Αρχική σελίδα Greek Historical Inscriptions, 404-323 BC

Greek Historical Inscriptions, 404-323 BC

,
0 / 0
Πόσο σας άρεσε αυτό το βιβλίο;
Ποια είναι η ποιότητα του ληφθέντος αρχείου;
Κατεβάστε το βιβλίο για να αξιολογήσετε την ποιότητά του
Ποια είναι η ποιότητα των ληφθέντων αρχείων;
This volume is a successor to the second volume of M. N. Tod's Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions (OUP, 1948). It provides an up-to-date selection--with introduction, Greek texts, English translations, and commentaries which cater to the needs of today's students--of inscriptions which are important for the study of Greek history in the fourth century BC. The texts chosen illuminate not only the mainstream of Greek political and military history, but also institutional, social, economic, and religious life.
Κατηγορίες:
Έτος:
2004
Γλώσσα:
greek
Σελίδες:
632 / 627
ISBN 10:
0199216495
ISBN 13:
9780191518430
Αρχείο:
PDF, 29,19 MB

Ίσως σας ενδιαφέρει Powered by Rec2Me

 

Φράσεις κλειδιά

 
0 comments
 

To post a review, please sign in or sign up
Μπορείτε να αφήσετε σχόλιο για βιβλίο και να μοιραστείτε την εμπειρία σας. Άλλοι αναγνώστες θα ενδιαφέρονται να μάθουν τη γνώμη σας για τα βιβλία που διαβάσατε. Ανεξάρτητα από το αν σας άρεσε το βιβλίο ή όχι, εάν θα πείτε για αυτό ειλικρινά και λεπτομερώς, οι άνθρωποι θα μπορέσουν να βρουν για τον εαυτό τους νέα βιβλία που θα τους προκαλέσουν ενδιαφέρον.
1

Gerard Manley Hopkins and the Victorian Visual World

Έτος:
2008
Γλώσσα:
english
Αρχείο:
PDF, 3,23 MB
0 / 0
2

Seneca Falls and the Origins of the Women's Rights Movement (Pivotal Moments in American History)

Έτος:
2008
Γλώσσα:
english
Αρχείο:
PDF, 2,87 MB
0 / 0
GREEK
HISTORICAL
INSCRIPTIONS
404-323 BC

This page intentionally left blank

GREEK
HISTORICAL
INSCRIPTIONS
404-323 BG

Edited
with introduction, translations, and commentaries
by
P. J. R H O D E S

and
ROBIN OSBORN E

OXTORD
UNIVERSITY PRES S

OXFORD
UNIVERSITY PRES S

Great Clarendo n Street , Oxford 0x2 6DP
Oxford University Press is a department o f the Universit y of Oxford.
It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship ,
and educatio n by publishing worldwide in
Oxford Ne w York
Auckland Bangko k Bueno s Aires Gap e Town Ghenna i
Dar e s Salaam Delh i Hon g Kong Istanbu l Karach i Kolkat a
Kuala Lumpu r Madri d Melbourn e Mexic o City Mumba i Nairob i
Sao Paulo Shangha i Taipe i Toky o Toront o
Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press
in the UK an d i n certain other countries
Published in the United State s
by Oxford University Press Inc., New York
© P. J. Rhode s an d Robin Osborn e 200 3
The mora l rights of the authors have been asserted
Database righ t Oxford University Press (maker)
First published 2003
First published in paperback 200 7
All rights reserved. No par t of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, i n any form o r by any means ,
without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press,
or as expressly permitted by law, or under term s agreed with the appropriat e
reprographics right s organization. Enquiries concerning reproductio n
outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department ,
Oxford University Press, at the address abov e
You must not circulat e this book in any other binding o r cover
and you must impose this same condition o n any acquirer
British Library Cataloguing i n Publication Data
Data available
Library o f Congress Catalogin g i n Publication Data
Greek historical inscriptions: 404—323 Bc / edite d with introduction ,
translations, and commentaries by P. J. Rhode s an d Robin Osborne .
1. Inscriptions , Gree k 2 . Greece—History—Sparta n a; n d Theban
supremacies, 404-362 BC—Sources. 3 . Greece—History —
Macedonian Expansion , 359—32 3 BC—Sources.
I. Rhodes , P.J . (PeterJohn ) II . Osborne , Robin , 1957 CN365.074 2003 9
38'.06—dc2i 200204255
2
ISBN 978-0-19-815313-9 (Hbk.) 978-0-19-921649-9 (Pbk.)
1 3 5 7 9 1 0 8 6 42
Typeset b y Regent Typesetting , Londo n
Printed in Great Britai n
on acid-free pape r b y
Biddies Ltd., Guildfor d & King's Lynn

PREFACE
The firs t volum e of M. N . Tod's Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions (followin g earlier
selections by E. L. Hicks and G . F. Hill: published in 1933, second edition 1946) was
superseded b y th e volum e compile d b y Russel l Meiggs an d Davi d Lewi s in 196 9
(revised 1988). David Lewis had hoped to produce a volume to supersede Tod's second
volume (publishe d 1948) : h e firs t considere d in 197 7 what migh t b e included , an d
again in 1991-2 he consulted a number of colleagues includingboth o f us; but afte r he
had finishe d editin g Inscriptiones Graecae, 13, he saw work on the tablets from Persepolis
as his highest priority. After his death in 1994 Rhodes, as his literary executor, invited
Osborne t o join hi m i n perseverin g with th e project ; an d thi s volume, whic h w e
dedicate to the memory of David Lewis, is the result.
Our collectio n stands in the traditio n o f Tod an d o f Meiggs an d Lewi s in bein g
aimed primarily a t historians, and w e have retained Greek Historical Inscriptions a s ou r
title. There is , of course, a sens e i n which al l inscriptions are historica l documents,
but some make a greater contribution in their own right than others to the questions
which historians are interested in asking, and it is on inscriptions of that kind that we,
like ourpredecessors, have concentrated. We took as our starting-point Lewis' 1991—2
list o f candidates fo r inclusio n an d th e response s to i t o f ourselves and th e other s
whom he consulted, and we continued the process of consultation before settling on
the collectio n of texts assembled here. Significan t new texts have been foun d since
Tod's collection was published, an d there have been significant new fragments and
new interpretations of some which he included; beyond that , while adhering t o the
aim o f presenting texts which are important no t just as typical of their genre but i n
their own right, we have aimed to broaden the thematic range and to include a greater
selection ofmaterial from outsid e Athens. We hope that our collection will offer a way
in t o al l aspects of fourth-century history: political, institutional , social , economic,
and religious. We have therefore endeavoured to make our commentaries accessible
to those unfamiliar with the areas in question, and have translated all our texts. Since
inscribed stone s and bronze s are physical objects , whose nature an d appearanc e i s
important fo r their impact, we have included a number o f photographs.
All that Lewis found time to do towards this volume after his consultation of 1991-2
was to type into his computer a few texts and translations: we have studied these, but
for th e sak e of stylistic uniformity we have made ou r ow n translations of the texts in
question. More importantly, over many years he had compiled and circulated among
students and teachers of fourth-century Greek history in Oxford notes on significant
work concerning Tod's inscriptions subsequent to the publication o f his volume, and
texts of some additional fourth-century inscriptions; and these were invaluable t o us
when we embarked on our work.
One o f us accepted the primary responsibility for each of the texts included here:
attentive readers may detect different style s of thinking, and of writing, but eac h ofu s
has read and commented on all that the other has written, each ofus ha s responded

VI P R E F A C

E

constructively to the comments of the other, and we accept joint responsibility for this
book in its final form. Lik e Meiggs an d Lewis , 'we . . . compliment on e another , for
we have found a surprising measure of agreement and our few differences o f opinion
have never escalated'.
Beyond that, we have many thank s to express . At the institutiona l level, Rhodes
thanks the Universit y of Durham for research leave in 1998, when we were starting
work, and in 2001, when we were finishing our text; All Souls College, Oxford, for a
visiting fellowship in 1998; and Corpus Christi College, Oxford (which awarded him a
visiting fellowship in 1993), for continuing hospitality. Osborne thanks Corpus Christi
College, Oxford, where he was Tutorial Fellow in Ancient History when this work
was done ; an d th e Britis h Academy, for a Research Readershi p i n 1999—2001 . W e
both thank the staff " of the Bodleian Library and the Ashmolean —* Sackler Library in
Oxford for providing almost all the publications which we needed to consult. Though
neither of us is now based in Oxford, almost all of this book was written there.
We shoul d like to thank a great many individuals , but the y are not to be blame d
for what we have done in response to their advice. Our lis t must begin with Dr S. D.
Lambert, who has been exceptionally generous with his time and expertise , and his
colleagues Dr A. P. Matthaiou an d Dr G. J. Oliver, who are re-editing fourth-century
Athenian decree s for th e first phase o f a thir d editio n o f Inscriptiones Graecae, II, and
who generously checked readings, scrutinized our drafts, and showe d us their drafts .
Others wh o have helpe d us include M r D. J. Blackman ; Dr H. Bowden ; Professo r
J. Buckler ; Professor J. McK . Camp ; Professor A . Chaniotis; Mr G . T. Cockburn ;
Dr C . V. Crowther , o f the Centr e for the Stud y of Ancient Document s in Oxford ;
Dr B . Currie; Professo r P . D. A . Garnsey; Professo r P . Gauthier ; D r K . Hallof , of
Inscriptiones Graecae in Berlin; Dr M. H. Hansen; Professo r P. Hellstrom; Dr H. King;
Mrs E . Matthews, of the Lexicon o f Greek Personal Names; Professo r A. Morpurgo Davies;
Mr N. Papazarkadas; Professo r R . C. T. Parker; Miss J. M. Reynolds; Dr I. Ruffell ;
DrM. Sayar ; Professor A. C. Scafuro; Professor S . Scullion; DrJ. Shear ; Professor R .
S. Stroud; Professor D. Whitehead; Dr G. M. Williamson; and Dr P. J. Wilson.
We ar e indebte d t o thos e wh o hav e supplie d an d allowe d u s t o reproduc e
photographs an d a line drawing , wh o ar e indicate d i n th e lis t o f illustrations. We
thank M r J. W . Robert s an d th e LACTO R Committe e fo r permission t o reuse
material fro m Rhodes' s LACTO R volume , Greek Historical Inscriptions, 359-323 BC.
And we are grateful to the Oxford University Press for publishing this successor to its
distinguished predecessors, and t o the staff " of the Press and th e printers for the car e
which they have devoted to our book.
Durham P.J.R
Cambridge R.G.O
December 2001

.
.

Changes in the 2007 paperback editio n are limited to the correction of errors. We are
again particularly gratefu l to Dr S. D. Lambert.
P.J.R.
R.G.O.

CONTENTS
(Numbers in parentheses are those of Tod's edition)
Illustrations
References
Introduction
Map 1
Th e Gree k world xxvii
1
Map 2 Greec
e and the Aegean xxi
Map 3 Attic
a xx
w of the phratry o f the Labyadai a t Delphi, fifth/fourt h
century 2
2 (97 ) Athen
s honours loyal Samians, 403/2 1
3(99) Spart
a liberates Delos, 403 or shortly after 1
4 (1 oo) Reward s for men wh o ha d fough t for democracy a t
Athens, 401/0 2
5 Athenia
n phratry decree s from Decelea , 396/5 and afte r 2
6 (101 ) Allianc e between Boeotia and Athens, 395 3
7(104/5) Athenia n casualtie s in the Corinthian War , 39 4 4
8 (106 ) Erythra e honour s Gonon, 394 4
9(107) Rebuildin
g o f Piraeus walls, 394-391 4
10 (108 ) Athen s honours Dionysius of Syracuse, 394/3 4
11 (109 ) Athen s honours Evagoras o f Salamis, 394/3 5
12 (in ) Allianc
e between Amyntas III of Macedon an d th e
Ghalcidians, 3905—3805 5
13DedicatonsfhLyian dynast Arbinas,c.390—£.38058
14 Helisso
n becomes a kome of Mantinea, earl y fourth century 6
15 Grant
s o f citizenship by the Triphylians,c.400—£.37066
16(113) Arbitratio
n betwee n Miletus and Myus, 391-388 7
17 Athenia
n decre e for Erythrae, shortl y before 386 7
18 (114 ) Athen s honours Glazomenae, 387/6 7
19 (116 ) Athen s honours Phanocritus o f Parium, 38 6 8
20 (118 ) Allianc e between Athens and Chios , 384/3 8
21 (139 ) Athen s honours Strato o f Sidon, c.378—£.376 (?) 8
22(123) Prospectu
s of the Second Athenian League , 378/7 9
23 (122 ) Methymnajoin s th e Second Athenian League , 378/7 10
24 (126 ) Gorcyra , Acarnania, an d Gephalleniajoin th e Secon d
Athenian League , 375/4 10
25 Athenia
n law on approvers o f silver coinage ,375/4 11
26 Athenia
n law taxing Lemnos, Imbros, and Scyros , 374/3 11

xi
xii
xiii

i
x
x

1 La

2
8
0
6
8
0
4
6
8
0
4
58
2
66
0
4
6
0
2
6
2
6

8
2
8

viii C O N T E N T

S

27 Cul
t of Amphiaraus, Oropus , 386-374 12
8
28 (125 ) Account s of the Athenian Amphictyons of Delos, 377—373 13
4
29 Paro
s and the Second Athenian League, 372 14
6
30 (130 ) A Theban monument afte r Leuctra, 371 15
0
31 (131 ) Athenia n decrees for Mytilene, 369/8 and 368/7 15
2
32 (132 ) Th e Arcadia n federation honours an Athenian, 369—367 15
6
33 (133 ) Athen s begins negotiations with Dionysius of Syracuse, 369/8 16
0
34 (136 ) Allianc e between Athens and Dionysius of Syracuse, 368/7 16
4
35 ( :37) A n Athenian protest to the Aetolian League, 367/6 16
8
36 Sale
s of public property at Athens, 367/6 17
2
37 Decre
e of the Athenian genos of the Salaminioi , 363/2 18
2
38 (143 ) Athen s honours Menelaus the Pelagonian, 363/2 19
2
39 (142 ) Athenia n arrangements for lulis, 363/2 19
6
40(162) Athenia n regulation of Gean ruddle export, mid fourth century 20
4
41 (144 ) Allianc e between Athens, Arcadia, Achaea, Elis, and
Phlius, 362/1 21
0
42(145) Gree
k response to the Satraps' Revolt, 362/1 21
4
216
43 Th
e Boeotians honour a Carthaginian,360S-350S216
44(147) Allianc
e between Athens and the Thessalian Aomon , 361/0 21
8
45 (140 ) Contribution s to the rebuilding of the temple at Delphi, 361/0 22
4
46 Athenia
n derne decree from Halai Aixonides,c.360230
230
47(151) Treat
y between Athens and Thracian kings, 357 23
4
48(153) Allianc
e between Athens and Carystus, 357/6 23
8
49 (150 ) Opponent s o f Philip II of Macedon expelle d from
Amphipolis, 357/6 24
2
50(158) Allianc e between Philip II and the Chalcidians, 357/6 24
4
51 (152 ) Arcesin e honours Androtion, 357/6 (?) 24
8
52 (156 ) Athenia n precautions for Andros, 357/15 25
2
53 ( :57) Allianc e between Athens and Thracian, Paeonian, and Illyrian
kings, 356/5 25
4
54 (138) Plot s against Mausolus of Caria, 367/6—355/4 25
8
55 Mausolu
s and Artemisia award proxeny to Cnossus, mid 350S (?) 26 2
56 ( I55) Erythra e honours Mausolus, mid 350S (?) 26
4
57 (160 ) Contribution s to the Boeotians for the Third Sacred War ,
C-354-C-352

268

58 Athens
, Delphi, and the Sacre d Orgas, 352/1 272
59 Leas
e of sacred land from Arcesine, Amorgus, mid fourth century 28
60 Publi
c buildings at Tegea, fourt h century 28
61 Introductio
n of members to a phratry (?) , Tenos, fourth century 29
62 Religiou
s calendar, Cos, mid fourth century 29
63 Athenia
n deme decree from (? ) Hagnous, third quarter of
fourth century 31
64 (167 ) Athen s honours Spartocus and his brothers, of the Cimmeria n
Bosporus, 347/6 31

2
6
6
8
2
8

CONTENTS

IX

65(171) Dedication
s in the Cimmerian Bosporus, C.344/3-C.311i/o 32
4
66 (169 ) Account s of the Delphian Naopoioi, 345/4—343/2 32
8
67(172) Payment
s of Phocian reparations to Delphi, 343/2—341/0 33
6
68 (165 ) Allianc e between Erythrae and Hermias of Atarneus, c.350—c.34 2 34 2
69 (154 ) Athenia n penalties for attacks on Eretria, 343 (?) 34
6
7° (173 ) Athen s grants asylum to Arybbas the Molossian, 343/2 34
8
71 (174 ) Athen s honours Elaeus, 341/0 35
4
72 (175 ) Athen s honours Tenedos, 340/39 35
8
362
73 Regulation
s for the Artemisia, Eretria,c.340362
74 Commemoratio
n at Corinth of victory in Sicily, £.340 36
8
75 (164 ) Oropu s honours Macedonians, 338—335 37
0
76 (177 ) Commo n Peace and League of Corinth, 338/7 37
2
77 (178 ) Athen s honours loyal Acarnanians, 338/7 38
0
78 Trilingua
l inscription of Pixodarus from Xanthus, 337 38
4
79 Athenia
n law threatening the Areopagus in the event of a plot
against the democracy, 337/6 38
8
80 (187 ) The Delphi c Amphictyony honours Aristotle and Callisthenes,
337-327

81 Athenia
n law and decree on Little Panathenaea,c.335396
82 (179 ) Argo s arbitrates bewteen Melos and Cimolus , after 336 (?) 40
83(191) Th
e kings of Macedon and tyrants at Eresus, 336 and afte r 40
84 (192 ) Alexande r the Grea t and Chios , 334 41
85(201) Reconciliatio
n in Mytilene, 334 and afte r 42
86(184/5) Alexande r the Great and Priene, 334 and after 43
87 Regulation
s of the Klytidai, Chios,330S434
88 (204 ) Th e Athenian ephebic oath and the 'oath of Plataea', mid fourth
century 44
89 Honour
s for Athenian ephebes, 332 44
90 (190 ) lasu s and Samo s honour Gorgus and Minnion, 334—321 45
91 (189 ) Athen s allows Citian merchants to acquire land for a sanctuary,
333/2
92 Honour
s at Delphi for Archon of Pella, 333/2 and afte r 46
93 ( I95) Relation s between Olbia and Miletus , C.330 (?) 47
94(198) Athen s honours Eudemus of Plataea, 330/29 47
95 Athen
s honours Heraclides of Salamis, 330/29 and 325/4 47
96 (196 ) Cor n from Gyrene , £.330—£.326 48
97 Sacre
d law from Gyrene , late fourth century 49
98 (199 ) Athen s honours Memnon of Rhodes, 327/6 50
99 Assembl
y pay at lasus, afterC.330508
100 (200 ) Athenia n naval list with decree for a colony in the
Adriatic, 325/4 51
101 (202 ) Restoratio n of exiles at Tegea, 324/3 52
102 Act
s of healing, Asclepieum, Epidaurus,C.320532

392
396

2
6
8
4
0
434

0
8
6
462
6
0
4
8
6
4
6
508

2
6
532

X CONTENT

S

Athenian archons, 403/2-323/2 54
Concordance of standard editions 54
Bibliography 54

3
4
7

Index I Persons
Index I I Subjects
Index II I Significant

1
0

and places 56
58
Greek words

594
594

ILLUSTRATIONS
PLATES

1. 2 B y courtesy of the Acropolis Museum, Athens
2. 1 o B y courtesy of the Epigraphical Museum, Athens
3. 2 2 B y courtesy of the Epigraphical Museum, Athens
4. 5 4 Photograp h by M. Ghuzeville: by courtesy of the Musee du Louvre, Pari s
5. 7 0 a uppe r part by courtesy of the National Archaeological Museum , Athens;
b lowe r part by courtesy of the Epigraphical Museum, Athens
6. 7 8 B y courtesy of Katherine Eltringha m
7. 7 9 B y courtesy of the American Schoo l of Classical Studies at Athens: Agora
Excavations
8. 8 8 B y courtesy of the Ecole Francaise d'Athene s
9 (or-b) 96/ 7 (same stone) B y courtesy of Catherine Dobias-Lalo u

FIGURES

1. 6 6 C

. Delpkes, ii 34 = No. 6 6 in its physical contex t
(based on Corpus de s Inscriptions d e Delphes, ii, p. 6 4 fig. A,

by courtesy of the Ecole Francaise d'Athenes ) 33
2. 9 6 Communitie s an d individuals receiving grain from Gyren e 49

5
1

REFERENCES
A N C I E N T TEXT S

Most abbreviations shoul d cause no difficulty; but the following should be noticed:
Ar. Aristophane
Arist. Aristotl
Ath. Pol. [Aristotle]

e

s
, Athenaion Politeia

Where there is a choice between numbering systems , we use the following:
Aristotle, Politics book s in manuscript orde r (as in Oxford Text); then, not chapter s
and sections, but Berlin pages
Pausanias section
s within chapter s a s in M . H . Rocha-Pereira' s Teubne r
text
Plutarch, Lives section
s within chapters as in Teubner and Bude texts
Strabo Gasaubon'
s page s followe d b y book , chapter , an d sectio n
numbers

MODERN WORK S

Numerals in bold type refer to the numbered item s in this book.
Articles in periodicals ar e cite d in sufficien t detai l for identification in the cours e
of the book. In general we use the abbreviations ofL'Anneepkilologique, wit h the usual
English divergence s (AJP fo r AJPh, etc.; also BSA fo r ABSA); bu t th e publication s o f
continental academie s ar e abbreviate d a s Abh. Berlin, Sb . Leipzig, etc . (cf. Ann.Pisa o
the Scuol a Normal e Superiore) , th e Mitteilungen de s Deutschen Archaologischen Institute,
Athenische Abteilung, a s AM, an d th e title s o f Greek-languag e periodical s ar e give n
(abbreviated or in full) in the Greek alphabet .
Collections of inscriptions which we cite are listed in section i of the Bibliography ,
and othe r book s whic h w e cit e ar e liste d i n sectio n 2 , an d excep t wher e w e us e
shortened titles of a kind which will cause no difficulty we indicate in the Bibliograph y
the abbreviations whic h we use.

INTRODUCTION
I
Nowadays inscriptions on ston e or metal are used in two main contexts : on public
buildings (t o announce th e identit y o f the building , o r t o recor d th e layin g o f the
foundation ston e or th e forma l openin g o f the building) , an d o n tombstones , war
memorials, lists of officials o r benefactors and the like. In the ancien t world, with no
printing or duplicating, o r other modern mean s of communication, inscriptio n was
used not only for these purposes but fo r many others as well. Public announcements
could not be made in the newspapers or delivered to individual members of the public:
either a proclamation ha d to be made at a meeting attended by large numbers of the
citizens, or a text would be set up i n the centre of the cit y in the hope that members
of the publi c woul d com e an d rea d it . Temporary notices—lists of candidates for
office, proposals for new legislation and so on—were written on whitewashed boards,
and hav e no t survive d for us t o read ; fo r permanent publicatio n bronz e o r wood
was sometime s used, but th e norma l mediu m wa s stone . For example , text s of a
city's religious calendars, of its laws and decrees , and o f its alliances with other cities;
schedules ofwork on apublicbuildingproject, an d accounts ofpublic expenditure on
the project; inventories of precious objects in the templ e treasuries or of ships in the
dockyards; epigrams commemorating a famous victory; honours voted to a native or
foreign benefactor; lists of office-holders an d benefactors—all these and comparabl e
documents might be inscribed on stone for members of the public to see. However, by
far th e largest number o f inscriptions are texts set up by private individuals—mostly
dedications an d funerar y monuments—and thes e no les s tha n publi c inscription s
provide informatio n o f importanc e fo r historian s (fo r private inscription s i n ou r
collection see 7, 30, 65 , 92).
We hav e deliberatel y use d th e ver b 'see ' rather tha n 'read' . Thoug h i n theory
the purpos e o f a published tex t is that i t should be availabl e t o be read , som e texts
were published in such a way that they were not eas y to read, an d the purpose o f a
lengthy inventory of items received by one board of treasurers from it s predecessors
and transmitted to its successors may have been to serve as a symbolic demonstration
that th e board had don e it s duty as much a s to furnis h materia l fo r an investigator
who wante d t o chec k that non e o f the item s had disappeared . Nevertheless , some
other text s were laid ou t i n ways designed t o ai d intelligibilit y (e.g . 45, wher e th e
lines containin g th e tota l fo r th e yea r projec t beyond th e left-han d margin o f the
column); and we think it would be a mistake to make too much of the symbolic aspect
of inscription and too little of the notion that texts were published so that they could
be read. 1 Expressions such as 'Write up .. . s o that al l other men als o may know . . .'
1
On the symboli c aspect s of publication see , e.g., J. K. Davie s and D. Harri s in Ritual, Finance, Politics . . .
D. Lewis, 201—12 and 213—25 ; on thi s and o n other aspects of publication se e Rhodes, G&R 2 xlviii 2001, 33—44,

I36-53-

xiv I N T R O D U C T I O

N

(OTTOJS (i v ovv Ka l ot aAAo t aTravre s elSa>ai . . . dvaypai/icu: e.g. IGif223 = SIG3227,
A. 13—16 ) are strictly compatible wit h either function .
Very large blocks of stone were sometimes used for extensive documents or series
of documents (in this collection, 2 2 measures about 1.9 3 x 0.4 5 x o.14in . = 6' 4" x
1' 6" x ^Vi", 64 measures about 2.1 7 x 0.5 5 x 0.1 6 m. = 7'1" x 1' 10" x G'/i") , but
Greek inscriptions were not necessaril y 'monumental'. Ver y ofte n th e stele would be
a slab of stone no larger than a modern tombston e (71 measures 0.5 x 0.3 x o.c>5 m =
1' 8" x 1' x 2", 77 0.54 x 0.43 x o.o8m. = 1' 9" x 1 5" x 3'1/4"), and both on these and
on the large r stelm the tex t was usually inscribed i n letters 0.005—0.01 m. = 0.2—0.4 "
high.2 Document s emanatin g fro m th e publi c authoritie s were normally publishe d
at public expense ; but sometime s a man who had been honoured woul d himself pay
for th e publicatio n o f his honours, an d se e on 3 5 fo r th e suggestio n that tha t tex t
of ephemeral significanc e was published b y the Eleusinian officials . Publicatio n wa s
not cheap. I n Athens in the fourth century it became commo n t o specify in advanc e
how muc h th e stat e would spen d o n th e stele: 22 , a large ston e (cf. above), cost 60
drachmas; 3 0 drachmas wer e allowed for the eve n larger 6 4 (cf . above) and fo r th e
elaborate 7 0 (but see commentary), and als o for the small 77 (cf. above); surprisingly,
only 20 drachmas were allowed for two copies of 79, though the stone containing ou r
surviving copy measures about 1.5 7 x 0.4 2 x o.i i m = 5' 2" x1' 5 " x 41/4" and ha s
the top a sculptured relief. The stele would be set up in a public place, commonly th e
acropolis (the rocky citadel) or the agora (the main square) of the city. Sometimes texts
would be inscribed not on a separate stelebut, e.g., on a building: 86 comprises the first
two of a series of texts inscribed on a temple at Priene, in Asia Minor .
Although ther e ha d bee n earlie r attempt s o n a smal l scale , th e vie w tha t fo r
Athens, with it s unusually larg e bod y o f texts, i t shoul d b e possibl e t o identif y th e
work of particular stone-cutter s from their particular idiosyncrasie s was first seriously
advanced b y S . Dow, and ha s been followe d up mos t thoroughl y b y S . V. Tracy .
In Athenian Democracy i n Transition h e seek s t o identif y cutter s whose activit y fall s a t
least partly withi n th e perio d 340—290 , an d o f the text s in our collectio n h e assigns
31, 34 , 4 1 (on e cutter), 72, 8 1 (on e cutter), 91, an d 10 0 to cutters . Identifications
cannot alway s be certain , an d Trac y himsel f remarks tha t i n thi s period 'man y o f
these cutter s inscribed letter s which ar e ver y much alike ' (p . 2). He claim s t o hav e
been conservative in his assignments (ibid.); some might stil l be challenged;3 but he has
pursued investigations of this kind more thoroughly an d systematically than anybod y
else, and only a scholar who had been equall y thorough an d systemati c could rejec t
his assignments with confidence.
Sometimesmore than one copy ofatextwouldbepublished—an alliance , naturally,
would be published i n each o f the citie s participating; 6 9 was published i n two (or,
2 Exceptionally, 7 . B, a grav e stone , ha s letter s 0.04 m. — 11/2"high; 86 . A. o n a templ e wall , ha s letter s
0.052-0.057 m. = 2—aV'a " high. Some epigraphists use the Gree k stek as the technical term for a comparativel y
thin slab and cipps (the Lati n term for a marker, particularly of a grave or a boundary) as the technical term for
a block which is more nearl y square i n cross-section, but th e words were not used in antiquity in accordanc e
with that distinction.
3 Gf . th e revie w of Athenian Democracy in Transition^ M . B . Walbank, Phoen. li 1997, 79—81.

INTRODUCTION X

V

as restored by some editors, three) places within Athens, and 7 9 in two places within
Athens; the dossier ^o was published in Athens, and the decrees of the in dividual Gean
cities were published in the city in question—and where more than one copy of a text
has been found it has become apparen t that the Greek s lacked our notion o f wordfor-word accuracy : instea d they seem to hav e ha d th e potentially dangerou s belief
that, as long as the sense was correctly recorded, small differences i n wording did not
matter. In spite of that, however, it was the inscribed text rather than the original text
in the archive s which was in some sense the officia l tex t of a public document : thus
the Thirty in Athens in 404 'took down from the Areopagus' the laws of Ephialtes and
Archestratus (Ath. Pol. 35. ii), an d i n the prospectu s of the Secon d Athenian Leagu e
Athens undertakes that if for cities which join 'ther e happen to be unfavourable stelai
at Athens, the council currently in office shall have power to demolish them' (22.31—5 ;
cf- 39- 3:-3)-4
Some stelai hav e survive d intact—unbroke n an d completel y legible . Fa r mor e
often, however , only part o f the origina l stele survives, some letters even on the part
that does survive are hard or impossible to read, and modern scholar s have had to do
their best to reconstruct the text . Where onl y a few letters on the edge s of a stele are
missing, restoration is easy, often inevitable; where large parts of the text are illegible
and/or missing, reconstruction is far more difficult. If the historical context to which a
document belongs can be identified, this may provide clues as to what the lost parts of
the text should have contained. If a piece of standardized documentary language ca n
be recognized, this can be reconstructedby comparison with other documents (though
the Greeks could not retrieve a standard clause from a data-base, and variations tend
to be found even within 'standard' formulai c expressions: compare, fo r instance, the
different form s o f the Athenia n probouleumati c formul a in 24 , 31, 33 , 38 , 9 5 §§iv ,
v). If two or three lines can be reliably restored, the approximate lengt h of the lines is
fixed, and this limits the possibilities of restoration in the rest of the document. In this
period most Athenian decrees , and som e decrees of other states , were inscribed in a
style known as stowhedon (a genuine Greek word, though not used of inscriptions in any
ancient text) , with the letters regularly space d o n a grid, precisely the sam e numbe r
of letters in each line, and little or no punctuation: this, though it made the stelai more
attractive a s monuments, canno t hav e mad e fo r easy reading, bu t fo r us it has th e
advantage tha t very often a formulaic expression can be found which allows enough
reconstruction at one point to reveal the exact number o f letters to be restored in each
line. With a few exceptions, where a text is fragmentary but o f sufficient importanc e
to deserve inclusion, we have limited ourselves in this collection to inscriptions where
a substantial stretch of continuous text survives or can be reconstructed.
Beyond that, we have tried to choose texts which are both important i n themselves
and give an indication of the range available; and readers whose interests are thematic
can use our texts and commentarie s to study not onl y the main narrative threa d o f
fourth-century histor y but suc h matters a s political institution s and administrativ e
organization; religiou s cult s an d religiou s financing ; coinage , buildin g fund s an d
4

Gf . Rhodes with Lewis, 3— 4 with n. 4.

Xvi I N T R O D U C T I O

N

regulations, trade agreements, and other economic matters. Geographically, w e have
material from Athens and other states of the Greekmainland, from the Aegean islands,
from Macedon , Thrace , an d th e Cimmeria n Bosporus , from wester n Asia Minor,
and from Gyren e (and among the Athenian texts we have one concerned with Sidon,
in Phoenicia)—but not from the Greek states of Italy and Sicily, which produced very
few inscription s a t an y date , though w e include som e texts from mainlan d Greec e
concerned wit h Sicily . Man y o f our document s ar e inter-stat e treaties, or law s o r
decrees o f single state s (especiall y Athens, which i n th e fift h an d fourt h centuries
inscribed public documents on a much larger scale than other states). However, our
material include s texts from bodie s within a state (denies, 46, 63; gentilicial groups ,
1, 5, 37, 61, 87; a contingent of ephebes, 89, cf. Athens' ephebic oath, 88) as well as
from th e stat e itself; from Athens we have documents issued by the poletm (36) and b y
the epistatm o f the dockyard s (100); from Athen s and fro m elsewher e we have suc h
items as commemorations of men who died in war (7 , 30; cf. a celebration of victory,
74); religious regulations of various kinds (1, 62, 73, 81 , 97 ; cf. 37, 63 , 87); accounts
of sacred treasurers (28), financial records of different kind s (28, 45 , 60 , 66 , 67 ; cf.
1 oo); a lease of sacred land (59); a record of donations of grain (96); accounts of people
cured of diseases at Epidaurus' sanctuar y of Asclepius (102).

II

Since many of our texts are public documents of the Athenian state , and sinc e other
Greek states had constitutions which, whether democratic or oligarchic, were similar
in thei r genera l patter n thoug h differen t i n thei r detai l an d thei r balance , som e
information o n the mechanics of the fourth-century Athenian constitutio n will help
to make the texts intelligible.
Since the reforms of Gleisthenes (508/7) the citizens of Athens had been organized
in tenpkylai ('tribes') . In what for some purposes was an official order , these were:
I Erechthei s V
II Aegei s VI
III Pandioni s VII
IV Leonti s I
V Acamanti s X

I Oenei s
I Gecropi s
I Hippothonti s
X Aianti s
Antiochi s

Each tribe consisted of three tnttyes ('thirds'), in different parts of Attica; and the tnttyes
consisted of one ormore demoi ('denies': local units), of which there were 139 altogether.
To be a citizen of Athens a man had to belong to a deme and to the tnttys and the tribe
of which that deme formed a part (membership of these units was hereditary, and by
the fourth century not all Athenians lived in the deme in which they were registered).
Denies and tribes, though perhaps not tnttyes, acted as independent decision-makin g
bodies, and sometime s published their decrees (bodies outside this structure, such as
phratries, made and published their decisions in the same way: 5, 37, 46, 63). Beyond
that, a good deal of Athens' governmental machinery was based on this structure.

I N T R O D U C T I O N Xvi

i

The bod y wit h th e ultimat e righ t o f decisio n i n mos t matter s wa s th e ekklesia
('assembly'), open to all full (i.e. adult male) citizens, which had fort y regular meetings
a year and could probably have extraordinary meetings in addition (see on 64 and, for
the ekklesia kjina, 98) : for certain categories of business, affecting a named individual, a
quorum o f 6,000 was required. Since there are limits to what can be done by a large
body meeting infrequently, day-to-day affairs were in the hands of the boule ('council')
of five hundred. This body comprised fifty members from eac h tribe; within the tribe
seats were allocated t o denie s approximately i n proportion t o thei r size , s o that i n
the fourth century several small denies had on e member eac h but the largest deme,
Acharnae, ha d twenty-two . Appointment wa s made by lot from thos e who stoo d as
candidates; service was for one year at a time, and no man coul d serve for more than
two years in his life. Withi n th e council , the fifty members fro m eac h trib e i n tur n
served a s the prytaneis ('prytany' : standing committee) for a tenth o f the year , i n a n
order fixed by lot; all business went to them in the first instance; each day one of their
members was chosen , again by lot, to be epistates ('chairman') , and fo r twenty-four
hours he and som e of his colleagues were permanently o n duty. In th e fifth century
one of the duties of the prytany and its chairman had been to preside at meetings of the
council and assembly. By the beginning of the 3705 they had been relieved of this duty,
and meetings were instead presided over by a board ofproedroi—nine member s of the
council, one from eac h tribe except the current prytany, and one of them designated
epistates, picked by lot for one day (for the change se e on 22).
In the fourt h century most decisions of the Athenian stat e (but not all: see below)
were embodie d i n zpsephisma ('decree' ) of the assembly . Every matter o n which th e
assembly was to make up it s mind was first discussed by the council, which drew up
the assembly' s agenda (i f a new matter was first raised in the assembly , it would be
referred to the council, with instructions to bring the matter back to a later assembly:
e.g. 69) . O n eac h matte r whic h i t sen t forward to th e assembl y the counci l issued
its probouleuma ('preliminar y deliberation') . Sometime s th e probouleuma containe d a
positive recommendation, which the assembly might if it chose accept as it stood (e.g.
24, which contains a version of the 'probouleumati c formula' : 'bring them forward
to the people, an d contribut e th e opinio n o f the counci l tha t th e counci l resolves') ;
on othe r occasions the counci l put a question to the assembl y without making an y
recommendation of its own (as in 91, where we have first the probouleuma—'contribute
the opinio n o f the counci l t o th e peopl e tha t th e counci l resolve s that th e peopl e
shall listen . . . and deliberat e a s they think best'—and the n the resultan t decree of
the assembly) ; sometimes the counci l made it s own recommendation u p t o a point
but lef t certai n detail s open (e.g. 2. 49-50, 60-1. The probouleuma was read ou t at the
beginning o f the debat e in the assembly ; then—whether it had containe d a positive
recommendation o r not—member s wer e fre e t o propos e alternativ e motions , t o
propose amendment s t o a motio n alread y befor e the assembl y (if an amendmen t
was carried , i t wa s publishe d afte r th e origina l motio n whic h i t modified , an d
sometimes but no t always the text of the origina l motion was modified in the light of
the amendment (see , e.g., on 2), or to amend a motion by taking it over and rewriting
it (usually this can be reliably detected only in the rare cases where the original motion

Xviii I N T R O D U C T I O

N

has been published with the final version, e.g. 95, but se e also on 41, 64). When th e
assembly approved a recommendation o f the council, in a 'probouleumatic decree' ,
from the beginning o f the 370 5 the council's probouleumatic formula was often left in
the published version of the text (the earliest example in our collection is 24); and th e
Athenians also continuedusingthe fifth-century enactment formula which mentioned
the council. In 'non-probouleumati c decrees' , when the assembly did not approve a
recommendation o f the council (either because the council made a recommendation
which i t rejected or because the counci l made n o recommendation ) the Athenians
in the fourt h century took to using enactment an d motio n formula e which di d not
mention the council (cf. below, pp. xix—xx , and Rhodes , Boule, 66—78).
The alternativ e to a decree of the assembl y in fourth-century Athens was a nomos
('law'). At the end of the fifth century the accumulation o f nearly two hundred years'
decrees since the codification of the law by Solon (594/3) had produced a great deal of
confusion, an d an attempt was then made to assemble all currently valid enactments
in an organized code oflaws. Thereafter, in principle, matters which were permanent
and o f general applicatio n wer e to be deal t with by laws while matters which were
ephemeral and/o r o f particular applicatio n were , a s before , t o b e deal t wit h b y
decrees, and decrees were to rank below laws in importance an d validity. There are
uncertainties about the application o f the principle an d the working of the new lawmakingprocedure (nomothesia]. A revised code oflaws was completed in 400/399.5 Any
subsequent enactment which would change o r add to that cod e oflaws should itself
have taken the form of a law; the procedure for enacting new laws was set in motion by
the assembly but the final decision lay not with the assembly but with a special board
ofnomotheku ('law-enacters') ; references in speeches of the fourth century suggest that
the procedure shoul d have resembled that o f a law-court, with the nomothetm sitting
in judgment o n th e riva l merit s o f the curren t la w and th e ne w proposal; bu t th e
surviving texts oflaws (in our collection 25,26,79,81.^!) have introductory material
which matches that o f decrees as closely as possible (the proedroi and thei r chairma n
in 79 are proedroi of the board ofnomothetat). 6 I n practice, although this new procedure
seems except in occasional crises to have been used on those occasions when it ought
to have been used—with the proviso that, because there were no such matters in the
new code oflaws, all decisions in the area of foreign policy, even on treaties intended
to last for all time, were embodied in decrees—the record of surviving texts suggests
that it was not used very often (on e matter for which it was used was modification of
the annua l budget , on which se e below). It presumably conferre d extra importanc e
and solemnit y on a n enactment ; but i t was more cumbersom e tha n th e procedur e
for makin g decrees, and th e Athenians continued to take most of their decisions by
decree.7
5 Se e Rhodes, JHSc'ix 1991 , 87—100, and othe r works cited there .
6 O n nmwthetai, juries, and assemblie s se e Rhodes, C( P liii 2003, 124—9.
7
O n th e distinctio n betwee n law s an d decree s se e M . H . Hansen , GRBS xix 1978 , 315—30 , x x 197 9 27
53 = Eccksia {/), 161—76(—7) , 179—2O5(—6) , believin g tha t th e Athenian s adhered to th e principle ; Rhodes , i n
L' educazione giuidica, V. ii. 5—26 at 14—15 , suggesting that a law was needed to change the cod e oflaws . For a list
of inscribed laws see Stroud, Th e Athenian Grain-Tax Law, 15—16, to which S. D. Lambert, ZPEcxxxv 2001, 51—62

I N T R O D U C T I O N XI

X

By the fourth century the layout of an Athenian decree or law had become more or
less standardized. Not ever y text contains every possible element, but i n a complete
text we should find the following:8
(i) Th e stele is ofte n surmounte d b y a pedimen t o r a horizonta l moulding , an d
sometimes has a sculptured relief, often set in an architectural frame, above and /
or below the text (70 has a relief above the text and another relief below; 79 has a
pediment and a relief above). The styl e and detail of the sculpture can sometimes
help to indicate the date of the inscription (cf . 88).
(ii) Invocation : 'Gods'—perhaps reflectin g the prayer wit h which proceedings i n
the assembly began (e.g. 31,35).9 The fou r letters 0 e o t are regularly spread across
the ful l widt h o f the stele, and ma y (fo r instance) be inscribe d o n the mouldin g
above the main inscribed surface.
Some othe r state s also mention (good ) fortune in this position (e.g . Helisson
and Mantinea, 14 ; Arcadian federation , 32). When the Athenians mention good
fortune they do so in the main text of the decree (e.g. 22. 7-9).10
(iii) Heading , in larger letters (for eas y identification of text):11
archon and/o r secretary of the year (e.g. 11; 18; cf. 10, with the beginning o f the
prescript presented in the styl e of a heading);
subject of decree (e.g. 6; 11).
(iv) Prescrip t (formal details taken from th e secretary's records):
archon o f the yea r (sinc e we know the name s o f all the archon s fro m 481/ 0 t o
292/1, this provides us with the most reliable means of dating a decree: for a
list of archons from 403/2 to 323/2 see p. 543);
prytany: th e nam e o f th e trib e an d it s numbe r i n th e year' s sequenc e o f
prytanies;
secretary;
date: eventuall y specifi c t o th e day , bot h withi n th e prytan y an d withi n th e
month;
chairman, wh o 'put to the vote';
enactment formula: for a decree of the assembly, either 'resolved by the people '
or 'resolve d by th e counci l an d th e people ' (fo r the significanc e o f the tw o
formulae cf . above, an d see , for instance , 22 , 41 , wit h commentary) ; fo r a
decree of the council, 'resolved by the council' (fo r decrees of the early fourth
century which mention onl y the counci l but ma y be decree s of the assembly
see on 10) ; for a law, 'resolved by the nomotheku';
proposer, with the verb eipen (literally 'spoke').
(77 and 94 are among those which contain al l these elements.)
at 52—60 , adds IG 11 417; on th e procedur e se e Rhodes, Boule, 28, 50—2, and th e alternativ e reconstruction s o f
D. M . MacDowell, JHSxcv 1975 , 62—74; Hansen, C&Mxxxii 1980 , 87—104 , GRBSxxvi 1985 , 345—71 ; Rhodes,
C(P xxx v 1985, 55—60.
!!

Gf . Rhodes, Boule, 64—5; Rhodes with Lewis, 4—5.
9 Gf . R . L. Pounder, Studies . .. S . Dow, 243—50 .
10
Gf . S. V. Tracy , Hesp. Ixii i 1994, 241—4.
" Fo r a study of varations in headings and prescripts see Henry, Prescripts.

XX I N T R O D U C T I O

N

(v) Mai n text:
often beginning with an invocation of good fortune (cf. above);
motivation clause , in it s fully develope d form in tw o parts, th e firs t beginnin g
'since . . . ' and the second beginning 's o that. . . ' (no example o f that in our
collection; but the first part e.g. 11,23, the second part e.g. 4, 22);
motion formula : eithe r 'b e i t resolved/decree d b y th e people ' i n a nonprobouleumatic decre e or the probouleumatic formul a in a probouleumati c
decree (cf. above and see , for instance, 22, 41, 95 , with commentary); 12 'be it
resolved/decreed by the nomothetaf i n a law;
and the n th e positiv e proposals, commonly endin g wit h a n invitatio n t o th e
prytaneion (tow n hall) for envoys or the recipients of honours;
orders for the publication o f the text.
(vi) Amendments :
were published after the original motion. They normally begin with:
proposer of amendment (omitted in 70);
either 'in other respects in accordance with the council', when what is amended is
a motion contained in the probouluma, or 'in other respects in accordance with
[name of proposer]', when it is not (se e in particular o n 64).
(A decree could also be amended by rewriting it [cf. above]; when the clauses of
decree are presented in an illogical order, that has led some scholars to suppose
that the misplaced clauses are the result of'concealed amendments', for which
see on 20, 44, 64.)
Athenian administration was based on the principle that any good citizen could and
should play a modest part in the running of the state: large numbers of annual boards
were set up (mostl y often men, one picked by lot from th e candidates in each tribe),
and were given strictly limited jobs to do ; all worked under th e general supervision
of the council, which also had judicial powers in matters concerned with the runnin g
of the state. In the course of the fourth century there was a move away from th e fifthcentury democracy' s principl e o f equa l participation , toward s entrustin g greate r
powers to men of proved ability, but in matters illustrated by the texts in this collection
there was little change.
The collectio n o f taxes was no t mad e b y stat e officials , bu t wa s farme d ou t t o
contractors. The contract (like other state contracts, e.g. for rentals orpublic works) was
auctioned to the highest bidder or syndicate of bidders, in the presence of the council,
by the poletai ('sellers': Ath. Pol. 47. ii-iv; for a document published by the poletai see36)
the record of the contract was kept by the council; and in due course the contractors
had to pay the sum agreed (irrespective of the amount they had actuall y collected) to
the apodektai ('receivers'), again in the presenc e of the counci l (Ath. Pol. 47. v-4-8. ii); i
they defaulted they would be pursued by a board ofpraktores ('exacters': e.g. law ap
12 22, 39, and 4 4 have th e enactment formul a which mentions the council but th e motion formul a which
does not; cf . 4, with th e non-standard motion formul a 'be i t decreed b y the Athenians'. I t too k time fo r the
distinction between th e tw o kinds of formula to become established ; th e enactmen t formul a mentioning th e
council had previousl y been standard; and we prefer t o rely on the motion formul a and clas s these decrees as
non-probouleumatic (cf . Rhodes, Bonk, 75—7).

I N T R O D U C T I O N Xx

i

And. 1. Myst. 77-9 ; for an instance of default o n a tax-collecting contract see Agora xix
P 26. 462—98). In the fifth centur y all revenue was paid into a central treasury, and all
state payments were made fro m tha t treasury—b y yet another board, the kolakretai
('ham-collectors').13 In th e fourt h century the apodektm mad e a mensmos ('allocation')
to various spending authorities (first attested in 19 , of 386): amongst these authorities
were the assembly, which had an expense account, 'the people's fund for expenditure
on decrees' (first directl y attested in 367/6: e.g. 35, but it s treasurer, the 'treasure r o
the people', is first datably attested in 29, of 372, and th e fun d wa s probably created
c.376), and the council, which had a similar expense account. Two other funds, ove r
which there was some controversy between the 3505 and the 330S, were the stratiotic
(military) fund and the theoric fund: the latter was established to make grants to cover
the cost of citizens' theatre tickets at festivals, but it s activities were extended beyond
that. The year's allocations to the spending authorities were fixed by a law and could
only be altered by a law: in 64 the cost of crowns for the Bosporan princes is accepted
for th e futur e a s a charge o n the assembly' s expense account (whic h will have to be
given an increase d allocation fo r the purpose), but fo r the curren t year the apodektai
are to provide the money 'from (wha t they would otherwise allocate to) the stratiotic
fund'.
One are a in which the fourth century saw an increase in professionalism was the
office o f secretary. Until the 360s the principal state secretary, who kept the records
of the counci l an d assembly , and wa s responsible for publishing document s when
required, was a member o f the council, from a tribe other than the current prytany ,
serving for one prytany (i.e . one tent h of the year) only. Between 368/7 and 363/ 2
there was a change: th e offic e wa s detache d fro m membershi p o f the council , an d
service wa s no w fo r a whol e year . Curiously , i t i s almos t certai n tha t afte r thi s
change tw o different titles , the ol d 'secretary to the council ' an d th e new (but more
appropriate to the ol d system) 'secretary by the prytany' wer e used indiscriminately
to denote the same official. 14
Each Gree k state had it s own calendar. Year s were not counte d from an y real or
imagined fixed point (the Olympic records, counting from a supposed first festival in
776, could be used to correlate the systems of different states; but their four-yearly basis
was inconvenient, and the system did not pass into everyday use), but were identified
by reference to an eponymous official, usuall y an annua l officia l wh o gave his name
to th e yea r i n which h e served . In Athen s the eponymou s officia l wa s the archo n
(though it did not become standard practice to date decrees by the archon until c.420),
and the year began with the first new moon afte r th e summer solstice: thus the year
which we call 378/7 (c. July 378-June 377: the year in which 22 and 2 3 were enacted)
was to the Athenians the year of Nausinicus' archonship. In Athens, as in most states,
the year was not a solar year ofc.365 days , but wa s based on lunar months, of 29 or
30 days. In an 'ordinary' year of 12 months there were c.354 days; in an 'intercalary '
year a thirteenth month wa s added an d ther e were c.384 days (and because o f this
" Rhodes , Bouk, 102 with n. 5.
Gf . Rhodes, Boule, 134—8 . Kara Trpvravciav seem s t o hav e mean t 'prytan y afte r prytany' , no t 'fo r one
prytany': Ferguson, Th e Athenian Secretaries, 36; A. S . Henry, Hesp. Ixx i 2002, 91—118.
14

Xxii I N T R O D U C T I O

N

discrepancy interest was commonly reckoned by the month rather than by the year).
Decisions as to how long particular month s were to be, and how many months there
were t o be i n a particular year , see m to hav e bee n take n o n a n a d hoc basis, not i n
accordance wit h a fixed rule ; an d wha t wa s decide d on e way i n Athens might b e
decided differentl y elsewhere . Because of these irregularities i t i s rarely possibl e t o
give the exact equivalents in our calendar of dates in a Greek calendar. The names of
the months at Athens were:
i Hecatombaeo n v
ii Metageitnio n v
iii Boedromio n vi
iv Pyanopsio n vii

Maemacterio n i
i Posideo n x
i Gamelio n x
i Anthesterio n xi

x Elaphebolio n
Munychio n
i Thargelio n
i Scirophorio n

Hecatombaeon corresponde d roughly to our July, and so on. In an intercalary yea r
the extr a mont h wa s usually a secon d Posideon , adde d afte r th e first. Within th e
month the days were counted in three decades: after 'new moon' (vovfj/rjvta) cam e the
'second of the risin g (month)' (BevTfpa lara^vov) an d s o on; in the middl e decad e
'eleventh' and 'twelfth ' were followed by 'thir d o n top often ' (rpirrj eirl Se/ca ) and so
on; and in the last decade there was a backward coun t from th e 'tenth of the wanin g
(month)' (SeKctTi ? <f>OivovTos) unti l th e las t day, which was designate d 'ol d an d new '
(evr) Ka l vea). 15
The counci l worke d to a calendar o f its own, in which th e yea r was divided int o
ten prytanies, in each o f which on e o f the triba l contingent s in the counci l acte d as
standing committee; and there were four regular assemblies , with their own items of
business, prescribed fo r each prytany (cf . above, an d fo r the regula r assemblie s and
their business see Ath. Pol. 43. iv-vi). Until the late fifth century the council's year was
a sola r year independen t o f the archonti c calendar , bu t thereafte r the counci l used
the archonti c year as its year of office.115 As prescripts of decrees became increasingly
detailed in the course of the fourth century, dates tended to be given both by prytany
and by month (cf . on 29, 77).
The sam e names were used in differen t state s for units of money, but th e values
of the differen t currencie s varied i n accordance wit h the weight s of precious meta l
(usually silver) to which the names were applied in each state. The scale used in Athens
was:
6 obols = i drachma
100 drachmas = i mina
60 minas = i talent
ls

O n th e count of days in the last decade see Meritt, 77^ Athenian Tear, 38—51 .
16 On the Athenian calendar see Samuel, Greek and Raman Chronology, 57—64 . There hasbeen much controversy
over th e regularit y of 'intercalary ' year s (wit h a thirteent h month) and o f 'hollow' ag-da y and 'full ' 3O-da y
months in the archontic calendar an d o f the lengths of prytanies (an 'ordinary' 12-mont h year of 354 days will
have required four prytanie s of 36 days and si x of 35: according to Ath. Pol. 43 . ii the firs t fou r prytanie s were
the long ones). For summaries with references see Rhodes, Boule, 224-9; Comm.Ath. Pol. 518—20 : we believe with
B. D. Meritt against W. K. Pritchett that in an area where there must have been irregularities of various kinds
it is unwise to insist on scrupulou s adherence t o the patter n stated in Ath. Pol. (though we do not rul e ou t th e
possibility that what Ath. Pol. states is what the laws stated).

I N T R O D U C T I O N Xxii

i

Sums o f money were ofte n expresse d in talents, drachmas, an d obols , without th e
use o f a mina as an intermediate unit. The wor d 'stater ' is often use d to denote the
standard coi n of a state, irrespective of its value on a scale like the above : in Athens
(which did not use the word of its own coins) the stater was a 4-drachma coin, weighing
c.17.2 grammes (c.o.6 oz.) . For exchang e rates used to convert sum s in one currenc y
to another, see 45, 57; for measures of capacity, again different i n different states , see
45
In the second half of the fourth century, payments for attending meetings of public
bodies in Athens (juries, the council, the assembly, etc.) varied between 1/2 drachma
(for juries: not increase d since the 420s ) an d 11/2 drachmas a da y (Ath. Pol. 62. ii). A t
this tim e a n unskille d labourer coul d ear n 11/2 drachmas a day , a skille d 2 or 21/2
drachmas.17 A man wa s regarded a s rich enough to be liable for such burdens as the
trierarchy or a festival liturgy if his total property was worth 3—4 talents or more, while
liability for the property tax known as eisphora perhaps extended a little further dow n
the scal e (cf. commentary o n 21 , 100) , and h e would have been on e o f the richest
Athenian citizens if his property was worth as much as 15 talents. In 341 Demosthene
claimed that in the past few years the annua l revenu e of Athens had increase d fro m
130 talents to 400 talents (Dem. x. Phil. iv. 37-8), whereas in 431, at the beginnin g of
the Peloponnesia n War, her annua l revenu e was about 1,00 0 talents (X. Anab. VII. i.
27: Thuc. I I 13 . iii claims 600 talents tribute from th e Delian League, but th e tribute
lists suggest not more than 400 talents).

Ill

The us e o f inscription s a s evidenc e b y historian s goe s bac k t o Herodotu s (e.g.
inscriptions at Thermopylae, vI I 228 ; inscriptions commemorating th e conquest s of
the Egyptian king Sesostris, some of which Herodotus had seen , II. 102-6; the story
of Nitocris' inscription s i n Babylon , 1. 187). Thucydides use d inscriptions more i n
the modern academi c manner (e.g . Pausanias' arrogan t inscriptio n o n the Serpen t
Column a t Delphi, subsequently deleted and replaced by a list of Greek states which
resisted the Persian invasion, 1.132. ii—iii; an inscription whose letteringhe described as
faint, and an inscription cited to show that Hippias was the eldest son of Pisistratus, vI.
54. vii—55. i). In the fourth century Theopompus argue d that the inscription recording
the alleged Peace of Gallias between Athens and Persia was a forgery, because it used
not Athens' local alphabet but the Ionic alphabet which Athens adopted at the end of
the fifth century (FGrH11 5 F 153—5: he also rejected the authenticit y of our 8 8 §ii). In
the third centur y Graterus (FGrH 342 ) made a collection of Athenian decrees ; in the
second Polemon of Ilium collected epigraphic texts and was called a 'glutton for stelai'
(stelokopas: Ath . vi. 2340). On th e use of inscriptions by Pausanias, the traveller of th
second century A.D., cf. on 102. l8
17
Se e M. M . Markle, III, Crux . . . G. E. M. d e Ste Croix, 293—7 ; an dcf- the detaile d collection and analysi s of
data in Loornis, Wages, Welfare Costs and Inflation.
18 And se e Habicht, Pausanias' Guide to Ancient Greece, 64—94 ch- ii i

Xxiv I N T R O D U C T I O

N

In the modern world, inscriptions have long been found and recorded by explorers
and archaeologists. The firs t work planned explicitly as a corpus of Greek inscriptions
was A . Boeckh' s Corpus Inscriphonum Graecarum, published betwee n 182 8 an d 1877
Towards th e en d o f the nineteent h century , responsibilit y fo r a corpu s o f Greek
inscriptions fro m Europ e wa s accepte d b y th e Berli n Academy , whic h undertoo k
and is still continuing publication of the work which came eventually to be known as
Inscriptiones Graecae, the first part of which appeared in 1873 (some parts have reached a
second or third edition, others have yet to appear in a first edition, and in some cases
planned volumes have been rendered unnecessary by volumes published under other
auspices). Responsibility for Asia Minor was accepted by the Vienna Academy, which
issued the first volume of the series TituhAsiaeMinons'm 1901 . Other series devoted to
Asia Minor are MonumentaAsiaeMinonsAntiquae, begun in 1928; and Inschriftengnechischer
Stadte von Kleinasien, begun in 1972 and proceeding very rapidly. Many inscriptions ar
first published in classical and archaeological periodicals; and, when a large numbe r
of inscriptions are foun d o n on e site , ofte n on e o r more volume s of the excavatio n
report for the site are devoted to a corpus of the site's inscriptions.
Every yea r see s th e discover y o f new inscriptions , an d th e publicatio n o f new
inscriptions, new fragments o f inscriptions already known, and new contributions to
the reading and interpretation of familiar texts. Keeping up to date with the stream of
publications is rendered easier by chronicle s of new work. Supplementum Epigraphicum
Graecum was founded by J. J. E . Hondius i n 1923 with a survey of work published in
1922, continued by A. G. Woodhead, an d afte r a n interruption resume d by a team
of editors who hav e produced annua l survey s of work published sinc e 1976-7: this
commonly reprints new and revised texts if they have been published otherwise than
in a major corpus. For each text in our collection, the references in our introductor y
rubric includ e publicatio n i n a majo r corpu s and/o r i n SEG, which wil l enabl e
treatments i n SE G to b e trace d throug h it s indexes. 19 The Revue de s Etudes Grecques
regularly includes a Bulletin epigraphique: betwee n volumes li 1938 an d xcvi i 198
this was the work of J. & L. Robert, who were renowned for their vast knowledge and
ability to make connections, and for their trenchant opinions; from vol. c 1987 this too
has been continued by a team, with different member s focusing on different themes
or geographical areas. 20 An epigraphical bulleti n on Greek religion is published in the
periodical Kernos by A. Ghaniotis. More genera l chronicle s of classical work, which
include Greek epigraphy, ar e L' Annee Pfulologique, begu n in France with a volume for
1924—621 and again now produced by an international team; and the Bibliographische
Beilage published in the periodical Gnomon (from vol . i 1925). The periodica l Lustrum
is devoted to bibliographical survey s of work on particular classica l topics (from vol.
11956).
Information o n individua l Greek s ma y b e foun d i n th e Lexicon o f Greek Personal
19 Each volume o f SEG has concordance s covering th e majo r collections ; a n inde x volume i s now being
produced fo r each decade.
20 Plans for the continuation o f the Bulletin were announced by P. Gauthier i n REGy.c\y. 1986, 117—18 .
21 Only the firs t part, Auteurs et textes, was published of a backward projection into DixAnmes de bibliographic
classique (1914—1924).

I N T R O D U C T I O N XX

V

Names (regional volumes: names with collections of references). For Athens what was
known a century ago is presented, with source references and Latin text, in Kirchner' s
Prosopographia Attica; mor e recent , an d wit h mor e discussion , but limite d t o thos e
attested as rich an d paying mor e attentio n to their wealth and their families than t o
their careers , i s Davies's Athenian Propertied Families; 22 Traill' s Persons o f Ancient Athens
is an exhaustiv e collectio n o f testimonia organize d unde r shor t rubrics. 23 For Spart a
Poralla's Prosopographie de r Lakedaimomer, of 1913, was reissued in 1985 with an appendi x
by A. S. Bradford.
The bes t genera l introductio n t o Gree k inscription s i s Woodhead, Th e Study o f
Greek Inscriptions, Cook , Greek Inscriptions, i s a shor t book writte n a t a more popula r
level; on what can be learned from differen t kind s of inscription se e Bodel, Epigraphic
Evidence: Ancient History from Inscriptions (which makes more use of Roman than of Greek
examples).

IV
The text s in this collection are arranged i n approximate chronologica l order , but we
have taken advantage o f the fac t tha t not al l texts can be precisely dated to do some
thematic grouping .
We have not full y re-edite d the Gree k texts; but ou r texts are ou r own, in that we
have reconsidered the texts of our predecessors and have made changes wherever we
have thought it necessary: we have tried to verify readings where we thought it would
be profitable to do so, but no t otherwise. In the introductory rubri c fo r each text we
mark with an asterisk the edition whose text has served as the basis for ours: our critical
apparatus i s selective, and we have not fel t bound t o provide a full history of the text
and attribute every reading or restoration to its originator, but the apparatus include s
a note on any point at which our text differs fro m that of the asterisked edition (except
that w e hav e restore d origina l spelling s without commen t wher e To d substitute d
standard spellings) . Where th e sign = is used, the references before and afte r the sign
are to editions of the same inscription, but not necessarily to editions printing exactl y
the same text. Where the sign ~ is used, the edition cited before the sign gives a Greek
text, the edition cited after gives an English translation.
We numbe r ever y fifth line i n th e Gree k texts , the lin e correspondin g wit h th e
beginning o f each of our paragraphs i n the translations. Practice is different i n some
older editions , but like most more recen t editions ours uses dots and brackets in the
Greek texts in accordance wit h the 'Leiden system':
a/3 letter
[a/3] letter

s whic h surviv e i n part , bu t no t sufficientl y t o exclud e
alternative reading s
s not no w preserve d whic h th e editor s believe t o hav e bee n
inscribed

22 This too is now somewhat dated: a new edition i s in preparation.
23 For an account o f the project and of the computer-searches whic h it allows see J. S . Traill & P. M. Wallace
Matheson, hoposvii 1989 , 53—76 .

INTRODUCTION

XXVI

letters inscribed in error by the cutter and deleted by the editors
letters supplied by the editors either because the cutter omitted them
or because the cutter inscribed other letters in error
letters supplie d b y th e editor s t o fil l ou t a n abbreviatio n i n th e
inscribed text
a passage which has been erased and can [or cannot] no w be read
lost letter s which canno t b e restored , o f the numbe r
indicated
a lacuna or space of indeterminate size
aspirate, whe n thi s i s indicated b y a n inscribed characte r i n th e
original text
one letter-space uninscribed
meat (remainde
r of) line uninscribed
Features peculia r t o a singl e inscriptio n ar e explained i n th e rubri c t o tha t
inscription
Numerals. The Athenia n system of numerals was acrophonic, th e symbol being taken
from th e firs t letter of the word represented (e.g. P = trevre = 5, H = eKaro v = 100).
Some intermediate symbols were constructed by combining tw o others (F = 50, F =
500). Complex numerals were produced by aggregation, th e largest always appearing first. The basi c scheme is therefore:
=i
=2

=3
=4
=5
=6
= 10
= 26
= 50
= 66
= 100
= 500
=

1,000

= 5,000
= 10,000
= 50,000

The basi c numerica l syste m is regularly use d t o indicat e sum s o f between 5 an d
5,999 drachmas. Sum s in talents are indicated by the symbo l T and it s compounds
(T, ^ , F , H) . For sum s of 1-4 drachma s th e sig n h (or at Tegea, see 60, < ) is used; I is
used to indicate i obol . Halves and quarters and eighth s of an obol are indicated by
the sign s C (a t Tegea E), T, and X . Outside Athens it is in some places the practic e t o
use drachma s onl y up t o 99 dr. and t o indicate larger sum s in minas (M, see 60).

I N T R O D U C T I O N XXvi

i

Since readers can see in the Greek texts how much is preserved, in the translations
we have not distinguished between what is preserved and what is not, except to attach
question marks to restorations about whic h we are seriously uncertain. Whil e i n the
translations we have not strayed unnecessarily from th e word order of the Greek, we
have not felt bound to keep to it when to do so would produce unnatura l o r obscure
results. We have not thought it necessary invariably t o use the same English word for
the same Greek word and a different English word for a different Gree k word, but we
have done that except when there was good reason to do otherwise.
The renderin g o f Greek word s an d name s i n th e roma n alphabe t ha s bee n a
matter o f controversy for a long time : rigid adherenc e eithe r to latinized form s o r
to direct transliteration tend s to produce som e results which ar e widely regarded a s
unacceptable, an d most scholars take refuge i n an awkward compromise . W e hav e
tended, though no t with complete consistency , to use English o r Latinate form s fo r
names o f persons an d place s an d familia r word s whic h w e print i n roma n letters
(Athens, Corinth, Olynthus; Gallistratus, Lycurgus; drachmas, talents), transliteration
for som e names, including epithet s of deities, and fo r words which we print i n italic
letters (Zeus Eleutherios; eisangelia,proedroi,prftaneiori).

This page intentionally left blank

INTRODUCTION

Map i . Th e Greek world

xxix

xxx

INTRODUCTION

Map 2. Greec e and the Aegean

INTRODUCTION

XXXI

xxxii

Map 3. Attic a

INTRODUCTION

THE INSCRIPTION S

1
Law o f the phratry (?) of the Labyadai,
Delphi, fifth/fourth century
Block inscribed on all four faces, broken at top, found in a late-antique wall in front of the Portico of the Athenians at Delphi. Now i n the Museu m at Delphi. Phot. BCHxix 1895 , pis. xxi—xxiv; C . Delphes, i, pis. v—viii.
Script includes F and H (eta ) and aspirate s indicate d by B ; ov sometimes represented a s o with a dot in the
middle. Stoickedm 20 (A and C) , 1 8 (B), 19 (D).
Homolle, BCHxix 1895 , 5—69; Buc k 52; C . Delphes., i 9*; Koerner 46 . Se e als o V. Sebillotte , Cahiers du Centre
Gustaoe-Glotzvm 1997 , 39—49.

A

A. 1 7 KaKwv Bousquet , BCHxc 1966 , 83—4 ; [Fe]KOiv Bourguet , REGxxvi 1913 , 106—7 .
II o n stone.

A. 54 i5t h letter

I. LA

W O F TH E P I I R A T R Y t ? ) O F TH E LABYADA I A T D E L P H I

3

A

let th e oat h be : ' I will serve as office r
justly, according to the laws of the city
and those of the Labyadai, as regards
offerings o f sacrificial victim s an d o f
cakes. I will exact money and will publish account s justly fo r th e Labyada i
and I will not steal nor do any harm by
any means or device to the property of
the Labyadai. I will make the tagoi for
next year swear the oath according as
it is written.'
13 Oath : ' I promis e b y Zeu s Patroios .
If I kee p m y oat h ma y goo d thing s
happen t o me ; i f I brea k m y oath ,
may evi l result fro m evi l rather than
good.'
19 Resolve d b y th e Labyadai . O n th e
tenth o f the month Boukatios , in th e
archonship o f Kampos, at the Assembly, b y 18 2 votes . Th e tagoi ar e t o
receive no cake offerings o n the occa sion of marriages o r for children, an d
no sacrificia l victim s unles s th e collectivity o f the patna fro m whic h th e
person makin g th e offerin g come s
endorses th e offering . I f the y orde r

31

44

anything that break s th e la w le t th e
risk be on those who gave the order .
Sacrificial victim s ar e t o b e brough t
at th e Apella i an d thos e wh o brin g
them ar e not to bring them, an d the
tagoi ar e no t t o receiv e them , o n an y
other day . If they do receive them o n
a day other tha n the Apellai, eac h of
them i s to pay a fine of 10 drachmas .
Whoever wishe s to accuse thos e who
have receive d th e sacrificia l victim s
should bring his accusation unde r the
succeeding tagoi, at the assembl y afte r
Boukatia, if the tagoi who receive d th e
victim disput e the accusation .
The sacrificia l victim s ar e t o b e
brought an d th e cake s offere d i n th e
same year ; anyon e wh o doe s no t
bring th e sacrificia l victim s o r offe r
the cake s is to deposit a stater in eac h
case. I n th e followin g yea r h e i s t o
bring the sacrificia l victims an d offe r
the cakes . I f h e doe s no t bring , n o
deposit i s to be accepted : eithe r h e is
to bring the victims o r he is to pay 20
drachmas, o r he is to be listed and pay

4

I. LA

W O F TH E P I I R A T R Y ( ? ) O F TH E LABYADA I A T D E L P H I

B

c

B. 5—6 Aa,fiva&a\_L EVK\£LOL\\S Homolle .

I. LA

W O F TH E P I I R A T R Y t ? ) O F TH E LABYADA I A T D E L P H I

interest. And h e i s to offe r th e cake s
in the following year or else pay a fine
of...

B

4 member s of the patna. All the Labya dai are to decide a t . .. about the cake
offerings an d a t the Apellai about th e
sacrificial victims , provided tha t no t
less tha n 10 1 ar e present . The y ar e
to vot e afte r the y hav e promise d b y
Apollo an d Poseido n Phratrio s an d
Dionysos Patroios that the y will vote
justly according to the laws of Delphi.
Everyone i s to pra y that , i f he votes
justly, th e god s wil l giv e hi m man y
good things, and, if he votes unjustly,
evil. The tagoi are t o accomplis h this,
and i f anyone ask s the m the y ar e t o
gather the Labyadai together. If they
do not act according to what has been
written or do not make the tagoi swear
the oath, each of them is to pay a fine
of 10 drachmas for each offence .
30 Anyon e who doe s not swear may no t
be a tagos. If someone serves as a tagos
without swearing he is to pay a fine of
50 drachmas.
35 I f th e tagoi receiv e th e marriag e o r
childbirth offerings contrary to what is
written, let each of those who received
the offering s pa y 5 0 drachmas . I f he

5

does no t pa y h e i s to los e his right s
among the Labyadai, both in this case
and in the case of other penalties, until
he pay s th e fine . Th e perso n whose
cake offering o r sacrificial victim they
receive contrar y t o what i s written is
not t o be a member o f the Labyadai
nor shar e the common fund s o r institutions.
51 I f any o f the tagoi makes an accusatio n
of doing anything contrary to what is
written, an d h e denie s it, th e tagoi i n
the ...
C

3 makingjus t judgements, let him pray
that the gods give many goo d things,
and i f he breaks his oath, evil. If he is
elected but doe s not pass judgement,
let him pay a fine of 5 drachmas, an d
let the m elec t another an d complet e
the case.
10 Whoeve r i s responsibl e fo r th e conviction o f anyon e doin g somethin g
contrary t o th e la w i s t o hav e hal f
(the fine) . Th e tagoi ar e t o brin g this
to pas s fo r th e perso n wh o brough t
the accusation . If they do not eac h of
them i s to b e fine d double . Anyon e
who owes a penalty is to lose his rights
until he pays.
19 Thi s is the law about things to do with

6I

. LA

W O F TH E P I I R A T R Y t ? ) O F TH E LABYADA I A T D E L P H I

C. 43 I7t h lette r E o n stone. £ 4
7 EPAIAMHA o n stone. .0.312 $a[y]oTo s afte r Panopeu s
text Camp ; Ka[a]|oro s Rougernent, Hammage Roux, 225-9, after Kritzas , BCH e x 1986 , 611—17 ; /^4[.]|07 102'
C. Delphes. D
. 45 initial letter T on stone .

I. LA

W O F TH E P I I R A T R Y t ? ) O F TH E LABYADA I A T D E L P H I

burials. No more than 35 drachmas to
be spent , either on articles bought o r
on thing s fro m th e house . The thic k
shroud i s to b e brown . Anyon e wh o
breaks an y o f these rules is to pa y a
fine of 50 drachmas, unless he denies
on oat h a t th e tom b tha t h e spen t
more.
29 On e mattres s is to be put underneat h
and on e pillo w place d a t th e head .
The corps e i s to b e carrie d covere d
up, i n silence , an d i s not t o b e pu t
down anywhere , eve n at the corner s
of the road, and there is to be no wailing outside the house before they have
come to the tomb, and there let there
be ... unti l the . .. are brought.
39 A t the tombs there is to be no lamenting o r wailin g ove r thos e wh o die d
earlier, bu t everyon e i s t o g o awa y
homewards excep t member s o f th e
immediate household , paterna l
uncles, fathers - an d brothers-in-law ,
descendants, and sons-in-law.
46 Ther e is to be no groaning or wailing
at th e second-da y commemoration ,
the tenth-day commemoration o r the
annual commemoration . I f anyon e
transgresses any of these written rules
...

D
2 Thes e ar e th e customar y feasts :
Apellai an d Boukatia , Heraia ,
Daidaphoria, Poitropia , thos e o n
the sevent h and th e nint h o f Busios,

7

Eukleia, Artamitia , Laphria , Theo xenia, Telchinia , Dioskoureia , Magalartia, and Herakleia, and if anyone
sacrifices a victim himself, and i f he is
present at childbirth, and if foreigners
with him sacrific e victims and i f he is
serving in the five-da y office .
17 I f any o f these written rules is broken,
the damiorgoi an d al l the othe r Labya dai are to exact a fine and the Fiftee n
are t o enforc e it . I f anyon e dispute s
the fine, he is to swear the customary
oath and be released.
25 If , whe n the y hol d a n assembly , a
magistrate is absent, let him pay a fine
of on e obol , an d i f he disrupt s i t le t
him pay a fine of one obol.
29 Th e followin g regulations have bee n
written also at Panopeus o n the rock
inside. Phanotos gave this as dowry to
his daughte r Boupyga : a half-sheep
and a goat from th e sacrifice of twelve
victims and the skins in the sanctuary
of Pronaia an d th e skin s fo r (Apollo )
Lykeios, and the beautiful calf.
38 Th e man who offers preliminary sacrifice and consult s the oracle , whether
in publi c o r privat e capacity , i s t o
provide the items recorded in writing
to the Labyadai .
43 Thes e ar e th e sacrifice s o f the Labya dai: i n th e mont h Apellaio s t o Dionysos, a t th e feas t o f the Boukati a t o
Zeus Patroos and first fruits to Apollo;
and the Labyadai drink together. The
other feasts to be held in their season.

8I

. LA

W O F TH E P I I R A T R Y t ? ) O F TH E LABYADA I A T D E L P H I

The surviving , lower, part of this block gives us part o f the regulations of a Delphi c
gentilicial group. The group never identifies itself as of a particular type, and modern
identification of it as a phratry depends upon Hesychius s.v. Laphryadm ( A 436) identifying that group as a phratry at Delphi. As Sebillotte has pointed out, there were many
different name s for gentilicial groups i n differen t Gree k cities , and us e of the nam e
phratry fo r the Labyadai ma y be unduly Athenocentric, but the functions tha t they
perform ar e broadly simila r to those of phratries a t Athens, and they include Poseidon Phratrios among the gods by whom they swear oaths (see 5, 61; on the variety of
gods termed 'Patroos'/'Phratrios ' se e Plato, Euthydemus 302 B-D, Lambert, Phratries,
205 ff.).
Gentilicial groups ofte n trace d themselve s back t o a single eponymous figure, i n
this case Labys, said by the scholias t on Plato, Philebus 48 c, to have been a eunuc h
temple-servant a t Delph i wh o invente d th e prover b 'Kno w yourself (Ghilo n an d
Thales were also credited with that proverb). An inscription carved into a rock above
the road from Arachov a t o Delphi also mentioned the Labyadai (RA 1969 , i. 47-56),
and tw o furthe r version s of at leas t part o f the regulation s inscribed her e survive ,
one (recordin g what i s here line s D. 10—23 ) fr° mDelphi (C . Delphes 9 b is) and on e
(recording what i s here line s D. 31—8) , recentl y discovered and t o b e publishe d b y
John Gamp, from Panopeus . The othe r Delphi version is in late sixth- or early fifthcentury lettering and was presumably the text which this block replaced; the Pano peus version is presumably that mentioned in D. 30. What survive s of the late archaic
inscription seem s to be wor d fo r word th e sam e a s this inscription, but w e canno t
know whether the earlie r law was simply reinscribed o n this block o r whether this
block incorporated th e earlie r law into more extensiv e regulations. The tex t on the
block seem s to have been a t least partly up-dated i n its language an d orthography ,
and this up-dating, together with the letter forms, suggests a late fifth-century or early
fourth-century date. The inscriptio n provides a striking example of the common difficulty of deciding what is new in a surviving inscription and what is taken over fro m
earlier texts.
This tex t gives us a rare glimps e of a gentilicial grou p a t work outside Attica. It
offers instructiv e parallels to and contrast s with not onl y the Attic inscription o f the
Demotionidai (5), and inscriptions from Teno s and Chio s (61, 87), but th e sacrificial
calendars o f Athenian gene and denie s (compare here 37 an d 63) , and th e late fifthcentury funeral regulations from Geos(/Gxn. V593=67G31218). The Labyadai clearly
constituted a n important par t o f the Delphian citize n body: th e 18 2 votes recorded
here (A. 22-3) are to be compared with the 454 and 353 votes recorded in two fourthcentury records of decisions by th e Delphia n citize n body (F . Delphes, in . i 194; RPh
xvii 1943, 62-86), and this law raises important issue s about the relationship between
Labyadai an d state.

I. LA

W O F TH E P I I R A T R Y t ? ) O F TH E LABYADA I A T D E L P H I

9

Sides A and B concern the rol e of the tagoi, who appea r to be th e main officer s o f
the Labyadai, i n particular wit h regard to the sacrifices and offerings which were the
mark o f admission to the group . Sid e C opens with regulations about th e settlin g of
disputes an d proceed s with regulations abou t burial . Sid e D is concerned with th e
calendar o f festivals, although much on this side is obscure.
The Labyada i see m to have quite a complicated administrativ e structure. We do
not kno w how man y tagoi ther e were in offic e a t once , but the y ar e th e executiv e
officers an d hav e a very wide remit. (Althoug h the name tagos has been taken to be
a sig n of Thessalian influence, the word seem s to have been widely used for magistrates over the whole of central Greece: see Helly, L'Etat tkessalien, 27-9.) Decisions are
taken by the Labyada i a s a whole at a n assembl y (ccAi'cc; the Delphians refe r to their
assembly in this period as an agora (teleios)), which holds at least some stated meetings
and whic h ca n b e summone d by a singl e phratry membe r (A . 42—3, B. 23—4) . Th e
Labyadai recor d th e numbe r o f votes by which a motion was passed (A. 22-3) and
have a quorum (B . 9-10 cf. 99). They also apparently form a court before which cases
involving group business are heard, and which has the power to remove membership
rights and t o impose fines. In addition , the inscription mentions damiorgoi, a term of
disputed meaning (se e Rhodes with Lewis, p. 13 7 and n . 17 ) which perhaps covers all
group official s (D . 19— 20), pentamantai ('five-day officials ' D . 16 ) who appea r to hav e
sacrificial responsibilities, and 'th e Fifteen' (D . 22) who are here made responsible for
collecting fines. Whether thes e are all officials of the Labyada i is not entirel y clear:
part o f the oat h o f new members, which they swear by Apollo the go d of Delphi as
well as by Poseidon Phratrios, is to vote according to the laws of Delphi (B. 10—17); this
implies a close relationship between entry to the phratry an d entry to political life at
Delphi, an d i t may be tha t on e o r more o f the magistracies mentioned is Delphian
rather than Labyad .
Like many earl y laws, these regulations lay great stres s on controllin g the officer s
—so much s o that the admission s procedure i s not itsel f clearly laid out. Indications
in the tex t and parallel s from phratrie s elsewher e (Lambert, Pkratries, ch. iv) suggest
that ther e are thre e points o f admission to the Labyadai . Offering s o f cakes (called
here daratai) ar e mad e t o mar k som e sort o f recognition b y th e grou p o f childre n
and wives—recognition probably o f boys only at birth o r in their early years, and of
wives at marriage. Then at maturity boys (probably) become full members by offerin g
a sacrificia l victim (calle d here apellaia). I n al l case s permission for th e offering s t o
be made ha s to be given a t a quorate meeting (B. 5-8), and the n confirme d by the
particular patria (sub-group of the Labyadai) to which the ne w member wil l belong
(A. 23-8) . The offering s ar e to be made within a year of the decision, and the offerin g
of apellaia ha s t o happen a t the festiva l o f the Apella i (the Delphic equivalen t o f the
Ionian festiva l o f the Apaturia: compare 5) . The offering s ca n be postponed for one

10 I

. LA

W O F TH E P I I R A T R Y t ? ) O F TH E LABYADA I A T D E L P H I

year on payment o f a stater deposit (the word a^oviov occurs only here), but for one
year only (A. 46-58).
Side C opens with the end o f regulations about th e bringing and hearin g o f cornplaints which begin a t the en d o f B. Too muc h i s lost for it to be a t all clear what is
at issue here. Cthen continues with regulations about burial (on such regulations see
Engels, Funerum sepukrorumqm magnificentia, an d R . Garland , BlCSxxxvi 1989 , 1—15) .
Here th e poin t i s extremely clear : funera l expens e an d funerar y displa y ar e bein g
strictly limited. Thi s la w i s closely comparable bot h t o law s mentioned i n literar y
sources (e.g . regulations o f burial attribute d t o Solo n a t Athens, Plutarch, Solon 21 .
v—vii, [Dem. ] XLIII . Macartatus 62 , and th e regulation s collected by Cicero , De Leg. n .
62—6) an d t o othe r epigraphi c laws, especially those from lat e fifth-century luli s o n
Geos and from third-century Gambreion (LSAM16 = SIG?11219): all are concerned to
limit the possibility of turning a funeral int o a display of wealth and power (compare
the interesting remarks of Seaford, Reciprocity an d Ritual, ch. iii). At lulis no more tha n
three funerary vestment s were allowed, and they had t o be white and cos t less tha n
300 dr. At Gambreion the clothes of the mourners are regulated: brown for women,
and brown o r white for men. Here thre e vestments are mentioned, and although th e
specification o f the thic k shroud perhaps implie s that ther e might b e a thin shrou d
also, the spiri t of the legislation appears t o be that the only item visible would be the
brown shroud. The monetary limit is very low, by comparison not just to Geos but to
the regulation s in Plato's Laws (xn. 959 D), which allo w 10 0 dr. fo r a member o f the
fourth class, 500 for a member of the highest class. This raises the question of whether
the sum s here, as perhaps elsewher e in the inscription , where the level of fines is also
very low, were not brough t u p t o dat e whe n th e ol d regulations were reinscribed .
These regulations share the Gean insistence on processing in silence, but by compari son with loulis, which is interested in consumption of wine and food at the tomb an d
with purification of the house of the dead, and Gambreion , whic h is interested in the
length ofmourning, the Labyadai are notable for their interest in limiting lamentation
and i n controlling exactl y who can remain a t the tomb. In this the closes t parallel is
with Solon's legislation (see also Plato, Lawsxu. 960 A). The variou s visits to the tom b
subsequent to the burial are not forbidden here, as the thirtieth-day commemoratio n
is at lulis, but lamentation is banned.
Side D is the most difficult t o understand. The matte r ought to be straightforward:
we have here a list of festivals giving rise to group feasts. (O n sacred calendars generally se e on 62. ) But int o this list ar e inserte d two almos t incomprehensible clauses .
The openin g lis t gives (civic) festival s i n chronologica l orde r (th e Delphic year , like
the Athenian , bega n i n midsummer). Many o f them bea r th e nam e o f the mont h
that the y fall in , an d thi s enables us to se e that th e distributio n i s not even . Five fal l
in the first half o f the year (on e in eac h month excep t th e thir d month , Boathoos);
no festival occur s in the seventh month, Amalios, and none in the last month, Ilaios,
but te n i n th e intervenin g fou r month s (roughl y February t o May) . O f th e fifteen
festivals mentioned , eleve n ar e no t otherwis e known a t Delphi , an d man y canno t
even be attribute d t o a particular deity , but the y certainly includ e a wide range o f
deities (Hera, Artemis, the Dioscuri, Heracles, Demeter, almost certainly Dionysus)

I. LA

W O F TH E P I I R A T R Y t ? ) O F TH E LABYADA I A T D E L P H I I

I

and several of them have titles paralleled by festivals elsewhere. With the exception of
the Apellai, the festivals see m to be festivals celebrate d generally at Delphi, to which
a feast o f the Labyadai is attached. But the Labyadai do not feas t o n the occasion of
all the city festivals: they celebrate the festival of the birth of Apollo on jih Bysios, traditionally held to have been originally the only day of the year on which the Delphi c
oracle coul d b e consulte d (Plutarch, QG 29 2 E—F), bu t d o no t themselve s mark th e
Pythia, which fell in the month Boukatios (August). (For an attempt to show that the
Labyadai celebrat e a coheren t annua l cycl e of festivals se e E. Suare z d e la Torre ,
Kernosx 1997,153—76 at 164—7 an(i :75
At the en d o f the mai n list of civic festivals which are occasion s for feasts (D. 2—11 )
is a list o f other occasion s when Labyada i sacrific e (D . 12—17) . What i s the poin t o f
this list? Tw o interpretation s are possible . On one , thi s is an additio n t o the lis t o
festivals: tha t is , the grou p also feasts wheneve r a member sacrifices , i s present a t a
birth, entertains foreigners, and so on. On the other, this is a list of invalid excuses for
not takin g part in the grou p feasts: givin g a strong sense to /ec u KCC , on e is to join th e
Labyadai feasts a t the festiva l even if one i s otherwise sacrificing oneself, present at a
birth, entertaining foreigners, and so on. The first interpretation renders the potential
number o f group feasts very large indeed (cf. Ath. iv. I73E on Delphi in general), and
the potential number o f people turning u p t o a private sacrific e equall y large (not e
the 18 2 voting members a t A. 22-3); the latter presupposes that th e group feasts ar e
occasions t o which member s ar e oblige d t o go . O n th e forme r interpretation th e
fines for contraventio n o f the regulation s would presumably b e levie d on someone
who failed to make the group members welcome at a sacrifice which they were holding; o n the latter interpretation th e fines would be levied on a person who faile d t o
attend group feasts. The latter interpretation has the advantage of explaining why the
regulations immediately move to clauses about non-attendanc e (an d misbehaviour)
at the assembly, regulations which seem to have nothing to do with religious festivals.
But despite the difficulties, we favour the view that this law obliges group members to
admit other members who wish to attend to feasts on the occasion of private sacrifices ,
rather tha n the view that all Labyadai were obliged to attend every feast; penalizin g
non-attendance at a feast would be surprising given that an officer's non-attendanc e at
an assembly bring s only a one obo l fine (D. 26—8).
There follow provisions for enforcement (D. 17—29). In th e middle o f these, reference is made to what is inscribed inside a rock at Panopeus and we are told about the
sacrificial animals and perquisites which Phanotos gave to his daughter Boupyga (D.
29—38). We are then told that the stated items are to be given to the Labyadai by any
individual or representative of a city who sacrifices in advance of consulting the oracle
(D. 38—43) . Th e inscriptio n end s with a curiously brief list o f Labyad sacrifice s an d
feasts (D. 43-51).
Of the various problems that thi s sequence of items raises, one has recently been
solved: i t is now know n what wa s inscribed a t Panopeus , sinc e the inscriptio n ha s
been found. That text, as John Gamp has kindly informed us, resolves one question of
reading: the character who gave the sacrificial animal and perquisites to his daughter
is now revealed as Phanotos, presumably the eponymou s hero of Panopeus/Phano-

12 I

. LA

W O F TH E P I I R A T R Y t ? ) O F TH E LABYADA I A T D E L P H I

teos. These gifts see m to form the basis and precedent for the offering s demande d of
oracular consultants . Scholars have doubted whether every party consulting the Delphic oracle can have been expected to provide animal s and perquisites on this scale
to a Delphic phratry, an d the identity of the giver as Phanotos offers som e support to
restriction to consultant s from Panopeus , suggeste d by Vatin (C . Delphes, pp . 80—i) .
The fina l list makes it clear that the Labyadai sacrific e on the occasion of the first two
feasts mentioned at D. 2—11 and specifies the deities honoured, but what the statement
that 'feast s are held in their season' adds to that earlier list is quite unclear.
The puzzle s posed by D turn o n precisely the are a abou t whic h th e inscriptio n
is i n othe r way s most revealing: th e relationshi p betwee n thi s group an d th e city .
Civic sub-groups , a s many othe r inscription s i n thi s volume wil l show , frequently
have institutiona l structure s and concern s closel y parallel t o thos e o f the cit y as a
whole. But here at a number ofpoints we find ourselves not at all clear as to the limits
of Labyad authority . Is admission to the Labyadai a t maturity also admission to civic
life a t Delphi? Does the grou p hav e judicial rights over its members, o r do Delphi c
officials hav e a role in group regulation? Why are the Labyadai regulating funerals at
Delphi when parallel legislation elsewhere is issued by the whole civic body? (or is this

2
Athens honours loyal Samians, 403/2
Three contiguous fragments of the lower part of a stele, of which th e upper part contains M& L 94 ~ Fornara
166; at the top of the stele are a relief showing Athena and Samian Hera clasping hands, and a heading relating
to the whole dossier. These fragments found between the theatre o f Dionysus and the odeum o f Herodes Atticus
in Athens; now in the Acropolis Museum. Phot . Kern, Inscriptiones Graecae^ Taf. 19; Schede, Th e Acropolis oj"Athens.,
pi. 10 1 (cf. pp. 114—16) ; Kirchner , Imagims' 2., Taf. 19 Nr. 43 ; Meyer, Diegriechischen Urkundenreliefs., Taf . 10 A 26 ;

M. J. Osborn e differs fro m earlier edd. at a few points on how many letters can be read.

I. LA

W O F TH E P I I R A T R Y t ? ) O F TH E LABYADA I A T D E L P H I 1

3

the Delphian law , adopted an d reiterated by the Labyadai?) Do the Labyadai hav e
a privilege d interes t in Delphi c civi c festival s an d th e sacrificia l activities that surround the Delphic oracle? In the past gentilicial groups have sometimes been thought
of as pre-pohs institutions, or at least as institutions which became increasingl y sidelined by the growth of civic institutions. The reinscription , and perhaps revision and
expansion, of the regulations of the Labyadai, alon g with the parallel activitie s of the
Demotionidai in Attica at about the same time (5), remind us that institutions which
traced their history into the distant past, and which in some of their rituals continued
to repeat actions which had alread y been going on for centuries, continued to assert
their place in the life of the Greek city in the fourth century.
The inscriptio n contain s various dialectal features whic h mark i t out fro m Attic ,
some of which are general features of (North-)West Greek dialect and som e of which
are particular t o Delphi. These include Aevre for ecm (B. 44), -OVTI fo r -ovai, infinitive
in -ev rather tha n -et v (A. 31 etc.), use o f KO. rather than dv, use o f rot and ra t for th e
plural of the article , use o f both TTOT (C . 31) and troi(A. 14 , C. 30) for Trpos, th e apocop e
ofirapd(A. 2 8 etc.), the assimilation of final v and final s (A. 3,10,57 etc.), crasis of and
to (B. 17, D. 7 etc.), a for at in </>aa)Tos (C. 24) and o for a in evro^ijicov .

Lawton, Reliefs, pi . 38 no. 7 1 (last three to p o f stele, with relief); ou r PI . i.
Attic-Ionic, mostl y retaining the ol d E for EL and o for ou ; stoichzdm 57—62, often ending a line with th e en d o f
a word or syllable.
IG 11 ^ i ; SIG* 117 ; To d 97* ; Pouilloux , Choix, 24 ; M . J . Osborne , Naturalization, D 5 . Trans . Hardin g 5
(11. 41—55 only). See als o Shipley , History ofSamos, 131—5 .
ii

41 Resolve d by th e counci l an d th e people . Pandioni s wa s th e prytany ; Agyrrhius o f
Gollytus was secretary; Euclides was archon [403/2] ; Gallias of Oa wa s chairman .
Gephisophon proposed:
43 Prais e th e Samian s because they are goo d me n wit h regard to th e Athenians ; an d
everything shall be valid which the people of Athens decreed previously for the people
of Samos. The Samian s shal l send to Sparta , a s they themselves demand, whoever
they themselves wish; and, since in addition they ask the Athenians to join in negotiating, choose envoys in addition, an d these shall join with the Samian s in negotiatin g
whatever benefit they can, and shall deliberate in common with them. The Athenians
praise the Ephesians and the Notians because they received enthusiastically those of
the Samian s who were outside. Bring the Samia n embassy before the people t o do

14 2

. A T H E N S H O N O U R S LOYA L S A M I A N S , 4 0 3 / 2

Samos loyally supported Athens, and served as Athens' principal base in the Aegean,
from 412 to the end of the Peloponnesian War in 404; it continued to hold out against
Sparta afte r th e capitulatio n o f Athens; but eventuall y i t submitte d t o Lysander ,
who expelle d the pro-Athenia n democrat s (o r at an y rat e som e of them), restored
the anti-Athenia n oligarchi c exile s (cf. Thuc. vin. 21, referring to 412), and installed
a governor an d a decarchy, a ruling clique often men (X . H. n. iii. 6-7, D.S. xiv. 3
iv-v). In 405/4, before eithe r city had surrendere d to the Spartans, in the first decree
recorded o n thi s stele (M& L 94 ~ Fornar a 166 ) th e Athenian s awarde d citizenshi p
to the Samians, promised them independence an d the freedom t o choose their own
form o f government, and undertook to join them in negotiation with Sparta. If that

2. A T H E N S H O N O U R S LOYA L S A M I A N S , 4 0 3 / 2 1

5

business if they ask for anything. And also invite the Samian embassy to dinner in the
prytaneion tomorrow.
51 Gephisopho n proposed : I n othe r respect s in accordanc e wit h th e council ; bu t th e
Athenian peopl e shal l decre e tha t ther e shal l b e vali d wha t th e peopl e o f Athens
decreed previously for the people o f Samos, as the counci l in its probouleuma brough t
before th e people . An d invit e th e Samia n embass y t o dinne r i n th e prytaneion
tomorrow.
§iii
56 Resolve d by the counci l an d th e people. Erechthei s was the prytany; Gephisopho n
of Paeania wa s secretary; Euclides was archon; Pytho n fro m Kedo i wa s chairman .
Eu— proposed:
58 Prais e Poses of Samos because he is a good man with regard to the Athenians; and, in
return for the benefits which he has conferred on the people, the people shall give him
a grant of five hundred drachma s fo r the making of a crown: the treasurers shall give
the money. Bring him before the people, and he shall find from th e people whatever
benefit he can. The boo k of the decree the secretary of the council shall hand over to
him immediately. And invite the Samians who have come to hospitality in the prytaneion tomorrow.
64 proposed
: In other respects in accordance wit h the council; but prais e Poses of
Samos and his sons because they are good men with regard to the people o f Athens.
And what the people o f Athens decreed previously for the people o f Samos shall be
valid; an d th e secretary shall write up th e decre e on a stone stele, and th e treasurers
shall provide the money for the stele. The people shall give Poses a grant of a thousand
drachmas fo r his goodness towards the Athenians, and from th e thousand drachma s
shall make a crown, and shall inscribe on this that the people crown him for his goodman-ship [andmgathia] an d fo r his goodness with regard to the Athenians. Praise th e
Samians als o because they are good men wit h regard t o the Athenians. And if they
want anythin g fro m th e people, the prytaneis shall bring them forwar d to the peopl e
always first after th e sacre d business. The prytaneis shal l als o bring forward the son s
of Poses before the people a t its first session. Invite also to hospitality in the prytaneion
Poses and his sons and those of the Samians who are present.
decree was inscribed in Athens at the time, the stele was probably demolished by the
oligarchy o f the Thirty. 1 This stele has a heading namin g Gephisophon a s the secretary—which he was when the last of these decrees was enacted (§iii: 11.56—7): the three
decrees were inscribed together afte r th e enactmen t o f the last; the relief stresses the
continuing friendshi p between Athens and Samos. How many Samian s too k up the
offer o f Athenian citizenshi p and migrated t o Athens, we do not know; Shipley see s
1

Fo r demolition by the Thirty and republication afterwards cf, e.g., Tod 98; the same was to happen at the
end of our period, when a decree for Euphron of Sicyon enacted in 323/2 was demolished by the subsequent
oligarchy and republished with a further decre e in 318/17 (IG n ^ 448).

l6 2

. A T H E N S H O N O U R S LOYA L S A M I A N S , 403/ 2

Sparta's impositio n of a decarchy as a sign that the bulk of the population staye d in
Samos and needed to be controlled in the Spartan interest.
In th e secon d decree (i.e. §11, the first printed here ) the secretary , Agyrrhius, was
one o f the leading politicians in Athens in the late fifth and earl y fourth centuries,
inter aha being the man wh o introduced payment for attending the assembl y (Ath. Pol.
41. iii), and was the uncle of another leading politician, Gallistratus (for Agyrrhius cf.
on 26; for Gallistratus cf. on 31); Gephisophon, the proposer, is presumably the ma n
who was secretary when the last decree was enacted, and according to X. H. n. iv. 36
was one of the envoy s sent to Sparta 'from th e private citizen s in the city ' before the
restoration of the democracy in 403 (see APF, 148) . The provision s of the first decree
are reaffirmed (cf . below). The Samian s whose demand is granted here will be the proAthenian exiles ; joint negotiation with Sparta had been promised in the first decree
(11. 24—5) ; th e negotiatio n no w envisage d presumably concern s th e retur n o f these
exiles to Samos, and Athenian involvement may help because of the links established
with Pausanias and others when the democracy was restored at Athens. Ephesus and
Notium, on the Asiatic mainland north-eas t of Samos, will have been natural places
of refuge fo r men drive n ou t of Samos (A. Andrewes suggested that a t the time they
were in the hands not o f Lysander but o f the Persia n Tissaphernes: Phoen. xxv 1971 ,
214). The counci l had responded to the Samians' requests with theproboukuma which
it sen t to th e assembly ; the claus e about acces s to th e assembly , which ha s several
parallels, is in effec t a n ope n claus e in th e proboukuma, in which th e counci l invites
the assembly to add t o the benefits which it is itself recommending (cf . Rhodes, Boule,
281-3). Th e hospitalit y offere d t o honorand s i s regularly calle d xenia ('hospitality' )
when offered t o foreigners but deipnon ('dinner' ) when offere d t o Athenians, who ar e
not xenoi (cf. Rhodes, £PElvii 1984, 193-9; and in our collection notice particularl y
31, 70)—an d a s a result of the first decree the Samian s ar e now Athenians. Invitations for 'tomorrow' are almost invariable; but two fifth-century decrees invite for 'the
customary time' (IGf 1 , 165), and one of 369/8 invites for 'the third day' i.e. the day
after tomorrow , presumably becaus e som e special observance made th e usua l da y
impossible (SIG*158 = /.Delos 88).
The proboukuma is supplemented by an amendment, proposed in the assembl y by
the sam e man, Gephisophon, with th e formul a which indicate s that th e p