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 9. Adnotatiunculae epigraphicae

Michael Osborne

Texte intégral

  • 1 Discussion of these two issues is intended in part at least as a prolegomenon to the forthcoming f (...)

1It is given to few scholars to make a truly seminal contribution to their field of study and Stephen Tracy is one of that select band. For his work on Attic cutters has brought a new dimension to epigraphical studies and to our understanding of Athens in the Hellenistic Period. His discoveries have proved particularly beneficial in the sphere of chronology and in these brief adnotatiunculae (a term borrowed from his works) I touch upon two issues where his identification of individual cutters seems to me to have been of decisive significance. My conclusions, I suspect, will stimulate his amusement, if not his disdain, and it will be evident that these adnotatiunculae, in contrast to his, are of a genuinely nugatory nature1.

Athenian financial officials as chronological indicators in the period 286–228 bc

  • 2 Rhodes 2006 (cf. Rhodes 2007, 351) reiterating his views as expressed in 1993b. Cf. Rhodes with Le (...)
  • 3 Tracy 2003a, 14.
  • 4 Henry 1984, 49 ff; 1988, 127 ff; 1989, 247 ff. with references to earlier literature.
  • 5 Exceptionally one decree from the year of Polyeuktos (250/49) records the plural board of administ (...)
  • 6 In both periods it should be noted that a few decrees are paid for by the stratiotic treasurer. Se (...)
  • 7 IG, II2, 707 = Osborne 1981-1983, D, 88, discussed further below, presents a classic case.

2In a recent publication entitled “‘Classical’ and ‘Hellenistic’ in Athenian History” Peter Rhodes reiterates the increasingly popular view that in the period 286–228 the single officer of administration (ὁ ἐπὶ τῆι διοικήσει) and the plural board of administration (oἱ ἐπὶ τῆι διοικήσει) were in effect interchangeable as paymasters for decrees2, and this view reflects that of Stephen Tracy himself, who writes: “The proper conclusion is very likely to be that there was just one group of officials, the board, that came into existence about the year 295 or a bit later. The ancient scribes and letter-cutters could refer to the plural board or to the head of it – ie, the single officer–without signifying any difference. Thus there are no constitutional implications and the chronological framework based on it has no validity”3. This is in opposition to what may be termed the traditional view, expounded at length by Alan Henry4, and embraced in large measure by the present author, which envisages two distinct phases with some constitutional, or at least administrative, implications. According to this view the plural board of administration (ό ἐπὶ τῆι διοικήσει) was an innovation of the ostentatiously democratic government headed by Demochares of Leukonoe in 286/5 and it remained in office until 262/1 when Athens capitulated and fell under the grip of Antigonos Gonatas. Thereafter until 228/7 financial responsibilities normally5 were entrusted to the single officer of administration (ὁ ἐπὶ τῆι διοικήσει)6. Quite apart from any administrative or constitutional implications, it must be acknowledged that this division into two distinct periods is alluring in that it provides a useful chronological indicator, notably in cases where the financial official (with or without the assistance of the identity of the letter-cutter) constitutes the sole evidence for the date of a document7. An effect of the Rhodes/Tracy doctrine is to nullify this seemingly useful chronological indicator and it is in this regard that I attempt here a partial rescue operation for the traditional viewpoint.

  • 8 The dated examples are in chronological order the following:- IG, II2, 663 (286/5); 653 (285/4); 6 (...)
  • 9 IG, II2, 1534, A (274/3); 792 (274/3); Agora, XVI, 88 (271/0); IG, II2, 806 (ca. 274).
  • 10 Cf. Plut., Mor., 851, D–F, embodying the later aitesis for honours for Demochares. According to th (...)

3A prime consideration in any discussion must be that in the period 286/5–262/1 there is not a single instance of a dated (or dateable) decree where the single officer of administration is attested as the paymaster. The plural board of administration is attested in at least 21 decrees which can be firmly dated to the period and in another 8 which can be assigned to the period on grounds other than the identity of the financial officials8. The only other paymaster attested in this period is the stratiotic treasurer, who (as in the following period) pays for a few decrees, all seemingly in the 270s9. There is no instance where the single officer of administration is recorded and it seems a reasonable conclusion that the plural board of administration was the regular disbursing agent. It is surely the case that the plural board of administration was an innovation on the part of Demochares of Leukonoe designed to highlight the democratic credentials of the government which styled itself the ‘democracy of all Athenians’ and which sought to distance itself from the operations of the prerevolution regimes which were characterized as κατάλυσις τοῦ δήμου and ὀλιγαρχία 10. In such a government there would be no place for the single officer of administration, whose office was tainted by association with the foregoing regimes, and, as will be argued more fully below, it is surely unlikely that such a title would be utilized for the chair, if there was a regular chair, for the plural board of administration.

  • 11 Cf. Rhodes 1972, 107 ff.; 1993a, 515-516; Henry 1984, 52, n. 13.
  • 12 IG, II2, 507 = Osborne 1982, D, 61. Cf. Osborne 1981-1983, II, 126 with n. 534.
  • 13 IG, II2, 500 (Prytany VII).
  • 14 IG, II2, 646 = Osborne 1981-1983, D, 68; 648 = Osborne 1981-1983, D, 69 (295/4).
  • 15 IG, II2, 649 + SEG, 45,101 for Philippides of Paiania (293/2); Agora, XVI, 166 (ca. 293/2–restorin (...)
  • 16 IG, II2, 663 = Osborne 1981-1983, D, 74 B–which is not to be taken as a second copy of IG, II2, 66 (...)
  • 17 I have been persuaded that this date is preferable to 261/0 (which figures in my earlier publicati (...)
  • 18 In chronological order the decrees in question are: (dated) Diog. Laer., 7, 10-12 (262/1); Agora, (...)
  • 19 IG, II2, 845 (ca. 230; [τòν τα]μίαν); Agora, XVI, 201 (240/230); unpublished decree (238/7).

4The office of the single officer of administration appears to have originated with Lykourgos, who reportedly held, or at least controlled, this obviously elected position for some twelve years11, although payment for decrees was normally entrusted to the treasurer of the demos (ταμίας τοῦ δήμου) – and it is only in the last prytany of 303/2, an unusually busy year for legislation, that the single officer of administration is first called upon to provide funds for a stele, presumably because the treasurer of the demos had exhausted his allocation12. He appears again as paymaster for a decree in 302/1, where his payment is recorded as coming from the expense account of the Assembly13. This latter is surprising, since the treasurer of the demos pays later in the year and from this account, and it is reasonable to hypothesize that the designation of the fund is a mistake, doubtless occasioned by the fact that decrees were regularly paid for from this account. From 301 until the fall of Lachares a new board, comprising the exetastes and the trittyarchs, has the responsibility for paying for decrees, but with the restoration of ‘democracy’ by Demetrios Poliorketes came the introduction of the single officer of administration in this role14; and, despite the almost immediate lurch towards oligarchy, this officer continues to pay for decrees, surely until 286/515. No decrees attesting the identity of the paymaster are preserved from the turbulent years 292/1–287/6, but the plural board of administration is first evidenced in a decree of 286/5 (probably in Prytany IX)16, and regularly thereafter until the late 260s. The plural board of administration presumably had a tribal basis. The single officer of administration is next attested as a paymaster for a decree in Prytany V of the year of the archon Arrheneides (262/1)17 the first year of close control by Antigonos Gonatas, and it is difficult to believe that this does not signify a change in the finance arena, especially since, with one single exception, some 25 dated or dateable decrees in the period 262/1–228/7 attest the single officer of administration as paymaster18. As in the previous period, the stratiotic treasurer is occasionally called upon to pay for a stele19.

  • 20 Cf. n. 5 above.
  • 21 Henry 1984, 49 ff.; 1988, 130 ff.
  • 22 Cf. Euseb., Chron., II, 120 (Schone–Berlin 1866) ’Αθηναίοις ’Αντίγονος τὴν ἐλευθερίαν ἔδωκεν – dat (...)
  • 23 IG, II2, 780 (archon Kallimedes).
  • 24 IG, II2, 791 (archon Diomedon).
  • 25 It does appear to be the case that a brief secretarial sequence is attested for the period 251/0–2 (...)
  • 26 After 228 both the single officer of administration and the plural board of administration are att (...)

5The scenario where the single officer of administration is the regular paymaster in the period 262/1–228/7 has, of course, been thrown into doubt by the discovery of a decree from the year of Polyeuktos (250/49)20 which clearly attests the plural board of administration. Henry has sought to explain this exception in terms of a “brief period of glasnost”21. Assuming that this is meant to signify a brief period when there was a move towards more democratic organs of government, it is not perhaps so implausible as has been generally assumed, although it must be acknowledged that its plausibility would be greatly enhanced if it could be linked to the restoration of some vestiges of liberty to the Athenians in the middle of the 250s22. In reality, of course, the single officer of administration is still in office as late as Prytany VI of 252/123 and he is again clearly attested in Prytany X of 248/724. This would mean that, if there was a change in financial operations involving the return of the plural board of administration, it came at least three years after the ‘restoration of liberty’ and was very short-lived, spanning only the triennium 251/0–249/825. Improbable perhaps, but not impossible. Alternatives are not so easy to find. One possibility is that the plural board was not dissolved in 262/1 but that its role was circumscribed and that a single officer of administration was appointed to be responsible for disbursements. The reference in the decree from the year of Polyeuktos would then simply be a mistake on the part of the scribe and/or cutter. Naturally, such an explanation is unlikely to persuade the sceptic, but the statistical argument for a change of designation from 262/1 is surely strong–for it surely strains credibility to deny that, after some twenty five years of reference to a plural board, the appearance of the single officer of administration in the very first attested decree of the new regime installed by Antigonos Gonatas and in all preserved decrees for at least the next decade does not signify a change. Also, of course, it would be remarkable that, if the plural board of administration really was still fully operational, it should only be mentioned once in the whole period 262/1 to 228/7. Finally, and importantly, there is the issue of terminology. For, given that the plural board of administration was operational from 286/5 to 263/2, it is difficult to understand the circumstances in which not only could one member act on its behalf but that he could also be designated as ὁ ἐπὶ τῆι διοικήσει. For even accepting that such a delegation could occur (and there is not a scintilla of evidence in support of such a notion) and that a government which had surely introduced the plural board of administration to differentiate its financial operations from those of its undemocratic predecessors would wish to use the designation single officer of administration at all, it is surely unlikely that the delegate would be termed o ἐπὶ τῆι διοικήσει implying that he literally was the official in charge; much more likely that a term more accurately depicting his position as representative of the board would be employed. The careful designation of the chair of the proedroi, for example, would provide a useful analogy. The single officer of administration hitherto had not been a member of a college, rather an elected official, and the use of the title to designate a (hypothetical) representative of the plural board of administration is improbable26.

  • 27 It should, of course, be kept in mind that the single officer of administration is not attested as (...)
  • 28 In this general regard the comment of John Morgan 1992–1998, 46 is pertinent: “Even if… there alwa (...)

6Obviously, the foregoing leaves open a number of issues, but it surely offers a very strong case for the proposition that the single officer of administration does not figure as the paymaster for decrees in the democratic period 286/5 to 262/1. The case for the plural board being restricted to the democratic period has been weakened somewhat, but the overwhelming body of evidence still favours replacement by the single officer from 262/1. From the point of view of chronology I thus suggest that the presence of the single officer of administration as paymaster for a decree indicates that the document is either pre-286/5 or else post 263/227 and that this remains a useful indicator; the presence of the plural board of administration strongly favours the democratic period 286/5 to 263/2, although a later date cannot be absolutely excluded28.

Grants of citizenship and of enktesis in the period 286/5–228/7

  • 29 Osborne 1981-1983, I, 22; II, 177; IV, 165-166.
  • 30 For grants of enktesis in general cf. Pečírka 1966b; also Henry 1983, 204 ff. There are three decr (...)

7In my publication Naturalization in Athens (Osborne 1981-1983) I concluded from the evidence available that decrees conferring citizenship in the period 262-228 were few in number and that the provision for a judicial scrutiny, which appeared to be normal in the foregoing democratic period (286–262) was abolished or at least disregarded29. A potentially troubling aspect of this latter was that in the case of grants of enktesis a judicial scruiny was introduced as part of the award process, probably from the middle of the third century BC onwards30. For at first glance it seems surprising that in such circumstances, when the new restriction of a scrutiny was being added to the process for enktesis, the self-same provision should be dropped in the case of citizenship grants. But a re-examination of the available evidence suggests that, without special pleading, this was indeed the case.

  • 31 The stimulus to assign the decree to the 280s was initiated by Burstein 1979, and it received a si (...)
  • 32 Tracy 2003, 83.
  • 33 The text is, of course, slightly anomalous in giving the formula as [ἐκ τῶν κατ]ὰ ψηφίσματα ἀναλισ (...)
  • 34 The two clear instances are IG, II2, 657 (283/2) and IG, II2, 672 (280/79–archon Telokles, for who (...)
  • 35 IG, II2, 713 presents a possible example. The fragment contains the lower part of a decree of the (...)
  • 36 IG, II2, 496 + 507 + Addendum, p. 661 = Osborne 1981-1983, D, 61.
  • 37 References to this account are in any event sporadic in the third century.
  • 38 The phrase τò γενóμενον ἀνάλωμα, which is recorded here, is not attested prior to 286/5, so that a (...)
  • 39 Not absolutely impossible, given some other instances in the text, but surely unacceptable as an h (...)
  • 40 Again not utterly impossible, given the attribution of the decree for Bithys (IG, II2, 808 = Osbor (...)

8In Naturalization in Athens a mere three citizenship decrees were assigned to the period 262 to 228, namely IG, II2, 808 = Osborne 1981-1983, D, 87, IG, II2, 707 = Osborne 1981-1983, D, 88, and IG, II2, 570 = Osborne 1981-1983, D, 89. Of these Osborne 1981-1983, D, 87, for Bithys of Lysimacheia, is now by almost universal consensus assigned to the later 280s, where its lack of a provision for a scrutiny and sundry other anomalies allow it to present novel difficulties31. Osborne 1981-1983, D, 88 presents something of an enigma. It is assigned by Tracy to a cutter active in the period 286–23932; it does not have a provision for a judicial scrutiny; and the paymaster for the decree is incontrovertibly the single officer of administration. Given that there is no evidence whatsoever for the single officer of administration as paymaster in the period 286–262, assignation to the period 262–239 seems to be certified. A problem is that the single officer is instructed to disburse funds from the expense account of the Assembly ([ἐκ τῶν κατ]ὰ ψηφίσματα ἀναλισκομ[ένων τò ἀνάλωμα])33 but there are no secure references to such an account after 280/79 and only two clear instances after 295/434. But attempts to date the decree prior to 286, when the single officer of administration was in operation, are vitiated by the need to impute to the cutter an improbably long working life. A possible solution might seem to be to envisage the decree as a re-inscribed text, appended to a decree of re-affirmation35 but against this there is the consideration that the scrutiny was a requirement by the time that the single officer of administration is first recorded as paying for a decree (in Prytany XII, 303/2)36. In these circumstances it seems best to accept that the reference to the expense account of the Assembly is an anachronistic addition and to accept that the decree belongs in the period 262 to 23937. Osborne 1981-1983, D, 89 offers a further epigraphical dilemma. It is a stoichedon text and the available stoichoi are exactly suited to the restoration of the single officer of administration as paymaster. Since provision for a scrutiny is lacking the obvious assignation is to the period 262 to 22838. Proposals to assign it to the period 286–262 thus need to invoke gratuitously the double hypothesis of a crowding of letters39 and the omission of a regular provision of such awards40. In these circumstances it is surely preferable to accept the purport of the text rather than to resort to hypothetical changes designed not to meet a specific problem but to denude the period 262–228 of citizenship decrees. As will be noted below, the tendency to envisage the period of close Antigonid supervision as one in which awards to foreigners were massively reduced is not supported by the evidence, and there is no compelling reason to suggest a cessation of citizenship grants as opposed to a reduction in the number of essentially honorific awards to significant foreign leaders and their aides.

  • 41 For the decree cf. SEG, 53, 133. For the cutter cf. Tracy 2003, 114, cf. 109-110.
  • 42 Cf. Tracy 2003, 110, cf. 103.
  • 43 See n. 9 above.
  • 44 In Osborne 1981-1983, D, 48 I had attributed it to ca. 303/2 but, as Tracy has pointed out (2003, (...)
  • 45 See n. 19 above.

9In addition to these two cases it seems that two further citizenship awards are to be attributed to this period. Firstly, a new fragment reveals that IG, II2, 735, inscribed by a cutter active in the period 255–240 is a citizenship award, albeit from Lemnos41. Specifically, it is a re-affirmation of an award of citizenship to five individuals by the demos in Hephaisteia. It lacks provision for the second vote (and for that matter the scrutiny) but the stone breaks before the end of the text, so that it could have followed, if indeed it was needed in such a case. Secondly, it seems likely that IG, II2, 806 (= Osborne 1981-1983, D, 48) should be attributed to this period. It is the handiwork of a cutter active in the years 280 to 24042 and it lacks the provision for a scrutiny. The paymaster for the decree is the stratiotic treasurer and this has fuelled a desire to set it in the 270s when this officer pays for some decrees43 or even earlier44. But the discovery that the stratiotic treasurer was also paymaster for at least some decrees in the period ca. 240–23045 undermines this argument and reveals that it can readily be set in the later period and that there is no need for special pleading to explain the absence of the scrutiny.

  • 46 Individual grants to foreigners are attested in the following decrees (dates as in the forthcoming (...)
  • 47 The following decrees grant citizenship:- IG, II2, 662 = Osborne 1981-1983, D, 74 A (286/5); 663 = (...)
  • 48 For the grants see n. 47 above.

10The foregoing suggests that there is evidence for at least a few citizenship decrees in the period 262–228 and this should not occasion surprise. For, despite the overall impression of introversion, awards to foreigners remained relatively common in this period–some 20 grants to individuals and a further 5 to groups46 as compared to some 32 to individuals and 3 to groups in the period 286 to 26247. There is observably a steep decline in the number of citizenship grants, but this is quite understandable since such grants were frequently of an essentially honorific nature prior to 262/1 and made to foreign rulers and their high-ranking aides and thus unlikely to be evidenced when Athens was firmly in the grip of Macedon. And in this general context it is noteworthy that of the 32 attested grants of honours to foreign individuals in the earlier period 14 were citizenship awards and of these at least 8, almost certainly more, were essentially honorific48. If these last are taken out of the equation the numbers of grants to foreigners in the two periods are not especially dissimilar and the key difference is the preponderance of awards of practical value (usually involving residence) in the latter period.

  • 49 See n. 30 above.

11In this general regard there is a perceptible increase in the number of awards of enktesis after 262/1. Such grants had not been subject to any further examination beyond the original vote in the Assembly prior to the middle of the third century and the available evidence suggests that the judicial scrutiny was brought in at or soon after the beginning of the period of close Antigonid control49. Citizenship decrees by contrast had for long been subject to a second vote in the Assembly and, from late in the fourth century, to a judicial scrutiny as well. As seen above, the admittedly scanty evidence suggests that within the period 262 to 228 it was decided that the second vote on citizenship awards was a sufficient check and that the scrutiny could be dispensed with. This may perhaps reflect the situation where for the most part recipients of grants of citizenship in this period were already residents and recipients of enktesis so that it was felt that the second vote in the Assembly was a sufficient precaution in the case of persons who had already faced a scrutiny in court. Such a scenario at least is in conformity with the available evidence.

12It is clear that the nature of citizenship grants changed in the period 262 to 228 and in or soon after 228 they came to be recognized as of an essentially practical nature, so that recipients were no longer decreed to be Athenians but rather were granted politeia; and subsequently many decrees refer to the process of politographia. The epigraphical data reveal that by the start of the second century BC the process for awards of citizenship had become standardized and the only reported check is a judicial scrutiny. Prior to this, with a couple of exceptions, the thesmothetai are instructed not just to conduct a scrutiny but also to undertake the second vote. The implication is that a single check on awards was seen as sufficient and that, rather than trouble the Assembly a second time, the second vote was simply subsumed within the scrutiny. The two exceptions, both probably from the early 220s, record only the provision for a scrutiny. This seems to suggest that, with the return of democracy came the return of the (hitherto democratic) scrutiny and with the recognition of the changed nature of citizenship grants came a decision to accept that a scrutiny provided a sufficient check (as in the case of grants of enktesis). That the scrutiny effectively subsumed the second vote is confirmed by the strictly impossible instructions to the thesmothetai to conduct the second vote as well as the scrutiny in some of the earlier texts.

  • 50 Gauthier 1985, 83 ff.
  • 51 IG, II2, 768 + 802 (256/5); 732 (262/228). IG, II2, 810 actually contains a mention of an aitesis (...)
  • 52 Cf. Pečírka 1966b, 118 ff; Tracy 1990, 148 for the date. Hesperia 29 (1960) 19-20, no. 25 (= SEG, (...)
  • 53 In the case of sitesis, however, an aitesis is still attested, although there is no recorded instr (...)

13In the course of the third century BC it is clear that an aitesis became normal for some awards and it seems certain that this occasioned the provision in some honorific decrees for the proedroi to allow a certain period of time to elapse before submitting the aitesis to the ekklesia by way of a draft decree rather than simply taking the matter to the next available meeting. Philippe Gauthier has discussed this issue in the case of the highest honours awarded by the Athenians50 but an aitesis was not restricted to such awards. Thus in the period 262–228 it seems clear that an aitesis was required for grants of enktesis–the evidence is very thin, but at least two decrees attest an instruction that the proedroi should bring the matter to the Assembly after the legally required number of days has elapsed, and this surely implies that an aitesis had been needed51. Thereafter the evidence is slight but there is at least one recorded case– IG, II2, 907 (ca. 169/8–135/4)52. The situation is less clear in the case of citizenship awards. The relevant data are missing in all of the decree fragments from the years 262 to 228; in the period 286 to 262 a period of delay before submission of the aitesis to the Assembly is attested in three instances, but is lacking in eight others. In at least two of the three where it is attested there are good grounds for envisaging the petitioner as a resident seeking citizenship as a practical benefit– IG, II2, 652 (= Osborne 1981-1983, D, 75) is a request for the re-affirmation of an award; IG, II2, 666 + 667 (= Osborne 1981-1983, D, 78 A + B) is for a long time resident; in IG, II2, 721 (= Osborne 1981-1983, D, 71) the text is insufficiently well preserved for a decision to be made. In the eight cases where there is no provision for statutory delay the grant is either to a high official or to a non-resident benefactor for whom the award would not be a request on the part of the recipient but an honour granted by the Athenians (or from the Athenian point of view a bid for continued goodwill). The implication is that, whenever the proedroi are instructed to delay the presentation to the Assembly, it may be assumed that the grantee is a petitioner and thus likely to be a resident or potential resident. After 228, however, the proedroi are instructed simply to take the proposal either to the next meeting of the Assembly (εἰς τὴν ἐπιοῦσαν ἐκκλησίαν) or to the demos; and there are no further references to an aitesis53.

Notes

1 Discussion of these two issues is intended in part at least as a prolegomenon to the forthcoming fascicle of IG II3 (to be edited by Sean Byrne and the present author) which will cover the period 300–228 BC. This fascicle currently is set to include 285 decrees–a number which may increase slightly if some known, but as yet unpublished, documents are allowed to be included and which will even so not be entirely comprehensive in that it will lack sundry texts which repose, as yet un-reported, in various repositories in Athens and environs. All dates in this paper are BC. The archon dates in the third century are those given by Osborne 2003a, 2003b, and 2008. For the earlier part of the third century see also Osborne 2006. D = Decree, in Osborne 1981-1983.

2 Rhodes 2006 (cf. Rhodes 2007, 351) reiterating his views as expressed in 1993b. Cf. Rhodes with Lewis 1997, 51; also J. and L. Robert, Bull. Épig., 1983, 96-97.

3 Tracy 2003a, 14.

4 Henry 1984, 49 ff; 1988, 127 ff; 1989, 247 ff. with references to earlier literature.

5 Exceptionally one decree from the year of Polyeuktos (250/49) records the plural board of administration as paymaster (Dondas 1983 = SEG, 33, 115). This decree is discussed further below.

6 In both periods it should be noted that a few decrees are paid for by the stratiotic treasurer. See n. 9 and n. 19 below.

7 IG, II2, 707 = Osborne 1981-1983, D, 88, discussed further below, presents a classic case.

8 The dated examples are in chronological order the following:- IG, II2, 663 (286/5); 653 (285/4); 654 (285/4); 652 (ca. 285); 657 (283/2); Agora, XVI, 71 (283/2); Agora, XVI, 81 (282/1); Agora, XVI, 82 (281/0); IG, II2, 660, B (281/0); 672 (280/79–archon Telokles, (for whose date cf. Byrne 2006-2007); Agora, XV, 76 (279/8); Agora, XV, 84 (279/8); Ag. Inv., I, 7485 (unpublished) (276/5); Agora, XV, 78 (273/2); IG, II2, 676 (273/2); 689 (272/1); Agora, XVI, 87 (271/0); Shear 1978 = SEG, 28, 60 (270/69); IG, II2, 687 (269/8); 665 (266/5); 668 (ca. 266/5). To these on a conservative analysis may be added the following, all of which are assignable to the period on grounds other than the identity of the financial officer: Agora, XV, 66 (285/280); IG, II2, 723 (285/280); 725 (285/275); 710 (285/270); 711 (285/270); 690 (ca. 275); and possibly also Agora, XV, 86 (266/5); IG, II2, 713 (285/280). The status of IG, II2, 808 is disputable–see further n. 31 below.

9 IG, II2, 1534, A (274/3); 792 (274/3); Agora, XVI, 88 (271/0); IG, II2, 806 (ca. 274).

10 Cf. Plut., Mor., 851, D–F, embodying the later aitesis for honours for Demochares. According to this he went into exile ὑπὲρ δημοκρατίας and then μετεσχηκότι... οὐδεμίας ὀλιγαρχίας ... οὐδὲ ἀρχὴν οὐδεμίας ἠρχότι καταλελυκότος τοῦ δήμου. See also the decree for Kallias of Sphettos (SEG, 28, 60, 80 ff.) for similar sentiments.

11 Cf. Rhodes 1972, 107 ff.; 1993a, 515-516; Henry 1984, 52, n. 13.

12 IG, II2, 507 = Osborne 1982, D, 61. Cf. Osborne 1981-1983, II, 126 with n. 534.

13 IG, II2, 500 (Prytany VII).

14 IG, II2, 646 = Osborne 1981-1983, D, 68; 648 = Osborne 1981-1983, D, 69 (295/4).

15 IG, II2, 649 + SEG, 45,101 for Philippides of Paiania (293/2); Agora, XVI, 166 (ca. 293/2–restoring the anagrapheus in 5-6). Pace Henry 1984, 71, IG, II2, 1534 A, with the stratiotic treasurer as paymaster, does not belong in 291/0. Cf. Aleshire 1989, 206.

16 IG, II2, 663 = Osborne 1981-1983, D, 74 B–which is not to be taken as a second copy of IG, II2, 662 = Osborne 1981-1983, D, 74 A, as Sean Byrne will argue elsewhere.

17 I have been persuaded that this date is preferable to 261/0 (which figures in my earlier publications). A revised list of archons for the third century will appear soon as a further prolegomenon to the forthcoming fascicle of IG, II3.

18 In chronological order the decrees in question are: (dated) Diog. Laer., 7, 10-12 (262/1); Agora, XV, 89 twice (259/8); IG, II2, 682 (259/8); 700 (257/6); 768 (256/5); 780 (252/1); 791 (248/7); Agora, XVI, 214 (246/5); 766 + 750 (245/4); 775 + 803 (244/3); unpublished (239/8); Agora, XV, 100 (238/7); IG, II2, 787 (235/4); 788 (234/3); Agora, XV, 115 (234/3); (assigned–dates as in the forthcoming IG, II3) Agora, XV, 88 (260/255); SEG, 51, 91 (255/250); IG, II2, 735 + SEG, 53, 133 (255/250); IG, II2, 677 (ca. 250); SEG, 28, 63 (ca. 250); IG, II2, 928 (250/240); 706 (ca. 260/240); Agora, XVI, 200 (260/240); Agora, XVI, 220 (245/230); IG, II2, 708 (262/230); Agora, XV, 93 (262/230). For IG, II2, 707 see further below.

19 IG, II2, 845 (ca. 230; [τòν τα]μίαν); Agora, XVI, 201 (240/230); unpublished decree (238/7).

20 Cf. n. 5 above.

21 Henry 1984, 49 ff.; 1988, 130 ff.

22 Cf. Euseb., Chron., II, 120 (Schone–Berlin 1866) ’Αθηναίοις ’Αντίγονος τὴν ἐλευθερίαν ἔδωκεν – dated to 256/5 (Greek version); 255/4 (Armenian version). Cf. Habicht 1982, 16.

23 IG, II2, 780 (archon Kallimedes).

24 IG, II2, 791 (archon Diomedon).

25 It does appear to be the case that a brief secretarial sequence is attested for the period 251/0–249/8 (Thersilochos VI; Polyeuktos VII; Hieron VIII) followed by a period of observable confusion from 248/7 to at least 244/3 (Diomedon XII; Theophemos?; Philoneos VI; Kydenor VI; Eurykleides?); but it is not certain that this is part of a (new) cycle. Confusingly, the preserved pattern of secretaries from 260/59–253/2 could represent a cycle (Philostratos I or VI; Philinos II; Antiphon?; Thymochares?; Antimachos V; Kleomachos VI; Phanostratos?; Pheidostratos III, V or VIII) but there would be a break in 252/1 (Kallimedes IV).

26 After 228 both the single officer of administration and the plural board of administration are attested. Cf. Henry 1984, 81 ff.; 1989, 280 ff.

27 It should, of course, be kept in mind that the single officer of administration is not attested as a paymaster for a decree until 303/2 and that other officers paid during the “tyranny” of Lachares.

28 In this general regard the comment of John Morgan 1992–1998, 46 is pertinent: “Even if… there always was a plural board during the period of tight Macedonian control, the practice of mentioning only the single officer which was strongly prevalent between 262/1 and 229 is still significant and useful for dating purposes”.

29 Osborne 1981-1983, I, 22; II, 177; IV, 165-166.

30 For grants of enktesis in general cf. Pečírka 1966b; also Henry 1983, 204 ff. There are three decrees from the period 286–262 where the provision is lacking, viz. IG, II2, 651; 723; 725; four decrees from the period 262–228 where it is attested, viz. IG, II2, 706; 732; 768; 801; and in two further decrees from the period 262–228 the relevant portion of the text is not preserved. IG, II2, 810, which has the provision and which is the work of a cutter active in the period 280 to 240 (Tracy 2003, 84) has been dated to ca. 274 and, if this date is correct, it would mean that the provision for a scrutiny was introduced in the ‘democratic’ period. But the reason for dating this fragment to ca. 274 is the (relatively unusual) presence of the stratiotic treasurer as paymaster for the decree, as in a few other decrees of the mid 270s (for which see n. 9 above). But the force of this argument is much diminished by the evidence for the stratiotic treasurer as paymaster later (cf. n. 19 above). The first, indeed the only, precisely dated example where an award of enktesis is accompanied by a scrutiny is IG, II2, 768 of 256/5. This suggests that the scrutiny was a novelty introduced after 262.

31 The stimulus to assign the decree to the 280s was initiated by Burstein 1979, and it received a significant boost with the publication of an inscription from Kassandreia by Hatzopoulos 1988, 38-39, recording a royal donation to Bithys, son of Kleon and dating from 285/4. The potential difficulties in such a date, as opposed to one in the 230s, are set out in Osborne, 1981-1983, II, 172 ff. It becomes the only citizenship decree from the period 286 to 262 certainly to lack the provision for a scrutiny. (For IG, II2, 806 + Osborne 1981-1983, D, 48 see further below; in IG, II2, 712 = Osborne 1981-1983, D, 79 both the second vote and the scrutiny are not recorded, but the stone breaks before the end of the text and they could have followed).

32 Tracy 2003, 83.

33 The text is, of course, slightly anomalous in giving the formula as [ἐκ τῶν κατ]ὰ ψηφίσματα ἀναλισκομ[ένων τò ἀνάλωμα] rather than the regular ἐκ τῶν εἰς κατὰ ψηφίσματα ἀναλισκoμενων τò ἀνάλωμα –perhaps reflecting the unusualness of citing this account at such a date.

34 The two clear instances are IG, II2, 657 (283/2) and IG, II2, 672 (280/79–archon Telokles, for whose date see n. 8 above). IG, II2, 806, discussed further below, is another possible example, but the stratiotic treasurer is the paymaster; in Agora, XVI, 214 (archon Philoneos–246/5) the text is too heavily restored for certainty.

35 IG, II2, 713 presents a possible example. The fragment contains the lower part of a decree of the period 286–262 followed by a decree which simply begins Δημάδης Δημέου Παι[ανιεὺς εἶπεν]. It seems likely that the orator is to be identified as the politician of the later fourth century rather than as an (otherwise unattested) descendant.

36 IG, II2, 496 + 507 + Addendum, p. 661 = Osborne 1981-1983, D, 61.

37 References to this account are in any event sporadic in the third century.

38 The phrase τò γενóμενον ἀνάλωμα, which is recorded here, is not attested prior to 286/5, so that attribution to the late fourth century seems to be excluded.

39 Not absolutely impossible, given some other instances in the text, but surely unacceptable as an hypothesis designed to suit an editorial predilection as opposed to an epigraphical desideratum.

40 Again not utterly impossible, given the attribution of the decree for Bithys (IG, II2, 808 = Osborne 1981-1983, D, 87) to this period–but extremely unusual and thus unsuitable for a gratuitous hypothesis.

41 For the decree cf. SEG, 53, 133. For the cutter cf. Tracy 2003, 114, cf. 109-110.

42 Cf. Tracy 2003, 110, cf. 103.

43 See n. 9 above.

44 In Osborne 1981-1983, D, 48 I had attributed it to ca. 303/2 but, as Tracy has pointed out (2003, 103) this is too early for the working life of the cutter.

45 See n. 19 above.

46 Individual grants to foreigners are attested in the following decrees (dates as in the forthcoming volume of IG, II3):- IG, II2, 477 (260/59); 697 (259/8); 768 (256/5) 729 (256/5); 777 (252/1); 779 (251/0); 679 (250/49); Flacelière 1927 from Delphi (ca. 250); 774 (241/0 or 244/3–archon Lysiades); 747 (ca. 245); 670 (241/0 and 240/39); 823 (260/240); 706 (260/240); 562 (260/235); 610 = 826 (260/235); 857 (260/235); 732 (262/229). Block grants are recorded in the following: IG, II2, 769 (256/5); 778 (251/0); 550 (ca. 255/250); 693 (? ca. 230); 708 (262/230).

47 The following decrees grant citizenship:- IG, II2, 662 = Osborne 1981-1983, D, 74 A (286/5); 663 = D74 B (286/5); Agora, XVI, 173 = Osborne 1981-1983, D, 77 (ca. 286); IG, II2, 654 = Osborne 1981-1983, D, 76 (285/4); 652 = Osborne 1981-1983, D, 75 (ca. 285); 666/667 = Osborne 1981-1983, D, 78 A/B (266/5); 808 = Osborne 1981-1983, D, 87 (285/282–see n. 31 above); 710 = Osborne 1981-1983, D, 81 (285/270); 712 = Osborne 1981-1983, D, 79 (286/262); 717 = Osborne 1981-1983, D, 83 (286/262); 718 + 804 = Osborne 1981-1983, D, 80 (286/262); Agora, XVI, 178 = Osborne 1981-1983, D, 82 (286/262); IG, II2, 805 = Osborne 1981-1983, D, 84 (286/262); 721 = Osborne 1981-1983, D, 71 (286/262). Other honours for foreigners are attested in the following decrees:- IG, II2, 650 (286/5); 651 (286/5); 653 (285/4); 655 (285/4); 723 (285/280); 743 (285/280); 725 (285/275); 694 (285/270); 711 (285/270); 713 (285/280–see n. 35 above); Agora, XVI, 62 (285/270); IG II2 753 (285/280); 582 (286/262); 860 (286/262); 720 (286/262–possibly a citizenship grant, cf. Osborne 1982, PT 152). In a few of the foregoing, where the text is only preserved in part, it is likely that citizenship was granted (notably in IG, II2, 650 for Zenon, the commander of the Ptolemaic fleet); the honorand of IG, II2, 653, the Bosporan King Spartokos, was already in receipt of citizenship. Block grants are attested in IG, II2, 660 (281/0); 684 + 752 (276/5); and 695 (ca. 280).

48 For the grants see n. 47 above.

49 See n. 30 above.

50 Gauthier 1985, 83 ff.

51 IG, II2, 768 + 802 (256/5); 732 (262/228). IG, II2, 810 actually contains a mention of an aitesis and surely belongs in the period 262 to 239. Cf. n. 30 above.

52 Cf. Pečírka 1966b, 118 ff; Tracy 1990, 148 for the date. Hesperia 29 (1960) 19-20, no. 25 (= SEG, 19, 104) + Pečírka 1966b, 133-134 is almost entirely restored and must be regarded as doubtful.

53 In the case of sitesis, however, an aitesis is still attested, although there is no recorded instruction for the proedroi to delay the submission of the proposal to the Assembly. Cf. IG, II2, 832 = Osborne 1981-1983, D, 90 (228/7); SEG, 25, 112 (196/5); IG, II2, 937 + SEG, 24, 135.

Auteur

Centre for Classics and Archaeology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

© Ausonius Éditions, 2010

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