’s lead51. The Samians in 439 BC swore not to revolt from the Athenian demos nor from the Athenian allies52. The Chalkis oath, omitting the allies, is surely tougher and later than Samos and fits Athens’ mood in the Archidamian War excellently.

  • 53 IG, I3, 40, 25-27 and 39, 11-12 (Eretrian oath). For Quota List “25” (426/5 not 430/29 B.C.), see (...)
  • 54 IG, I3, 71, col. I, 67 and 71; Raubitschek 1943, 33.
  • 55 See Antiph., fr. 50, 52, and 55-56 (Samothrace) and 20 (Lindos).

14Chalkis and Eretria both swore to pay Athens whatever tribute they can persuade Athens to accept. Before the war and down to 426/5 BC they regularly paid 3 talents53. Then suddenly in 425 BC Eretria faced a demand for 15 talents and Chalkis for 10. Raubitschek rightly divined that this great increase may have caused the discontent which Athens had to deal with in 424/3 BC54. The oath clause does offer hope of negotiation on appeal. This was allowed in IG, I3, 71, 20-22 and Samothrace and Lindos took advantage of it, hiring Antiphon as their advocate55. This evidence fits 424/3 B.C. admirably as the date of IG, I3, 40.

The Kallias Decrees (IG, I3, 52, A-B)

  • 56 See Wade-Gery and Meritt 1947, 279-286; ML, 155-161, no. 58.
  • 57 Kallet-Marx 1989 and 1993, 105 ff.
  • 58 Samons 2000, 117-138 (A) and 215-227 (B).
  • 59 Mattingly 1997, 113-114.
  • 60 Wade-Gery 1931.
  • 61 See IG, I3, 364.
  • 62 Kolbe 1899, 380-394; IG, I3, 309, a, 5; Meritt 1931a, 71-83.

15Until recently the most favored dating for these two key financial documents was 434/3 BC56. But then Lisa Kallet-Marx and Loren Samons proposed to separate them by a considerable number of years. Kallet-Marx made A 431/0 and B 418/7 BC57. Samons dated A 432/1 and B 422/1 BC58. I hope to have shown elsewhere that this separation is impossible. The two decrees were passed in the same Panathenaic year, with Kallias the proposer59. Does this mean a return to 434/3 BC? There is still the possibility of 422/1 BC, which Wade-Gery briefly championed60. There is one main objection to 434/3 BC According to B, 12-19 no sum over 10,000 drachmai is to be spent from Athena’s Acropolis funds without a previous vote of adeia. No such vote is recorded for the two payments for Corcyra in 433/2 BC61. Kolbe once proposed to insert it in the very incomplete accounts for 432/1 BC and won support from Hiller and Meritt; but by IG, I3, 365 his idea had sunk without trace62. Indeed it is hard to find room for the 26-letter phrase anywhere else, and no-one seems to have tried. It did not come after the hellenotamiai in lines 7, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 23-24, and 26. It is missing after the prytany date and the sum advanced in lines 19 and 23-24. It is missing after the prytany date in lines 21 and 27. It is missing after the sum granted in line 25. Did adeia in fact appear anywhere in IG, I3, 365?

  • 63 IG, I3, 370, 24-33.
  • 64 IG, I3, 370, 6. For the lacuna I suggest [εραι τɛÞς πρυτανείας φσεφισαμενο τõ δέμο τὲν ἂδειαν (10 (...)
  • 65 IG, I3, 379, 18-19. The supplement τõ εχσ|[άμo κατὰ ἐνιαυτòν ἐ]πελθόντoς seems sound.
  • 66 Adeia is needed for a sum of ten talents in 417/6 B.C. (370, 16). Samons 2000, 225-226, made a sim (...)

16The case with 422/1 BC is very different. The three payments for 417/6 BC all have φσεψεσαμένο τõ δέμο τὲν ἄδειαν63. 418/7 BC at first seem more problematic. The second payment has the adeia clause and there is room for it in the 60-letter lacuna of the first64. The fourth payment apparently came from the Samian indemnity and this may not have been banked on the Acropolis: so it would not have required adeia65. The third payment did not attract adeia perhaps because the ceiling had been raised from 10,000 drachma to a sum of talents66. The evidence of adeia ought to be conclusive for 422/1 BC as the date of IG, I3, 52, A-B.

  • 67 For lines 1-7 of 383 see my discussion of Develin’s views in Mattingly 1998 (on Develin 1986, 78, (...)
  • 68 Note παρὰ δὲ τõν νῦν ταμιõν παραδεχσασθον οι ταμίαι οι λαχόντες παρὰ τõν νῦ[ν]| ἀρχóνταν.

17IG, I3, 52, A, 13-30 arranged for tamiai of the Other Gods to be chosen by lot annually on the model of Athena’s tamiai. In fact such tamiai, ten in number and one from each tribe, are found in 421/0 BC in IG, I3, 472.5-11; earlier tamiai of the Other Gods are found in 429/8 BC in IG, I3, 383, 1-11 and in 423/2 BC in IG, I3, 369, 54-56, 75-76 and 94-96. But in 383 only five are listed and there does not seem to be a tribal basis67. In IG, I3, 52, A, 18-21 the new allotted tamiai seem to be contrasted with a previous, possibly elected board68. As Wade-Gery saw, the Kallias Decrees could comfortably be fitted in 422/1 BC.

Notes

1 Tracy 1990, 1995, 2003. He explained his methods in Tracy 2000, 67-76.

2 Tracy 1984.

3 Bradeen & McGregor 1973, 71-91.

4 Chambers et al. 1990.

5 Henry 1992, 1995, 237-240, 1998, 45-48, 2000. Mitchell 1998, 373-374, thought that Henry might be right.

6 Pritchett 1972, 159-164.

7 Meritt 1978, 284-289.

8 See IG, I3, 2, pp. 220-221 (add. to 165): Henry 1983, 283, n. 31; Henry 2000, 95-96.

9 Walbank 1978, 190, no. 35 and 231, no. 43.

10 In IG, I3, 82, 42-44, of 421/0 BC the poletai are also omitted, unless they came unusually after the kolakretai as in IG, I3, 153, 21-23. But Pritchett 1972, 174-175, found a suitable supplement for IG, I3, 82, 42-44, that included them.

11 See IG, I3, 91, 27-29 and 85, 3-4. The date of 91 is assured by IG, I3, 2, add. 227, bis. Woodhead 1949, 78-83, skillfully restored ἐπὶ Ἀντιφ[õντος ἄρχοντυς] in line 12 as the date of 85 and was supported in this by McGregor 1965, 31-32 and 43-46.

12 See Schweigert 1937, 322-333.

13 IG, I3, 78, 20 (χιλίαισιν): 61, 38 (μυρίασι) and 84, 10 and 17 (χιλίαισιν and ταμίαισιν). For the 425/4 dating of 78 see my treatment in Mattingly 1968, 493, 1996, 255, and 1974, 93: Mattingly 1996, 330.

14 My argument is made for IG, I3, 165, but inevitably involved 11.

15 See Bauer 1918, 193-195: Papastavrou 1957 and Panatoniou 1971, 43-45 (Philip): Meritt 1947, 312-315 and 1954, 359-361 (Mytilene): Lewis 1954, 25 and n. 27 (Methymna). Wilhelm suggested Naupaktos: SEG, 19, 46, add., p. 157.

16 See Mattingly 2000, 131-133 and Thc. 4.118.4.

17 Koumanoudes 1876/7, 82-83 and 162.

18 IG, I, Suppl., p. 62, 22, a. For scholars’ acceptance see Barrojn 1962, 1 (“this securely dated decree”) and Bradeen and McGregor 1973, 67 (“the date 450/49 virtually certain”).

19 Meyer 1989, 31-32 and 264, A, 1; Lawton 1995, 19-21 and 112-113, no. 63. Professor Akiko Moroo of Cheba University is preparing a detailed study of IG, I3, 21 on the 426/5 BC dating.

20 See Mattingly 1971, 32, 1996, 322. κακοτεχνεῖν is found elsewhere neither in fifth-century nor fourth-century Attic epigraphy.

21 See Bradeen & McGregor 1973, 67-68.

22 See ATL, 3, 282-284; Bradeen & McGregor 1973, 94-99; ML, 121-125, no. 47.

23 Thuc. 3.34 and my argument in Mattingly 1979, 333-334 = Mattingly 1996, 174-175. Piérart 1978, 171-172, supported my dating.

24 IG, I3, 283, col. II, 23-25; col. I, 94-96; 289, col. I, 40-42.

25 Oliver 1933, 494-497.

26 Mattingly 1961, 173-174 = Mattingly 1996, 34-35; Jameson 1983-2003, 27-28.

27 Thuc. 5.19.2, and 24.1 with Andrewes and Lewis 1957, 179. For members of the prytany as proposers see Thoudippos Araphenios for Aigeis in IG, I3, 71, 55, Peisander Acharneus for Oineis in IG, I3, 174, 4-5, and Kleisophos for Erechtheis in IG, I3, 127, 6 and 32. For IG, I3, 174 in 442/1 BC, when Prepis was secretary for Aigeis (IG, I3, 79, 3), see my case in Mattingly 1966, 75-76 = Mattingly 1996, 201-202.

28 See Gomme’s chronological table in Gomme 1956, 719. The tenth prytany in 426/5 BC was Erechtheis (IG, I3, 369, 12-13).

29 See Meritt 1936, 360-362 (on the lettering: rounded tailed rho and three-barred sigma).

30 Mysichides and Bakchides are doubtfully Attic (also unique). See LGPN, II, for the evidence.

31 Meiggs’ tables in Meiggs 1966, 92 and 94 show only Quota List 4 (IG, I3, 262), IG, I3, 27 and 511.

32 Meritt & Wade-Gery 1963, 102.

33 Lawton 1995, 20, 59, and 114, no. 60.

34 Sicilian Messana is always Messene in Thucydides.

35 See Thuc. 6.6.1-2, 19, 5, and 11.7.

36 His language has not been noted sufficiently.

37 Wilamowitz 1883, 135 with n. 10; Thuc. 6,75,4 and 81-87.

38 For service in Greece see Oliver 1935, 190-191; Mattingly 1976, 42 = Mattingly 1996, 396; ATL, III, 256; Meritt & Wade-Gery 1963, 101.

39 For the garrison in Miletos see Lewis 1954, 24 with n. 19; Bengston 1962, 64, no. 151; Bradeen & McGregor 1973, 40.

40 If the military section extends beyond line 15[’Αθέ] ạζε in line 16 and [’Αθέ] αζε ho[ in line 19 add force to my case.

41 See Thuc. 4.42.1, with 53.1 and 54.1 (hoplites). Note IG, I3, 21, 11: ὅπλα παρέχεσθαι. The secretary of Kekropis was Polemarchos (IG, I3, 68, 4) of Antiochis Theodoros (IG, I3, 31, 1, 4).

42 ATL, III, 285-290; ML, 138-144, no. 52.

43 Schol. on Wasps, 718 (716 D); Jacoby, FGrHist, 3, B, Suppl., 1, 504 and 2, 467.

44 See ML, 144, no. 52; IG, I3 91 (nu) and 99 (lambda).

45 Compare IG, I3, 40, 40-41: ἈντικλɛÞς εἶπε ἀγαθɛÞι τύχει τɛÞι Ἀθεναίον ποɛÞσθαι τòν hόρκον with Thuc. 4,118,11 (One Year’s Truce): Λάχης εἶπε’ τύχῇ ἀγαθῇ τῇ Ἀθηναίον ποιεῖσθαι τὴν ἐκεχειρίαν. The resemblance of these solemn introductions is striking and they look to be contemporary with each other.

46 IG, I3, 364, 20-21 and Thuc. 1,51,4; Plut., Per., 32,3. The Drakontides of Wasps, 157, may be Aphidnaios, later one of the Thirty (LGPN, II, s.v.).

47 For Eupolis’ play see PCG, V, no. 231 and the other fragments.

48 IG, I3, 65, 7-8.

49 IG, I3, 73, 9-10 and 39-40.

50 For Nikias’ brother see MacDonald 1962, § 15-16 and p. 74-75.

51 IG, I3, 14, 23-24.

52 IG, I3, 48, 17-20.

53 IG, I3, 40, 25-27 and 39, 11-12 (Eretrian oath). For Quota List “25” (426/5 not 430/29 B.C.), see Mattingly 1996, 525, and 1997, 125.

54 IG, I3, 71, col. I, 67 and 71; Raubitschek 1943, 33.

55 See Antiph., fr. 50, 52, and 55-56 (Samothrace) and 20 (Lindos).

56 See Wade-Gery and Meritt 1947, 279-286; ML, 155-161, no. 58.

57 Kallet-Marx 1989 and 1993, 105 ff.

58 Samons 2000, 117-138 (A) and 215-227 (B).

59 Mattingly 1997, 113-114.

60 Wade-Gery 1931.

61 See IG, I3, 364.

62 Kolbe 1899, 380-394; IG, I3, 309, a, 5; Meritt 1931a, 71-83.

63 IG, I3, 370, 24-33.

64 IG, I3, 370, 6. For the lacuna I suggest [εραι τɛÞς πρυτανείας φσεφισαμενο τõ δέμο τὲν ἂδειαν (10 talents) τριεάρχυις ἐπ’ Ἀργ]ες.

65 IG, I3, 379, 18-19. The supplement τõ εχσ|[άμo κατὰ ἐνιαυτòν ἐ]πελθόντoς seems sound.

66 Adeia is needed for a sum of ten talents in 417/6 B.C. (370, 16). Samons 2000, 225-226, made a similar point to mine.

67 For lines 1-7 of 383 see my discussion of Develin’s views in Mattingly 1998 (on Develin 1986, 78, and 1989, 121, 441).

68 Note παρὰ δὲ τõν νῦν ταμιõν παραδεχσασθον οι ταμίαι οι λαχόντες παρὰ τõν νῦ[ν]| ἀρχóνταν.

Auteur

Cambridge, UK

© Ausonius Éditions, 2010

Conditions d’utilisation : http://www.openedition.org/6540