Preferred Citation: Tracy, Stephen V. Athenian Democracy in Transition: Attic Letter-Cutters of 340 to 290 B.C.. Berkeley:  University of California Press,  c1995 1995.


Athenian Democracy in Transition

Attic Letter-Cutters of 340 to 290 B.C.

Stephen V. Tracy

Berkeley · Los Angeles · Oxford
© 1995 The Regents of the University of California

For Christian Habicht

Preferred Citation: Tracy, Stephen V. Athenian Democracy in Transition: Attic Letter-Cutters of 340 to 290 B.C.. Berkeley:  University of California Press,  c1995 1995.

For Christian Habicht



2 (used in lists)




Agora XV

B. D. Meritt and J. S. Traill, The Athenian Agora , XV: Inscriptions: The Athenian Councillors , Princeton 1974

Agora XIX

G. V. Lalonde, M. K. Langdon, and M. B. Walbank, The Athenian Agora , XIX: Inscriptions: Horoi, Poletae Records, Leases of Public Lands , Princeton 1991


S. V. Tracy, Attic Letter-Cutters of 229 to 86 B.C ., Berkeley 1990

Bengtson, Staatsverträge

H. Bengtson, Die Staatsverträge des Altertums , II: Die Verträge der griechischrömischen Welt von 700 his 338 v. Chr ., 2d ed., Munich 1975

Billows, Antigonos

R. A. Billows, Antigonos the One-Eyed and the Creation of the Hellenistic State , Berkeley 1990

Bosworth, Conquest and Empire

A. B. Bosworth, Conquest and Empire: The Reign of Alexander the Great , Cambridge 1988

Ferguson, HA

W. S. Ferguson, Hellenistic Athens , London 1911


F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker I-III, Berlin 1923-1958

H (used in lists)


Habicht, Studien

Ch. Habicht, Studien zur Geschichte Athens in hellenistischer Zeit , Hypomnemata 73, Göttingen 1982

Habicht, Untersuchungen

Ch. Habicht, Untersuchungen zur politischen Geschichte Athens im 3. Jahrhundert v. Chr ., Vestigia 30, Munich 1979



A. J. Heisserer, Alexander the Great and the Greeks: The Epigraphic Evidence , Norman 1980


Harvard Studies in Classical Philology

I (used in lists)

Agora I


F. Durrbach et al., Inscriptions de Délos , Paris 1926-

Kirchner-Klaffenbach, Imagines 2

J. Kirchner, Imagines Inscriptionum Atticarum , 2d ed., ed. G. Klaffenbach, Berlin 1948


P. M. Fraser and E. Matthews, A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names , Oxford 1987

Maier, Gr. Mauerbauinschr .

F. G. Maier, Griechische Mauerbauinschriften , Vestigia 1-2, 1959-61

Meyer, Urkundenreliefs

M. Meyer, Die griechischen Urkundenreliefs , MDAIA Beiheft 13, Berlin 1989

Moretti, ISE

L. Moretti, Iscrizioni storiche ellenistiche I-II, Florence 1967-1975

Osborne, Naturalization

M. J. Osborne, Naturalization in Athens I-IV, Brussels 1981-1983


J. Kirchner, Prosopographia Attica , Berlin 1901-1903

Peçirka, Enktesis

J. Peçirka, The Formula for the Grant of Enktesis in Attic Inscriptions , Prague 1966

Pritchett and Meritt, Chronology

W. K. Pritchett and B. D. Meritt, The Chronology of Hellenistic Athens , Cambridge, Mass. 1940


O. W. Reinmuth, The Ephebic Inscriptions of the Fourth CenturyB.C ., Leiden 1971


C. J. Schwenk, Athens in the Age of Alexander: The Dated Laws & Decrees of 'The Lykourgan Era' 338-322B.C ., Chicago 1985

Sokolowski, LSCG

F. Sokolowski, Lois sacrées des cités grecques , Paris 1969

Tod, GHI

M. N. Tod, Greek Historical Inscriptions II, Oxford 1948

Photo credits . Agora Excavations, American School of Classical Studies at Athens: Figures 4, 6, 13, 14. Epigraphical Museum, Athens: Figures 12, 21. Author's photographs: Figures 1-3, 5, 7-11, 15-20.



The sad news of Professor Sterling Dow's death on 9 January 1995 arrived in the midst of my reading the galley proofs of this study. In tribute to his memory I wish to expand here on the acknowledgment that I wrote a little over ten years ago (in Studies Presented to Sterling Dow on His Eightieth Birthday , Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Monograph 10 [Durham 1984] p. 277). Professor Dow fostered—indeed, it would be more accurate to say, he founded—the systematic study of epigraphical hands in Attic epigraphy. He identified several hands himself (for the publication of one, see AJA 40 [1936] 58-60), inspired H. T. Wade-Gery to study a fifth-century hand (ABSA 33 [1932-33] 122-135), and both introduced me to the subject and supervised my initial work, my 1968 doctoral dissertation, a revision of which was published as The Lettering of an Athenian Mason , Hesperia Suppl. 15 (Princeton 1975). Without him, none of my work on hands would have come into being.

Through unavoidable personal circumstances the present study has had to be undertaken without the opportunity to spend time with the stones in Greece. I have therefore had to rely on the help of friends and colleagues there to answer my queries, particularly Dina Delmouzou and her staff at the Epigraphical Museum and John Camp, Jan Diamant, and the staff of the American excavations in the Athenian Agora. I owe them much thanks.

I have many other debts to acknowledge—the greatest by far is to the Institute for Advanced Study. Through the kind intercession of Professors G. W. Bowersock and Ch. Habicht of the School of Historical Studies of the Institute, I was granted the extraordinary privilege of visitorships in three successive years to work on this study. There I had access to the magnificent collection of squeezes of Attic inscriptions during the summers of 1989 and 1990 and the spring and summer of 1991. Without this opportunity the present study could never have been attempted, much less completed. Thanks are also due to John D. Morgan for many acute observations, particularly on matters related to the calendar.

To the field directors past and present of the Agora excavations, Homer Thompson and T. Leslie Shear, Jr., I am indebted for giving me access to material discovered in their excavations. Ohio State University


and its College of Humanities granted me a year's research leave to work on this book and were instrumental in the creation of a center to support the study of epigraphy. This center and the Institute for Advanced Study have provided ideal settings for the pursuit of my work on epigraphical hands. Finally the dedication of this slim volume to Christian Habicht is but small recompense for his friendship, his support, and his good advice. Naturally, I take full responsibility for all errors and infelicities.




This study is divided into two major parts. The first begins with an historical overview, followed by chapters devoted to the Lamian War, the food supply, and Demetrios of Phaleron. The major findings during the course of the work on this study have dictated these last three subjects. This entire section is written with a focus on the primary evidence, particularly the epigraphical texts. It is, after all, from the epigraphical evidence that we learn not only a great deal about Lykourgos' activities, but also (with virtual certainty) the identity of Leosthenes, the Athenian general, hero of the Lamian War. Although the importance of the Thessalian cavalry in that war is well known, it is from the present study that we can discern the continued concern of the Athenians for their ally even in defeat. Inscriptions also provide much of the detailed evidence for food shortages in Athens. The present study indeed enables better dates to be established for several of these texts. Lastly, a radical redating of an important statue base from Eleusis enables a new assessment of Demetrios of Phaleron and his regime. Pains have been taken in these chapters to highlight those inscriptions which are studied in Part II. This first part, then, provides an essential framework for the second, detailed studies of fourteen individual cutters and one prevalent letter-style.

Part II continues this writer's efforts to arrange, so far as the evidence allows, the inscriptions of Attica by individual letter-cutter. The major goal of the present inquiry has been to examine the inscriptions of the latter part of the fourth century B.C. , inasmuch as they are very numerous and very fragmentary. The study of hands can help materially in the task of dating and sorting out the inscribed evidence. A primary further aim has been to assess the effect that the ten-year control of Athens by Demetrios of Phaleron (317-307) had on the production of inscriptions. Was it in fact the case that very few inscriptions were inscribed during this decade?

For this study, which has taken from its inception more than six years to complete, I have systematically examined squeezes of most Attic de-


crees, lists, and inventories datable to the years 340-290.[1] The work has not been easy, for many of these cutters inscribed letters which are very much alike. Patient and repeated study has enabled me to isolate a number of cutters, including, I estimate, most of the major ones at work in the period. Because of the brevity of human existence, however, I have not tried to assign all of the inscriptions of the period. That is a longer task than I have time for, and one that towards its end offers ever-diminishing returns. I hope, however, that what I have been able to achieve will be of use to others as they approach the inscriptional evidence that pertains to this fascinating period of Athenian history.

I have been able to assign quite a large number of the known inscriptions to the cutters included in this study. As always I have been conservative in my assignments and hope, in consequence, to have fashioned in the following pages a work of reference that is both trustworthy and helpful. I have stated my method and criteria numerous times, so I do not repeat those statements here.[2] The inscriptions of the late fourth century offer some special problems. Though individual idiosyncrasies abound and many cutters are easy to identify, these cutters are, in general, more difficult to distinguish than their counterparts in the third and second centuries. Moreover, the accounts, inventories, and leases which constitute a large percentage of the inscriptions extant from the second half of the fourth century are inscribed in the tiniest letters possible, i.e., 0.003-0.004 m. Such lettering allows very little room for individual variation. Indeed, I do not think that it is possible to discern with accuracy individual hands on most of these texts.[3]

Obviously there are few periods in history that can be isolated as naturally constituting a closed body of evidence. This is certainly true of the years 340-290. Although these years saw sharp political divisions in Athens, they are primarily marked by the increasing dominance of the

[1] I have in addition examined most of the dedications and quite a number of the gravestones. As is my habit I have browsed widely in the evidence, so as to minimize the chance of missing an inscription of one of the cutters studied. I kept no accurate record of these forays among the squeezes housed at the Institute for Advanced Study. I have been through the entire run of squeezes from the Athenian Agora excavations at least a half-dozen times; this is also true for Attic decrees numbered in IG II 1 to 1695. Appendix Two lists the decrees to which I did not have access through a squeeze or an adequate photograph.

[2] See "Identifying Epigraphical Hands," GRBS 11 (1970) 321-328; The Lettering of an Athenian Mason , Hesperia Suppl. 15 (1975) 1-11, 90-95; Studies Presented to Sterling Dow on His Eightieth Birthday , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Monograph 10 (1984) 277-279; "Hands in Samian Inscriptions of the Hellenistic Period," Chiron 20 (1990) 60; ALC 2-4.

[3] This constitutes an analog of the problem of discerning hands in inscriptions which have letters with a height greater than ca . 0.012 m. On this matter see ALC 5-6.


rulers of Macedonia and, after Alexander's death, of his successors. The Athenian defeat in the Lamian War in 322 B.C. , particularly the destruction of the fleet, rendered Athens' ability to play an independent role in world affairs virtually nil. However, the breaks in the epigraphical evidence are not clear-cut, except for the apparent dearth of evidence during the rule of Demetrios of Phaleron.

The careers of workmen overlap the primary period of concern at both ends. I therefore have carefully studied the inscriptions for approximately twenty years before and after so as not to miss any odd pieces by the cutters who were the primary focus of my study. In the course of this undertaking I identified two major cutters who in fact did most of their work outside the primary temporal parameters of this study: one, the Cutter of IG II2 105, was at work almost exclusively before 340; and the other, the Cutter of Agora I 4266, largely after 300. I have thought it worth including them in this study.

The dates assigned to each cutter are, for the most part, the archon dates of his earliest and latest inscription. These dates are convenient and not intended in any way as fixed termini . Clearly chance is not likely to have granted us a dated text from a man's first and last year of work. Rather these dates in most cases provide an approximate floruit . In the case of the undated fragments by each cutter, I have tended to assign a date midway between his first and last dated piece. This again should be understood as a convenient shorthand.

In what follows, I have tried to provide up-to-date bibliographic references to the inscriptions and to note the major contributions of others. I have not included every casual reference or minor discussion. Occasionally I have had to disagree with the reading or attribution of a colleague. I have sought, I hope successfully, to do this in a factual way. One colleague in particular I must mention by name here because I have found that I refer rather frequently to his work, often to disagree, in the pages which follow. This is M. B. Walbank, who has regularly included in his studies of particular texts the claim that X inscription or inscriptions is or are by the same hand.[4] I regret that I have so often had to register doubt about his assignments. This disagreement should not obscure the fact that I have had little occasion to fault his readings.

In summary, the study of epigraphical hands can be a very useful tool to the epigraphist and historian. It is potentially of particular value in dating fragments and determining whether they can be part of the same

[4] This differs from his single article in which he attempts to set forth the work of two fourth-century cutters; I discuss this article below in detail (148-149).


inscription. Hands, however, fall into that category of human endeavor known as stylistic attribution and inevitably involve subjectivity. That subjectivity can be controlled and the value realized if studies are founded on sound methodological procedures.[5] Casual or sloppy work in this area should not be countenanced, for it produces nothing positive—quite the opposite. Unfortunately it is not possible to mandate good practice. Each interested party must therefore critically examine in each case the basis on which an attribution is made.[6]Caveat lector must needs be our motto.[7]

[5] See the first part of my article "Hands in Greek Epigraphy—Demetrios of Phaleron" in Boeotia Antiqua IV, ed. J. M. Fossey (Amsterdam 1994), 151-161 for a further statement of what in my view this entails.

[6] If there is no clearly stated method—there is not, usually—and if there are no adequate photographs to support the assignment, one should feel relatively free, despite the specialized expertise of the epigraphist involved, to ignore the assignment or to take it with a large grain of salt.

[7] When that is done in the present case, it is my fond hope, good reader, that the present effort will pass muster.



Inscription numbers printed in boldface type are by one of the letter-cutters dealt with in Part II.


Chaironeia to Ipsos and Beyond

The battle of Chaironeia marked a significant break in the affairs of Greece. The once-powerful city-states now found themselves under the domination of the kingdom of Macedonia.[1] Indeed, the league of Corinth had voted to wage war against the Persians with Philip, king of the Macedonians, at its head. Philip's murder in the summer of 336 created no fundamental change in this general situation; rather it solidified Alexander's position by allowing him quickly both to discern his possible enemies and to bring them firmly under his control. Indeed, by late summer he was made general by the congress of the Greek states at Corinth and in his father's place led the Greek invasion against Persia.[2] This ascendancy of Macedonia to the leadership of Greece forever changed the political situation and, though most Greeks were naturally unable to see it at the time, made powerful city-states a thing of the past.

In the aftermath of his victory at Chaironeia in 338, Philip treated Athens leniently, perhaps influenced by the intellectual achievements of the Athenians, but more probably out of the realization that Athens still had significant naval power. He refrained from marching on Attica and returned all Athenian prisoners without ransom. In return, the Athenians had to disband their confederacy and make alliance with Philip, thereby recognizing his power. He also agreed to return Oropos to Athenian control but took the Chersonese for Macedonia.[3] Under the circumstances, the

[1] IG II 236 (= Tod, GHI no. 177 = Heisserer 8-16) preserves part of the oath sworn by the cities in their treaty with Philip after Chaironeia. As party to the peace pact and to the league, the Athenians had to agree to furnish ships and cavalry to Philip (Plutarch Phokion 16.4-5).

[2] IG II 329 (= Heisserer 3-26) apparently preserves a small part of Alexander's alliance with Athens and the Greek states that was concluded soon after his accession to power.

[3] Diodoros 16.87; Plutarch Mor . 715c, Phokion 16.4-6; [Demades] 9. On Athens and Oropos, see below 92-93. D. Knoepfler argues that it was not Philip in the year 338, but Alexander in 335, who returned Oropos to Athenian control (in M. Piérart, ed., Aristote et Athènes [Paris 1993] 295-296 and n. 50).


conditions were remarkably mild. Philip did not even station a garrison in Attica, but rather was satisfied to place one in the Kadmeia at Thebes.

Although Demades, the orator, negotiated these terms, the main leaders of Athens after Chaironeia came to be Lykourgos, an expert in finance, and Phokion, general and statesman.[4] They recognized the necessity of accommodating Macedonian wishes.[5] In the first few years after the battle, however, they and the anti-Macedonian faction led by Demosthenes clearly retained some hope of regaining influence for Athens. Many Athenians, Demosthenes among them, relied on the Persians for support. In any event, they set about strengthening the defensive walls of the city.[6] They clearly also perceived that the democracy as they knew it was threatened, for they passed in the spring of 336, just months before Philip was assassinated, a law against anyone's attempting its overthrow.[7] And when

[4] Demades did play an important role and clearly had Lykourgos' confidence. Fordyce Mitchel has shown in a study of IG II 1493 that he served as treasurer of the military fund from 334/3 to 330/29 (TAPA 93 [1962] 219-223) and must, therefore, have cooperated with Lykourgos on Athenian financial matters. They also shared the legislative duties and on three occasions that we know about proposed measures at the same meeting of the assembly, viz. in 334/3 (IG II 335, 405, 414a ), in 332/1 (IG II 346, 346), and 328/7 (IG II 399, 452). On all these see Ch. Habicht, "Zwei athenische Volksbeschlösse aus der Ära Lykurgs, IG II 399 und 452," Chiron 19 (1989) 1-5 and nn. 24, 25. Demades was also a colleague of Lykourgos on a commission to supervise the festival at the Amphiaraion in 329 (IG VII 4254) and at about that same time accompanied him to Delphi as a hierope in charge of the Pythaïs (Fouilles de Delphes III.1 no. 511).

[5] One of the primary tools used by Athenian leaders to bolster their position with Philip (and later with Alexander and his successors) was the granting of public honors to himself and his friends. It is scarcely accidental that Philip, his son Alexander, and his general Antipatros were honored with Athenian citizenship not long after the peace had been concluded following Chaironeia. (For the collected evidence, see Osborne, Naturalization III T68-70.) This policy is spelled out by the orator Archedikos of Lamptrai in lines 3-7 of IG II 402.

[6] Aischines 3.27 gives the date as the twelfth month of the year when Chairondas was archon (338/7). IG II 244, a decree concerning the repair of the fortifications of Piraeus, records part of this activity.

[7] Agora I 6524, published in Hesperia 21 (1952) 355-359 = Schwenk no. 6. The speaker of this decree is not Demosthenes, but Eukrates of Piraeus, another ardent supporter of democracy. His life was demanded by Antipatros after Krannon in 322 (Lucian Demos. Encore . 31). The language of this measure specifies severe penalties for any member of the Areopagos who cooperates with someone attempting to subvert the democracy. The emphasis on the Areopagos is natural, for it was a standing body of senior ex-archons that could be a useful tool for a would-be tyrant. The measure was surely meant to safeguard the democracy and, as such, was probably intended to shield the members of the Areopagos and give them added importance; it is not, I think, an attack on them as a pro-Macedonian element. For a full discussion of this measure and the Areopagos, see R. W. Wallace, The Areopagos Council, to 307 (Baltimore 1989) 179-184. For a different point of view see W. Will, Athen und Alexander (Munich 1983) 28-30.


Philip died, the Athenians, at Demosthenes' instigation, actually passed a decree in honor of Philip's assassin[8] an act of which they quickly repented when Alexander swiftly marched south through Thessaly. They dispatched an embassy to treat with him, which he received kindly.

The Athenians, at least some of them, continued naturally to hope for an escape from their Macedonian hegemon. The next year, when word spread that Alexander had died on his campaign in Illyria, they plotted to free themselves. In particular, Demosthenes, Lykourgos, and other Athenians encouraged the Thebans to rid themselves of the Macedonian garrison on their citadel.[9] They provided arms and money and even voted to send an army. Alexander, however, appeared suddenly before Thebes, razed the city, and demanded that the Athenians turn over to him Demosthenes, Lykourgos, and other anti-Macedonian activists.[10] This was late summer or early autumn of 335 B.C. Demades once again headed an embassy and succeeded in persuading Alexander to drop his demand.[11] Clearly he was able to assure him of complete Athenian acquiescence, even cooperation, with his rule.

How he did this we are not completely sure. Assuredly Alexander was too hardheaded simply to accept promises from those who had shown themselves to be repeatedly untrustworthy; therefore, it must have been at this time that the Athenians formally committed twenty triremes for Alexander's expedition against Persia.[12] They and their crews in essence served as hostages to assure Athenian good behavior.[13] Moreover, after his decisive initial victory over the Persians at Granikos, Alexander lost no time in sending to Athens as a dedication to Athena three hundred panoplies with the following inscription: inline imageinline image[14] This reminder of his power was surely meant to have special point for his would-be opponents among the Athenians.[15]

[8] Plutarch Demos . 22, Phokion 16.6.

[9] [Demades] 17, Vit. X Orat . 847c, Plutarch Demos . 23.1, Arrian Ahab . 1.7.2-3, Aelian VH 12.57.

[10] Plutarch Phokion 17.1-3, Alex . 11.4-6; Arrian Anab . 1.10.4.

[11] [Demades] 16-20, Plutarch Demos . 23.2-5.

[12] Despite his reported opposition to supplying ships to Alexander (Vit. X Chat . 847c), Demosthenes will have been one of the architects of this arrangement.

[13] This is why they were one of the few Greek naval contingents kept on after Miletos was taken in 334 (Diodoros 17.22.5).

[14] Arrian Anab . 1.16.7, Plutarch Alex . 16.8.

[15] That Alexander came to harbor a grudge against the Athenians and would have dealt with them, had he lived long enough, is suggested by an anecdote reported by Athenaios (12.538b). At an entertainment for the troops at Ekbatana in 324 Gorgos, Alexander's hoplophylax , jestingly offered to supply Alexander "whenever he besieges Athens" with myriad panoplies, catapults, and weapons for the fight. On Gorgos, see Heisserer 169-203.


Once the Athenians agreed to accept Macedonian hegemony, they were able to prosper in the peace which Alexander's control and absence over the next twelve years made possible. The prosperity of Athens under the financial leadership of Lykourgos during these years was perhaps as great as at any time in its history.[16] The source of the revenue was apparently commerce and the silver mines at Laureion, which were actively being worked.[17] Important buildings and cult centers were built or refurbished, principally the Panathenaic stadium and the theater of Dionysos.[18] The inscriptions reveal that the fleet was well maintained,[19] and a new arsenal designed by the architect Philon was completed in Piraeus.[20] Complementing this, the training of young men as soldiers, the ephebeia, gained an active new life.[21] Clearly Lykourgos, Phokion, Demades, and

[16] In 307 the orator Stratokles of Diomeia proposed a fulsome decree honoring Lykourgos for his leadership. This important political document is preserved in Vit. X Orat . 852 and in a fragmentary inscription, IG II 457. On the man and his times, see F. W. Mitchel, Lykourgan Athens : 338-322, Lectures in Memory of Louise Taft Semple, 2d series (Cincinnati 1970); J. Engels, "Zur Stellung Lykurgs und zur Aussagekraft seines Militär- und Bauprogramms for die Demokratie vor 322 v. Chr.," Ancient Society 23 (1992) 5-29; and M. Faraguna, Atene nell'età di Alessandro , Atti Acc. Naz. dei Lincei, ser. 9, vol. 2, fasc. 2 (Rome 1992).

[17] On this point see Faraguna, Atene 289-322. For texts of the mining lease inscriptions which date from 367/6 to ca . 300, see Agora XIX nos. P5-16, 18-30, 32-41, 43, 44, 50, 51. R. J. Hopper, in "The Attic Silver Mines in the Fourth Century B.C. ," ABSA 48 (1953) 200-254, and "The Laurion Mines: A Reconsideration," ABSA 63 (1968) 293-326, provides the basic discussion of these important texts.

[18] On Lykourgos' building activity, see IG II 457b lines 5-9; Vit. X Orat . 852b. M. Maass, Die Prohedrie des Dionysostheaters in Athen (Munich 1972) 22-32, has shown that the Lykourgan rebuilding of the theater also included the fine thrones for the proedroi . The fragmentary honorary decree at the University of Mississippi published in Hesperia 55 (1986) 177-182 that mentions in line 3 "the skene" may well, as its initial editors, A. J. Heisserer and R. A. Moysey, suggest, be part of the record of this renovation.

[19] IG II 1623-1632; IG II 1627 line 269 lists the number of triremes in 330/29 as 392.

[20] IG II 1668 and 457b line 6. On it see A. L'infert, J. Mausbach, et al., Die Skeuothek des Philon im Piräus (Cologne 1981). Its remains have now been identified (BCH 113 [1989] 589).

[21] Ath. Pol . 42 gives a description of its organization. The spurt of dedications made by the ephebes during the years 334/3 and 333/2 dearly marks in my view when this occurred. There are now eleven texts known from these two years. In addition to the eight collected by Reinmuth (nos. 2-9), we may now add two more of the year 333/2, namely IG II 3105 + 2401 (ABSA 84 [1989] 333-336) and Eleusis inv. no. E1103 (AE , 1988, 19-30). In addition, E W. Mitchel, "The So-Called Earliest Ephebic Inscription," ZPE 19 (1975) 233-243, esp. 240-241, has seen that the first inscription in Reinmuth's collection really belongs to the year of Ktesikles (334/3).


the others sought to keep Athens in a posture to exercise a role in world affairs if the opportunity presented itself.[22]

Alongside the building program, Lykourgos promoted the religious institutions which underlay the life of the city.[23] For example, in addition to rebuilding the theater, he had official city copies made of the plays of the three great tragedians for the dramatic festivals, primarily the Dionysia.[24] We also have a law proposed about the year 336 B.C. to set aside special moneys in a fund to support the annual, or lesser, Panathenaia.[25] Clearly this document reveals a concern to set the annual celebration on a firmer financial footing. We may suspect that it had fallen on hard times. The proposer of the measure is not Lykourgos, but Aristonikos of Marathon,[26] one of his supporters, who was later condemned and executed by the Macedonians, viz. in 322 after the battle of Krannon.[27] In the year 334 Lykourgos himself proposed a long measure for refurbishing the religious sanctuaries of Attica.[28] He probably also authored a law requiring liturgists to make a dedication.[29] His double interests in public finance and the state religion are also evident in accounts from the sanctuary at Eleusis,

[23] IG II 337, a decree proposed by Lykourgos granting the Kitians the right to a piece of land on which to have a shrine of Aphrodite, has generally been taken to be part of this program, but it deals with foreigners and more correctly is seen as evidence of Lykourgos' efforts to encourage the presence of foreign traders in Piraeus (below 114).

[24] Vit. X Orat . 841f.

[25] IG II 334 + = Schwenk no. 17. The concern for regulating festivals and putting them in order financially seems to have been a major goal of the city under Lykourgos. In addition to this text dealing with the Panathenaia, we have fragmentary regulations all dating roughly 330 B.C. for the Dipolieia (Agora I 6421) and for two other festivals that included athletic competitions (Agora 17063 the Amphiaraia? and EM 12896 the Eleusinia?).

[26] PA 2028.

[27] Plutarch Demos . 28, Lucian Demos. Encom . 31.

[28] IG II 333 = Schwenk no. 21. D. Harris, AJA 96 (1992) 637-652, has suggested that the statues on the Acropolis inventoried in IG II 1498-1501A were to be melted down (p. 643) as part of this process. IG II 403, a decree authorizing repair of a statue of Athena Nike, may well belong to this time (I. Mark, TheSanctuary of Athena Nike in Athens , Hesperia Suppl. 26 [1993] 113-114). IG II 310, which is very probably of Lykourgan date and apparently contains regulations governing a sanctuary, should also perhaps be connected with this activity.

[29] IG II 1575A line 2 as restored by D. M. Lewis in Hesperia 37 (1968) 376 n. 22.


where he was closely involved in the details of financing building projects,[30] as well as in providing funds to the religious officials.[31]

The strong example set by Lykourgos of financially supporting and renewing the cults of the city filtered down, it is amply apparent, to the local level, to local organizations and to individuals. We find, for example, the demesmen of Cholargos establishing regulations in 334/3 for the local Thesmophoria,[32] those of Eleusis making financial arrangements in 332/1 so that the sacrifice to Herakles in Akris can be as beautiful as possible,[33] and those in Piraeus seeing in 324/3 to the theater, one of the primary focal points of the civic and religious life of the deme.[34] In general, the comparatively frequent honors granted to persons active in the theater may reflect the heightened emphasis under Lykourgos on the religious festivals.[35] In any case, at Aixone in 326/5 the demesmen honored their victorious choregoi and authorized a sacrifice of thanksgiving.[36] Likewise, the tribe Pandionis in the same year honored its producer.[37] At Acharnai, one of the largest demes, the demesmen passed, most probably during this Lykourgan boom of religious fervor, regulations for financing the construction of altars to Ares and Athena Areia.[38] On a more humble level the orgeones of the Heros Iatros leased a garden in 333/2 to a certain Thrasyboulos, presumably one part of their activities financing the worship.[39] Individuals too are often singled out for their acts of piety. Around the year 330, for example, the deme members of Melite honored Neoptolemos, son of Antikles, of Melite for his activities with regard to the temple of Artemis;[40]

[30] IG II 1672 line 11, 1673 lines 64-65. On the latter, see K. Clinton, "Inscriptions from Eleusis," AE , 1971, 83-113, esp. 104-105. Indeed, there was major building activity at Eleusis under him. The walls were extensively repaired (Kourouniotes, Eleusiniaka 1189-208; IG II 1672 lines 1-75), and the portico of Philon on the west side of the Telesterion was brought to completion (IG II 1670, 1671, 1675).

[31] IG II 1672 lines 302-303. See also on his activities reorganizing cults and finances, M. Faraguna, Atene nell'età di Alessandro , Atti Acc. Naz. dei Lincei, ser. 9, vol. 2, fasc. 2 (Rome 1992) 355-380.

[32] IG II 1184 = Schwenk no. 26.

[33] REG 91 (1978) 289-306 lines 1-17 = Schwenk no. 43.

[34] IG II 1176 = Schwenk no. 76.

[35] The city honored in 332/1 the dramatist Amphis from Andros (IG II 347) and in the same year or the next an actor (IG II 348).

[36] IG II 1198 = Schwenk no. 66.

[37] IG II 1157 = Schwenk no. 65.

[38] Robert, Études épigraphiques et philologiques 293-296.

[39] EM 13051 = Schwenk no. 32.

[40] Agora I 6969, published by J. Threpsiades and E. Vanderpool, "Themistokles' Sanctuary of Artemis Aristoboule," Arch. Delt . 19 (1964) 26-36. P. Amandry ("Thémistocle a Mélité," in Charisterion eis A. K. Orlandon IV [1967-68] 265-279) has raised what appear to be valid reservations about the identification with the temple purportedly founded by Themistokles (Plutarch Mor . 869c-d).


the genos of the Eumolpids at Eleusis also apparently honored this same [Neopto]lemos for beautifying the sanctuary of Plouton;[41] the genos of Krokonidai praised the son of Aristodemos for his careful construction of the shrine of Hestia;[42] and the Teithrasioi lauded the piety of their representatives to the council.[43] These myriad activities suggest widespread local support for the policies of Lykourgos.

Last, but hardly least, Aristotle returned to Athens from Macedonia about 335 and opened his school in the Lyceum. In this endeavor he clearly had, despite his thoroughgoing Macedonian background, Lykourgos' support, for one of the buildings which we know Lykourgos specifically had a hand in building was the gymnasium in the Lyceum.[44] The school flourished, and it was here that many works were produced, including the Athenaion Politeia , a history of the development of the Athenian constitution and description of its organization at the time of Lykourgos. At Oropos there was considerable activity in the sanctuary of the oracle of Amphiaraos which now played a significant role in Athenian religious life. The fountain and waterworks were repaired;[45] more significantly provisions were passed under the supervision of the Atthidographer Phanodemos for improvements to the sanctuary and for a quadrennial festival for Amphiaraos.[46] The first games were held in 329/8 under the supervision of a distinguished board of ten men that included both Lykourgos and Demades.[47] It was, on the whole, a fine time domestically for the city and its people.[48]

However, in the year 331 King Agis of Sparta with the support of the Persians attempted to rally the mainland Greeks for a revolt against the

[41] IG II 1231.

[42] IG II 1229.

[43] EM 13336 = Agora XV no. 45.

[44] IG II 457b lines 7-8; Vit. X Orat . 852b.

[45] IG II 338 (= IG VII 3499 = Schwenk no. 28).

[46] IG VII 4252 (= Schwenk no. 40) and 4253 (= Schwenk no. 41). See now on this festival D. Knoepfler, "Adolf Wilhelm et la pentétèris des Amphiaraia d'Oropos," in Aristote et Athè-nes , ed. M. Piérart (Paris 1993), 279-302.

[47] IG VII 4254 (= Schwenk no. 50); Knoepfler, ibid ., esp. 296-301, persuasively argues that IG VII 414 + SEG 1 no. 126, the victor list of the great Amphiaraia, should be associated with the games of 329/8. See below 92-93.

[48] There were to be sure some problems; a severe shortage of grain, for example, faced much of the Greek world from 330 to 326. See below 30-34.


Macedonians, who were led by Alexander's trusted regent, Antipatros. Agis seems to have persuaded Memnon, Alexander's governor in Thrace, to make a show of opposition coordinated with his own rising in the Peloponnesos with the hope of getting Antipatros to split his forces.[49] Although the Athenian leaders must have been sorely tempted at this juncture to abandon both their promises to Alexander and their hostages, they refrained from joining this revolt.[50] They were not ready for another military confrontation.[51] Still, however prudent their decision may have been, no longer to have the power to lead others, but rather to be forced to sit idle, was a bitter pill.[52] Indeed the necessity to heed the will of another amounted for any Greek city to a kind of slavery. Lykourgos certainly realized that it had come to this, for in the summer of the year 330 B.C. he said of the Athenians who fell at Chaironeia inline imageinline imageinline image.[53] However distasteful the Athenians found it to accept Macedonian domination, accept it they did.[54] At the same time, their failure to support the Spartans in resisting the Macedonians was obvious to everyone, and it clearly created a stir. As a result the anti-Macedonian leaders felt impelled, presumably to recover some ground politically at home, to put on a show of independence, even defiance, towards the Macedonians.

The summer after Agis' defeat, the summer of 330, provided the perfect opportunity. The greater Panathenaia was to take place, and the city, in consequence, will have been crowded with visitors. In June the assembly passed a decree honoring the Thracian Rheboulas, a member of one of

[49] This is the persuasive interpretation of E. Badian, "Agis III," Hermes 95 (1967) 170-192, esp. 179-181. On Memnon's rising, see Diodoros 17.62.4-7.

[50] Aischines 3.165-167, Plutarch Demos. 24.1. On Agis III and his revolt, see Badian, Hermes 95 (1967) 170-192; and Bosworth, Conquest and Empire 198-204, who advocates a slightly different chronology.

[51] R. Sealey, Demosthenes and His Time: A Study in Defeat (Oxford 1993) 207, cogently stresses the presence of the Macedonian garrison at Thebes as a factor that must have played an important role in Athenian thinking at this juncture.

[53] Section 50 of In Leocratem .


the ruling tribes of Thrace that had undoubtedly supported Memnon in his attempt to aid the rebellion of Agis.[55] They thus openly honored—on what pretext the fragmentary nature of the text does not allow us to say—a prominent opponent of Alexander. This public measure was underlined by the permanent copy inscribed on a stone stele; it represented a small, but not completely inconsequential, gesture of independence. In July Lykourgos staged the contests in the new Panathenaic stadium, which was finished just before the games.[56] We may suppose that he intended to showcase the city as a leader among the Greeks. In any case, the forensic display in the Athenian law courts that followed close upon the festival was certainly contrived to accentuate Athens' opposition to Philip and Alexander.

First Lykourgos himself brought an action against a certain Leokrates, who had, according to Lykourgos, deserted his city, his fatherland, and his gods in their hour of direst need after news had come from Chaironeia of the Athenian defeat.[57] Leokrates was a nobody, hardly worth attacking eight years after the fact.[58] Surely, this lawsuit was largely a pretext, a means of giving Lykourgos what he really wanted, namely an opportunity to make a resounding appeal to Athenian patriotism. In doing so, he recalled the valiant stand at Chaironeia and gave a show of courageously exhorting his fellow citizens to oppose the Macedonians.[59] Moreover, can it be accidental that Ktesiphon's proposal to award Demosthenes a crown

[55] IG II 349 = Tod, GHI no. 193 = Schwenk no. 45. The proposer of the decree, Nothippos of Diomeia, is not attested elsewhere, but his son Lysias was secretary of the assembly in the year of Anaxikrates (307/6), the year of freedom from the control of Demetrios of Phaleron. We may surmise that he and his father were probably not strong supporters of the Macedonians.

[56] IG II 351 lines 15-20, II 457b line 7, II 1627 lines 382-384.

[57] This speech, In Leocratem , alone of Lykourgos' works has come down to us whole.

[58] He cannot be certainly identified with any known person; the name is attested in many demes and is quite common in the fourth century B.C. There is then no evidence to substantiate Bosworth's assumption (Conquest and Empire 208) that Leokrates was wealthy.

[59] A decree proposed by Lykourgos in the late spring of 329 honoring Eudemos of Plataia (IG II 351 = Schwenk no. 48) reveals how dear to his heart these ideas remained; to be precise, we can discern in its wording the same emphasis on Athenian efforts to oppose the Macedonians at the time of Chaironeia and just after and on the preparations for the great Panathenaia of summer 330. Lykourgos praises Eudemos specifically for his promise at a previous juncture to contribute for the war should it be needed (lines 11-15) and for his present aid in the construction of the Panathenaia stadium (lines 15-20). The war in question is surely, as Schwenk concludes on pages 237-238, the expected attack by Philip on Athens after Chaironeia.


for his services to the state, particularly his leadership in fortifying the city after Chaironeia, was renewed before the assembly at this same time?[60] This proposal and the challenge to its legality from Aischines likewise gave Demosthenes a platform to speak out. In his ringing speech On the Crown he not only defended himself against Aischines, but reviewed his leadership of Athens against Philip and called upon Athenian patriotism against the Macedonians.

No doubt these speeches broke the spirit of the agreement the Athenian leaders had made with Alexander, but since they dealt primarily with events that happened before Alexander came to power and were delivered in Athenian law courts against Athenians, they constituted no more than provocative puffery that allowed the Athenian leaders to save some face. They did not give grounds for direct Macedonian intervention. Still, the performance was not repeated in Alexander's lifetime, and we may guess that official Macedonian displeasure was made quite clear. These two speeches by Lykourgos and Demosthenes during the summer of 330 B.C. in fact revealed the true impotence of Athens.

Still, as long as Alexander was preoccupied in the East, the Athenians were left on the domestic front pretty much to their own devices. This uneasy alliance began to be openly strained in 324, when Alexander announced through a spokesman at the Olympic games that exiles should be restored to their native cities. The Athenians demurred because this promised to affect adversely their control of the island of Samos.[61] At about the same time Harpalos, Alexander's disaffected treasurer,[62] appeared off Piraeus with thirty ships and a large sum of money to incite revolt against the king. The Athenians did not receive him at first. They had learned long since that it was better not to oppose Alexander openly.[63] Ultimately, how-

[60] It was originally made in 336 and challenged by Aischines. Philip's assassination caused the proposal to be tabled. For the timing of this case and that of Lykourgos against Leokrates, see Aischines 3.252-253.

[61] The strategic position of the island and its good port made it an important trading center. IG II 416b specifically attests that the Athenian traders and cleruchs on the island played an important role in supplying grain to Athens.

[62] For evidence of a strong personal rift between Harpalos and Alexander as early as the year 326, see R. Lane Fox, "Theopompus of Chios and the Greek World," in Chios , ed. J. Boardman and C. E. Vaphopoulou-Richardson (Oxford 1986), 117-120.

[63] N. G. Ashton, "The Lamian War—A False Start?," Antichthon 17 (1983) 47-61, has suggested that the Harpalos affair interrupted, indeed for the moment blunted, a movement by Athens to mount organized opposition to Alexander. I do not think, however, that the determination to oppose Alexander can have been as strong among the Athenians as Ashton implies. If it had been, if indeed armed opposition had already been decided upon, Harpalos, his money, and troops would have been warmly welcomed, once their real intention had been ascertained. But they were not. Rather the evidence suggests that Alexander was prepared to negotiate with individual cities about the specific problems raised by the exiles decree and to make modifications, as he did in the well-known case of Tegea (Tod, GHI no. 202 = Heisserer 205-229). Surely the Athenian leaders expected to negotiate some type of compromise concerning their cleruchs on Samos. Indeed, when the Athenians on the island failed to obey the decree and began negotiations, some Samian exiles (no doubt in frustration) attempted to press the issue by crossing over from Mykale and trying to force the Athenians out. They were defeated and taken to Athens, where they were condemned, but they were ransomed by Antileon of Chalkis (MDAIA 72 [1957] 157 no. 1A). Ch. Habicht (ibid . 158-163) dated these events to 321, just before Perdikkas' decision in favor of the Samians, but R. M. Errington, "Samos and the Lamian War," Chiron 5 (1975) 50-57, seems correct in dating them to late spring/early summer of 323. If so, the Athenians at this time had still not despaired of trying to negotiate the matter with Alexander. For further arguments against Habicht's late date, see E. Badian, "A Comma in the History of Samos," ZPE 23 (1976) 289-294.


ever, since Harpalos held Athenian citizenship as a result of his aid to the city in the famine of ca . 329 B.C. ,[64] they allowed him into the city, but then seized him and his money, some of which ended up in the pockets of various politicians. Demosthenes and Demades were convicted of receiving bribes and temporarily put out of action.[65] Harpalos himself escaped but was murdered soon afterwards.[66]

When, however, Alexander died on 10 June 323, the Athenians seized the opportunity; they revolted along with a number of other states from northern Greece and fought a war now generally referred to as the Lamian War.[67] For a while they had success against Antipatros, but when reinforcements arrived from Asia Minor in late spring or early summer of the year 322, the tide turned. The primarily Athenian fleet was destroyed near Amorgos,[68] ending Athenian naval power, and later that same summer, when the Greek forces were unable to defeat the combined armies of Krateros and Antipatros at Krannon, all resistance ended. The settlement imposed by Antipatros and Krateros on Athens was not nearly so lenient as those agreed to by Philip and Alexander. They put in place an oligarchy[69] led by Phokion and Demades with a property qualification of 2,000 drach-

[64] Below 31 and n. 6.

[65] On the trials surrounding this affair, see Deinarchos' speeches Against Demosthenes, Against Aristogeiton , and Against Philokles ; and Hypereides 5, Against Demosthenes , esp. cols. 8-9, 24-25.

[66] For studies of the entire affair, see 42 n. 35 below.

[67] On it, see 23-29 below.

[68] Mar. Parium B lines 9-10; Plutarch Demetrios 11.

[69] It is thus characterized by the short-lived "democratic" regime supported by Polyperchon in 318; see IG II448 line 61.


mas, which in essence disenfranchised more than half of the population.[70] They demanded the condemnation of Demosthenes, Hypereides, and other opponents of Macedon.[71] Lastly to see that their will was carried out they lost little time in placing a garrison on the fortress Mounychia in Piraeus. It was installed on 20 Boedromion (ca . mid-September), just six weeks, give or take a day or so, after the battle.[72]

The imposition of the Macedonian garrison and the death of Demosthenes, the most outspoken anti-Macedonian leader, have become benchmark events for many, signalling the end of Athenian democracy.[73] What more accurately they underlined was the end of Athens' pretentions of playing an independent role in international politics. But the power to do this had already been lost in Demosthenes' lifetime—the necessity to accommodate Alexander had effectively muzzled his (and Athens') opposition since late 335 B.C. , more than a dozen years before his death. Nevertheless, the internal workings of the Athenian state, the real indicator of the nature of the government, remained essentially intact and democratic. Indeed, the courts, the assembly, the council, the tribal system, and the selection of officials based on it continued with scarcely any detectable interruptions down to the time of Sulla. Generals were elected annually, and the nine traditional archons played their accustomed roles each year.[74] In short, whatever the leanings of any particular regime, Athenian democracy in its essentials was remarkably resilient. The power of tradition, the impulse to govern inline image, or at least to claim to do so, remained dominant.

By reducing drastically the number of citizens, the oligarchy must have been forced to make some changes in the day-to-day running of the state. What actual constitutional changes they made are hard to determine, for there is very little evidence.[75] Lack of eligible candidates must have required them to ease the restriction forbidding someone to serve in the boule more than twice (there is as yet no actually attested example).[76] They made the anagrapheus an important official, apparently placing him

[70] Plutarch, Phokion 28.4, reports that more than 12,000 lost the right to vote.

[71] Plutarch Demos . 28.2.

[72] On the date of the installment, Plutarch Phokion 28.1; and, on the date of the battle (Metageitnion 7), Camillus 19.5.

[73] For example, Plutarch Demos . 3.3-4.

[74] S. V. Tracy, "Athens in 100 B.C. " HSCP 83 (1979) 220-225.

[75] W. S. Ferguson's lively description of the situation (HA 22-26) cannot be sustained from the evidence.

[76] An inscription from Piraeus of the year 320, IG II 380, reveals that the duties of the astynomoi had been given to the agoranomoi (lines 17-18). Whether this applies only to officials who served in Piraeus or more generally, we cannot be certain. This is precisely the type of consolidation of duties that the reduction in citizens eligible to serve may have caused.


in charge of the assembly?[77] At least in one case they rescinded honors and privileges granted to a man who had conspicuously aided Athens against Antipatros.[78] There is also some evidence to suggest that they curtailed, if they did not actually abolish, formal military training for young Athenians.[79]

In addition, the years of the oligarchy saw the loss of the island of Samos and the displacement of at least some, if not all, of the Athenians living there. The determination to retain control of Samos had been one of the chief reasons for Athenian opposition to Alexander's decree about the exiles.[80] In the year 321 Perdikkas ruled definitively in favor of the Samians, and they joyfully returned home after more than a generation of exile from their native island.[81] On Samos there survives much epigraphical evidence attesting to their return.[82] By contrast, almost nothing is heard of the displaced Athenians. Perhaps S. Jaschinski is correct to suggest that most of the cleruchs chose to remain on the island despite the confiscation of half their property and the loss of citizen rights.[83] However, given the strife alluded to in the epigraphical record[84] and the hard feelings natural on both sides resulting from such a change, it seems very improbable. Moreover, a very fragmentary decree from the Athenian Agora, inventory number I 5626, proposed by Demades early in the year 319 B.C. for a certain Nikostratos, may refer to the displaced cleruchs. It has occasioned discussion primarily about its calendar equation,[85] but the reference to women and children in line 14 suggests the possibility that Nikostratos is

[77] On this office and the epigraphical evidence for it, S. Dow, "The Athenian Anagrapheis," HSCP 67 (1963) 37-54.

[78] IG II 448 lines 60-62.

[79] Using the evidence of IG II 1187 F. W. Mitchel argued this persuasively in his article "Derkylos of Hagnous and the Date of I.G ., II , 1187" (Hesperia 33 [1964] 346-348).

[80] Diodoros 18.8.7.

[81] Diodoros 18.18.9; Ch. Habicht, "Samische Volksbeschlüshe der hellenistischen Zeit," MDAIA 72 (1957) 154-155.

[82] Ibid . nos. 1-4, 13, 20-28; for further texts referring to the exile and return, Habicht, "Hellenistische Inschriften aus dem Heraion von Samos," MDAIA 87 (1972) 191-202 nos. 2 and 4; M. Schede, "Aus dem Heraion von Samos," MDAIA 44 (1919) 4-15 nos. 5F-O; and C. Michel, Recueil d'inscriptions grecques I (Paris 1897) nos. 366-369.

[83] Alexander und Griechenland unter dem Eindruck des Flucht des Harpalos (Bonn 1981) 135-136.

[84] Habicht, MDAIA 72 (1957) no. 1A; and n. 63 above.

[85] See Hesperia 13 (1944) 234-241 for the initial publication by B. D. Meritt, and SEG 21 no. 306 for subsequent restorations of the opening lines.


being honored for his aid in the resettlement of the cleruchs and their families. Otherwise, all is silence.

Demades re-emerged right after Krannon as author of the proposal to send an embassy to Antipatros with full powers to conclude peace.[86] Not long afterwards he also moved the measure condemning Demosthenes and the other ringleaders of the opposition to the Macedonians.[87] It is not hard to divine his motive; surely he was seeking to nip in the bud any possibility of a direct attack on the city of Athens. In these actions he must have enjoyed the support of his fellow citizens. In any case, he clearly was the leading figure in the assembly once the oligarchy was established; in fact he is known as the proposer of no less than five decrees that date to the years 321-319.[88] Given his prominence, it is disappointing that they are not all well enough preserved to allow us to have a sense of what they were about. Two (IG II2 372, 383b) preserve merely the opening lines, with no indication of the contents of the decree. The others deal with matters of real significance. As has been suggested just above, Agora I 5626 probably deals with the resettlement of the cleruchs from Samos; IG II2 380 concerns the market officials in Piraeus, and IG II2 400 honors a certain Eucharistos for his help with the food supply.

The evidence suggests that Phokion and Demades, the leaders of the oligarchy, whatever their willingness to accomodate the Macedonians, sought the best interests of their city.[89] Indeed, at the time of his execution in 319 Demades was in Macedonia actually negotiating with the seriously ill Antipatros about the removal of the garrison from Mounychia.[90] About five years earlier, moreover, he had joined with the general Leosthenes,

[86] Plutarch Phokion 26.2.

[89] It has been the custom to vilify these two as selling out to the Macedonians: most recently, for example, P. Green, Alexander to Actium (Berkeley 1990) 40-41. For the opposite view, see Mitchel, Lykourgan Athens 15-20; and J. M. Williams, "Demades' Last Years," Ancient World 19 (1989) 27-30.


who was soon to become the hero of the Lamian War, in paying for the outfitting of a trireme.[91]

The oligarchy lasted for three years, from 321 to 319, and fell in the political maneuvering following Antipatros' death. Polyperchon, named Antipatros' successor, seized Athens and pronounced her free.[92] He was soon forced out by Antipatros' son Kassandros, who had kept control of the garrison in Mounychia. This was when Demetrios of Phaleron came to the fore as a negotiator with the Macedonians, not unlike Demades. He successfully negotiated between Kassandros and the Athenians and was put in charge of the city, but saddled with the garrison in Piraeus. Much like Lykourgos and those who guided Athenian affairs from 335 to 323, Demetrios of Phaleron accepted the necessity of leaving foreign affairs to the Macedonians and concentrated on doing his best for Athens in the situation. He moderated the oligarchic tendencies of his predecessors and even claimed to have strengthened the democracy. His ten-year rule, 317-307, was a time of peace and prosperity.[93]

The "liberation" of Athens by Demetrios, the son of Antigonos, in 307 soon revealed the fatal weakness of a city that was in reality powerless, but was attempting to chart its own course. The Athenians immediately voted extravagant honors to "the savior gods" Demetrios and his father, Antigonos the One-eyed.[94] As part of this adulation they increased the traditional number of the tribes of the city from ten to twelve. Not surprisingly, the two new tribes, Antigonis and Demetrias, were placed first in the official order. Though Demetrios had destroyed the fort at Mounychia, he remained in Athens with his fleet and army. The Athenians were clearly dependent on him. But the son of Antigonos had no leisure to remain long,[95] nor could he really when he was absent guarantee the freedom he

[91] IG II 1631 lines 605-606; see below 24 n.14.

[92] Plutarch Phokion 32. The rhetoric of the time can be gauged from lines 55-56, 61-64 of IG II 448. Nearly the same terms are used by Lykourgos (In Leocratem 50) to describe the loss of freedom after Chaironeia. "Oligarchy" and "slavery" have become partisan terms signifying Macedonian control of Athens; while "democracy" and "freedom" are the positive rallying words. Note also the appearance of these catchwords in Stratokles' decree for Lykourgos (Vit. X Orat . 852d). It was passed in 307 just after the overthrow of Demetrios of Phaleron and the Macedonian garrison in Mounychia. Predictably it praises Lykourgos for his vigilance on behalf of the democracy and the freedom of the Athenians.

[93] See 36-51 below for a discussion of Demetrios' rule.

[94] Plutarch Demetrios 10-13; Ch. Habicht, Gottmenschentum und griechische Städte (Munich 1970) 44-48.

[95] Plutarch Demetrios 15-19.


had proclaimed. As soon as he departed, the Athenians became embroiled in a four-year war against Kassandros, which was brought to an end when Demetrios, now called Poliorketes, relieved them.[96] In 302 Demetrios again left Greece to join his father, Antigonos the One-eyed, in Asia Minor for the campaign against Lysimachos and Seleukos. Antigonos' defeat and death at Ipsos in 301 left Kassandros king of Macedon and in control of Greece. Poliorketes was in control of the sea and of several cities.[97] The Athenians easily came to an agreement with Kassandros, who had other affairs to deal with.[98] On Kassandros' death in 297, the son of Antigonos came to Greece and laid siege to Athens, taking it in 295. His ambitions to rule all of Greece soon led him into conflict with Ptolemy, Lysimachos, and Seleukos.

Athens in the years after 307 was clearly of no major importance and dependent now on this foreign potentate, now on that.[99] Indeed, she was caught up in what has come to be known as the struggle for succession. The real change that had occurred was in the external situation, namely the emergence of world, or at least regional, powers that left little role for individual cities.

[96] Ibid . 23; Diodoros 20.100.5-6; IG II 498 lines 15-18, 505 lines 30-40; a recently published inscription, Horos 4 (1986) 19-23, refers to Kassandros and his activities at this time. For more on Kassandros during this war, see Ch. Habicht, Pausanias' Guide to Ancient Greece (Berkeley 1985) 80-82. In addition, the honors granted by the assembly in 303 to the Rhodian physician Pheidias (IG II 483) surely reflect his services during the difficulties of this war.

[97] Plutarch Demetrios 28-31, Diodoros 20.106-121.1. For a recent account of the campaign and battle of Ipsos, Billows, Antigonos 175-185.

[98] Lines 12 to 14 of IG II 641 refer to the delegation sent to deal with Kassandros at this time.

[99] A series of four decrees passed on the same day at the end of the year 304/3, viz. IG II 486, 597 (+ add. p. 662), Hesperia 7 (1938) 297, Horos 4 (1986) 11-18, reveals Athens' subservience. Demetrios Poliorketes has sent envoys and instructions to the Athenians seeking honors, probably in each case citizenship, for his followers. The Athenians duly complied on the motion of Stratokles of Diomeia (below 163). This charade was repeated exactly a year later with at least three decrees (IG II 495, 496 + 507, 497) passed at the same meeting. The first two are citizenship decrees for friends of Demetrios and were proposed in identical language by Stratokles. The third preserves only the opening lines. Agora I 7070 (Osborne, Naturalization no. D62) appears to be yet another citizenship decree proposed by Stratokles at this session (see Osborne, Naturalization II p. 137).


The Lamian War
June 323 to Early August 322 B.C.

The Lamian War takes its name from the city in the environs of which the Greeks achieved their major success in the conflict with Antipatros after Alexander's death. It was known by this name to Diodoros[1] and Plutarch,[2] but contemporary Athenians, viewing it in larger, more optimistic terms, called it the Hellenic War.[3] Be that as it may, when Alexander died on 10 June 323, the Athenians did not wait long to begin preparations for war. Relying on money confiscated from Harpalos, the boule authorized the general Leosthenes to muster a large band of veteran mercenaries gathered at Tainaron in Lakonia.[4]

Despite his obvious importance, Leosthenes remains a somewhat mysterious figure, who rose to prominence as a result of the war.[5] Indeed, he was probably the driving force behind Athens' mobilization of opposition to Alexander's successors.[6] He also appears to have had some close relationship with Greek mercenary units serving in the East. Indeed, Pausanias reports that he was involved, against Alexander's express wish, in repatriating a very large number of Greek citizens who had served with

[2] Pyrrhos 1.4, [Plutarch] Vit. X Orat . 849f. He also uses once (Phokion 23.1) the phrase "Hellenic War."

[4] Diodoros (17.111.2-3) relates that Leosthenes began to act before Alexander's death and that the mercenaries gathered at Tainaron chose him as their commander.

[5] PA 9142.

[6] Hypereides, Epitaphios 3, 10-13, gives him the credit and apparently made common cause with him (Vit. X Orat . 849f).


the Persians.[7] His hostility to Alexander is clear,[8] and, if his father was (as seems most probable) the Leosthenes convicted of treason after the loss to Alexander of Pherai at Peparethos,[9] his leadership at this time may have been his attempt to clear the family name once and for all. In any case, once Alexander's death was confirmed in late summer, the assembly, against Phokion's urging, voted for war. Leosthenes at this time, if not earlier, took an active role in the debate in the assembly.[10] Soon afterwards an alliance was concluded with Aitolia,[11] and not much later Thessaly and most of the cities of northwest Greece joined the Athenian cause.[12]

The actions of Leosthenes, particularly his speaking in the assembly and acting as an emissary for the council,[13] suggest an individual of some prominence. He is known in our sources, however, merely as Leosthenes or Leosthenes the Athenian. Can he be identified more closely? Perhaps. We do know from Athenian inscriptions of a Leosthenes, son of Leosthenes, of the deme Kephale who was a man of considerable means[14]

[7] Pausanias 1.25.5, 8.52.5. On Leosthenes' dealings with these mercenaries, E. Badian, "Harpalus," JHS 81 (1961) 27.

[9] Diodoros 15.95.2-3.

[10] Plutarch Phokion 23.2. See also the purported speech of Leosthenes to the Athenians (B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt, TheHibeh Papyri I [London 1906] 55-61 no. 15); in it the speaker calls upon them to take advantage of the present opportunity, viz. that offered by Alexander's demise (lines 40-45, 61-66 esp.), by having the courage to go to war.

[11] IG II 370 partially preserves the heading of the decree recording this alliance. An improved text of this inscription has been provided by E W. Mitchel in Phoenix 18 (1964) 13-17 = Moretti, ISE no. 1. On the date, I. Worthington, "IG II 370 and the Date of the Athenian Alliance with Aetolia," ZPE 57 (1984) 139-144.

[12] Hypereides Epitaphios 13; he mentions by name the Thessalians, the Phokians, and the Aitolians and gives the credit, perhaps hyperbolically, to Leosthenes. IG II 367 (= Schwenk no. 81) records already in the third prytany of the year 323 honors for a certain Asklepiodoros, ambassador to the Phokians, surely for successfully bringing them into the alliance. The decision to send him must have been made at the time that Alexander's death was confirmed. Diodoros (18.9.5) too gives the credit to Leosthenes and mentions specifically the Aitolians, Lokrians, and Phokians. EM 12736, a small fragment of what may be a treaty between the Athenians and Lokrians, published by O. Broneer in Hesperia 2 (1933) 397-398 and associated by him with the events of this time, belongs in reality to the third century B.C. On the date, see S. V. Tracy, "Two Attic Letter Cutters of the Third Century: 286/5-235/4 B.C. ," Hesperia 57 (1988) 306.

[13] Diodoros 18.9.2.


and served as general over the Attic countryside.[15] Most significantly, the heirs of this Leosthenes assumed the outfitting of the trireme Hebe in Leosthenes' name during 323/2,[16] presumably because he had died. We also know that the Athenian commander Leosthenes died during the siege of Lamia in the autumn or early winter of 323/2.[17] Unless this is a cruel coincidence, it appears all but certain[18] that Leosthenes of Kephale and Leosthenes the hero of the Lamian War are one and the same man.[19] Recently, however, S. Jaschinski,[20] followed by A. B. Bosworth,[21] has argued against the identification of the two. One of the principal arguments is that Leosthenes could not have served as Athenian general over the countryside and also been active with the mercenaries at Tainaron in the year 324/3. This is dearly correct. However, the conclusion that the identification of the two men is impossible does not necessarily follow. It may merely reveal that the date of his service as general over the Attic countryside cannot have been the year 324/3. In point of fact the ephebic inscription and

[15] This information comes to us from an ephebic dedication found at Oropos (Reinmuth no. 15, left side, lines 1-5). The date assigned by Reinmuth of 324/3 is far from certain; see Reinmuth's discussion (pp. 69-72). Perhaps favoring the year 324/3 is the evidence of line 380 of IG II 1631 which reveals that a Dikaiogenes, no doubt Dikaiogenes of Kydathenaion (the general over Piraeus crowned with Leosthenes by the ephebes), was general in 324/3. Since, however, generals often were elected more than once, this is hardly a compelling argument. Lines 214-215 of the same inscription, for example, reveal that Dikaiogenes was also general in 323/2.

[16] IG II 1631 lines 601-604.

[17] Diodoros 18.13.5.

[18] Pace Bosworth, Conquest and Empire 294, who finds "nothing surprising in two men of the same name dying in an archon year so full of action." Leosthenes, however, is not a very common name; there are, at most, six different individuals of this name thus far known in Attic prosopography.

[19] J. Kirchner (PA 9142) first suggested the identification. B. Leonardos affirmed it in his editio princeps of the ephebic text (AE , 1918, 73-100). Badian, JHS 81 (1961) 27; Reinmuth no. 15 p. 65; and Davies, Athenian Propertied Families 600-300B.C . (Oxford 1971) 9142, all accept it.

[20] Alexander und Griechenland unter dem Eindruck der Flucht des Harpalos (Bonn 1981) 51-54.

[21] Conquest and Empire 293-294.


Leosthenes' generalship should in all probability be assigned to the year 329/8.[22]

The details of Leosthenes' career as we know them then make eminently good sense. After serving as general over the countryside in 329/8, Leosthenes will have been well positioned to carry out his activities with the mercenaries in preparation for opposition to Alexander and also to exercise a leading role in Athenian decision making. Indeed, he was probably the principal general, that is, the hoplite general, during 323/2.[23] His activities as activities will belong either to the year 325/4 or to 324/3.[24]

To return to the Lamian War—for a while the Greeks enjoyed success. Antipatros had only a rather limited number of men available to him in Macedonia and consequently acted slowly. This gave Leosthenes and the allies the opportunity to seize Themopylai and to defeat Boiotian supporters of the Macedonian cause near Plataia. They then defeated Antipatros north of Thermopylai and bottled him up in Lamia.[25] The situation was bad enough that Antipatros even sought terms, but he rejected the unconditional surrender demanded by Leosthenes. This initial success buoyed the hopes of the allies. It is very likely that an Athenian thank offering to Agathe Tyche voted by the deme members of Kollytos reflects the opti-

[22] This was the year of the first great Athenian festival at the sanctuary of Amphiaraos. The festivities included athletic competitions and other displays in which the ephebes must have participated. It appears, therefore, most probable that the ephebes of Leontis made their dedication which listed Leosthenes as general on this occasion (above 13). Bosworth indeed suggests this date on page 294.

The acceptance of the date 324/3 for the inscription and the identification of the kosmetes mentioned on it, Philokles, son of Phormion, of Eroiadai, with the Philokles (whose patronymic and demotic are unknown) of the Harpalos affair (Deinarchos 3 Against Philokles ) have engendered a huge literature involving the chronology of that scandal (see J. Goldstein, The Letters of Demosthenes [New York 1968] 276-281; and R. Sealey, Demosthenes and His Time [Oxford 1993] 265-267). Neither is certain; Philokles, moreover, let it be noted, is a very common name in Athens. If the date of the inscription is not 324/3—and I think the identification of Leosthenes with the general of the Lamian War makes that fact certain—it has no direct bearing on the discussion of the Harpalos affair, and Philokles, son of Phormion, of Eroiadai is probably not the Philokles of that affair.

[23] He is nowhere accorded the full title, but we know he was the principal leader in the field, and he is styled "general" by Hypereides in his funeral speech (Epitaphios 3).

[24] A good argument could be made for either year, but perhaps the year 325/4 has more to recommend it on the grounds that he could have used this office in that year to arrange the transfer of mercenaries from Asia Minor to Greece. See on this point I. Worthington, "The Earlier Career of Leosthenes and I.G. II 1631" Historia 36 (1987) 489-491. Note, however, that Worthington accepts 324/3 as the date for his generalship over the countryside.

[25] Plutarch Demos . 27.1.


mism engendered by this victory.[26] Moreover, in late November or early December the city of Sikyon, surely as another consequence of the victory, was the first of the Peloponnesian cities to join the alliance.[27]

At about this same time (i.e., the autumn of 323) Demosthenes, in exile because of his conviction in the Harpalos affair, now began acting on his own initiative to gain allies for Athens in the Peloponnesos and to thwart Antipatros' agents. Hypereides, the principal democratic leader of the Athenians at this time, also spent some time in southern Greece seeking allies. Despite their falling out over the Harpalos affair,[28] the two men were reconciled, and Demosthenes was recalled to Athens in triumph.[29] These two, among their city's most influential politicians, now joined in leading the political opposition to the Macedonians. Demades, however, who was also disgraced and briefly in exile as a result of the Harpalos affair,[30] remained prudently (as it turned out) in the shadows.

The siege of Lamia lasted through the winter. Unfortunately, Leosthenes, who appears to have been a truly gifted military leader, was killed during one of the many skirmishes that ensued.[31] In early spring reinforcements for Antipatros under Leonnatos, satrap of Hellespontine Phrygia, crossed over from Asia Minor. The Greeks under Leosthenes' successor

[27] IG II448 lines 9-12, 45-49; Diodoros (18.11.2) lists the Argives, Eleans, Messenians, and those inhabiting Akte as the other Peloponnesian allies. The Spartans as a consequence of their disastrous defeat near Megalopolis in 331 and the death of King Agis in the battle lacked the manpower and perhaps the will to join the cause. On the loss at Megalopolis and its aftermath, Bosworth, Conquest and Empire 203-204.

[28] Indeed, Hypereides was one of the principal prosecutors in the trial that brought about Demosthenes' exile. Fragments of his speech survive.

[29] Plutarch Demos . 27.4-6.

[30] On his exile see Deinarchos Against Demosthenes 29.

[31] Diodoros 18.13.5. Hypereides, Epitaphios 23, describes feelingly the difficult demands of this winter campaign with the necessity to be on constant alert.


Antiphilos lifted the siege of Lamia in order to intercept the approaching troops. Once again they were victorious and actually killed Leonnatos; Antipatros, however, escaped with some forces to Macedonia. Despite his escape, the Greeks decidedly had had the best of it up to this point.[32]

The fragmentarily preserved funeral speech of Hypereides for Leosthenes and the dead of the initial campaign seems to have been delivered shortly after this victory over Leonnatos.[33] This speech, the last of this genre known to us, was delivered over the fallen in the last military campaign that offered any real hope of keeping Athens and her allies free from Macedonian domination. It, therefore, deserves to be recognized as the swan song of Athenian freedom. On that spring day so long ago, with the victories over Alexander's deputies, Antipatros and Leonnatos, and their seasoned Macedonian troops still fresh in mind and with hope of freedom very much alive, Hypereides' patriotic words of praise over the fallen will have stirred the blood:

. (Epitaphios 24)

The end of the bid for independence from Alexander's successors came quickly. The Greek fleet was defeated in the straits of Abydos within weeks of the speech,[34] and Krateros reached Macedonia with more troops for Antipatros. The combined armies of Antipatros and Krateros met the Greeks at Krannon in Thessaly on 7 Metageitnion (ca . 5 August) and ended all opposition.[35] The Hellenic league broke up when Antipatros refused to deal with it, but consented only to negotiate with the separate cities.[36] More importantly, a short time before the battle of Krannon, a fateful naval engagement had occurred near Amorgos in which the largely Athenian fleet was completely defeated.[37] That defeat marked the end of

[32] Diodoros 18.15.5-8.

[34] IG II 398a line 7, II 493 lines 19-23, II 505 lines 17-25, II 506 lines 8-12. A. Wilhelm, "Att. Urk. V," SB Wien 220.5 (1942) 175-182, has pointed out that IG II 492 and Agora 14772, a text published originally by E. Schweigert (Hesperia 8 [1939] 30-32) and then republished with improvements by A. Raubitschek (TAPA 76 [1945] 106-107), also refers to this sea engagement.

[35] Plutarch Phokion 26 and, for the date, Camillus 19.5.

[36] Diodoros 18.17.7.

[37] Mar . Parium B lines 9-10; Plutarch Demetrios 11.


Athenian sea power forever and left the city in the aftermath of Krannon with no bargaining power. In consequence, the settlement imposed by Antipatros and Krateros on Athens was not nearly so lenient as those of Philip and Alexander.

As though in compensation for their failure to support King Agis' revolt in the year 331, the Athenians bore the brunt of this war. They led the anti-Macedonian resistance. The Athenian general Leosthenes deserves the credit for a strategy which nearly succeeded; indeed, he may have been the chief architect of the opposition. The Aitolians too provided significant troops in the initial phase that caused much discomfiture to Antipatros. However, it was the Thessalians and their cavalry in the end who proved the staunchest allies to the Athenians.[38] Under the command of Menon of Pharsalos, the Thessalian cavalry was at first forced to join Antipatros when he invaded Thessaly at the beginning of the war. During the initial engagement north of Thermopylai, however, they went over to Leosthenes and were instrumental in the defeats of Antipatros and then Leonnatos.[39] At Krannon they acquitted themselves well, but could not achieve a clear victory for the Greeks. They must, however, be counted among the most effective cavalry forces in the annals of warfare. Their leader Menon had a reputation among the allies second only to that of Leosthenes.[40] Moreover, with the association of the fragmentarily preserved inscriptions IG II2 545 and 2406, we may well now have, in addition to their commander's name, the names of some of these brave men and an invaluable record of Athenian loyalty during the political turmoil following the war to their most important military ally.[41]

[38] A little more than a generation earlier, when Nikophemos was archon in Athens (361/0), the Athenians joined the Thessalians in an alliance "for all time" against Alexander of Pherai. The text of this alliance survives as IG II 116 (= Tod, GHI no. 147 = Bengtson, Staatsverträge no. 293). IG II 175, part of another alliance with Thessaly, may stem from the same time. Whether this alliance lasted beyond Alexander's assassination in 358 is highly doubtful; still it attests to good relations of long standing between the two peoples.

[39] On the Thessalian cavalry's critical role, see Diodoros 18.15.2-4, 17.4-5.

[40] Plutarch Pyrrhos 1.4.

[41] Below 87-90.


The Inscriptions and the Food Supply

The food supply naturally is an important matter for any large city, particularly one like Athens that could not produce enough food of its own and was, consequently, dependent on imports. A shortage of foodstuffs was a very serious matter; the food supply understandably, therefore, was a regular item on the agenda at every inline image, i.e., every plenary session of the assembly. Indeed, it is hardly fortuitous that Aristotle mentions it and safeguarding the countryside in the same breath— inline image.[1] hole matter became even more important, of course, at those times when the citizens anticipated that the city might come under siege. It is not surprising then that the Athenians granted honors from time to time to various foreigners who helped feed the populace. It has been the strong tendency of scholars to associate these texts with times of serious shortages. Not every such inscription, however, need imply a major crisis. The food supply was always a matter for real concern.

In the years after the defeat at Chaironeia and down to about the year 320, several crises in the Athenian food supply have been identified.[2] The best-documented and most discussed is the undoubtedly severe shortage of the years 330-326.[3] It is most clearly attested in the multiple decrees

[1] Ath. Pol . 43.4.

[2] See S. Isager and M. H. Hansen, Aspects of Athenian Society in the Fourth CenturyB.C . (Odense 1975) 200-208; W. Will, Athen und Alexander , Münchener Beiträge zur Papyrusforschung und Antiken Rechtsgeschichte no. 77 (1983) 107-113; P. Garnsey, Famine and Food Supply in the Graeco-Roman World (Cambridge 1988) 150-164. For a general discussion of those involved in the import of food, see H. Montgomery," 'Merchants Fond of Corn': Citizens and Foreigners in the Athenian Grain Trade," Symbolae OsIoenses 61 (1986) 43-61. On the food supply and harbor measures controlling it, Isager and Hansen 19-29; and R. Garland, ThePiraeus (Ithaca 1987) 89-90, 201.

[3] The dates are usually given more broadly as 331-325/4. The narrower dates suggested here are based on the indications in the epigraphical evidence that the height of the crisis covered the years 330-327 or a bit later. See the discussions of Peçirka, Enktesis 70-72; and of J. Camp, "Greek Inscriptions," Hesperia 43 (1974) 323-324. See also A. Jardé, Les céreales dans l'antiquité grecque (Paris 1925) 43-47.


in honor of Herakleides of Salamis on Cyprus published as IG II2 360. He is praised in 325/4, when the crisis appears to have abated, for two actions. He was the first of the importers during the shortage (inline image, lines 8-9) in 330/29 to bring in grain and sell it at a reasonable price (lines 8-10, 29-31), and in 328/7 he contributed 3,000 drachmas towards the cost of supplying food (lines 11-12, 70). The speech Against Phormio in the Demosthenic corpus describes the rationing of grain in Athens and Piraeus at this time.[4] An important inscription from Kyrene in North Africa which dates to the early 320's mentions the same food shortage (inline image) and records grain distributions to a large number of Greek cities.[5] This shortage was clearly serious and widespread. It was also at this time that Alexander's newly appointed treasurer Harpalos sent a large amount of food to Athens and was granted citizenship.[6]

In the year 329/8, right in the midst of the crisis, the demos at Eleusis, clearly in reaction to the shortage and inflated prices, directed that the surplus wheat and barley from offerings to the sanctuary be sold at six and three drachmas respectively per medimnos.[7] The only Athenian honorary inscription other than IG II2 360 that can be associated quite certainly with the shortage of these particular years is IG II2 363. This text honors a certain Dionysios and, since the restoration inline image in lines 11-12 seems to be correct, reveals that he, like Herakleides of Salamis, did something in the first phase of the crisis (330/29) and is now being praised for having done more. It probably belongs, as Schwenk has argued,[8] to the year 326/5. Finally, the naval accounts of 326/5 and the following year, IG II2 1628 and 1629, mention payments to the grain fund that could be deducted from fines levied on certain trierarchs of years past.[9] These payments should almost certainly be connected with the

[4] 34.37.

[5] Tod, GHI no. 196. A Laronde, Cyrèe et laLibye hellénistique (Paris 1987) 30-34, provides a new text and discussion. For a recent discussion of the implications of this text, see E Brun, "La stèle des céréales de Cyrène et le commerce du grain en Égée au IV . s. av. J.-C.," ZPE 99 (1993) 185-196.

[6] Athenaios 13.586d; see Osborne, Naturalization III T82.

[7] IG II 1672 lines 282-288. These figures were probably below the then-current market prices.

[8] Schwenk pp. 327-329.

[9] IG II1628 lines 339-452 = IG II1629 lines 859-975; see also lines 60-85 of IG II 1631.


organized fund-raising effort inline image which took place at the height of the crisis in 328/7.[10] This must also have been the time that Demosthenes himself contributed a talent for the food supply.[11]

Instead of one long shortage, Garnsey in his recent study has interpreted the problems in 330/29 and in 328/7 as two separate shortages that were only loosely, if at all, connected.[12] This may be correct; but against it is the fact that the terms inline image and inline image seem to have been applied only to the difficulties of these years. If that is the case, these shortages were apparently viewed as one connected problem and more than temporary. Indeed this shortage of food was probably caused by widespread crop failures and shortfalls lasting several years.[13] That is, it was of a different order from shortages caused by faulty distribution, blockades, or acts of piracy.[14] Though serious, shortages of this nature could be remedied fairly quickly.

A few years later there was another shortage, which began perhaps during the Lamian War in 323/2 and lasted for several years.[15] The inscriptions that attest to this shortage are:

IG II2 369 + — Osborne, Naturalization no. D25. This inscription dates to early 322 and, although it does not directly mention food in its preserved parts, it honors a Bosporan for services rendered. These services are likely to have included shipment of grain.

[12] Famine and Food Supply 154-158.

[15] The speech Against Dionysodoros , no. 56 in the Demosthenic corpus, attests in its opening sections (especially 8-10) to the fluctuations in price and to the difficulty of getting grain from Egypt at this time.


IG II2 398a —honors someone who had saved many after the sea battle in the Hellespont during the war and had sent grain to Athens a bit later.[16]

IG II2 400—a decree proposed by Demades shortly before his death (see below 147); it honors a certain Eucharistos for supplying grain and promising more.

IG II2 401—this decree belongs to 321 or 320 and honors a citizen of Kyzikos for helping with the shipment of grain from Asia.

In addition to these two well-attested shortages, we learn from the speech Against Phormio of a crisis in the year in which Alexander demolished Thebes, i.e., 335.[17] We have no certain epigraphical testimony for it. We thus have knowledge of three shortages during the years after Chaironeia and down to 320, namely in the years 335, 330-326, and 323-320.[18]

The following inscriptions that mention the food supply have generally been associated with the period 331-ca . 320. None can be dated precisely enough to specify to which of the two shortages known in this decade they apply, and two of them, IG II2 408 and Agora I 7178, may well date prior to the year 330.

IG II2 342—re-edited with a new fragment by M. B. Walbank in ZPE 59 (1985) 107-111. This is a proxeny decree for two citizens of Tyre.

IG II2 343—Schwenk no. 84. This text honors Apollonides of Sidon.

IG II2 407—honors a Milesian for bringing grain to Athens.[19]

IG II2 408—honors two Herakleotes. If Kirchner's restorations are

[16] M. B. Walbank, "Athens Grants Citizenship to a Benefactor: IG II 398a and 438," Ancient History Bulletin 1 (1987) 10-12, associates IG II 438 with this text.

[17] 34.38.

[18] IG II 312 almost certainly forms part of the dossier of evidence regarding the grain supply in these years. It is a very fragmentary and worn text that preserves a crown and a relief (Meyer, Urkundenreliefs pl. 45.1 for a good photograph). The relief depicts the prow of a ship with sheaves of grain. Surely it derives from an honorary inscription that praised someone for importing food.

[19] If M. Walbank is correct in making his tentative association of this inscription with Agora I 7050 ("IG ii , 407 and SEG xxxii, 94: Honours for a Milesian Grain-Dealer," ZPE 67 [1987] 165-166), then it refers to the shortage of the years 323-320.


correct ad loc ., prosopographical considerations point to a date around 335 B.C.[20]

IG II2 409—honors two men for importing food from Sinope. See Wilhelm's restoration in "Att. Urktmden V," SB Wien 220.5 (1942) 150-152.

IG II2416b —honors a man from Kos for expediting the shipment of food to Athens and mentions prominently the support activities of the Athenian merchants and cleruchs on Samos.

IG II2 423—if the restoration inline image in lines 13-14 is correct, this text should be assigned to the crisis at the beginning of the decade.

Agora I 4956—Hesperia 9 (1940) 332-333; honors Pandios the Herakleote.

Agora I 7178Hesperia 43 (1974) 322-324; honors Sopatros of Akragas in Sicily. This measure was proposed by Lykourgos; it could therefore also refer to the crisis in 335 and cannot postdate the death of Lykourgos in 324.

Such then is the evidence for the food supply and the shortages during the years 335-320.

We find again in the epigraphical evidence concern for the food supply at the end of the century and continuing into the third century, when lack of food and money became a nearly constant problem. EM 12825 (Hesperia 5 [1936] 201-205) of the year of the archon Euxenippos (305/4) praises an individual for his care for the food supply. IG II2 479 and its counterpart IG II2 480 of late 304 or early 303 honor an Herakleote for, among other things, his monetary contribution towards the purchase of grain in 307/6. IG II2 499 of the year 302/1 recounts in praise of someone that he sold grain at a good price and contributed money for purchase of food.[21] These texts probably reflect the extra concern for the food supply caused by unsettled conditions that Athens faced during these years, particularly Kassandros' efforts to retake Athens in the years 307-304.

In 299/8 King Lysimachos donated 10,000 medimnoi of wheat.[22] We

[22] IG II 657 lines 11-14.


hear from the literary evidence of a severe shortage during the siege of Athens by Demetrios Poliorketes probably in the spring of 295[23] and of Demetrios' gift of 100,000 medimnoi after taking the city.[24] In addition, there is a spate of inscriptions of the years 286-284 honoring foreigners for help with the food supply.[25] At about this same time, as a result of the diplomacy of Phaidros of Sphettos, King Ptolemy provided both food and money.[26] These actions clearly shored up the freedom of the Athenians that had recently been won from Demetrios Poliorketes.[27]

Finally, Agora I 7360 honors a group of Rhodians for their help with the food supply. It was associated by its initial editor with the severe crisis of the years 330-326,[28] but the hand of the cutter reveals that it must be dated later than 320.[29] Indeed, most of this man's dated work falls in the years 295 and after. This fragmentary text, therefore, most probably belongs to the years after 287, when the Athenians successfully revolted from Demetrios Poliorketes' control. The Rhodians, who themselves had withstood a harsh siege by Demetrios in the years 305-304 and maintained their independence,[30] no doubt were happy to support the Athenians against their former enemy.

[23] Ch. Habicht, Untersuchungen 1-8, supported de Sanctis' date (294); Osborne, "The Archonship of Nikias Hysteros and the Secretary Cycles in the Third Century BC ," ZPE 58 (1985) 275-295, argued for Ferguson's (295). Habicht now leans toward the earlier date; see "Athens and the Ptolemies" in Classical Antiquity 11 (1992) 68-69.

[24] Plutarch Demetrios 33-34.

[25] IG II650 (King Ptolemy's admiral), 651 (Habron and Matrias), 653 (King Spartokos of the Bosporos), 654 (King Audoleon of Paionia), 655 (King Audoleon's agent).

[26] IG II 682 lines 28-30.

[27] See also T. L. Shear, Jr., Kallias of Sphettos , Hesperia Suppl. 17 (1978) 26-27.

[28] M. B. Walbank, Hesperia 49 (1980) 251-255.

[29] It was inscribed by the Cutter of IG II 650, who was not at work in the decade 330-320.

[30] Diodoros 20.81-88, 91-100.


The Inscriptions and Demetrios of Phaleron

One of the most notable facts about the period 317-307, the decade of Demetrios' rule,[1] is that almost no decrees of the assembly can be assigned to these years. Indeed there are now only two certain ones, IG II2450 and 453.[2] It has generally been deduced from this fact that the assembly met less often and that, whatever his rhetoric may have been,[3] Deme-

[1] The bibliography on Demetrios is extensive. In addition to PW IV 2817-2841 (Martini), PA 3455 (Kirchner), PWK Suppl. XI 514-522 (Wehrli), and APF 3455 (Davies), see E. Bayer, Demetrios Phalereus der Athener , Tüb. Beiträge 36 (Stuttgart 1942); and J. M. Williams, "Athens without Democracy: The Oligarchy of Phocion and the Tyranny of Demetrius of Phalerum, 322-307" (diss., Yale University 1982). W. S. Ferguson devoted a chapter to him in Hellenistic Athens 37-94; there are also articles by Ferguson ("The Laws of Demetrius of Phalerum and Their Guardians," Klio 11 [1911] 265-276), by S. Dow and A. H. Travis ("Demetrios of Phaleron and His Lawgiving," Hesperia 12 [1943] 144-165), by H.-J. Gehrke ("Das Verhältnis yon Politik und Philosophie im Wirken des Demetrios von Phaleron," Chiron 8 [1978] 149-193), and by J. M. Williams ("The Peripatetic School and Demetrius of Phalerum's Reforms in Athens," Ancient World 15 [1987] 87-98). For the collected ancient testimonia, see E Jacoby, FGrH no. 228; and E Wehrli, DieSchule des Aristoteles IV (Basel 1949).

[2] IG II727 probably belongs to the years of Demetrios (below 139), and IG II592 could date from the period of his control (below 155-156). Ch. Habicht will suggest in his forthcoming Athen von Alexander bis Antonios (Munich 1995) that IG II 418 , the end of a decree honoring ambassadors from Carthage, may be connected with the events of 310/09, the war between Agathokles, tyrant of Syracuse, and Carthage (Diodoros 20.40.1-42.5). Furthermore, J. Morgan in a forthcoming study of the Athenian calendar win argue the likelihood that IG II 585 belongs to the year 314/3. On the other hand, the following decrees that have been dated to the decade of Demetrios' rule should be removed. IG II449 probably does not date after 320 (below 99); II 451 belongs to the year 340/39 (below 73-74); II 452 is now dated to the year 328/7 (Schwenk no. 53; for evidence that this decree and IG II 399 were passed at the same meeting, see above 8n. 4); and II 454 belongs to 324/3 (S. Dow, Hesperia 32 [1963] 350; Schwenk no. 75). Finally, Koehler in IG , followed by Robert (Rev . Num ., 1977, 23-24), has associated IG II549 with events known to have occurred in 315/4. However, this text was inscribed by the Cutter of IG II 244 and probably dates before 320 B.C. (below 99).


trios' regime was strongly antidemocratic.[4] This may well have been so, but the mere absence of inscribed measures does not necessarily lead to this conclusion. It is very possible, for example, that the assembly was quite active and that the only activity much curtailed was the inscribing of decrees.

In this regard, it may be significant that the only preserved dose of a decree datable to the years of his control, namely lines 1-12 of IG II2 450b , contains no provision for payment.[5] Perhaps as a means of reducing expenditures for show Demetrios either disbanded or sharply reduced the public funds used for this purpose. In any case, the machinery of government clearly remained intact; archons were chosen each year. The preambles of the two extant decrees of the assembly follow the usual conventions and suggest that the meetings which they record were ordinary. In particular, the proedros appears in the expected place of the prescripts as chairman of the meeting, which in turn reveals that the council and its major subcommittee continued.[6] Furthermore, Demetrios gave his laws as an elected official,[7] and in 309/8 he held the annual office of archon epony-

[4] Ferguson, HA 61-62; H. Berve, Die Tyrannis bei den Griechen I (Munich 1967) 326-327.

[5] It must, however, be admitted that fragment b may preserve an amendment added after the (now-lost) payment formula.

[6] It is worth noting that mention of the secretary is omitted in both inscriptions. This may be chance; it could, however, suggest a de-emphasis of the position or that there were monthly secretaries, as in the period 321/0 to 319/8. There is obviously insufficient evidence to draw wide-ranging conclusions. However, consideration of the tribal affiliations of the known secretaries before and after Demetrios does suggest that there were annual secretaries preserving the tribal order for six of his years. The reasoning is as follows. The secretary of 318/7 came from tribe II (Aigeis). In the troubled year 307/6 the secretary came from Diomeia, a deme assigned during that year to the newly created tribe II, Demetrias. This cannot be an accident and was surely meant to flatter Demetrios, the son of Antigonos. After this anomaly, the secretary cycle then dearly starts up again in regular fashion the next year as the following tabulation reveals:


Aiantis XI (old IX)


Antiochis XII (old X)


Antigonis I


Erechtheis III


Aigeis IV



Clearly the jump from tribe I to tribe III in the years 304/3-303/2 was done because tribe II had held office in 307/6, out of order and early. Why then restart with the tribe Aiantis, the ninth tribe in the old order? It could have been arbitrary or decided by drawing lots, etc., etc. If that is not the case, the most natural assumption is that secretaries from tribes III-VIII had already served during Demetrios' regime.

[7] IG II 1201 line 11.


mous.[8] All of this not only points to the retention of the democratic machinery of government, but even suggests some scruple with regard to the appearance, if not the reality, of democracy.

However much the democratic modes remained in place, there is also no question that Demetrios exercised his power under the aegis of Kassandros.[9] The Athenians, including Demetrios, were not free to ignore his wishes, especially in the sphere of foreign policy. Moreover, certain measures were put in place in the city at the outset that either curtailed the democracy or promoted aristocratic interests. The citizenship was limited to those who possessed 1,000 drachmas.[10] The authority to determine the legality of laws seems to have been transferred from the courts to the nomophylakes .[11] Parallel to this, there was, perhaps, no scrutiny of citizenship grants before the law courts.[12] This may suggest a vesting of critically important policy-making matters in the hands of the few and, indeed,

[8] Mar. Parium B line 24, Diodoros 20.27. It has been inferred from this that Demetrios changed the procedure for choosing archons and other officials from selection by lot to election (J. Sundwall, De Institutis Reipublicae Atheniensium post Aristotelis Aetatem Commutatis , Acta Soc. Scient. Fennicae 34 [1907] 11-12. Sundwall is followed by Bayer [above n. 1, p. 90], Gehrke [above n. 1, p. 153], and Williams [above n. 1, p. 95]). Such a change would have been momentous indeed, for sortition lay at the heart of the Athenian democratic system. There exists, however, no real evidence for it, and I think it very unlikely. Sundwall based his discussion on epigraphical evidence that he thought showed that the secretaries under Deme-trios were not chosen by lot. However, not one of the inscriptions he adduced, we now know, belongs to the years 317-307. Moreover, Demetrios' service as archon does not, contrary to what has been assumed, provide any compelling evidence, for we know of at least one case in the late Hellenistic period, when sortition was demonstrably in use, of a well-known person's arranging to hold the eponymous archonship (S. Tracy, "TO MH D IS APXEIN." CP 86 [1991] 203). It could be accomplished by the expedient of having other possible candidates for the office either withdraw or not submit themselves for the allotment in the first place. Sundwall's attempt (p. 12) to identify the archons Demokleides (316/5) and Polemon (312/ 1) with well-known persons founders for lack of evidence. Neither name is so uncommon as to render his identification probable.

[9] Diodoros 18.74.2-3.

[10] Ibid . This, be it noted, actually expanded the citizen base in comparison with the oligarchic regime of 322-319 which had set a limit of 2,000 drachmas.

[11] Philoch. ft. 64 in FGrH 328; cf. Ferguson, "The Laws of Demetrius," (above n. 1) esp. 274-276; Bayer (above n. 1) 132-136; R. W. Wallace, TheAreopagos Council, to 307 (Baltimore 1989) 202-203; and M. H. Hansen, TheAthenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes (Oxford 1991) 210-211.


Aristotle specifically characterizes the nomophylakia as inline image.[13] However, it is important to emphasize, these measures also reveal unmistakably that the courts of law, which along with the assembly constituted the major avenue of citizen control of the government,[14] were active and in the hands of the citizenry.[15]

Inscribing, moreover, did not come to a complete halt under Deme-trios. Several deme decrees,[16] quite a few accounts of the treasurers of Athena and the other gods,[17] and a number of horoi[18] are all attested.[19] Most significantly, three of the cutters of this study are attested at work in early 317 or before and again after 307, namely the Cutters of IG II2 1262 (ca . 320-ca . 296), of IG II2 498 (321-302), and of IG II2 650 (317-283/2).[20] In addition, a fourth man, the EM 12807 Cutter, was active from the year 334/3 until at least 314/3. There had to have been more inscribing during the ten years of Demetrios' control than appears to us at this far remove in time, for, had there been a nearly complete hiatus, these men—who were specialists —would surely have been forced to turn to another line of work or to relocate. It is thus quite probable that more decrees belonging to these

[13] Politics 1.1323a7.

[14] On this point, see Hansen, Athenian Democracy 178-180.

[15] Indeed, Demetrios increased the size of courts judging cases of eisangelia from 1,000 to 1,500 persons (Pollux 8.53).

[16] IG II 1200, 1201, and MDAIA 66 (1941) 218-219; IG II1202 probably belongs to 340/39 (below 99-100).

[17] IG II 1476, 1478, 1479, 1480, 1483, 1492. For what little is known of their activity in the late fourth century, see T. Linders, TheTreasurers of the Other Gods in Athens and Their Functions (Meisenheim 1975) 60-61, 65.

[18] IG II 2680, 2725, 2726, 2727, 2744, 2745, 2762; Hesperia Suppl. 9 (1951) 33 no. 17; Agora XIX nos. H78, H84. M. I. Finley (Studies in Land and Credit in Ancient Athens , 500-200 B.C. , 2d ed. [New Brunswick, N.J. 19851, 177-181) has rightly challenged Ferguson's theory that these horoi can be used to date Demetrios' law code and determine the nature of his legislation concerning real property.

[19] In addition, IG II 1129 (a decree of the Milesians) seems to belong to the time of Deme-trios, while IG II 1259 (a decree of orgeones ), 2394 (a deme list), 3104 (dedication of a komarch) all date to the archonship of Theophrastos, i.e., either to 340/39 or to 313/2. The base of a statue set up by the Sphettians for Demetrios, son of Phanostratos (BCH 93 [1969] 56-71 = SEG 25 no. 206), may refer to the famous Demetrios, but it could equally well honor his grandson, Demetrios the Younger (below 44). The lettering on this base, so far as it can be discerned on the published photograph, provides no decisive due to the date.

[20] This last cutter, in contrast to the other two, did not apparently take part in the frenzy of inscribing that took place in the years 307/6 and after, following Demetrios' fall from power. The majority of his datable work belongs to the 290's and 280's. He may, therefore have left Athens or given up his trade as a letter-cutter for quite a while and only resumed it late (below 158-159).


years will eventually turn up and that some of the undatable ones now known belong to the period of Demetrios' control.

Still there is no question that there was less inscribing under Deme-trios.[21] There are, for example, no ephebic inscriptions known[22] and no inscriptions listing councillors. Yet the ephebeia either continued or, if (as seems likely) it was curtailed under the oligarchy of the years 321-319,[23] was renewed under Demetrios, for a single ephebe is attested for the year 312/1.[24] The existence of the council too is guaranteed by the appearance of the proedroi in the preambles of IG II2 450 and 453. The cutters who remained active found work where they could, namely inscribing deme decrees, inventories, boundary stones, and undoubtedly simple grave markers. They probably also did some free-lance work on buildings to make ends meet. Whatever the case, there surely was work for them to do.

Of the two fragmentary decrees which can be assigned certainly to the years of Demetrios' control one, IG II2 453, preserves only the opening lines, so that we do not know in any precise way what it dealt with. The first line merely reveals that it honored someone whose name began with the letters ANT. The date, however, is certain, January or February of 309, and the speaker

[_ _] is almost certainly Telokles, son of Telegnotos, from Alopeke, who under the oligarchy in early 318 proposed a decree honoring a metic and probably served in 303/2 as a councillor.[25]IG II2

[21] One of the ways that the new "democratic" regime of 307/6 and following presented itself was by ostentatiously publishing many decrees on stone. Clearly they intended the contrast between their practice and that under Demetrios to be notable. There are fifteen decrees known to me that are either definitely or very probably datable to the year of Anaxikrates (307/6): IG II358 , 455 , 456, 457, 458, 459, 460 , 461, 462, 463, 464 , 465, Agora I 5884 (Pritchett and Meritt, Chronology 8), EM 12706 (Hesperia 2 [1933] 398), and SEG 3 no. 86 (= J.J. Hondius, Novae Inscriptiones Atticae [Lyon 1925] 39-46).

[22] The ephebic inscription IG II 2970 (= Reinmuth no. 4) has been redated by F. W. Mitchel (Hesperia 33 [1964] 349-350) to the year 334/3.

[23] Above 19 and n. 79.

[24] IG II 2323a lines 46-47. John Morgan informs me that his work on the calendar suggests the possibility that IG II 585, a decree praising a paidotribes , may well belong to the year 314/ 3. Three ephebic texts are known that apparently date to the years 306 to 300: IG II 478, 556, and 1159 = Reinmuth nos. 17-19. They provide no evidence of a revival following ten years of suppression, but rather suggest a continuity of the institution. They reveal that the ephebeia by 306 B.C. consisted of a year's training instead of two, as in the period after Chaironeia under Lykourgos. See Ath. Pol . 42.2-5 for a description of the two-year training program. It appears very likely that Demetrios reinstated the ephebeia, but limited it to a year's training in order to allay Macedonian qualms about the youth of Athens having military training.

[25] Ch. Habicht, Studien 198. The inscription of the year 318 is Agora I 3878 (=Hesperia 7 [1938] 476-479; Moretti, ISE no. 4), and the bouleutic text is Agora XV no. 62 line 309.


450 fortunately is much better preserved. Enacted in the first month or so of the year 313,[26] it honors the Macedonian Asandros, son of Agathon, for long-standing acts of friendship and particularly for making available when he was visiting Athens his own ships and soldiers to the Athenians in a time of need. Although the actual grant is not preserved, it seems beyond doubt that this is a citizenship decree and that Asandros was awarded citizenship, as well as sitesis, proedria , and a bronze equestrian statue.[27] These honors are unusually high. Furthermore the measure was proposed by a known oligarch, Thrasykles of Thria, the anagrapheus of 321/0.[28]

This inscription has generally been connected with a known event, namely the expedition that the Athenians sent against the island of Lemnos at the behest of Kassandros.[29] Errington, however, may well be correct to argue for a chronology that places the battle over Lemnos in late 313.[30] If he is, it would dissociate this inscription from that particular event. Billows, in adopting the same chronology, points out that Asandros was himself pressed at the time of the Lemnos campaign and would scarcely have had men and ships to spare.[31] Whatever the case, it can scarcely be misleading for our political assessment of Demetrios' regime that the single (partially preserved) body of a decree of the assembly from the ten years of his control was proposed by a leading oligarch and honors an important Macedonian military figure, then satrap of Karia, and ally of Kassandros against Antigonos.[32]

Born about 355 B.C. Demetrios was a student of Theophrastos and

[26] Is it merely chance that both IG II 453 and 450 were enacted in the sixth prytany of their respective years?

[27] Osborne, Naturalization has re-edited and discussed this text as D42.

[29] Diodoros 19.68.3; for a recent presentation of this position, see Osborne, Naturalization II p. 114.

[30] R. M. Errington, "Diodorus Siculus and the Chronology of the Early Diadochoi, 320-311 B.C. ," Hermes 105 (1977) 496-500.

[31] Billows, Antigonos 116 n. 43.

[32] On Asandros and Kassandros and their alliance against Antigonos, see Billows, ibid . 116-121.


quite early earned a reputation for wisdom.[33] We know little enough of his career before he came to power in 317. We are told merely that he entered the political arena during the events surrounding Harpalos' flight to Athens in 324 B.C.[34] This remains for us a confused affair.[35] We have no way of knowing what Demetrios' precise involvement was, but almost certainly he favored a policy of accommodating Alexander. We next hear of him as one of those who was sent to negotiate with Antipatros and Krateros in the aftermath of the Athenian defeat at the battle of Krannon in 322.[36] The final terms agreed upon in those negotiations resulted in an oligarchic regime and the imposition of a Macedonian garrison in Piraeus. In addition, the leaders of the anti-Macedonian faction, Demosthenes, Hypereides, and Himeraios, Demetrios' brother, were condemned; they either committed suicide or were seized and killed. Not many years later, when the short-lived democracy backed by Polyperchon came to power in 318, a number of the pro-Macedonian leaders, including Phokion, were also executed.[37] Demetrios, though himself condemned at this time, escaped by wisely taking refuge with Nikanor, Kassandros' general in Piraeus.[38] He

[34] Diog. Laert. 5.75.

[35] E. Badian, "Harpalus," JHS 81 (1961) 16-43, is basic; see also Bosworth, Conquest and Empire 215-220; and I. Worthington, A Historical Commentary on Dinarchus (Ann Arbor 1992) 41-77.

[36] Demetrios On Style 289.

[37] Demades and his son had already been caught in double dealing by Kassandros and executed while on a mission to Macedonia in 319 (above 20). On the date, below 147 n. 12; and, on this embassy, J. M. Williams, "Demades' Last Years, 323/2-319/8 B.C. " Ancient World 19 (1989) 28-29.

[38] Nikanor and Demetrios will have had a natural affinity since they had both been students in the school of Aristotle. Nikanor, a fellow townsman of Aristotle from Stagira, was born about 360 and thus was a few years Demetrios' senior. He eventually married the daughter of his mentor Aristotle and thus figures prominently in his will (Diog. Laert. 5.11-12). Nikanor served under Alexander in the East and was entrusted to bring the important decree concerning the exiles to Greece for announcement at the Olympic games in the summer of 324 (Diodoros 17.109.1, 18.8.2-5). In 319 Kassandros appointed him garrison commander at Mounychia, a post he filled with great skill. He not only managed to hold Mounychia in the face of Polyperchon, but he succeeded in gaining control of the harbor and Piraeus itself (Diodoros 18.64-65, Plutarch Phokion 31-33). When Kassandros arrived in Piraeus, Nikanor was then dispatched to the Hellespont to confront Polyperchon's admiral Kleitos, whom he defeated near Byzantion (Diodoros 18.72.3-9). He returned to Piraeus victorious and soon thereafter (sometime during 317) fell afoul of the suspicions of Kassandros, who had him executed (Diodoros 18.75.1).


was thus in a position, when Kassandros sailed into Piraeus and Polyperchon withdrew, to negotiate a peace between the warring factions in the city and Piraeus[39] and to become Kassandros' agent in Athens.[40]

Diodoros reports the agreement of the Athenians with Kassandros in accordance with which Demetrios became epimeletes of the city.[41] And epimeletes does seem to have been his official title.[42] However, line 11 of IG II2 1201, a deme decree from early in his rule, reveals that the title of his office when he gave laws and to which he was elected by the people contained nine letters. Since epimeletes has ten letters, it has generally been supposed that his elected office differed and was either inline image or inline image. Each office indeed has its strong proponents. Not only, moreover, did Demetrios gain a lasting reputation for his lawgiving; it was one of the first tasks that he undertook.[43] This undoubted fact led Dow and Travis to argue the case for nomothetes persuasively.[44] Most, however, have used the evidence of IG II2 2971 to support the notion that the office Demetrios occupied during his rule was that of general.[45]

IG II2 2971 is a complete and rather elaborate statue base from Eleusis for the general Demetrios, son of Phanostratos, of Phaleron. The Athenian soldiers stationed in Eleusis, Panakton, and Phyle dedicated it to Demeter and Kore. The twelve inscribed crowns preserved on it commemorate Demetrios' military offices and equestrian victories. Since its discovery in the eighteenth century, it has naturally been taken to refer to the famous De-

[39] IG II 1201 lines 5-10. Another decree from just after Kassandros' assumption of control (Agora I 559 , published in Hesperia 4 [1935] 35-37) praises a military detachment of the tribe Kekropis for killing some public enemy or enemies.

[40] The curse tablet published in MDAIA 85 (1970) 197-198 shows how close they were, for it associates Demetrios with Kassandros and his most trusted lieutenants, namely his brother Pleistarchos and his Macedonian general Eupolemos. Habicht seems correct in associating this tablet with the repulse of Kassandros' attack on Athens in the year 304 (Pausanias' Guide to Ancient Greece [Berkeley 1985] 77-82).

[41] 18.74.3.

[42] Strabo (9.1.20) calls him epistates , and Polybios (12.13.9) prostates tes patridos ; neither of these appears to be an official designation.

[44] "Demetrios of Phaleron and His Lawgiving," Hesperia 12 (1943) 144-165, esp. 150-156.

[45] Ferguson, HA 47-48; A. Heuss, Stadt und Herrscher des Hellenismus , Klio Beiheft 39 (Leipzig 1937) 53-55; H.-J. Gehrke, "Politik und Philosophie bei Demetrios von Phaleron," Chiron 8 (1978) 173-175.


metrios of Phaleron and dated ca . 314. Indeed, it has been the linchpin in the argument that Demetrios came to prominence early as a general and held that office for much of the time he was in power. However, this inscription cannot be dated to the late fourth century B.C. , on two grounds.

First, the lettering of this base is the work of the Cutter of IG II2 788.[46] This man's career extended from about 270 to about 235 B.C. Second, the general on the base, in being honored by the garrisons at Eleusis, Panakton, and Phyle, can be no other than the general over the Eleusinian territory;[47] this generalship did not exist ca . 314. At the time of the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia and down to at least 290 B.C. there was just one general over the entire Attic countryside; this official had the title strategosinline imageinline image.[48] Sometime after that and not later than 265, this single office was divided into two positions, a general for the coastal region (inline imageinline image)[49] and another for the Eleusinian district, which included Panakton and Phyle (inline image).[50] This inscription then can be dated at the earliest no earlier than 270 B.C. It does not refer to the famous Demetrios of Phaleron, but to his homonymous grandson, who was the agent of Antigonos Gonatas in Athens about 260 in the aftermath of the Chremonidean War.[51] With this added information, we may date IG II2 2971 ca. 250.

Once IG II2 2971 has been removed from the dossier of evidence applicable to the famous Demetrios, we possess no reliable evidence that he

[46] See Appendix One.

[47] The earliest occurrence of mention of the garrison at Eleusis as a separate entity is IG II 1272 of 267/6. It is also mentioned apparently by itself in IG II 1280, a decree of 245-243 honoring Antigonos Gonatas (Habicht, Studien 59-62, for the date). The three garrisons together occur in IG II 1299 (236/5), 1303 (218/7), 1304 (211/0), and 1305, 1306, and 1307, all of the late third century B.C. In addition, IG II 1285 of ca. 250 (see Hesperia 57 [1988] 321 for the date) probably also mentioned the three garrisons, for it was enacted by the demos of the Eleusinians, and it names Panakton in line 22.

[48] Ath. Pol . 61, Reinmuth no. 15 lines 2-3 (1. side) of probably 329/8 (above 25-26), IG II 2847 of fin. s. IV a ., and 682 line 24 of ca. 290.

[49] See SEG 24 no. 154, of the year of Peithidemos (268/7?—for the year Hesperia 57 [1988] 309), IG II 2854 of ca. 258, and IG II 2856 and J. Pouilloux, La forteresse de Rhamnonte (Paris 1954) 118-120 no. 7, both of ca . 250.

[50] IG II 3460 of the year of Antimachos, who is known from a recently discovered inscription (as yet unpublished) to have been archon soon after the Chremonidean War (below 171 n. 3); and IG II 1287 of ca . 250.

[51] Obscurely known, his patronymic came to light only in 1978 (Hesperia 47 [1978] 281). Ferguson (HA 183) surmised that he was the man appointed by Antigonos Gonatas as thesmothetes (Athenaios 4.167f), and Habicht (Studien 18-20, 54) argued that this was a special multi-year appointment.


ever held a generalship or had an active military career.[52] Indeed, it is significant in this connection to note that when the son of Antigonos attacked Athens in the spring of 307, Demetrios of Phaleron withdrew without apparently offering anything more than token resistance. Rather, he negotiated on behalf of the city and received a safe-conduct to Thebes.[53] Demetrios' title in line 11 of IG II2 1201 was, therefore, almost certainly not strategos. The title nomothetes does suit the space, but it too has little to recommend it, for there were ordinarily many nomothetai , who usually served as members of large boards.[54] They were probably chosen by lot in the fourth century. An individual elected to act by himself as nomothetes was, if not on constitutional grounds impossible, at least highly unusual.[55] It too, therefore, seems unlikely.

This leaves us with the title epimeletes and the account of Diodoros. In what appears to be an accurate summary of the actual conditions laid down between Kassandros and the Athenians, Diodoros records that they agreed "to install as epimeletes of the city a single Athenian agreeable to Kassandros. And Demetrios of Phaleron was elected."[56] Wilhelm long ago realized that this strongly suggested that the title epimeletes once stood in IG II2 1201. He therefore restored lines 11-12: [inline imageinline imageinline image. This indeed now appears all along to have been the best choice. As to the objection that the title epimeletes is one letter too long, Wilhelm noted that it could be accommodated by assuming that the inscriber did

[54] For the nomothetai in the epigraphical evidence of the fourth century, see IG II 140 line 8, 222 lines 41 and 50, 244 line 6, 330 line 20, 334 + line 7 (= Hesperia 28 [1959] 239-247), 487 line 7, Agora I 6254 line 6 (=Hesperia 21 [1952] 355-359), 1 7180 line 1 (= Hesperia 43 [1974] 158-188), and IG VII 4254 line 40. There is no indubitable attestation in the epigraphical evidence of the title nomothetes in the singular.


not give the iota a stoichos of its own, but crowded it in as he did the iota of inline image in line 6.[57] It is not in the end at all improbable that the Athenians "elected" the epimeletes whom Kassandros designated.[58]

The existence of IG II2 2971 and the supposed active military career of Demetrios of Phaleron have obscured the real nature of the terms imposed on the Athenians by Kassandros in 317. It seems quite clear that he established two poles of power, one in Athens, one in Piraeus, each with different missions. He allowed the Athenians a certain measure of autonomy in their internal affairs by letting them "elect" a distinguished fellow citizen as overseer of the city. At the same time, he retained ultimate control by vesting all military power in his phrourarch stationed in Piraeus. This practice of creating a civil authority separate and distinct from the military was one that Alexander the Great had used to good effect during his campaigns in the East, particularly in Asia Minor.[59] The text of Diodoros points to this division: inline imageinline imageinline image.[60] As epimeletes Demetrios had primary responsibility for governing the city and dealing with its internal affairs; Dionysios, Kassandros' commander at the fortress of Mounychia in Piraeus, and his Macedonian garrison had control over military matters.[61] Kassandros wielded his authority through this garrison. He clearly

[57] GöttGelAnz 165 (1903) 784.

[59] W.W. Tarn in CAH VI 370; and Bosworth, Conquest and Empire 229-238.


dictated foreign policy to his Athenian subjects.[62] Whatever power or influence Demetrios and the Athenians had over their own military affairs was probably in practice slight and dependent on the concurrence of the garrison commander in Piraeus.[63]

Nevertheless, within this circumscribed arena of action, Demetrios seems to have protected the interests of his fellow citizens.[64] The ten years of his control were a time of domestic peace and stability for the Athenians. He revised the law code and perhaps systematized it.[65] Most significantly to his credit he appears to have reinstated, no doubt in the face of strong Macedonian intransigence, a year-long course of military training for the youth of Athens.[66] He also curbed certain excesses in the areas of entertaining, dress, and burial customs.[67] Although these intrusions into

[62] This is not to imply that the Athenians were totally docile. There was clearly always powerful resentment against a foreign garrison stationed in Piraeus, a resentment which flourished despite the relative peace and prosperity that Demetrios brought to the city. In 313 some Athenians in collusion with Antigonos' general Polemaios forced Demetrios to seek a truce and alliance with Antigonos against Kassandros (Diodoros 19.78.4). Poliorketes' failures in Syria soon forced Antigonos to abandon his planned attack against Greece and relieved Demetrios from this awkward situation. Whether the Athenians involved did this secretly, as Diodoros says, or with Demetrios' knowledge, we cannot know. Perhaps he tacitly accepted it. Surely he was not above playing the major contenders off against one another or switching allegiance to someone who seemed about to gain the upper hand. Officially of course he maintained steadfastly his loyalty to his patron, Kassandros. To do otherwise would have invited swift punishment, for Kassandros clearly had no hesitation to execute those whom he regarded as disloyal to him, as the cases of Demades (above n. 37) and Nikanor (above n. 38) had shown.

[65] IG II 1201 lines 12-13, Mar. Parium B line 16. For recent discussions of the nature of his lawgiving, see Gehrke (above n. 1) and Williams (above n. 1).

[66] Note 24 above.

[67] Philochoros FGrH 38 F65, and, on the activities of the gynaikonomoi under Demetrios, Bayer (above n. 1) 51-69. Concerning grave monuments and burials, Cicero De Legibus 2.64-66.


the conduct of private affairs opened Demetrios to attacks on his own private life,[68] nevertheless the measures may well have been needed in a comparatively small city where everyone who was anyone knew everyone else. The consequent peer pressure had apparently resulted in an unhealthy amount of expenditure of resources for reasons of show. If one considers only domestic affairs, Demetrios appears to have been an enlightened leader, and in some quarters at least his claims of strengthening the democracy were accepted.[69] Cicero found him wholly admirable: "qui vero utraque re excelleret, ut et doctrinae studiis et regenda civitate princeps esset, quis facile praeter hunc inveniri potest?"[70]

What we know of Demetrios' political activities suggests that he was primarily a diplomat and a lawgiver. He was also a prominent student of philosophy and a prolific writer.[71] He appears in short to have taken himself seriously as a philosopher and man of letters. During his ten-year regency the Athenians may in fact have had in him a leader whose primary aspiration was to be their philosopher-king. Demetrios was, after all, among Theophrastos' most successful students. Moreover, Theophrastos remained in Athens under Demetrios' regime[72] and doubtless acted as an adviser to his protégé, particularly in his role as lawgiver.[73] The comic poet

[68] Athenaios 12.542b-c, e-f, 13.593e-f; Diog. Laert. 5.76.

[70] De Legibus 3.6.14; see also De Re Publ . 2.1.2, Pro Rab. Post . 9.23.

[71] Diog. Laert. 5.80-81 gives the tides of his works and describes him as nearly the most prolific of the Peripatetics.

[73] At what stage Theophrastos' own massive work on the laws, his Nomoi , was at this time is unfortunately unclear. It appears that he either composed it soon after taking over as head of the Peripatos or in the first years of Demetrios' rule. In any case, he was able to give ample advice on the subject. See A. Szegedy-Maszak, The "Nomoi" of Theophrastus (New York 1981), for a new edition. Szegedy-Maszak discusses the date on pages 79-81 and explicitly characterizes Theophrastos' work on page 86 as "an encyclopedia for legislators, which could be consulted to insure that a prospective law was the best one available."


Menander, who was another of Theophrastos' students and about a dozen years younger than Demetrios, was also active in Athens at this time. Indeed, it appears likely that he produced the Dyskolos during 317/6, Demetrios' first year at the helm.[74] Later, because of his friendship with Demetrios, he was threatened with a lawsuit at the time of Demetrios' expulsion in 307/6.[75]

Whatever our judgment may be of Demetrios of Phaleron's willingness to allow a foreign power to control Athens' external affairs,[76] his abilities and aspirations as lawgiver and man of letters were clearly well regarded by his contemporaries.[77] Whether he went to the court of Ptolemy I Soter at Alexandria soon after 307[78] or only after Kassandros' death in 297,[79] he played an important role in the intellectual life of that city. Indeed, it appears that Soter took him as an adviser when he could not secure the services of Theophrastos, the head of the Peripatos.[80] Our sources suggest that he continued doing in Alexandria what he had done in Athens, for, among other activities, Demetrios advised the king on the law

[74] E. W. Handley, The Dyskolos of Menander (Cambridge, Mass. 1965) 7; A. W. Gomme and F. H. Sandbach, Menander: A Commentary (Oxford 1973) 128-129.

[75] Diog. Laert. 5.79.

[76] He has been heavily criticized (nn. 67 and 68 above). Indeed this strong negative sentiment is surely responsible for the exaggerated stories of the number of his own bronze statues that he is supposed to have erected and that were pulled down when his "tyranny" was ended in 307; see [Dio Chrysost.] Oration 37.41, who numbers them at 1,500; Diog. Laert. 5.75 gives a figure of 360; Strabo 9.1.20, more than 300; Plutarch Mor . 820e, 300. Surely these numbers as well as the story deserve no credence. Demetrios was no maddened megalomaniac who had to see his statue in every shop and on every street comer. Probably there were statues of Demetrios in Athens during his rule, but not a single base of one has yet been identified with certainty. IG II 2971 does not, as shown above, apply to him, and the base of a statue set up by the Sphettians in honor of Demetrios, son of Phanostratos (EM 13379, published in BCH 93 [1969] 56-70), may refer to him or to his homonymous grandson (above n. 19).

[77] Although Demetrios was never head of the school, it does seem to be a further indication of his standing that Diogenes Laertios in his fifth book adds Demetrios' life to his account of the lives of the first four scholarchs of the Peripatos. On this point, see M. G. Sollenberger, "The Lives of the Peripatetics: An Analysis of the Contents and Structure of Diogenes Laertius' 'Vitae philosophorum' Book 5," ANRW 36.6 (Berlin 1992) 3798-3800.

[78] Cicero De Finibus 5.19.53.

[79] Diog. Laert. 5.78.

[80] Ibid . 37.


code for Alexandria[81] and on his plans for what was to become the great library.[82]


The account in the letter of Aristeas that made Demetrios head of the library charged with collecting all the books in the world,[83] even with translating books from the Hebrew,[84] is certainly late and fundamentally wrong on some important points. To take but the most obvious—however much the first Ptolemy may have laid the groundwork for it, the library as an actual institution did not apparently come into being until the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphos. By then Demetrios was out of favor at court; he could not, therefore, have been head of the library. Surely, however, Demetrios was active in some way in the efforts of the first Ptolemy to create a collection. The letter could well, therefore, preserve in exaggerated form a real memory of Demetrios' activities. He clearly was not only a serious writer and man of letters, but was taken as such by his contemporaries. Furthermore, he no doubt put together at least part of the collection that later became the great library.[85] Is it not prima facie probable, then, that Demetrios, as part of his literary activities for the first Ptolemy, acquired ca . 295 B.C. copies of many of the works of Aristotle and Theophrastos? One need scarcely point out that, as a distinguished member of the Peripatos, he would have been unusually well positioned to do exactly this.

If this hypothesis is correct (and hypothesis it must remain), the early history of Aristotle's works must be seen in a different light than heretofore. Previous discussion has tended to focus on the activities of one Neleus of Skepsis, to whom Theophrastos left all his books at his death ca . 287 B.C.[86] It is reported, I assume correctly, that the books of Aristotle were among Theophrastos' books.[87] The ancient sources preserve two conflicting accounts about Neleus' handling of his legacy. One was that he took them to Skepsis, where after his death they lay moldering in a cellar until

[81] Aelian VH 3.17; see also P.M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria I (Oxford 1972) 114-115.

[82] Plutarch Mor . 189d; Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria 1314-315, 690.

[83] I owe the general idea behind this epilog in part to my colleague Alan Code.

[84] The letter of Aristeas to Philokrates (Jacoby, FGrH 228 T6e).

[85] Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria 314-315.

[86] Diog. Laert. 5.52. Theophrastos died either in the year 288/7 or in 287/6.

[87] The report occurs in Athenaios 1.3a-b and in Strabo 13.1.54. The will of Aristotle preserved in Diogenes Laertios (5.11-17) makes no provision for his books. There are two possible reasons: either the will is incomplete or the books had already been entrusted to Theophrastos.


Apellikon of Teos brought them back to Athens early in the first century B.C.[88] The other was that he sold them to Ptolemy H Philadelphos for the library at Alexandria.[89] Whatever Neleus' exact role was,[90] it is significantly diminished in importance if we believe that, thanks to the activities of Demetrios of Phaleron, copies of many of the major Aristotelian treatises were already in Alexandria before the death of Theophrastos. On account of this they were known in the Hellenistic period. Moreover, their presence will have acted as a catalyst to spur the agents of Ptolemy II to assemble in the library at Alexandria as complete a collection as possible of the works of Aristotle.[91] Thus it is quite possible that the very efforts of Demetrios to preserve the writings of his great master and his followers brought it about that they were concentrated at the library in Alexandria at the time of the great fire, and thus many were lost to posterity.

[88] Strabo 13.1.54, Plutarch Sulla 26.1-2.

[89] Athenaios 1.3a-b.

[90] On Neleus' activities, see H. B. Gottschalk, "Notes on the Wills of the Peripatetic Scholarchs," Hermes 100 (1972) 335-342; and C. Lord, "On the Early History of the Aristotelian Corpus," AJPh 107 (1986) 137-161, esp. 138-145.

[91] Neleus may indeed have been approached by them and sold to them much of what he had.



In the following dossiers a plus sign (+) before an inscription number indicates that the text receives discussion in the comments that follow.


List of Inscriptions Assigned

Inscr. number

Assignment, page reference




2 105 Cutter, 67-69



2 105 Cutter, 69



2 105 Cutter, 69



2 354 Cutter, 106



2 105 Cutter, 69



2 105 Cutter, 69



2 105 Cutter, 69,123n.3



2 105 Cutter, 70, 72



2105 Cutter, 70, 74



2 334 Cutter, 83



2 334 Cutter, 84



2 334 Cutter, 84



2 334 Cutter, 84, 90-91,167n.2



2 334 Cutter, 74n.12, 84, 91, 167n.2



litt. volg ., 77



litt. volg ., 72n.6, 77



litt. volg ., 77



2 354 Cutter, 106



2 244 Cutter, 98



2 337 Cutter, 114



2 244 Cutter, 8n.6, 45n.54, 96-97, 98



2 105 Cutter, 70



EM 12807 Cutter, 122, 126



2 105 Cutter, 70, 71-73



2 1262 Cutter, 138, 149



2 105 Cutter, 70, 71-73



2 244 Cutter, 98



2 105 Cutter, 70



2 105 Cutter, 70, 74-75


Inscr. number

Assignment, page reference

IGII2 (cont .)



litt. volg ., 77, 123n.2



2 105 Cutter. 70



EM 12807 Cutter, 122



2 105 Cutter, 70



joins2 257



2 498 Cutter, 152, 153



2 244 Cutter, 98, 103



2 334 Cutter, 84, 91



litt. volg ., 77



litt. volg ., 77



2 244 Cutter, 11n.28, 98



2 330 Cutter, 45n.54, 74, 117-118



2 334 Cutter, 11n.28, 84



2 334 Cutter, 11n.25, 45n.54, 82-83, 84



EM 12807 Cutter, 8n.4, 122, 126-127



2 244 Cutter, 73n.9, 98



2 337 Cutter, 11n.23, 34n.20, 112-114, 145



2 334 Cutter, 13n.45, 84, 92-93, 145



2 354 Cutter, 106, 110, 123n.3



2 354 Cutter, 106



2 334 Cutter, 8n.4, 84, 110-111



litt. volg ., 8n4, 77, 110-111



2 337 Cutter, 12n.35, 110-111, 114



2 337 Cutter, 12n.35, 114



2 354 Cutter, 104-105, 106



2 498 Cutter, 40n.21, 152



2 354 Cutter, 106



EM 12807 Cutter, 32, 122, 127



2 498 Cutter, 20, 152



joins2 242



I 4266 Cutter, 165, 168



2 1187 Cutter, 134



EM 12807 Cutter, 20, 122



2 244 Cutter, 98



EM 12807 Cutter, 122



2 1262 Cutter, 138, 149



2 1262 Cutter, 20, 33, 138, 147n.12



2 1187 Cutter, 33, 134



2 244 Cutter, 8n.5, 98



EM 12807 Cutter, 8n.4, 122, 126-127


Inscr. number

Assignment, page reference



EM 12807 Cutter, 33, 122, 124



EM 12807 Cutter, 8n.4, 123, 126-127



part of2 369



part of2 285



2 334 Cutter, 84



EM 12807 Cutter, 16n.61, 123, 127-128



2 1262 Cutter, 36n.2, 138, 141n.4



2 354 Cutter, 106



2 244 Cutter, 98



EM 12807 Cutter, 123, 128



2 337 Cutter, 114



2 244 Cutter, 98



2 1262 Cutter, 138, 144



part of2 330



EM 12807 Cutter, 17n.69, 19n.78, 21n.92, 23n.3, 27n.27, 123



2 244 Cutter, 36n.2, 78n.4, 99,103



EM 12807 Cutter, 36, 37, 40-41, 124



2 105 Cutter, 36n.2, 70, 73-74, 78n.2



2 1262 Cutter, 40n.21,138



2 1262 Cutter, 40n.21, 138, 144-145



2 1262 Cutter, 40n.21, 138



2 1262 Cutter, 138



I 4266 Cutter, 34, 165-166



2 498 Cutter, 22n.96, 152



2 495 Cutter, 22n.99, 162-163



2 650 Cutter, 155, 157



2 498 Cutter, 34n.21, 152, 153



2 495 Cutter, 22n.99, 145, 160-162, 163



2 1262 Cutter, 22n.99, 139, 145



2 1262 Cutter, 22n.99, 139, 145, 148



2 498 Cutter, 22n.96, 150-151, 152-153



2 1262 Cutter, 139, 145



2 1262 Cutter, 22n.96, 23n.3, 86n.2, 139, 145



joins2 496



part of2 105



2 1262 Cutter, 139



2 244 Cutter, 99



2 334 Cutter, 29, 84, 87-90



2 337 Cutter, 114, 115



2 244 Cutter, 36n.2, 99, 103


Inscr. number

Assignment, page reference

IGII2 (cont .)



2 330 Cutter, 118, 119



2 498 Cutter, 153



litt. volg ., 77



I 4266 Cutter, 166



2 1262 Cutter, 139



joins2 392



2 1262 Cutter, 139



2 650 Cutter, 36n.2, 155-156, 157



EM 12807 Cutter, 124



joins2 304



2 1187 Cutter, 134



2 1262 Cutter, 22n.98, 139



2 650 Cutter, 156, 157



2 650 Cutter, 156, 157



2 650 Cutter, 35n.25, 154-155, 156, 158



2 650 Cutter, 35n.25, 156



I 4266 Cutter, 166, 168



I 4266 Cutter, 35n.25, 166



2 650 Cutter, 156, 158



I 4266 Cutter, 166



I 4266 Cutter, 166, 167-168



2 650 Cutter, 156



I 4266 Cutter, 166



I 4266 Cutter, 166, 169



2 650 Cutter, 156



2 1262 Cutter, 36n.2, 139



2 1262 Cutter, 139, 145



I 4266 Cutter, 166, 167-168



part of2 684



2 650 Cutter, 156



2 244 Cutter, 99



2 1187 Cutter, 12n.37, 110n.2, 134



2 105 Cutter, 70



2 1176 Cutter, 12n.34, 129-130



2 1187 Cutter, 19n.79, 132-134



2 337 Cutter, 114, 115



2 334 Cutter, 84



2 1262 Cutter, 139



2 1187 Cutter, 27n.26,134



2 354 Cutter, 106


Inscr. number

Assignment, page reference



2 354 Cutter, 12n.36, 106, 110



2 244 Cutter, 39n.16, 73n.7, 99-100



part of2 716



2 337 Cutter, 13n.42, 114



2 1262 Cutter, 139



2 334 Cutter, 13n41, 84-85



2 244 Cutter, 100



2 1262 Cutter, 139



2 337 Cutter, 114



2 244 Cutter, 100



2 1262 Cutter, 139,145



2 1262 Cutter, 136-138, 139, 145-146



I 4266 Cutter, 166, 168-169



2 1262 Cutter, 139, 146



2 1262 Cutter, 140



2 1187 Cutter, 134, 135



joins2 1194



2 1176 Cutter, 131



litt. volg ., 79



2 105 Cutter, 70



litt. volg ., 79



litt. volg ., 79


1487a A

2 1262 Cutter, 140



2 1262 Cutter, 140



2 354 Cutter, 8n.4, 106



2 354 Cutter, 106



2 354 Cutter, 106


1496A a-d,f-g (III)

2 334 Cutter, 85, 145n.8


1496A e

2 105 Cutter, 70-71


1496A h

2 354 Cutter, 107


1496B b,c

2 334 Cutter, 85


1496B h

litt. volg ., 79



2 354 Cutter, 107



2 334 Cutter, 11n.28, 85



2 334 Cutter, 11n.28, 85



2 334 Cutter, 11n.28, 85



2 334 Cutter, 11n.28, 85



2 334 Cutter, 85



2 334 Cutter, 85



2 334 Cutter, 85


Inscr. number

Assignment, page reference

IGII2 (cont .)


1518B b

2 334 Cutter, 85



2 334 Cutter, 85



2 334 Cutter, 85



litt. volg ., 79



2 334 Cutter, 85



litt. volg ., 79



2 334 Cutter, 85



2 334 Cutter, 85



2 334 Cutter, 85



2 334 Cutter, 86



2 334 Cutter, 86



2 334 Cutter, 86



2 244 Cutter, 100



2 354 Cutter, 107



litt. volg ., 79



litt. volg ., 79



litt. volg ., 79



litt. volg ., 79



litt. volg ., 79, 80n.7



litt. volg ., 80 and n.7



2 244 Cutter, 100



2 244 Cutter, 100



2 244 Cutter, 100



2 354 Cutter, 107



2 354 Cutter, 107



litt. volg ., 77



litt. volg ., 77



2 354 Cutter, 107



2 244 Cutter, 100



litt. volg ., 80 and n.8



litt. volg ., 80 and n.8



2 334 Cutter, 86



2 334 Cutter, 86, 126



2 354 Cutter, 10n.19, 15n.56, 86n.2, 107



litt. volg ., 31, 80



2 354 Cutter, 31, 32n.14, 107



2 334 Cutter, 86



litt. volg ., 80



litt. volg ., 80



2 334 Cutter, 10n.20, 86


Inscr. number

Assignment, page reference



2 334 Cutter, 12n.30, 86



2 334 Cutter, 12n.30, 86, 93



litt. volg ., 80



2 334 Cutter, 86



litt. volg ., 80



2 1176 Cutter, 131



2 1176 Cutter, 131



litt. volg ., 77



I 4266 Cutter, 166, 169



2 244 Cutter, 100



part of2 545



2 244 Cutter, 100, 103



litt. volg ., 77



part of2 2493



2 354 Cutter, 107



part of2 143




identical with[2] 338



litt. volg ., 13n.46, 77, 92n.20



litt. volg ., 13n.46, 45n.55, 78, 92n.21

Agora I



2 244 Cutter, 100



litt. volg ., 78



2 650 Cutter, 43n.39, 156, 158


631a + 939

2 334 Cutter, 86, 93-94



part of (?) I 1851



part of (?) I 1851



2 354 Cutter, 93-94, 107



part of (?) I 1851



part of2 1582



litt. volg ., 78



EM 12807 Cutter, 124



litt. volg ., 78



litt. volg ., 80



litt. volg ., 78



2 1262 Cutter, 140



part of (?) I 1851



part of2 1582



part of2 1582



part of2 1582


Inscr. number

Assignment, page reference

Agora I (cont .)



part of2 1582



part of2 1582



2 244 Cutter, 100-101



2 1262 Cutter, 140, 141-143



2 354 Cutter, 107



2 354 Cutter, 107



joins I 1095



litt. volg ., 78



joins2 1176



2 1262 Cutter, 140, 146



2 244 Cutter, 101



joins I 1570



part of2 369



2 330 Cutter, 119



litt. volg ., 78



2 650 Cutter, 156-157



2 1262 Cutter, 140, 149



2 244 Cutter, 101



litt. volg ., 80



2 354 Cutter, 107



2 354 Cutter, 107



2 1262 Cutter, 140



2 354 Cutter, 107, 110-111



litt. volg ., 80



2 354 Cutter, 107



2 1262 Cutter, 140, 143-144



litt. volg ., 80



2 105 Cutter, 71



2 1187 Cutter, 40n.25, 135



part of I 3806



2 334 Cutter, 86, 94-95



EM 12807 Cutter, 124



I 4266 Cutter, 164-165, 166



2 354 Cutter, 107, 108-110



I 4266 Cutter, 166



joins I 1000



2 495 Cutter, 162



2 334 Cutter, 86



litt. volg ., 80


Inscr. number

Assignment, page reference



2 334 Cutter, 86



EM 12807 Cutter, 124



2 495 Cutter, 162



part of I 4870



part of2 369



litt. volg ., 80



2 105 Cutter, 71



joins2 402



I 4266 Cutter, 166



2 244 Cutter, 101-102



joins I 6516



part of I 2409



EM 12807 Cutter, 124



2 1262 Cutter, 140



2 330 Cutter, 119



2 1262 Cutter, 140



2 650 Cutter, 157



2 1262 Cutter, 140



part of 15709



part of2 334



2 1262 Cutter, 140



2 354 Cutter, 107



part of2 1496A



litt. volg ., 78



2 1262 Cutter, 140



2 1262 Cutter, 140-141



2 354 Cutter, 107



2 650 Cutter, 157



2 1262 Cutter, 141



EM 12807 Cutter, 124



joins2 1195



2 1262 Cutter, 141



2 1262 Cutter, 40n.21,141, 146



2 650 Cutter, 157, 158



litt. volg ., 80, 86



joins I 3983



litt. volg ., 80



2 1262 Cutter, 141



2 334 Cutter, 86



2 354 Cutter, 11n.25, 107, 115


Inscr. number

Assignment, page reference

Agora I (cont .)



2 334 Cutter, 87



joins2 1176



2 244 Cutter, 41n.28, 101, 103



2 495 Cutter, 162, 163



part of2 1195



EM 12807 Cutter, 33n.19, 124



2 334 Cutter, 87, 94-95



2 244 Cutter, 11n.25, 92n.21, 101



litt. volg ., 41n.28, 80



2 334 Cutter, 87



litt. volg. . 77n.1, 78



2 334 Cutter, 87, 94-95



2 337 Cutter, 114



2 354 Cutter, 33-34, 107



litt. volg ., 78



2 650 Cutter, 35, 157



litt. volg ., 78




EM 12807 Cutter, 124



2 1262 Cutter, 141



litt. volg ., 78



2 1262 Cutter, 141



2 1262 Cutter, 40n.21, 141



EM 12807 Cutter, 120-121, 124, 128



litt. volg ., 78



part of EM 13393



litt. volg ., 78



litt. volg ., 11n.25, 78



2 1262 Cutter, 141



part of (?)[2] 113



part of2 143



part of2 1438



2 334 Cutter, 12n.39, 87



2 334 Cutter, 87



EM 12807 Cutter, 13n.43, 125


13354a lines 1-12

2 105 Cutter, 71



litt. volg ., 78



litt. volg ., 78, 99n.2



litt. volg ., 78


Inscr. number

Assignment, page reference

Acropolis Mus. inv. no. 7010

2 1262 Cutter, 141

Eleusis inv. no. 714

joins2 1194



31 (1962) 54-56

EM 12807 Cutter, 125


54 (1985) 137-139

litt. volg ., 78


55 (1986) 177-82

2334 Cutter, 10n.18, 87

Horos 4 (1986) 11-18

2 495 Cutter, 22n.99, 162-163


2 244 Cutter, 12n.30, 101

Eleus . I






91 (1978) 289-306

2 354 Cutter, 12n.33, 108


lines 1-17


lines 18-53

litt. volg ., 79

Robert, Études

EM 12807 Cutter, 12n.38, 125-126




The Cutter of IG II2 105
Dates: 368-339

General characteristics of the lettering (fig.1)

The letter-strokes of this workman are relatively thick and carefully placed in relation to one another. In contrast to other cutters of the time this man does not often thicken perceptibly the ends of strokes. Occasionally a straight hasta was inscribed in such a manner that two parallel (or slightly diverging) lines created by the chisel cuts can be seen to form a stroke. I term this phenomenon "double cutting"; it is quite common in fourth-century lettering down to the year 320 or thereabouts. In all, the lettering of this particular cutter has a solid, neat appearance.

Peculiarities of individual letters


This letter varies in width and is sometimes quite wide; the crossbar is placed slightly below the midpoint. The left slanting stroke sometimes overlaps at the apex a little. This is also true of delta and lambda.


This letter is relatively thin.


The central horizontal tends to be a bit shorter than the other two and sometimes does not touch the vertical. Sometimes all three horizontals are about the same length. This is especially true when the lettering is small or the width of the stoichoi relatively narrow.


The slanting strokes are usually shorter than the vertical and join it at the middle. Often the lower does not actually make contact with the vertical but rather with the upper slanting hasta .


The outer strokes are sometimes almost vertical. The strokes which comprise the central v often begin a little below the tops of the outer strokes. The v varies in size—it usually extends down less than half the height



Figure 1.
 IG IP2  105 lines 7-13.


of the letter, but occasionally it almost reaches the base of the letter.


The diagonal customarily begins below the top of the first vertical and joins the second at, or close to, the bottom.


This letter is quite round and only slightly smaller than the other letters.


This letter is customarily quite thin; the horizontal does not extend beyond the verticals.


The loop is oblong and quite wide, filling the width of the stoichos . It also occupies about half the height of the letter.


This letter is taller than the others. The top and bottom strokes slant. The central strokes of the letter are shorter usually, so that this part does not extend to the


front of the letter. The bottom slanting stroke often stands out because it is longer than the top stroke and more deeply inscribed.


This letter is usually about the same height as the others and composed of three strokes of about the same length.


This letter is tall and round, open at the bottom, and has prominent strokes extending to right and left.

List of inscriptions

IG II2 105

Archon [Nausigen]es (368/7). E. Schweigert, Hesperia 7 (1938) 627, attributed IG II2 523 to this text. Tod, GHI no. 136; Bengtson, Staatsverträge no. 280; Kirchner-Klaffenbach, Imagines 2 no. 53.

IG II2 107

Archon [Nausi]genes (368/7). Tod, GHI no. 131. See T. A. Tonini, Acme 42 (1989) 47-61, for discussion of the historical circumstances surrounding this text.

IG II2 112

Archon Molon (362/1). Tod, GHI no. 144; Bengtson, Staatsverträge no. 290; Meyer, Urkundenreliefs no. A58 and plate 17.2.

IG II2 132

The second decree is dated to 355/4. Peçirka, Enktesis 37-38.[1]

IG II2 143

Archon [Phras]iklei[des] (371/0) or [Char]iklei[des] (363/2). To this stele have been attributed EM 12929 by E. Schweigert (Hesperia 7 [1938] 278-280) and IG II2 2813 by E Roussel (Rev. Arch . 18 [1941] 216-220). For a new reconstruction, see E. Ruschenbusch, ZPE 54 (1984) 247-252 = SEG 34 no. 63.[2]

IG II2 161

Meyer, Urkundenreliefs no. A120 and plate 48.4 (fragment a only).

[1] A. Wilhelm, "Att. Uric. V," SBWien 220.5 (1942) 134-135, judged that this and IG II 131 were inscribed by the same hand. The lettering of the latter is very close, but I do not feel certain that it is the same hand.

[2] I am unable to agree with M. Walbank's statement in ZPE 73 (1988) 83-85 that IG II 138, 143, and 207 are by the same hand. I do not in fact judge the writing of either IG II 138 or 207 to be very close in style to the hand of IG II 143. Walbank's further claims about sets of chisels, spacing, and letter size in order to provide more exact dates for these texts rely on too many (undiscussed) assumptions to have any validity.


IG II2 192


+IG II2 221

Archon Lykiskos (344/3). D. M. Lewis, ABSA 49 (1954) 50, reports that the right margin is preserved and occurs 8 letter-spaces to the left of where IG indicates.

IG II2 257

M. B. Walbank (ABSA 85 [1990] 442-443) joins IG II2 300.

+IG II2 272

M. B. Walbank, Hesperia 54 (1985) 312-313 and 58 (1989) 75-78, has attributed to this text three fragments from the Athenian Agora, I 2426, 2580, and 5263.[3] These fragments are small, and two are quite worn. The association seems to me without ground.[4] Moreover, the lettering on Agora I 2426, particularly the sigma with a curving upper stroke, is not characteristic of this cutter. Note also that Walbank's date, "ca. a . 375 a.," is probably somewhat early.

+ IG II2 274


IG II2 279

Peçirka, Enktesis 53-54.

+ IG II2 280


IG II2 287

Peçirka, Enktesis 56-57.

IG II2 298


IG II2 300

Joins IG II2 257.

+ IG II2 451

Archon [Theoph]rastos (340/39).

IG II2 523

Part of IG II2 105.

IG II2 1158


[3] Agora 15263 is fragment c in Hesperia 58 (1989) 76. Although it is of little consequence, the last letter in line 4 is surely sigma.

[4] Walbank apparently (he does not state his methodology) relies primarily on the checker pattern to make his assignments. In this he follows the useful suggestions of R. P. Austin, The Stoichedon Style in Greek Inscriptions (Oxford 1938) 31-37. He assumes that checker patterns were regular and sufficiently unique that they can enable one to identify parts of an inscription. Of course they can help. But anyone who has contemplated the reported checker patterns in Osborne's Naturalization , and in M. Crosby, "The Leases of the Laureion Mines," Hesperia 19 (1950) 189-297, will be aware that numbers of inscriptions must have been inscribed in the same, or virtually the same, checker. Furthermore, one must question in the case of these small fragments whether there is enough evidence to determine the checker with the necessary exactitude.


IG II2 1451

Not earlier than 365/4.

IG II2 1496A e

This small fragment, characterized by Kirchner "sedis incertae, " should be dissociated from this inscription, for this cutter's lettering is not otherwise known on this text. The restoration of the archon-date formula in line 158 is almost certainly incorrect.

IG II2 2813

Part of IG II2 143.

Agora 13812

Archon [P]olyzelos (367/6). Agora XV no. 14; photograph in Hesperia 11 (1942) 234.

Agora I 4973

Agora XV no. 29.

EM 12929

Part of IG II2 143.

EM 13354a lines 1-12

Archon Nikophemos (361/0). AE , 1965, 131-136 and pl. 44; Reinmuth no. 1 and pl. 2.


F. W. Mitchel, "The So-Called Earliest Ephebic Inscription," ZPE 19 (1975) 233-243, has convincingly shown that EM 13354 is to be separated from EM 13354a. He dates the second decree of EM 13354a, the ephebic decree, with some probability to 334/3. S. Dow (In Memoriam Otto J. Brendel [Mainz 1976] 81-84) independently arrived at the same date.

IG II2 272 and 274

These two fragments almost certainly belong together based on the lettering, spacing, and (most of all) textual links. A combined text is as follows:

ca. a . 345 a .


IG II2 272

IG II2 274





Line 2. Kirchner's restoration of a reference to proxenies seems very probable, though I cannot suggest a wording which suits the line length. A proper name such as Philoxenos is perhaps also possible.

Line 5. inline image, rather than inline image, is demanded by the spacing here; yet in lines 8-9 b /[inline image] appears to be required. This cutter began inscribing in the 360's, if not earlier, so it is not surprising to find him using the somewhat old-fashioned form inline image.[5] An almost exactly contemporary inscription which has both forms is IG II2 229 of the year 341/0. See also IG II2 192, another text by this cutter which had, it seems, both forms.

Line 8. Only part of the loop of dotted rho is visible. Beta is also possible. Omikron (read by Kirchner in line 8 of IG II2 272) is not very likely, for the circular part is too small to be part of this cutter's usual omikron. The remains of rho reveal that Kirchner's suggested restoration in the apparatus of IG II2 274, "fortasse inline image," was correct.

Line 10. Delta is printed in pointed brackets because alpha was inscribed.

This text clearly belongs to the years 353-338, when Sestos was an Athenian cleruchy. The men honored are singled out for their bravery, inline image (line 10 in the combined text; line 6 of IG II2 274). This word certainly points to some military action,[6] but the exact event cannot be specified. For the few inscriptions known from Sestos, see J. Krauss, Die Inschriften von Sestos und der thrakischen Chersones (Bonn 1980) 14-69. The

[5] On O for OY after 350, see L. L. Threatte, The Grammar of Attic Inscriptions I (Berlin 1980) 256.

[6] Thuc. 2.42.3; Vit. X Orat . 852a. On the meaning of this word see also L. Robert, "Inscriptions d'Athènes et de la Grèce centrale," ArchEph , 1969, 50-51 and n. 2 (= Op . Min. Sel . VII 756-757). It is attested in a late fifth-century inscription from Athens (Agora 17169 line 8 = Hesperia 40 [1971] 281) in which orphans are to be looked after because of their fathers' bravery. For other representative occurrences on Attic inscriptions, see IG II 1 line 70, 25 line 3, 145 line 4, 238b line 3, 456b line 26, and 500 line 30.


copy of this text set up in the central square of Sestos (lines 7-8) has not as yet been found.

IG II2 451

The hand reveals that the archon inline image of IG II2 451 is the archon of 340/39 and not that of 313/2.[7] Although it is not possible to restore this preamble in detail,[8] it is unlikely that J. Kirchner's restoration [inline image] in lines 4 and 5 is correct. The symproedroi are first mentioned and listed in a decree of 333/2.[9] The end of line 4 and beginning of line 5 will have been filled by the name and demotic of the chairman. The remains in line 5 most probably belong to the name of the speaker. I suggest a conservative reading and restoration of this text as follows:

a . 340/39 a .




[7] The evidence for Theophrastos, the archon of 313/2, is now significantly reduced. IG II 452 has been redated (from 313/2) to 328/7 (B. D. Meritt, AJP 59 [1938] 499; and above 8 n. 4). Two deme decrees of Aixone, IG II 1202 and EM 13262 = MDAIA 66 (1941) 218-219, also name an archon Theophrastos. D. Whitehead, The Demes of Attica (Princeton 1986), discusses the former on pages 90-92, 218-219, 376, and gives a full treatment of the latter on pages 235-252. He assigns both to the archon of 313/2; but his arguments are hardly conclusive. Indeed, it appears most probable that IG II 1202 should be dated to 340/39 (below 99-100). Two horoi, IG II 2680 and 2762, almost certainly are dated by the archon of 313/2 (on the date see J. V. A. Fine, Horoi , Hesperia Suppl. 9 [1951] p. 53 and n. 53). In addition, IG II 1259, 2394, and 3104 may refer to the Theophrastos of 313/2. He is attested on the M-armor Parium B line 19, at Diodoros 19.73, and Dion. Halik. Din . 9. Curiously, the invaluable chronicle from Oxyrhynchus (POxy . I, 1898, no. 12 = FGrH no. 255) which preserves the names of Athenian archons from 352/1 to 313/2 records [The]odoros as the name of the archon of 313/2. This papyrus is otherwise quite accurate in its listing of Athenian archons, for it omits entirely only Antikles, archon in 325/4, and wrongly gives the name of the archon of 323/2 as Ke[phis]ophon. His name was Kephisodoros.

[8] On this point, see M. H. Hansen, "When Did the Athenian Ekklesia Meet?" GRBS 23 (1982) 347 no. 75.

[9] IG II 336 III; see S. Dow, "The Preambles of Athenian Decrees Containing Lists of Symproedroi," Hesperia 32 (1963) 335-365.


The restoration of the meeting in line 3 is necessary to fill out the line and, I think, inevitable. It gives us the line length. This mention, if the restoration is correct, becomes the earliest indication of a meeting in a preamble of an Attic decree. The next one known occurs in IG II2 330 line 49 of 336/5.[10] The apex in line 5 occurs in the middle of the stoichos and is in consequence read as dotted delta; Dow first made this reading.[11] It is at least intriguing to note that the secretary in 340/39 was "inline image;.[12] Unless this preamble was exceedingly unorthodox, I do not think he can or should be restored in line 5. For speakers of the years 355-322, see M. H. Hansen, "The Number of Rhetores in the Athenian Ecclesia , 355-322 B.C. ," GRBS 25 (1984) 123-155, especially 132-148. There are a number whose names end in inline image and whose fathers' names began with alpha, delta, or lambda. In summary, we now have one less decree of the city assignable to the years when Demetrios of Phaleron controlled Athens and one less inscription containing mention of symproedroi .


IG II2 221 lines 10-11

The names were inscribed in smaller letters (ca . 0.005 m in height) and arranged in two columns. We have only the initial names in the column on the right. inline image of line 10 remains unknown. There is a line left blank between lines 10 and 11. Omega was the last letter inscribed in line 11; blank stone is preserved to the right for five letter-spaces to the break. The omega falls directly under the first iota in line 10. About 11 letters are lost before it. Line 12 is also vacant, at least in the area below and after the omega of line 11. Enough of the stone survives here that the tops of letters would be visible at this point had any been inscribed.

IG II2 280

There are a number of minor corrections to be made to this text. There is a vacant line between lines 3 and 4. At the end of line 4 the stone is broken away and has taken the right part of the final sigma with it. The empty space which IG records here should have square brackets around it. Line 6

[10] See A. S. Henry, The Prescripts of Athenian Decrees , Mnemosyne Suppl. 49 (1977) 35-39, for prescripts at this time.

[11] Hesperia 32 (1963) 348.

[12] Cf. IG II 231 and 233.


should read inline imagev . This new reading in turn suggests the possibility of restoring lines 5-6 as follows:


[_ _ _ca 12 _ _


13v [vvv ]

There is a vacat of a single space between the demotic and mu in line 7. Before the omikron of line 8 the right tip of the horizontal of a tau is visible. Below line 10 there is another line preserved; it reads _ _ _ _ _ TEA vac . (5). Below this final line the stone is preserved vacant for ca . 0.105 m.[14]


[14] R. Develin, Athenian Officials 684-321 B.C. (Cambridge 1989) 352, reports that D. M. Lewis also saw this line and read it as _ _ TEA _ _. Develin interprets these letters as part of a name. But the space left blank after and below them reveals that these were in all probability the final letters of the text.


Litterae Volgares Saec. IV

During the period from approximately 345 to 320 B.C. there flourished in Athens a number of cutters who inscribed letters that are very similar in shape. This common style, which is often associated with the regime of Lykourgos, began somewhat before the Athenian defeat at Chaironeia and continued down to the time of Demetrios of Phaleron, who took control of Athens in 317. It does therefore characterize much of the inscribing done during the Lykourgan period (338-324), but by no means all of it. The practitioners of this style cut in a very similar manner and are very difficult to distinguish from one another. In fact, the fragments inscribed by these cutters are impossible to keep separate, unless a sufficient sample of the writing survives or, in the case of a small or worn fragment, one happens to be dealing with a bit that preserves one of the letters which reveals an individual idiosyncrasy. The close similarity of the lettering of these cutters suggests that they were related in some way; perhaps they were from the same shop or formed a group more or less officially sanctioned by the regime to inscribe decrees.

The characteristics of the style are as follows. The lettering is almost always stoichedon and makes a very solid general impression. This effect is created, I suppose, because the strokes are relatively thick and the lettering is, on the whole, carefully made and consistent in shape. Many of the straight strokes reveal the parallel lines indicative of double cutting. The round letters are carefully made and seem to be inscribed just a bit deeper than the others. Letter-strokes often thicken at the ends. The ends of hastae indeed are sometimes splayed; this is caused by the double cuts, which spread or separate towards the end of a stroke. The height of the letters varies; sigma, upsilon, and phi are taller, while alpha, delta, lambda, and sometimes iota and tau are shorter than letters such as epsilon and rho. Particular letter shapes which characterize this general style are:

Epsilon with a short middle horizontal.

Kappa with long diagonals which meet the vertical at the midpoint or below.


Nu with a diagonal which begins down from the top of the first vertical.

Sigma with top and bottom strokes whose angle of slant varies.

Upsilon made from three strokes and with the v extending up into the interline.

A very small chi.

I have managed to isolate three cutters within this style and present them below. These are the Cutters of IG II2 244, 334, and 354. There are in addition a number of inscriptions in this general style which I append here. The asterisked (*) ones have few letters and may indeed be by one of the three cutters studied in detail. It is impossible to say without more evidence. The same is true of those marked "worn." The larger fragments are not by these cutters, but I am not as yet comfortable with assigning them to one or more additional cutters at work in this style. These texts, it appears, all belong to the years 345-320.

IG II2 235


IG II2 238

Schwenk no. 2; archon Chairondas (338/7).

IG II2 240

Worn; Schwenk no. 7; archon Phrynichos (337/6).

IG II2 285 and (?) 414d

See Peçirka, Enktesis 56.

IG II2 308


*IG II2 309


IG II2 346

Worn; Schwenk no. 37; archon [Niketes] (332/1).

* IG II2 564.


IG II2 1590[1]

Archon Pythodotos (343/2).

IG II2 1591


IG II2 1926

Archon Antikl[es] (325/4).

IG II2 2493 and 2494


IG VII 4252

Schwenk no. 40; archon Niketes (332/1).

[1] M. B. Walbank, Hesperia 52 (1983) 100-135, has associated this fragment with five others including IG II 1591 and Agora 1 7117. He has republished this text as Agora XIX no. L6. Agora 1 7117 and IG II 1590 and 1591 do seem to be by the same hand and from the same stele or series of stelai. The other three fragments are not in this handwriting, but by the Cutter of IG II 334; see my discussion below 94-95.


IG VII 4253

Schwenk no. 41; archon Niketes (332/1).

Agora 1226

Hesperia 3 (1934) 3-4; B. D. Meritt, The Athenian Year (Berkeley 1961) 100; Schwenk no. 59; archon [Hegemon] (327/6).

*Agora 1882

Hesperia 15 (1946) 176-177.

*Agora 11010

Agora XVII no. 149.

*Agora 1 1535

Hesperia 16 (1947) 152-153.

Agora 1 2409 and 5234

Hesperia 9 (1940) 325-327; Schwenk no. 5; archon [Ph]rynichos (337/6).

*Agora 12821

Hesperia 58 (1989) 87.[2]

*Agora 15645

Hesperia 30 (1961) 257.

Agora 1 7117

Hesperia 52 (1983) 100-135.

Agora 1 7198

Hesperia 47 (1978) 272-273.

Agora 1 7447

Hesperia 47 (1978) 274-277.

EM 8694 (face B = IG II2 2495)

Hesperia 52 (1983) 191-199 = Agora XIX no. L10.

*EM 12823

AJA 40 (1936) 464.[3]

EM 12893

Schwenk no. 9; archon [Phrynichos] (337/6).

EM 12896

Hesperia 7 (1938) 294-296; SEG 16 no. 55.

EM 13393 and 12982

Hesperia 40 (1971) 174-178; archon [Neaichmos] (320/19).

*EM 13401

Hesperia 40 (1971) 183-186.[4]

*EM 13407

Hesperia 40 (1971) 178-179.

*Hesperia 54 (1985) 137-139[5]

Archon Chremes (326/5).

[2] The editor of the editio princeps , M. B. Walbank, claims that the hand is the same as that of IG II 451. While the lettering is very similar, I do not think there is enough evidence to justify such a claim.

[3] This is perhaps the work of the Cutter of IG II 334, but there are not quite enough clearly preserved letters to enable attribution.

[4] J. Morgan in an e-mail message of 25 April 1994 reports that this piece makes a firm join with IG II 449, q.v . The join was confirmed by R. Stroud in Athens.

[5] O. Palagia and K. Clinton, the initial editors, thought that this was "probably by the same hand as IG II 354." They may well be correct. The lettering, particularly the wide and ungainly mu, has in my opinion closer affinities with that of the IG II 244 Cutter, but there are simply too few letters to make an assignment.


REG 91 (1978) 289-306 lines 18-53[6]

Worn; Schwenk no. 43; archon Niketes (332/1).

The documents which most characterize the 340's and 330's are inventories, accounts, and mining leases incised in very small letters. Many of these too are inscribed in the common style of lettering just described. Some I can attribute (with difficulty and some hesitation) to the individual cutters, but many I cannot. Why is this so? These records are inscribed, many of them, in letters less than 0.005 m high. Such letters, i.e., ca . 0.004 m or a bit less in height, are about as small as it is possible to cut with hammer and chisel into a marble surface. These tiny letters, I suspect, left the cutter less room to maneuver his tools and allowed him less opportunity to do those little things that enable one to differentiate decisively one cutter from another.

In any case, I append here a list of these texts which I judge to be in this general style. As in the case of the list above, an asterisk (*) signals that a fragment has few well-preserved letters.

IG II2 1438, EM 12931 ( Hesperia 7 [1938] 281-289)

Not earlier than 353/2.

IG II2 1457

Not earlier than 339/8.

*IG II2 1458


IG II2 1496B h


IG II2 1521A


IG II2 1524A,B

Worn; not earlier than 335/4.

IG II2 1560


IG II2 1561


*IG II2 1562


IG II2 1563


IG II2 1564


[6] These lines are perhaps by the IG II 334 Cutter.


*IG II2 1565[7]


IG II2 1620

Not earlier than 349/8.

IG II2 1621

Not earlier than 349/8.[8]

IG II2 1628


IG II2 1648


IG II2 1649


IG II2 1681


*IG II2 1692


Agora 1 1095 + 2381

Hesperia 19 (1950) 240-244 no. 15 lines 1-34 (face A); Agora XIX no. P25.

*Agora 1 3060

Hesperia 26 (1957) 19-20; Agora XIX no. PA1.

*Agora 1 3371

Hesperia 29 (1960) 51-52.

Agora 1 3806 and 1 3983 +6030

Hesperia 19 (1950) 267-269; Agora XIX no. P30.

*Agora 1 4870 and 4930

Hesperia 19 (1950) 224-225; Agora XIX no. P23.

*Agora 1 4944

Hesperia 19 (1950) 277-278; Agora XIX no. P35.

*Agora 1 6016

Hesperia 19 (1950) 275; Agora XIX no. P32b .

Agora 1 6250

Hesperia 32 (1963) 175-178; worn.

Agora 1 7116A

Hesperia 52 (1983) 177-189; Agora XIX no. L9; worn.

A general style is never easy to deal with and is often so vague as to be useless. This particular style, however, because it can be precisely defined, does seem to be more satisfactory. It appears, for one thing, to be limited to a fairly definite period of time. It is, however, somewhat frustrating to have a number of cutters who inscribe so many letters in a like manner that many small or worn fragments cannot be assigned accurately to the known workmen within the style. Still, the three principal cutters in this style can be quite readily recognized when the fragments they inscribed are reasonably large and well preserved.

[7] IG II 1564 and 1565 have been attributed to the same stele by D. M. Lewis (Hesperia 28 [1959] 234).

[8] D. Laing, "A Reconstruction of I.G., II , 1628, " Hesperia 37 (1968) 245 n. 4, assigns IG II 1620 and 1621 to a single stele and suggests 348/7 as a probable date.


The important letters for distinguishing them are alpha, sigma, and omega. To summarize the differences crudely—the IG II2 334 Cutter inscribed a fairly wide alpha which is turned slightly to the left in the stoichos , a sigma which often seems to lean back or at least has the bottom stroke nearly parallel, and omega often with a closed bottom; the IG II2 244 Cutter inscribed a wide alpha which often leans forward, a sigma with a bottom stroke which extends down sharply into the interline, and an omega which is small, raised up, and has wide finials; the IG II2 354 Cutter made a symmetrical alpha, sigma which usually has top and bottom strokes that slant about the same, and omega that is open at the bottom and not unduly wide. It must be stressed that these cutters are each capable of inscribing the odd letter, even these key letters, so much like one of their fellow workmen that it can be deceiving. In the case of these cutters to an unusual degree, it is the combination of peculiarities taken together which allows one to recognize and distinguish them.


The Cutter of IG II2 334
Dates: ca. 345-ca. 320

General characteristics of the lettering (fig. 2)

This lettering makes a solid appearance, for the strokes are both rather thick and, relatively speaking, deeply inscribed. One can discern not infrequently double cuts. Round letters are quite evenly made and seem to be incised just a shade more deeply than the other letters. Letters sometimes seem to rattle around in the stoichoi a bit, and occasionally some lean to the left, particularly, alpha, eta, sigma, tau, and omega.

Peculiarities of individual letters


This is quite a wide letter and often shorter than the others. The placement of the crossbar varies, but it is usually at the middle or above.


The central horizontal is usually quite short and often does not touch the vertical.


The outer right hasta tends to be shorter than its counterpart on the left and does not extend down to the bottom of the letter.


The diagonal regularly begins somewhat down from the top of the first vertical and nicely touches the bottom of the second. This second vertical sometimes has a noticeable lean to the right.


This letter varies in size, sometimes being unusally large; it is very often placed up in the letter-space.


The loop is somewhat flattened and elongated to Fill the width of the stoichos .


This letter tends to be taller than the others; the bottom stroke is often nearly horizontal, while the upper curves or slants above the line of letters. Occasionally



Figure 2.
IG II2  334 lines 22-35.


the letter leans back or is even tilted with the bottom stroke actually slanting upwards. This letter varies greatly from example to example and is among this cutter's most idiosyncratic letters.


This letter is composed of three strokes. The vertical is just about half the height of the letter. The v tends to extend up above the other letters.


This letter tends to be very small.


The letter is fairly large, but not excessively wide; it hangs from the top of the letter-space, and is very often closed at the bottom by the horizontal extenders.

List of inscriptions

IG II2 224

Archon Pythodotos (343/2).


IG II2 228

Archon Nikomachos (341/0). Osborne, Naturalization no. D15; Kirchner-Klaffenbach, Imagines2 no. 61.

IG II2 230

Bengtson, Staatsverträge no. 340. D. Knoepfler has provided new and improved texts of the two parts of this inscription, of fragment a in REG 98 (1985) 259 (SEG 35 no. 59) and of fragment b in BCH 95 (1971) 226-232 (SEG 32 no. 77).

+ IG II2 232


+IG II2 233

Archon Theophra[stos] (340/39). Tod, GHI no. 175. L. Migeotte, L'emprunt public dans les cites grecques (Québec 1984) 23-25, discusses fragment b .

+ IG II2 307


IG II2 333

Schwenk no. 21; Kirchner-Klaffenbach, Imagines2 no. 63.

IG II2 334

David Lewis associated Agora I 5477 with this (Hesperia 28 [1959] 239-247). Schwenk no. 17; Sokolowski, LSCG no. 33; Agora XIX no. L7 (part only). For a further suggestion about the date and the identification of inline imageinline image, see O. Hansen, "On the Site of Nea," Eranos 87 (1989) 70-72.

+IG II2 338 = IG VII 3499

Archon Nikokrates (333/2). Schwenk no. 28. On the honorand and his office, Ch. Habicht, "Pytheas von Alopeke, Aufseher fiber die Brunnen Attikas," ZPE 77 (1989) 83-87.

IG II2 345

Archon Niketes (332/1). Schwenk no. 36; Meyer, Urkundenreliefs no. A102. See also below 110-111.

IG II2 415


+IG II2 545

A. Wilhelm, "Vier Beschlüsse der Athener," Abh. Berlin , 1939, 17-24, thoroughly treats the restoration of this inscription and suggests 321/0 as the most probable date. See also Peçirka, Enktesis 81-84.

IG II2 1192

The date of this text should be ca . 330 rather than "fin . s. IV " as in IG .

IG II2 1231

The date of this text based on the hand is ca . 330. Note that Wilhelm, "Vier Beschlüsse," Abh. Berlin , 1939, 13-16, suggested the restoration in lines 2 and 3 of inline image, a man active


in the years around 330 and named by Demosthenes (De Corona 114) as inline image.[1]

IG II2 1496A a-d,f,g (col. III only)

Not earlier than 331/0 (line 137). E. Schweigert attributed Agora I 5605 and placed it in column III in close proximity to fragments f and g (Hesperia 9 [1940] 328-330). It too reveals the hand of this cutter, but only on its obverse face.

IG II2 1496B b,c


IG II2 1498A,B


IG II2 1500A,B


IG II2 1501A

D. Harris, "Bronze Statues on the Acropolis: The Evidence of a Lycurgan Inventory," AJA 96 (1992) 637-652, argues convincingly that IG II2 1498-1501A all belong to the same inscription. I have seen IG II2 1499 only in the (rather good) photograph that she supplies on page 638. It does indeed appear to be by this cutter. She dates the inventory ca . 330.

IG II2 1514

Not earlier than 344/3 (lines 59-60). D. M. Lewis suggested (Hesperia 32 [1963] 186) that IG II2 1523 might be part of this stele.

IG II2 1515

Not earlier than 345/4 (line 26). IG 1525 II2 has the same line length, hand, and subject matter. It is probably part of this stele.

IG II2 1517

Not earlier than 341/0 (line 63).

IG II2 1518B b

A, B a, non vidi

IG II2 1519


IG II2 1520


IG II2 1523


IG II2 1525

Not earlier than 343/2 (line 8).

IG II2 1528


IG II2 1530


[1] This suggestion has also been made by A. E. Raubitschek, in R. Develin, ed., Athenian Officials (Cambridge 1989) 416. The demesmen of Melite also honored this man about this time for his care of their cult of Artemis (Agora 16969 = Arch. Delt . 19 [1964] p. 31 lines 1-3, 8-9).


IG II2 1531


IG II2 1532a

Archon Pythodotos (343/2). S. B. Aleshire, The Athenian Asklepieion: The People, Their Dedications, and the Inventories (Amsterdam 1989) 122-126, provides a new edition and shows that this text must be dissociated from IG II2 1532b .

IG II2 1533

Archon [Kephisophon] (329/8). Aleshire, Athenian Asklepieion 127-165.

IG II2 1622

Not earlier than 342/1 (line 385).

IG II2 1623B

Not earlier than 335/4 (line 285).

IG II2 1641A,C

B non vidi . New edition by J. Coupry, ID 104-126.

IG II2 1668

The arsenal for which this inscription gives the building specifications has recently been discovered in Piraeus. For initial notices see JHS Archaeological Reports , 1988-89, 15; and BCH 113 (1989) 589. This stele is likely, I think, to have been inscribed close to the year 330, when work on the building was almost complete.[2]

IG II2 1671


+IG II2 1675


IG II2 1684

The date in IG, "fin. s. IV, " should be altered to ca. a . 330 a .

+ IG II2 2406


+Agora I 631a + 939

Hesperia 19 (1950) 263-267; Agora XIX no. P29a lines 1-31.

+Agora I 4133

Hesperia 52 (1983) 103, 105, 107; Agora XIX no. L6.

Agora I 4783

Hesperia 19 (1950) 278; Agora XIX no. P36.

Agora I 4883

Hesperia 19 (1950) 270; Agora XIX no. P27c . This fragment should probably be dissociated from the others, for they are not the work of this cutter.

Agora I 5477

Part of IG II2 334.

Agora I 6354

Hesperia 26 (1957) 15-18; Agora XIX no. P32a . Langdon also attributes (in Agora XIX) to this stele the very small fragment Agora I 6016 (Hesperia 19 [1950] 275). I can neither confirm nor deny the attribution.

[2] IG II 505 line 13 and II 1627 lines 288, 352.


Agora I 6434

Hesperia 32 (1963) 39-40.

+Agora I 7062

Hesperia 52 (1983) 103, 108; Agora XIX no. L6.

Agora I 7116 face B

Hesperia 52 (1983) 177-191; Agora XIX L9.

+Agora I 7123

Hesperia 52 (1983) 103, 106; Agora XIX L6.

EM 13051

Archon Nikokrates (333/2). SEG 24 no. 203; Schwenk no. 32.

EM 13067

Archon [Euain]etos (335/4). The first seven lines have been published by B. D. Meritt in The Athenian Year (Berkeley 1961) 80 = SEG 21 no. 272. See SEG 39 no. 82 for the name of the orator, Alkimachos of Myrrhinoutta, who is also attested as diaitetes in 330/29 (IG II2 2409 lines 19-20).

Univ. of Mississippi Museum inv. no. 77.3.665

Hesperia 55 (1986) 177-182 and pl. 38.

IG II2 545 and 2406

Lines 15-19 of IG II2 545 prescribe that the names of the Thessalian exiles be supplied to the secretary in the following terms (as restored by A. Wilhelm):


A list then was compiled, and it is prima facie likely that it was added below the decree in order to specify by name those granted the privileges.

From an initial dossier of inscriptions by this cutter Ch. Habicht recognized IG II2 2406 at once as a list of Thessalians. It seems very probable that these two texts are part of the same stele. Indeed, as Kirchner reports in his commentary on IG II2 2406, "catalogum plebiscito subiectum fuisse suspicatur Koe(hler)." There is no possible join; IG II2 545 comes from the upper right side and II2 2406 from the lower left.

The latter preserves the last nine names from the first column followed by a vacat . These names are inscribed stoichedon and follow the


checker pattern of the decree. There were originally two columns, with about twenty-five names in each column (see line 10 of the decree). Since the longest names will have required in excess of 20 letter-spaces, about 44 spaces at a minimum are required to accommodate both columns. Wilhelm's restoration, which assumes a line of 50 stoichoi , works nicely for the list. Each column then had 25 stoichoi , i.e., enough to allow the names to be inscribed (as the surviving fragment shows that they were) stoichedon with some space left blank between columns and at the right margin. Kirchner's restoration of this text in IG II2 with lines of 40 stoichoi does not provide enough room for the names.

Except for inline image[3] (line 2) these personal names are all known in Thessaly and can be found in the index of IG IX.2. 'inline image (line 6) is well attested, namely in Demetrias (IX.2 1127), Larisa (twice, IX.2 517 lines 81, 85), Pherai (Ch. Habicht, in V. Milojcic[*] and D. Theocharis, Demetrias I [Bonn 1976] p. 183 line 38 A), Skotoussa (SEG 15 no. 370b line 7), and also in an unpublished inscription of the fourth century B.C. from Pharsalos.[4] It is otherwise a very uncommon name, attested twice on Euboia.[5]inline image (line 9) too is an unusual name, attested thrice in Thessaly (Lamia, IX.2 68 line 8; Skotoussa, SEG 15 no. 370b line 43; Pherai, Y. Béquignon, Recherches archéol. à Phèes [Paris 1937] p. 95 no. 74) and otherwise popular on the island of Rhodes.[6] The patronymic in line 7, inline image, is apparently Thessalian. The following reflexes are known: inline image twice from Pharsalos (Thuc. 4.78.1, IG IX.2 234 line 89)[7] and inline image; from Skotoussa (SEG 15 no. 370c line 46). The gravestone of a inline image is also known from Vergina in Macedonia (SEG 35 no. 798).

The occurrence of these names together on one list strongly suggests that they are all Thessalians. With this information, one can offer an improved text. It is, for example, quite probable that 'inline image, gymnasiarch in Pherai in 292/1,[8] is the son of the exile inline image (line 8).

[4] I am indebted to Ch. Habicht for this information.

[5] LGPN I p. 97.

[6] Ibid . p. 336.

[8] Habicht, in Milojcic[*] and Theocharis, Demetrias I p. 183 A line 45. For the suggestion of a slightly earlier date, see B. Helly, ed., LaThessalie (Lyon 1979) 220-247.


ca. a . 320 a .




Line 2. At the break there is a clear vertical hasta ; it is positioned in the center of the stoichos . Iota alone is possible, for the left part of the horizontal would be visible if the letter had been tau. inline image is the only known name that suits the remains, and it is attested only in Thessaly (inline image at IG IX.2 234 line 11).[9]

Line 3. The names inline image[10] and inline image (Inscr. de Delphes II no. 9 line 7)[11] are known from Perrhaiboi Ereikinion.

Line 5. The possible patronymics known in Thessaly are inline image (IG IX.2 359c III line 5, 517 line 88, 527 line 19, and 934), inline image (B. Helly, Gonnoi , II: Les inscriptions [Amsterdam 1973] no. 24 line 5, no. 25 line 6, no. 50 line 2, no. 56 line 5), and inline image (Arch. Delt . 32 [1977 (1984)] B, 138-139 = SEG 34 no. 476).

Line 9. Of names occurring in Thessaly only inline image suits the remains; it is known at Larisa (IX.2 517 lines 1, 24), Pherai (Demetrias I p. 182 A line 10), and probably Pharsalos (Fouilles de Delphes III 5 no. 47 line 66 [I]).

Koehler was correct, it appears, in connecting this inscription with the events of the Lamian War (see the commentary in IG on IG II2 545). The

[10] Helly, LaThessalie p. 166 line 12, with discussion of the name on page 176 and in notes 33, 34 on page 190.

[11] I am indebted to Ch. Habicht for calling to my notice this and the following reference to Thessalians known at Delphi.


Thessalians were allies of the Athenians, and their cavalry fought alongside them at the battle of Krannon in 322. The exiles of this inscription were apparently driven from their homeland near the end of the war or shortly thereafter. Indeed, the emphasis in lines 16-20 of this text on the generals' having an important role in dealing with these exiles suggests that they may have been veterans of the war, perhaps members of the gallant cavalry brigade.[12] It is tempting, moreover, to identify inline imageinline image (line 7) with their brave commander, Menon of Pharsalos;[13] he is reported to have been killed in battle fighting for his homeland in the year 321.[14]

The decree belongs then to 322/1 or soon after.[15] The occurrence of the demotic Lamptrai (tribal affiliation Erechtheis) in line I of the decree, where it can only be that of the secretary or of the anagrapheus , limits the date which can be assigned to this text. The year 322/1 can be eliminated, for inline image was secretary in that year. For the next three years, 321/0 to 319/8, the anagrapheis held sway. During this period secretaries held office by prytany; by good fortune we know from IG II2 380 and 388 the secretaries from Erechtheis for 320/19 and 319/8. In each case the deme is Kephisia. By elimination, therefore, IG II2 545 and 2406 must be dated to 321/0 if the official in line 1 is the secretary. If he is the anagrapheus, the date is 320/19, when 'inline image held that office.[16] In any case, this measure to harbor these Thessalians was passed at a time when Athens had an oligarchical, i.e., putatively pro-Macedonian, government. This fact, it seems most worthy of note, did not prevent them from openly aiding their staunchest allies against Macedonian forces in the Lamian War.


IG II2 232 lines 9-10

P. M. Fraser and E. Matthews, LGPN I p. 301, restore the patronymic inline image. Their grounds for doing this are not clear; inline image, perhaps

[12] Above 29.

[13] On his role in the Lamian War, see Diodoros 18.15.4, 17.6; and Plutarch Pyrrhos 1.4. We learn from the latter that he was also the grandfather of King Pyrrhos of Epeiros.

[14] Diodoros 18.38.5-6.

[15] IG II 546, which refers to the Dolopians of southwest Thessaly, may well reflect these same events. It has been dated to 321/0; see B. D. Meritt, The Athenian Year (Berkeley 1961) 112-113; and S. Dow, "The Preambles of Athenian Decrees Containing Lists of Symproedroi," Hesperia 32 (1963) 351.

[16] Peçirka, Enktesis 83-84.


'inline image (see LGPN I s.vv .), and inline image (Collitz, Sammlung Dialekt-Inschriften no. 2659 line 2)[17] also appear possible. However, the semantic affinity of the names inline image and inline image makes their suggestion attractive. If it is correct, the oldest son might well have also been named inline image, i.e., homonymous with his father. This restoration exactly fits the space in line 8. It is perhaps, therefore, worth suggesting the following restoration for lines 7-10:


IG II2 233 line 29

H. B. Pope, Non-Athenians in Attic Inscriptions (New York 1935) 229, made the suggestion that inline image, be restored here from line 9 of IG II2 232. If the plural inline image is correct—and it seems to be[18] —this proper name with inline image exactly fills the 16 spaces required. Read then lines 29-30 as:


Although we still do not know the exact temporal relationship between IG II2 232 and 233, they are clearly closely related, the one a rather short general decree honoring the city of Tenedos and Aratos and his brothers, the other longer, more detailed, and more specific in its honors. If the suggested restoration is correct, this longer decree praised by name Aratos and just one of his brothers , whom we must imagine distinguished himself in rendering the financial support mentioned in the decree.

IG II2 307 line 5

The first two letters repeat the last two of the previous line. They are clearly a dittography; braces ( { } ) should be placed around them, and the pointed brackets printed by Kirchner should be deleted.

[17] I am indebted to Ch. Habicht for this reference.

[18] J. Cargill, The Second Athenian League (Berkeley 1981) 113, discusses this line and regards the plural as "shaky." His discussion makes no mention of Pope's suggestion.


IG II2 338 = IG VII 3499

This inscription was found in the Amphiaraion near the temple. It is a decree of the demos of the Athenians and was inscribed by the present workman, one of the most prolific Athenian cutters of the time. It would be interesting to know whether he travelled to the sanctuary to do the work or whether he did it in Athens. Perhaps there is a clue to be had from the other Athenian decrees of the second half of the fourth century found at Oropos.

Following the battle of Chaironeia the Athenians regained control of Oropos and the Amphiaraion; they held it for about a quarter of a century, until the year 312, when Antigonos' general Polemaios invaded and took control.[19] This text is part of a dossier of six Athenian inscriptions, all found at Oropos and all dating to the time of Lykourgos. In addition to the present text, from the first prytany of 333/2, which honors Pytheas of Alopeke for repairing the spring and water supply at the sanctuary, four of the texts reveal the Atthidographer Phanodemos of Thymaita as instrumental in promoting the sanctuary. At a plenary session of the assembly in the spring of 331, he proposed a measure praising the god for ensuring the health and safety of the countryside[20] and was himself crowned at this same meeting for his legislation that had set up the quadrennial festival and sacrifices and for his contributions for them and for repair of the sanctuary.[21] In 329/8 he headed the board of ten epimeletai who supervised what was apparently the first (very elaborate) staging of the festival.[22] This

[19] Diodoros 19.77.2-4. On these events, see also Billows, Antigonos 123-124. What effect, if any, Polyperchon's short-lived declaration had in 319 that the Oropians should have Oropos (Diodoros 18.56.6-7) is unclear. Kassandros and the Athenians certainly controlled it in 317 and the years immediately after.

[20] IG VII 4252 (= Schwenk no. 40), esp. lines 12-15.

[21] IG VII 4253 (= Schwenk no. 41), esp. lines 11-17. M. Walbank's attempt to interpret Agora 17063 (Hesperia Suppl. 19, 173-182) as the specific regulations for this festival is not entirely convincing. This text is too fragmentary.


board was composed of some of the most important political figures in Athens, including Lykourgos and Demades.[23] The next year he and Demades joined others in making a special dedication at the sanctuary.[24] Lastly the ephebes of Leontis made a dedication in the sanctuary, probably at the great penteteric games of 329.[25]

Of these inscriptions only the first, i.e., the present text, is by one of the cutters known from this study, and only the first does not deal exclusively with the sanctuary of Amphiaraos. It also praises Pytheas for constructing a spring at the shrine of Ammon and instructs that two copies be made and set up, one at the shrine of Ammon and one at the Amphiaraion. It appears probable that the two copies were made in Athens by the present cutter and shipped to the separate sites, while the decrees dealing with matters related only to the Amphiaraion were inscribed and set up there by local workmen.

IG II2 1496-1641

This cutter clearly inscribed a significant number of accounts, inventories, and exetasmoi ; he was particularly active in the creation of the Brauroneion inventories. The present results, however, must be preliminary, for I do not have access to all the material. In short I am not able to affirm that this cutter's hand occurs in only the places listed. I do feel certain about those listed, but for a number of inscriptions or parts of inscriptions either I have had no squeeze, or else the squeezes of them available to me are not good enough to render a useful judgment.

IG II2 1675 line 18

The letters YTHNDW do not follow the stoichoi and are crowded together in an erasure. The cutter first inscribed inline image, which he subsequently changed to inline image with the minimum of erasure.

Agora 1 631a + 939

M. Crosby, the initial editor, also published Agora 1 686 as a nonjoining part of this text, and this has been accepted by M. Langdon in the most

[23] IG VII 4254 lines 23-24.

[24] AE , 1917, 40-48 (= Agora XV no. 49 = Schwenk no. 56). In view of the prominence of some of the contributors, the inscription on this monument is remarkably unprepossessing. The letters are small (0.005 m in height) and crowded. No effort was made, not even in the heading, to achieve a stoichedon arrangement.

[25] AE , 1918, 73-100 (= Reinmuth no. 15). Above 13.


recent edition in Agora XIX. This fragment is P29b . This association is unlikely, for I 686 was inscribed by a different workman, the Cutter of IG II2 354.

Agora I 4133, 7062, 7123

M. B. Walbank published elaborately these three fragments and associated them with three others, IG II2 1590, 1591, and Agora I 7117 (Hesperia 52 [1983] 100-135).[26] Although the subject matter on all of these fragments is obviously similar, there are no compelling textual arguments, as Walbank himself acknowledges (pp. 110-111), that relate the pieces. Moreover, despite the technical discussion of "foliation, weathering, and cleavage" (p. 110), the author offers no convincing argument for his placement of the pieces in relation to one another.

Furthermore, Walbank's report of the thickness of these fragments, which all apparently preserve their original backs, raises serious doubts about his reconstruction of the stele. See page 103 for his descriptions and measurements. To give one example: he places Agora I 4133 (fragment F) directly below Agora I 7117 (fragment E); see figure 1 on page 102. How can this be possible, given that I 4133 is—these are all Walbank's measurements—0.120 m thick at its top, while I 7117 is 0.121 m thick at its bottom? To come directly below I 7117 any fragment would have to be at least 0.121 m thick or thicker over its entirety.

"There is little variation in script or spacing" (p. 110). This is true. The lettering is all in the same general style—a style that is apparent on many accounts of the second half of the fourth century. However, the three fragments listed above are by this cutter; the others reveal a consistent difference in the shape of certain key letters, which suggests that they are not by the same man. To be specific, sigma is quite uniform and symmetrical, with slanting top and bottom strokes. Epsilon has a long central horizontal which touches the vertical. Omega is usually round and open at the bottom; the horizontal strokes at the bottom extend out to make it quite a wide letter. For the way the present cutter makes these letters, see the description above. There are thus at least two hands present on these six fragments. The conclusion must be that they do not go together, at least not as Walbank presents them. To elaborate, he places Agora I 7117 (fragment E) between the fragments inscribed by this cutter. This large fragment preserves parts of three different columns and should reveal the lettering of this cutter in column II and very probably also in column III, if

[26] The text is repeated in Agora XIX no. L6.


the editor of the editio princeps was correct in his association and placement of these fragments. It does not; his work does not appear on this fragment. Judging, however, from the published measurements and descriptions, these six fragments do appear to derive from at least two closely similar stelai.


The Cutter of IG II2 244
Dates: 340/39-ca. 320

General characteristics of the lettering (fig. 3)

This cutter varies the height of his letters a good deal—alpha, delta, lambda, omikron, chi, and omega tend to be shorter, while beta, sigma, and sometimes phi are taller than letters such as epsilon and kappa. Where his lettering is well preserved, double cutting is often in evidence. He tends to thicken the ends of strokes, particularly of epsilon, sigma, upsilon, and omega.

Peculiarities of individual letters


This letter is quite wide and often, though not always, is made in a most idiosyncratic fashion, viz. the left slanting hasta is a trifle longer than the right and is raised up from the baseline. The right does not slant out as much and reaches down to the base of the letter. The letter thus seems to lean forward.


This is a wide letter. Only this cutter's mu and omega are wider.


The strokes which make the central v usually do not meet precisely and usually do not extend down to the bottom of the letter. The right half of the letter is usually wider than the left, sometimes markedly so. The slanting stroke at the right side often begins just down from the top of the stroke which it joins.


The slanting stroke begins below the top of the first vertical; the second vertical usually begins at the slanting stroke and sometimes extends up a bit higher than the first vertical.



Figure 3.
IG  II2  244 lines 37-48.


This letter is often quite small, usually slightly misshapen, and placed up in the space.


The loop is fairly round and often rather small.


The top and bottom strokes always slant; the lower half of the letter is usually wider than the upper. The lowest stroke dips down into the interline and thickens at the end perceptibly more than the top hasta . This letter is quite idiosyncratic.


This letter is often quite short and almost always very wide. Sometimes it sits on the baseline and sometimes it hangs from the top of the letter-space. About half the time it is open at the bottom. Prominent horizontal strokes, thickened at the ends and double-cut, extend out, making the letter as wide as mu. The stroke on the left is often bigger.


List of inscriptions

IG II2 242 + 373 lines 1-15

Archon Phrynich[o]s (337/6). M. B. Walbank, ZPE 86 (1991) 199-202, has joined these two and offered some new readings.[1] For IG II2 242 see Schwenk no. 10 and Meyer, Urkundenreliefs no. A98 and pl. 50.1 (top only); concerning II2 373 see Peçirka, Enktesis 72-74; Schwenk no. 88. The second decree on II2 373 (lines 16-33) of the year 322/1 has different writing; this lettering is by no cutter as yet known to me.

IG II2 244

Maier, Gr. Mauerbauinschriften no. 10; Schwenk no. 3; Kirchner-Klaffenbach, Imagines 2 no. 62. Nor discussion and restoration of lines 31-36 see G. Thör, Lebendige Altertumswissenschaft: Festgabe H. Vetters (Vienna 1985) 66-69. For the discussion surrounding the date of this text, namely either in the second half of 338/7 or in 337/6, see Schwenk ad loc .

IG II2 276

Schwenk no. 12.

+IG II2 306

The date "ante a . 336/5" in IG is arbitrary.

IG II2 310

The date "ante a . 336/5" in IG is arbitrary.

IG II2 336

Archon [Nikokrates] (333/2). Osborne, Naturalization no. D23; Schwenk no. 31; Meyer, Urkundenreliefs no. A101.

IG II2 373

Joins IG II2 242.

IG II2 392 + 586

Osborne, Naturalization no. D31. The join was made by Chara Karapa, Arch. Delt . 29 (1974) 158-164.

IG II2 402 + Agora I 4900

For the join and discussion of the date, see S. V. Tracy in Hesperia 62 (1993) 249-251. For a better assessment of the date, E. Badian, "A Reply to Professor Hammond's Article," ZPE 100 (1994) 389-390; and A. B. Bosworth, "Perdiccas and the Kings," CQ 43 (1993) 420-427. On the speaker, Archedikos of Lamptrai, Ch. Habicht, "The Comic Poet Archedikos," Hesperia 62 (1993) 253-256.

IG II2 429


IG II2 437



+ IG II2 449

This text cannot be dated precisely. The date recorded in IG, "a . 318/7," is overly precise and probably not correct. The hand reveals that it should not be placed much after 320; Dow's study of the preambles of Athenian decrees which list symproedroi (Hesperia 32 [1963] 335-365) showed that the first one thus far known (IG II2 336 III) dates to the year 333/2. The present text could easily be a bit earlier.[2] For a small improvement in the reading of line 12, see Hesperia 32 (1963) 348.

IG II2 539

Osborne, Naturalization III p. 120.

IG II2 549

See my comments below on IG II2 306. Koehler associated this text honoring a Kythnian general with the action of the Athenians when they liberated the island from pirates in 315/4.[3] Robert summarizes what is known of the history of the island and finds the association of this text with the events of 315/4 "séduis- ant."[4] The hand suggests, however, that this date is probably too late. It appears likely that the Kythnians and their general, the son of Parmenon, aided the Athenians in the years 338-320.

IG II2 1155b

Archon Lysimachides (339/8). Although the lettering of fragment a was done in large letters by a different cutter, Koehler seems to have been correct to associate these fragments. The heading for this dedication by the taxiarch and soldiers of Kekropis to Athena was in- scribed by one man, and then the other cutter, the subject of the present study, added the short decrees and the wreaths.

IG II2 1202

Archon Theophrastos (340/39). E Ghiron-Bistagne, Recherches sur les acteurs dans la Grèce antique (Paris 1976) 88-90; Meyer, Urkundenreliefs no. A140 and pl. 44.1. The date of this text has been a matter of dispute. W. Peek, MDAIA 66 (1941) 219; Ghiron-Bistagne; D. Whitehead, The Demes of Attica (Princeton 1986)

[2] J. D. Morgan will offer a complete new edition and discussion of the date. This will include his join of EM 13401 (above 78).

[3] We learn of this event from IG II 682 lines 9-13.

[4] L. Robert, "Monnaies hellénistiques," Rev . Num ., 1977, 23-26 and n. 89 (= Opera Minora Selecta VI [1989] 185-188)


218-219 n. 251; and Meyer all choose the year 313/2; only T. B. L. Webster (without discussion or giving his reasons), Monuments Illustrating Tragedy and Satyr Play[2] (London 1967) 34 no. AS7, opts for 340/39. Although 313/2 is possible, the known dates of this cutter point toward the earlier date.[5]

IG II2 1238

Meyer, Urkundenreliefs no. A160. See C. W. Hedrick, "An Honorific Phratry Inscription," AJP 109 (1988) 111-117, for a new text and discussion of this inscription. His date, "earlier in the fourth century rather than later" (p. 113), is based on o for ov in line 13; but this is at best a rough criterion. See IG II2 229 for the occurrence of o for ov after midcentury. The date of this inscription should be ca. a . 330 a .

IG II2 1257

Archon Hegesi[as] (324/3). Schwenk no. 77.

IG II2 1543

This account is dated to the year 336.

IG II2 1571


IG II2 1574

D. M. Lewis, Hesperia 28 (1959) 233-238, comments on this class of inscription and rightly, it appears from the hand, associated this text and IG II2 1571 (pp. 234-235). Together with these he also groups IG II2 1575 and 1573. The latter I have not seen; the former is not the work of this cutter.

IG II2 1582

Not earlier than 343/2 (Agora XIX no. P26 line 471). Agora I 817, 1749 (Hesperia 5 [1936] 393-413), 1664, 1782, and 1816 (Hesperia 19 [1950] 251-254) belong to this stele, which has been re-edited as Agora XIX no. P26.

IG II2 1599

W. Peek offers some improved readings in MDAIA 67 (1942) 20 = SEG 21 no. 574.

IG II2 2402


+ IG II2 2408


Agora I 58

Archon [Chairondas] (338/7). Hesperia 3 (1934) 51, with corrections in Hesperia 13 (1944) 266.

Agora I 1851

Hesperia 19 (1950) 210-218; Agora XIX no. P13. Mar-

[5] On the archon Theophrastos of the year 313/2, see above 73 n. 7.


garet Crosby, the initial editor, assigned a date "near the middle of the fourth century" (p. 215), and Merle Langdon, the editor of these texts in Agora XIX, retains this date. It appears to be somewhat early.


Agora 1 631d, f , 679, 810, and 1570 + 2738 are published as belonging to Agora I 1851; they are all by this cutter, but whether they all are parts of this stele is doubtful. Some may belong, for example, with IG II2 1582.

Agora I 2719

Hesperia 29 (1960) 51.

Agora I 3023


Agora I 4990

Joins IG II2 402, q.v .

Agora I 5093

Published below.

+Agora I 6496

Archon [Archipp]os (321/0). Hesperia 30 (1961) 289- 292; Meyer, Urkundenreliefs no. A127. Dow suggested a possible restoration of the secretary's name in HSCP 67 (1963) 44-45.

Agora I 7063

Hesperia Suppl. 19 (1982) 173-182; above, 11 n. 25.

K. Kourouniotes, inline image I (Athens 1932) 189-208

Maier, Gr. Mauerbauinschriften no. 19

Preliminary publication of a fragment from the Athenian Agora (fig. 4)

Fragment of gray marble, back and right side (smooth) preserved, found in a modem house wall south of the market square (P 20) on 21 December 1937.

H 0.235 m; W 0.057 m; Th 0.098 m; LH 0.008 m

Checker ca . 0.018 x 0.018 m

Inv. no. 15093

ca. a . 330 a .


_ _ _ _ _KA

_ _ _ _ _HT

3 _ _ _ _ _ME



Figure 4.
Agora 15093.

_ _ _ _ _NO

_ _ _ _ _AD

6 _ _ _ _ _D E

_ _ _ _ _TIS

_ _ _ _ _TW

There is not sufficient context to enable restoration.



IG II2 306

D. M. Lewis (ABSA 49 [1954] 50) observes that the left side is preserved and that there are about two letters less at the left than reported in IG. In addition it is perhaps the case that this text is to be associated with IG II2 549. However, the letters are a little more widely spaced horizontally than those on IG II2 549. This cutter is uneven in his spacing, so this is not in itself fatal to the proposed association. Study of the stones in Athens should enable a determination of this matter.

IG II2 449

Line 1. The inscribed surface is preserved blank above this line for a space of 0.038 m. There was, thus, above the present line 1 either an area of decoration, carved or painted, or, as Koehler thought probable (quoted by Kirchner in IG ), another decree of the same year. Whichever the case, the formula containing the archon date came at the beginning in the part now lost.

Line 5 . At the right edge of the stoichos before the initial sigma, there appears the upper part of a vertical stroke which can only be part of nu or eta. The name of the chairman was thus [. . . . . . ]inline image. He does not seem to be attested elsewhere.

IG II2 2408 line 1

Read inline image. An ancestor is PA 9922, epistates at Eleusis in 408/7 (IG I3 386 line 2).

Agora I 6496 line 9

The demotic of the speaker can be determined. Under the left side of omikron in line 8 appears the top of an apex. We may now read this line as:

inline image

There is no known name with this ending as yet attested in this deme.


The Cutter of IG II2 354
Dates: 337-324

General characteristics of the lettering (fig. 5)

This lettering conveys a solid, well-made impression; the hastae are relatively thick and often double-struck. Only the crossbars of alpha and eta, the central horizontal of epsilon, the central strokes of mu and sigma, and the diagonal of nu are usually thinner and more lightly inscribed. This cutter tended to thicken the ends of strokes and in some cases to make what look like real serifs, e.g., at the bottom of upsilon. His lettering is very uniform.

Peculiarities of individual letters


This letter is usually relatively wide and short. The crossbar is sometimes omitted; if present, it tends to be lightly inscribed, to be placed below the midpoint, and to slant.


The central horizontal varies in length but is almost invariably shorter than the other two.


The diagonals usually meet the vertical stroke below the midpoint and are as long as or longer than it is.


This letter is carefully made and usually nearly symmetrical. The central v does not quite extend down to the bottom of the letter.


The diagonal not infrequently, in contrast to the practice of many other cutters at the time, begins at the top of the first vertical and ends at the bottom of the second. The second vertical sometimes slants to the right.


This letter is quite round and uniform in size; it is usually slightly smaller than the other letters.


The loop is oblong and often relatively large.



Figure 5.
IG II2  354 lines 2-13.


This letter is taller than the others; the top and bottom strokes slant. The lower central diagonal often meets the upper in from its end.


This letter begins at the baseline and extends up into the interline. It is made with three strokes—the vertical is at least half the height of the letter and usually more; the surmounting v is large.


The central oval is often placed quite low in the letter- space. The vertical is made in two parts and does not usually pass through the oval; the lower part extends down into the interline.


This letter is often open at the bottom, quite round, and placed up in the space. The finials are either rather short or of moderate length.


List of inscriptions

IG II2 113

Archon [Hegemon] (327/6). Schwenk no. 60; M. B. Walbank, ZPE 76 (1989) 257-261, has attributed, it appears correctly, EM 12918 (Hesperia 7 [1938] 296) to this text.[1]

IG II2 241

Archon [Phrynichos] (337/6). Schwenk no. 8.

+IG II2 339a

Archon [Ni]kokrate[s] (333/2). Schwenk no. 29; Meyer, Urkundenreliefs no. A100. Photograph in B. D. Meritt, The Athenian Year (Berkeley 1961) fig. 1 (opposite p. 49).

IG II2 339b


IG II2 354

Archon [Euthykritos] (328/7). Schwenk no. 54.

IG II2 359

Archon Chreme[s] (326/5). Schwenk no. 63.

IG II2 426

Peçirka, Enktesis 77-78.

IG II2 1196B

Face A of this text is very worn; it too seems to be by this cutter. D. Whitehead, ZPE 47 (1982) 38-39, argues, following Lolling, that this text belongs to the archon- ship of Chremes (326/5) and that the demarch in line 4 is Dor[otheos]. The restoration and the date are drawn from IG II2 1198, also inscribed by this cutter. It does seem probable that the deme officials of Aixone commissioned this man to inscribe these two texts on the same occasion.

+ IG II2 1198

Archon Chremes (326/5). Schwenk no. 66.

IG II2 1493

Archon [Ktesikles] (334/3).

IG II2 1494


IG II2 1495

IG II2 1493 and 1494 have been attributed by Koehler and Kirchner in IG , it seems correctly, to this inscription. See E W. Mitchel, TAPA 93 (1962) 218-219, for a new text of IG II2 1493. Mitchel's discussion of the relative placement of the fragments based on their thick- nesses (pp. 216-217) is vitiated by the apparent fact that none of the fragments preserves the original back.

[1] On page 260 of his study Walbank attributes "to the mason who inscribed IG ii ,113" 18 other inscriptions. In the first place, I do not think there are enough letters preserved on IG II 113 to allow one to speak of the hand. Second, I consider only one of those in his list to be by the present cutter, namely IG II 426. The inscriptions listed by Walbank, however, are all more or less in the same style and do suffice for his purpose, which is to strengthen the case for the date 327/6.


IG II2 1496A h

Not earlier than 338/7 (line 18). This cutter's work appears only in columns I and II on face A.

IG II2 1497

Archon Hegemon (327/6).

IG II2 1544

Archon Niketes (332/1).

IG II2 1583

Hesperia 19 (1950) 220-221; Agora XIX no. P14. M. Langdon, the editor in Agora XIX, suggests "ca. a . 350/49 a ."; a better date is ca. a . 330 a

IG II2 1584

Agora XIX no. P15. The date "ca. a . 350/49 a ." is at least a decade too early.

IG II2 1593

The date given in IG , "med. s. IV ," is somewhat early.

IG II2 1627

Archon Aristophon (line 216; 330/29).

IG II2 1629

Archon Antikles (line 794; 325/4). Tod, GHI no. 200.

IG II2 2500

The date of this text is ca. a . 330 a. rather than "fin. s. IV " (IG ).

Agora I 686

Hesperia 19 (1950) 263-267; Agora XIX no. P29, frag. b , lines 32-58. This fragment most probably should be dissociated from fragment a , lines 1-31 (Agora 1631 + 939), for the hands differ. Fragment a was inscribed by the Cutter of IG II2 334.

Agora I 2205

Hesperia 19 (1950) 260-262; Agora XIX no. P28.

Agora I 2260

Not earlier than 346/5 (line 31). Hesperia 25 (1956) 101-109.

Agora I 3134


Agora I 3247

Hesperia 6 (1937) 456-457.

+Agora I 3364

Archon [Niketes] (332/1). Hesperia 8 (1939) 26-27 = Schwenk no. 39.

Agora I 3625

Archon Hegemon (327/6). Hesperia 7 (1938) 94-96 = Schwenk no. 61.

Agora I 4355

Published below.

Agora I 5500


Agora I 5749

Hesperia 19 (1950) 222-223; Agora XIX no. P16. The date assigned, "ca. a . 350/49 a.," seems a trifle early.

Agora I 6421

Hesperia 37 (1968) 267-268. For an improved text, see Sokolowski, LSCG no. 179. The date of this text is ca . 330.

Agora I 7178

Hesperia 43 (1974) 322-324.


EM 12918

Probably part of IG II2 113. Hesperia 7 (1938) 296-297.

REG 91 (1978) 289-306 lines 1-17

Archon Niketes (332/1). Schwenk no. 43. The second decree on this stele is in this general style but appears to be by a different hand. The worn surface renders it difficult to be certain.

Preliminary publication of a fragment from the Athenian Agora (fig. 6)

Fragment of white marble, left side (finely claw-chiselled) preserved, found in modern house walls over the southwestern part of the Eleusinion (S-T 20) on 18 December 1936.

H 0.155 m; W 0.075 m; Th 0.08 m; LH 0.005 m

Checker ca . 0.01 x 0.01 m

Inv. no. I 4355

ca. a . 332 a .


1 T _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

4 _ _ _ _ _ _ _

K_ _ _ _ _ _

OI _ _ _ _ _


_ _ _ _


_ _ _

S XION _ _ _

10 P THN _ _ _

W TTH _ _ _

MET _ _ _ _

OIY _ _ _ _

14 WS _ _ _ _ _

Line 6 . Merely the bottom of dotted iota is legible; upsilon is also possible.

Line 13 . Of dotted upsilon only the tip of the left slanting stroke is visible; chi is also possible.

This fragment puzzles. One might restore inline image in lines 8-9. The only nouns known which would suit the remains in line 11 are inline image (in



Figure 6.
Agora I 4355.


koine form) and inline image, a word apparently meaning "taskmaster" or "overseer." But these are not otherwise attested in Attic inscriptions.


IG II2 339a line 1

The last letter is rho, for the curving bottom of the loop as it touches the vertical is just visible at the break. This letter occurs over upsilon in line 2, i.e., exactly in the center. This line should therefore be read as follows:

inline image

IG II2 1198 line 10

The reading of the numeral is problematic. Schwenk, the latest editor reads II[III]:, which in essence follows Kirchner's adoption of Premerstein's reading. This amount, 8 drachmas, is ridiculously small,[2] and the reading highly suspect. Moreover, I cannot confirm the reading of the pi. Indeed, this cutter normally places two dots on each side of numerals, and that is what he appears to have done in this case. On the squeeze available to me in Princeton, I can discern with certainty the two dots of punctuation on each side of the space where the numeral was originally inscribed. They are centered in stoichoi 11 and 13. The left half of the space in between them is abraded, and I can in consequence read nothing there. In the right half, as improbable as it seems, there appears an upsilon; it is located in the space between stoichoi 12 and 13. It was preceded by another letter now lost. We must read therefore: inline image :. The use of an alphabetic numeral in an Attic inscription before the second century B.C. is almost unparalleled.[3] The occurrence, however, does not seem surprising, especially in a deme decree. The numeral was perhaps: inline image :, i.e., 1,400 drachmas, a very generous amount.

Agora I 3364

This text and three others (IG II2 345, 346, 347) were passed at the same meeting. It seems noteworthy that three of the four were inscribed by dif-

[2] In IG II 1157, an exactly contemporaneous tribal decree for a choregos, the gold crown was at least 500 drachmas (lines 8-9).

[3] An isolated example from the fifth century is IG I 760. See M. N. Tod, "The Alphabetic Numeral System in Attica," ABSA 45 (1950) 126-139 (reprinted in M. N. Tod, Ancient Greek Numerical Systems [Chicago 1979] 84-97).


ferent cutters. IG II2 345 is the work of the Cutter of IG II2 334; IG II2 347 was done by the Cutter of IG II2 337. It is impossible to speak with certainty about IG II2 346; it is in the general style of the Cutters of IG II2 334 and 354 but very worn. Given what we know about later inscribing patterns, it is probably the work of another cutter. Indeed, during the period 229-86 there is no case known of two decrees passed on the same day being inscribed by the same cutter.[4] Apparently there was felt a need, at least in later times, to have inscribed copies of decrees finished in a timely fashion. There is no reason why this should not also have been the case in Lykourgan Athens. There are, however, several cases known from this study in which decrees passed on the same day were inscribed by the same workman; see pages 126-127, 145, 156, 162-163 below. It is noteworthy that they all appear to have been relatively short, i.e., able to be finished within a few days. Thus they could be assigned to a single cutter.

[4] ALC 234-236.


The Cutter of IG II2 337
Dates: 337-323

General characteristics of tile lettering (fig. 7)

This workman inscribed lettering which conveys a rather elegant appearance. The letter-strokes thicken at the ends, and sometimes there is the definite suggestion of a serif. The hastae of the letters are thin and tend to curve slightly, especially the horizontals of gamma, pi, and tau, the upper slanting stroke of sigma, and the verticals of gamma, epsilon, eta, kappa, nu, pi, and rho.

Peculiarities of individual letters


This is a relatively wide letter. The slanting strokes which compose it often curve slightly; the crossbar occurs at approximately the midpoint, sometimes crosses one of the slanting strokes, and often slants.


This letter has a squat appearance because it is quite wide and does not extend to the bottom of the letterspace; the crossbar is often placed slightly up from the bottom.


The top and bottom horizontals are longer than the vertical and tend to be placed just slightly in from the ends of the vertical. The central horizontal is shorter.


The outer strokes of this letter slant rather sharply, with the result that the central v (which reaches to the baseline) is unusually narrow, almost awkward in appearance.


This letter is quite round, small, and placed somewhat up in the space.


The horizontal usually bows downward perceptibly; it begins at the first vertical and either ends at the second or extends just a small bit beyond it. This is one of this cutter's most idiosyncratic letters.



Figure 7.
IG II2  337 lines 36-44.


The top and bottom strokes always slant; the lower half is often slightly wider and extends into the interline.


The horizontal tends to be slightly shorter than the vertical and curves markedly. At times this letter could be taken for upsilon made with an extremely shallow v.


This letter is made with three strokes. The vertical is normally just slightly more than half the height of the letter. The v is large and symmetrical.


This letter is taller than the others. The central part is a small oval placed above the midpoint of the letter-space. About half of the time the oval seems to have been inscribed first, with a short vertical then added at top and bottom; that is to say, the vertical in this case does not continue through the oval.


This is a relatively short letter which is placed up from the baseline in the middle of the letter-space. Short hor-


izontals extend to the right and left, one usually slightly longer than the other; there is no consistency as to which one. In contrast to the dominant tendency of his contemporaries, this cutter does not extend the horizontals much into the letter.

List of inscriptions

IG II2 243

Archon Phrynichos (337/6). Schwenk no. 11.

IG II2 337

Archon Nikokrates (333/2). Schwenk no. 27; Sokolowski, LSCG no. 34; Tod, GHI no. 189. For an assessment of Lykourgos' reasons (primarily economic) for proposing to grant to the Kitians the right to build a temple in Piraeus, see R. R. Simms, "Isis in Classical Athens," CJ 84 (1988/9) 216-221.

+IG II2 347

Archon [N]iketes (332/1). Schwenk no. 38; Meyer, Urkundenreliefs no. A103 and pl. 50.2 (relief only). See also SEG 39 no. 86 and, on the other decrees passed at this session, above 110-111.

IG II2 348

Archon [Aristophanes] (331/0). Schwenk no. 44.

IG II2 434


+IG II2 547

Archon [Hegesias] (324/3). Schwenk no. 74.

+IG II2 1189

Archon Ktesikl[es] (334/3). Reinmuth no. 3. An improved text with photographs is offered by E W. Mitchel in Ancient World 9 (1984) 114-118.

IG II2 1229

The date to be assigned to this text is ca. a . 330 a .

IG II2 1244

The date offered for this text in IG ("fin. s. IV ?") is somewhat late. R. Schlaifer (CP 39 [1944] 25) improved the restoration of line 7 by suggesting inline image for inline image; the latter is too long by one letter.

+Agora 17134

Hesperia 51 (1982) 45-46.


IG II2 347 line 11

Schwenk reads the name as inline image is clearly preserved on the squeeze available to me.


IG II2 547 line 16 (Schwenk)

In letter-space 22 and directly above omikron in the next line appears N. I can discern no trace of Schwenk's lower part of a vertical in the next letter-space.

IG II2 1189 line 5

There is an erasure in this line that has not been noted by any previous editor. It begins after the first Kaí and continues as far as the stone is preserved. One can see it quite dearly in the photographs published by Reinmuth (plate IV) and Mitchel (p. 114). Indeed, the words inline image (read by D. Philios, the first editor [AE , 1890, 91-93], and repeated by subsequent editors) are, if correctly deciphered, not only quite carefully erased, but unparalleled in the language of Attic inscriptions.[1] The precise nature of the error is unclear. However, given that haplography and dittography are the most common copying errors,[2] the occurrence in successive lines of the phrase inline image doubtless contributed to the problem. In any case, the erased section of line 5 was not reinscribed. Perhaps this was the extent of the erasure, for with this space left blank the suggested restorations make good sense. See IG II2 1156 of the same year for a similarly worded decree.

Agora I 7134 line 13

The second letter cannot be mu, which this cutter makes with slanting strokes, for the preserved stroke at the beginning of the stoichos is vertical. Kappa (which should be dotted) seems to be the letter preserved.

Without stating his criteria, M. B. Walbank in his editio princeps of Agora 1 7134 (Hesperia 51 [1982] 45-46) tentatively suggests that Agora I 5464 (Hesperia 30 [1961] 208-210), 16421 (Hesperia 37 [1968] 267-268), and IG IF 229 are by the same hand as that on 1 7134 (p. 46). By the method and criteria which I employ[3] I judge none of these to be by this cutter and only the last as in the same general style.

[2] For examples, see S. V. Tracy, The Lettering of an Athenian Mason (Hesperia Suppl. 15 [1975]) 109-114.

[3] See above 2 n. 2.


The extant texts of this cutter are all relatively short decrees; all but one (Agora 1 7134) are inscribed on white marble, and all are stoichedon . With the exception of IG II2 1189, the number of letters per line varies from 20 to 29; II2 1189, a dedicatory base, probably had in the body of the decree 62 letters per line. These are all honorary decrees, six of the city, one of the deme of Eleusis, and two passed by gene .


The Cutter of IG II2 330
Date: 335/4

General characteristics of the lettering (fig. 8)

The lettering of this cutter is quite uniform. There tends to be a slight thickening at the ends of strokes, apparently deliberate and a precursor to the serif.

Peculiarities of individual letters


This letter is quite wide. The crossbar is frequently omitted when the letter-height is 0.006 m or less, with the result that it is indistinguishable from lambda. Not infrequently the left slanting hasta extends at the apex beyond the right one.


Sometimes the crossbar is not placed exactly at the bottom, with the result that this letter can be mistaken for alpha.


The vertical usually extends down just slightly below the lowest horizontal. The central horizontal is often quite short.


This is a wide letter; the first and third slanting strokes often extend up above the strokes which join them. The central v tends to reach down to or near the base of the letter.


The slanting stroke very often begins below the top of the letter and ends above the bottom.


This letter varies in size but is usually slightly smaller than the surrounding letters. It is quite round and appears to have been inscribed in two semicircles in such a way that a small gap often appears on the left side. It tends to hang from the top of the letter-space.



Figure 8.
IG II2  330 lines 13-25.


The crossbar slants down a bit and usually crosses the second vertical.


The top and bottom strokes usually slant, although the top is more nearly horizontal. Occasionally it is horizontal. The bottom is usually rendered by a short slanting stroke which extends down from the lower central stroke at about its midpoint.


The v at the top is very shallow and asymmetrical. The left stroke is longer and more horizontal than the right.

List of inscriptions

IG II2 330 and 445

Archon [E]uainetos (335/4). Schwenk no. 18.

+ IG II2 553

Osborne, Naturalization no. D44.


+ Agora 12767

Hesperia 29 (1960) 5. For Meritt's simple "saec. IV a. " we can specify ca. a . 335 a .

Agora 15280



IG II2 553

Osborne's date, "(?) 304/3, prytany 7," is not impossible, but I suspect that a much earlier date is more likely. Given the strategic importance of Eleusis to the city, the upheavals after 338 or those in 323/2 may well offer the proper context for this inscription. It is perhaps worth adding that the only general known in this period who might be restored in line 5 is inline image; (PA 14187).[1] He served twice in our evidence. He was crowned by his troops in an inscription from Rhamnous dated ca . 333 (IG II2 2968 = Pouilloux, La forteresse de Rhamnonte [Paris 1954] 114 no. 4) and about four years later by the ephebes of Leontis for his service as inline image (Reinmuth no. 15 dextra lines 4-6 [II]).[2]

Agora I 2767 lines 7-8

In view of this cutter's habit of omitting the crossbar of alpha, the letters at the end of line 8, which Meritt read as l o, are almost certainly aq . One should restore at the end of line 7 and beginning of 8 the standard phrase [inline image].[3]

[1] Osborne suggested (ZPE 19 [1975] 153 n. 18) that "Dromokleides" be restored. This man was a well-known orator from Sphettos and adherent of Demetrios Poliorketes (Plutarch Demetrios 13, 34.4; PA 4568). He is not, however, known to have served as general and is first attested in 295 B.C ., not (as previously believed) in 307. Habicht has convincingly shown (Untersuchungen 34-44) that his fulsome decree for Demetrios quoted in part in Plutarch (Demetrios 13) does not date to 307, but rather to 292 or 291.

[2] This inscription from the Amphiaraion was dated by Reinmuth on no certain evidence to 324/3; it more probably belongs to the time of the first great Athenian festival of the year 329/8 (above 25-26 and nn. 15, 22).

[3] A. M. Woodward independently (I now discover) suggested this in the margin of Meritt's copy of Hesperia .


The Cutter of EM 12807
Dates: 334/3-314/3

General characteristics of the lettering (fig. 9)

The letter-strokes of this prolific cutter are relatively thin and straight. There is little evidence of double cutting. There is often a slight thickening at the ends of strokes and even sometimes the suggestion of a serif. The cutter is not consistent in this matter; otherwise, his lettering is quite uniform.

Peculiarities of individual letters


This letter is of average width; the left slanting stroke often overlaps the right a small amount at the apex. The crossbar is placed at the midpoint or below, slants, and often cuts through the left slanting hasta .


The top and bottom horizontals are just a bit longer than the vertical. The central horizontal is a little more than half as long as the others.


The outer strokes slant; the central v extends down to, or almost to, the bottom of the letter. The outer slanting stroke on the right often begins decidedly down from the top of the stroke which it meets.


This letter is relatively wide. The second vertical sometimes extends up higher than the first. The slanting stroke often begins markedly below the top of the first vertical and meets the second above its bottom. It slants at a gentle, mild angle.


This letter ranges in size from medium to large and is placed near the top of the letter-space. Though quite round, it was incised by hand, and one can see that it was made in a series of arcs.



Figure 9.
EM 12807 lines 6-14 (left part).


The horizontal usually extends beyond the second vertical just a bit.


The loop is relatively large and wide.


This letter is made with four long slanting strokes. The upper stroke occasionally is almost horizontal. It tends to be thickened slightly at the end or to have a pointlike serif. Moreover, it not infrequently begins in from the end of the stroke which it joins.


This letter is composed of three strokes; the vertical is at least half as tall as the letter and often more.


The vertical is often made in two parts on each side of the flattened oval. The letter is somewhat taller than the others.


This letter is quite round and large. The finials at the bottom are large and sometimes extend into the letter, but rarely close it. One of them often has a serif.


List of inscriptions

+IG II2 264

The date in IG , "ante a . 336/5," appears to be some what early.

IG II2 292

Based on the lettering, J. Kirchner in IG dated this inscription to the period before 336/5.

+IG II2 335

Archon Ktesik[les] (334/3). Schwenk no. 23; photograph in Hesperia 9 (1940) 339. E. Schweigert, Hesperia 9 (1940) 339, attributed EM 12773 (Hesperia 4 [1935] 169-170) to this text. The lettering—what little survives on this fragment—is very similar to this hand, but I cannot confirm that it is by this cutter. In any case, I do not find the association convincing. EM 12773 could also be part of IG II2 405 (so also M. B. Walbank, ABSA 85 [1990] 443 no. 14) or conceivably a number of other stelai.

+IG II2 369

Archon Ke[phisod]oros (323/2). E. Schweigert, Hesperia 9 (1940) 335-338, attributed to this inscription IG II2 414b, c , Agora I 2752, 4935a-f , and 5496. Osborne, Naturalization no. D25. Photographs of the fragments appear in Hesperia 8 (1939) 28 and 9 (1940) 337. These fragments are, with the exception of Agora I 5496, by this cutter and most probably do belong to this text.[1] The sigma of Agora I 5496 has an elongated bottom slanting stroke, and I suspect it is not by this cutter. It is closer in style to the lettering of the Cutter of IG II2 105.

IG II2 383b (add. p. 660)

Archon Neaichmo[s] (320/19).

IG II2 393

Osborne, Naturalization no. D32; Kirchner-Klaffenbach, Imagines2 no. 66.

+IG II2 405

Archon [Ktesikles] (334/3). Osborne, Naturalization no. D21; Schwenk no. 24.

IG II2 407

See Agora I 7050, below.

[1] I am not completely confident, however, that fragments E, H , and K (as labelled by Schweigert) could not be from one or more other inscriptions.


+IG II2 414a

Archon [Ktesikles] (334/3). Schwenk no. 25; photograph in Hesperia 9 (1940) 341.[2]

IG II2 414b,c

Part of IG II2 369.

+IG II2 416b

Because of differences in the marble, fragment a was separated from this text by M. B. Walbank (as reported in JHS 97 [1977] 157 n. 31). One may add in confirmation that the writing differs in character from b . Fragment a , moreover, has been misread; there is a clearly preserved iota after the third alpha in line 2. This line reads:


inline image[3]


With the new reading, there is no longer the possibility of a coincidence of name between the two fragments.[4] In addition, Ch. Habicht points out to me, Praxias is a name characteristic of Delphi[5] and plausibly suggests the restoration inline image.

+ IG II2 430


IG II2 448

Archon Archippos (line 35; 318/7). Osborne, Naturalization no. D38; Schwenk no. 83; Meyer, Urkundenreliefs no. A134 and pl. 39.1 (relief only).

[2] M. B. Walbank, ABSA 85 (1990) 443, says that "it is possible" that IG II 414a , 430, 285, and 414d "derive from the same stele." IG II 430 is by the same hand as 414a and could belong to the same stele, but I can see no compelling reason to put them together. As for the other two pieces, they are not by this cutter. Each has a very large and tall upsilon, which is not characteristic of this cutter. In addition, the nus on these pieces do not reveal this cutter's habit of placing the diagonal noticeably down from the top of the first vertical. (Walbank now withdraws this suggestion [SEG 40 no. 75].)

[3] On the use of the dative case in expressions of this kind, see J. J. E. Hondius, Novae Inscriptiones Atticae (reprinted in Suppl. Inscr. Atticarum II [1979]) 42 n. 14, who adduces as parallels IG II 130, 133, 136, 161, 162, 205, 231, 339, 357.

[5] See, for examples, Fouilles de Delphes III.2 nos. 20 line 2, 79 line 5, 93 line 7, 228 line 11; III.4 nos. 225 line 1, 246 line 2, 280C line 14; and Corpus des inscriptions de Delphes II nos. 32 line 89, 76 I line 14, 94 line 3. The last two references name a Praxias who was a prytanis in 335 B.C . and one who was hieromnemon in 328/7, i.e., individuals contemporary with the present cutter.


IG II2 450

Archon Nikodoros (314/3). Osborne, Naturalization no. D42. See the discussion of this text, pages 40-41 above.

IG II2 601

The date of this text is ca. a . 325 a . rather than "fin. s. IV " (IG ).

Agora I 1000 + 4448

Hesperia 63 (1994) 186-187. M. B. Walbank, the initial editor, associates Agora I 1627 with these fragments. His date, "ante reed. saec . III a .," should rather be ca. a . 325 a .

Agora I 2752

Part of IG II2 369.

+Agora I 4224

Archon Hegesias (324/3). Schwenk no. 72, who repeats B. D. Meritt's text published in Hesperia 10 (1941) 50-52; Meyer, Urkundenreliefs no. A124.

Agora I 4448

Joins Agora I 1000.

Agora I 4902b

Hesperia 9 (1940) 334-335.

Agora 14935a-f

Part of IG II2 369.

Agora 15250

Reinmuth no. 12 and pl. XIII.

Agora I 5824

Hesperia 13 (1944) 243-246. B. D. Meritt, the editor of the editio princeps , compared the lettering of this text to that of IG II2 472 (to which it bears only a very general resemblance) and dated it ca . 300. The date should be ca . 325.

Agora I 7050

Hesperia 51 (1982) 47-48.[6] The mention of the anagrapheus in line 5 dates this text to the years 321/0-319/8. M. Walbank, ZPE 67 (1987) 165-166, has tentatively associated this with IG II2 407.

EM 5181


+EM 12807

A. A. Palaios, Polemon 1 (1929) [1933] 227-232; P. D. Stavropoullos, AE , 1932, Chronika , 30-32. Palaios suggests 375-350 as the date, while Stavropoullos places it a little after 350 and before 325. Whitehead, The Demes of Attica 508/7-ca . 250 B.C . (Princeton 1986) 381, gives the date as mid-fourth century. These dates are all somewhat early.

[6] EM 13412 (Hesperia 40 [1971] 181) is not, as M. B. Walbank suggests in his editio princeps of Agora I 7050 (p. 48), by this hand. The omikrons on it are too small and uncharacteristic of this cutter.


EM 13336

Archon Arist[ophanes] (331/0) or Arist[ophon] (330/29). Agora XV no. 45; Schwenk no. 47; photograph in Hesperia 31 (1962) pl. 118 no. 3.

Hesperia 31 (1962) 54-56

D. Behrend, Attische Pachturkunden , Vestigia 12 (Munich 1970) no. 28; photograph in Hesperia pl. 23 no. 138. The original editors opined "second half of IV cent. B.C .," while Behrend suggested "etwas nach 300 a.C." Around the year 325 appears to be as accurate a date as possible.


It seems notable that the language of the lease at lines 11-14 (inline imageinline image) actively anticipates the possibility of an invasion of Attica.[7] There are two periods coinciding with the working career of this cutter when the external situation would certainly have warranted this expectation, namely after Chaironeia (338-335 B.C .) and during and just after the Lamian War (323-320). One should probably also add the confused period in 318 when Polyperchon and Kassandros were contesting for control of Athens.

L. Robert, Études épigraphiques et philologiques (Paris 1938) 293-296 and pl. I

G. Daux, inline image I (Athens 1964) 87-90, with a photograph; Meyer, Urkundenreliefs no. A137 and pl. 41.2; good photograph also in BCH 96 (1972) 77.


Robert (p. 294) suggested that the speaker might be identical with a councillor of the year 360/59; he did not otherwise commit himself on the date. Daux discusses the date on pages 89-90 and places this text about midcentury and certainly before 337/6. B. Holtzmann, BCH 96 (1972) 73-79, based on the style of the relief dates it to the years 340 to 335. Meyer, also using


stylistic arguments (pp. 69-70), arrives at what must be fairly close to the correct general date, i.e., ca . 320. The known dates for the cutter's career, 334/3-314/3, support such a date, perhaps indeed during the time of Lykourgos. The construction of altars to Ares and Athena Areia in Acharnai, one of the most populous demes of Attica, certainly suits what we know of Lykourgos' interest in promoting the cults of Athens and Attica.[8]


IG II2 264 line 17

The last letter of this line is delta, not alpha. The general's name is inline image are perhaps the most probable names. Since the final lines of the inscription instruct the general to look after the safe passage of the ambassador to Iatrokles, we should perhaps conceive of a voyage by sea and danger from pirates. A possible candidate for the general is the general Diotimos who is known from IG II2 1623B lines 276-285 to have led an expedition against pirates in 335/4.[9]inline image, who was general over the countryside in 319/8 (Plutarch Phokion 32.3), is another very likely candidate.[10] By the same token, it is unlikely that Iatrokles, son of Pasiphon, the Athenian (PA 7442), who was taken prisoner by the Macedonians at Olynthos in 348, was then freed, and acted as an ambassador to Philip, is the Iatrokles mentioned in this inscription. The present Iatrokles seems to have been a foreigner.

IG II2 335, 405, 414a

E. Schweigert, Hesperia 9 (1940) 339-341, noted that these texts were inscribed by the same man and demonstrated that they were passed at the same meeting of the assembly. The first two were proposed by Demades, and the last by Lykourgos. Only the preamble of the first survives; the second preserves a grant of citizenship for Amyntor, son of Demetrios,

[8] F. W. Mitchel, "Lykourgan Athens: 338-322," in Lectures in Memory of Louise Taft Semple , 2d set. (Cincinnati 1970), 42-47.

[9] E. Schweigert, Hesperia 9 (1940) 341, plausibly restores his name in line 11 of IG II 414a .

[10] On him see E W. Mitchel, "Derkylos of Hagnous and the Date of I.G ., II , 1187," Hesperia 33 (1964) 337-351; and J. K. Davies, Athenian Propertied Families (Oxford 1971) pp. 97-98.


otherwise unidentifiable; the third may well honor the Athenian general Diotimos. It is somewhat surprising to find three decrees passed on the same day inscribed by the same cutter, for in the years 229-86 there is no attested case of two decrees passed at the same meeting being cut by the same man (above 111). However, the decrees under discussion here are all relatively short. The best-preserved, IG II2 405, had at least 22 lines of 19 letters, i.e., 418 letters, and probably no more than 30 lines, or around 570 letters. The other two were probably about the same length. None will have taken more than two or three days to inscribe. Thus all three could be inscribed by the same man in a relatively short time. In the later period, when longer decrees were the norm, it became necessary to assign the decrees passed at the same meeting to different cutters.

IG II2 369 = Osborne, Naturalization no. D25

Osborne's text and study of these fragments is the most recent and likely to be primary for many students. I offer these comments on his text because it is defective in several places.

Line 19. The dotted epsilon goes back to Schweigert's reading. I suspect that it is wrong, for the top of the letter-space seems to be preserved, and there is no trace of a horizontal. Dotted kappa or eta would appear to be preferable.

Line 36. Omega was Schweigert's reading; it is incorrect. There is a completely preserved vertical on the right side of the stoichos , with just a trace of a horizontal at midpoint. Eta is an all-but-certain reading.

Line 43a . Osborne has completely omitted this line, which is line 41 in Schweigert's publication.

Line 54a . Osborne omitted this line, line 53 in Schweigert.

IG II2 416b lines 7-8

The name inline image has been incorrectly restored here, as discussed above. Indeed this name is not attested for Kos in W. R. Paton and E. L. Hicks, The Inscriptions of Cos (Oxford 1891); nor in R. Herzog, Koische Forschungen und Funde (Leipzig 1899).[11] However, names ending in inline image are quite common on Kos. As examples, the following appear in Paton and Hicks and are the correct length for this text: inline imageinline imageinline image This inscription be-

[11] LGPN I p. 384 records the name for Kos, but gives this inscription as the sole reference.


longs in the dossier of evidence relating to the severe grain shortages in Athens in the years 331-ca . 320.[12]

IG II2 430

In line 2, Koehler restored inline image with a mark of interrogation. This seems to be correct, for I can read from the squeeze in Princeton inline image. The dotted lambda is read based on a worn apex. The bottom of dotted iota alone appears.

It represents a small, but not completely inconsequential, gain to be able now to affirm that this very fragmentary inscription conferred honors on a Thessalian from Pharsalos for his good will and good deeds toward the people of Athens. The Thessalians maintained good relations with the Athenians and were their steadfast ally during the Lamian War (above 29). It is obviously not possible to specify the exact occasion on which the present honors were conferred.

Agora I 4224

Line 6. The second letter has only a vertical and a downward-slanting stroke that begins below the top of the vertical. Meritt, followed by Schwenk, interpreted this as kappa, which they print with a dot. If they are correct, the kappa should be printed in pointed brackets, because the upper slanting stroke was never inscribed. However, I think that this letter is this cutter's rather idiosyncratic nu. He often begins the slanting stroke quite low. The second vertical is lost. Given the mannerisms of this cutter I would print this letter as nu with no dot.

Line 7. Both Meritt and Schwenk print a shading after the epsilon. But there appears three-quarters of a clear vertical at the left edge of the stoichos . There is no trace of a central crossbar; hence nu and pi are alone possible.

EM 12807 line 31

The numeral is, as Stavropoullos saw,: DD :.

[12] See 30-35 above.


The Cutter of IG II2 1176
Dates: ca. 330-324/3

General characteristics of the lettering (fig. 10)

The work of this cutter is characterized by the facts that his known inscriptions are not stoichedon and the letters of his texts are crowded together. These habits set him apart from most of his contemporaries. His letters vary in height, with rho, upsilon, and phi usually being taller, and omikron and omega smaller, than the other letters. He tends to thicken the ends of his strokes and cuts his round letters deeper.

Peculiarities of individual letters


The horizontal begins just below the top of the vertical and is almost as long as the vertical, making this letter quite wide.


The central horizontal is normally shorter and sometimes placed nearer the topmost horizontal.


The angle and placement of the slanting strokes vary. These hastae are as long as or longer than the vertical, thus rendering this letter unusually wide.


This letter varies in width from thin to average. The second vertical at times rises above the first. The diagonal rarely connects the two verticals with precision. It usually begins at or just below the top of the first vertical and often cuts through the second at or near the bottom.


This letter is made with upper and lower arcs which sometimes do not perfectly join. The letter is slightly oblong and has at times the appearance of a rugby ball viewed from the side.


The loop varies in size. Like omikron it is made in two segments. The top one curves; the lower one some-



Figure 10.
IG  II2  1176 lines 28-40.


times curves and sometimes is straight. The shape is a rather flattened small oval and is highly idiosyncratic.


This letter varies in height. The vertical is usually more than half the height of the letter and is surmounted by a fairly large and slightly asymmetrical v.


This letter varies in size and is usually placed up in the letter-space. The straight-line finials on each side can be quite large, and not infrequently they close the letter at the bottom.

List of inscriptions

IG II2 1176

Archon Hegesias (324/3). R. S. Stroud joined a fragment and provided a new edition of the whole in CSCA 7 (1974) 290-298. Schwenk no. 76; Agora XIX no. L13; photograph in CSCA 7 (1974) plate 4.


IG II2 1361

Sokolowski, LSCG no. 45.

IG II2 1751

Agora XV no. 32.

IG II2 1752

Agora XV no. 52.

Agora I 2440

Joins IG II2 1176.

Agora I 6439

Joins IG II2 1176.

The prosopographical discussions of the councillors known from IG II2 1751 and IG II2 1752 by Meritt and Traill in Agora XV and by Kirchner in IG II2 suggest that these texts should be dated ca . 330-325. This evidence adds to our one dated text to reveal that this workman flourished in the decade before Demetrios of Phaleron came to power.


The Cutter of IG II2 1187
Dates: 326/5-318

General characteristics of the lettering (fig. 11)

This lettering is plain, and the individual hastae of letters tend to be quite thin. Strokes often do not meet precisely or overlap. Round letters in particular are made in definite segments, which frequently are awkwardly shaped and do not join precisely. The lettering makes a somewhat careless impression.

Peculiarities of individual letters


This letter tends to be relatively wide; the left slanting hasta is often longer than the right and slants more. The crossbar is placed at the midpoint or below and slants, usually downwards from right to left. It frequently bisects the right slanting stroke.


The vertical usually extends up above the topmost horizontal. The central horizontal is shorter, does not touch the vertical, and tends to slant downwards.


The horizontal often occurs below the midpoint of the letter.


This letter varies in size and is normally placed up in the letter-space. The letter is made in two segments with small gaps left on each side., i.e., left and right.


The first vertical frequently extends up above the horizontal; the second vertical varies in length but is at times quite long.


This letter is made with four long slanting hastae ; the top and bottom ones always slant. The letter varies in height; it is usually taller but occasionally it is



Figure 11.
IG II2  1187 lines 3-12.


squashed down so that it is shorter than the other letters.


The crossbar is as long as the vertical and sometimes off-center to the left to such a degree that the letter has the appearance of a backward gamma.


This letter tends to be taller than the others. Often it is rendered by two strokes, with a vertical which continues and bends or curves into the right part of the v. The left, somewhat longer, meets it near the middle or sometimes lower.


This letter is the same height as the other letters; the central part is a flattened oval which tends to be open on the left.


Shorter than the other letters, this letter is sometimes up in the space and sometimes at the bottom. It varies


in size but is usually quite small in height and fairly wide. The finial at the bottom on the right tends to be decidedly longer than the one on the left.

List of inscriptions

IG II2 381 (W)[1]

Archon [Neai]chmos (320/19).

IG II2 401 (W)

Kirchner observed: "Litt. leviter ac parum accurate incisae ; IIY et V. Indicant eandem manure atque t. 381. " On the date (320) and the phraseology in lines 7-10, Ch. Habicht, Vestigia 17 (1973) 373.

IG II2 620 (W)[2]


IG II2 1157

Archon Ch[re]m[e]s (326/5). Schwenk no. 65.[3]

IG II2 1187 (W)

Meyer, Urkundenreliefs no. A133 and pl. 38.2 (relief only). The hand confirms E W. Mitchel's arguments ("Derkylos of Hagnous and the Date of I.G., II2 , 1187," Hesperia 33 [1964] 337-351) that this text should be dated in 319/8. Kirchner in IG , following Foucart and Koehler, indicated the date as "reed. s. IV. "

IG II2 1195 (W)

Sokolowski, LSCG no. 38. For the join of Agora I 5825 and association of I 6630, see M. B. Walbank in Hesperia 63 (1994) 233-239.[4]

+ IG II2 1266 (W)

The date of this text is ca. a . 322 a . and not "fin. s. IV? " (IG ). For an improved text and restoration, A. Wilhelm, "Attische Urkunden V," SB Wien 220 (1942) 186-188.

[1] Fragments marked with a "W" were assigned to one hand by M. B. Walbank; see the Addendum on pages 148-149.

[2] M. B. Walbank (Hesperia 63 [1994] 233-239) associates this piece with IG II 1195 and offers some improvements in readings. In a companion piece (Hesperia 63 [1994] 241-244) the present author adds some discussion of the text and restoration of this inscription.

[4] Walbank also associates with this text two very small fragments from the excavations in the Athenian Agora, inv. nos. 1 2799 and 1 5572. These two fragments are so small that I am not prepared to affirm positively they are by this hand; they are, however, very close in style. Whether they belong to this text or not seems to me unprovable.


Agora I 3878 (W)

Archon [Apo]llod[or]os (319/8). Hesperia 7 (1938) 476-479; Moretti, ISE no. 4. For small improvements in the readings, see S. Dow, HSCP 67 (1963) 49.

Agora I 5825

Joins IG II2 1195.

Agora I 6630

Part of IG II2 1195.


IG II2 1266

The third preserved letter in line 5 is theta, not delta.


The Cutter of IG II2 1262
Dates: ca. 320-ca. 296

General characteristics of the lettering (fig. 12)

This lettering is plain and somewhat sloppy in appearance, for the strokes often do not meet precisely, and horizontals tend to slant haphazardly. Round letters too are not round but are rendered, wholly or in part, by straight strokes. This cutter tends to leave ample space between letters.

Peculiarities of individual letters


The crossbar varies in placement, though it is often approximately in the middle; it is frequently thicker and deeper at the right and does not quite touch the left hasta .


The horizontals tend to be about the same length; the central one is sometimes placed near the bottom and has a decided upward slant.


The slanting strokes vary in length; the lower tends toward the horizontal.


This letter is rendered by two thin lambdas placed side by side.


This letter varies quite a bit in size, occurs in the upper part of the letter-space, and is often smaller than the others. Made as it is with some straight strokes, it is at times rendered in a most awkward manner, with one or more segments which do not quite join.


The loop is usually one-third to one-half the height of the vertical and is composed of one or more straight segments. It is often awkwardly pennant-shaped.


This letter is both wider and taller than the other letters. It is made with four very long slanting strokes.



Figure 12.
IG  II2  1262.


The lower half is often larger than the upper and extends back a bit farther. Occasionally the two halves do not quite join at the midpoint of the letter.


This letter is the same height as the others; the central part consists of a straight line or a thin flattened oval. Very occasionally, the cutter varies the straight line with an arc.


In contrast to most of his contemporaries, this workman makes chi quite large.


This letter is less tall than the others, relatively thin, open at the bottom, and hangs from the top of the letter-space. The left side is often rendered by a straight stroke. Small strokes of approximately the same size extend to right and left at the bottom. One side of the letter frequently extends down below the other; sometimes it is the right, and sometimes the left.

List of inscriptions

IG II2 273a

The date given in IG, "ante a . 336/5," is too early. Fragment b is so worn that I can read nothing with certainty and, therefore, can draw no conclusion about the hand.

IG II2 394

Osborne, Naturalization no. D33

IG II2 400


IG II2 418[1]


+ IG II2 440


IG II2 455

Archon [Anaxikrates] (307/6). Pritchett and Meritt, Chronology 20.

+ IG II2 460 (W)[2]

Archon [Ana]xikrate[s] (307/6).

IG II2 464 (W)

Archon [Anaxikrates] (307/6).

IG II2 468 (W)

Maier, Gr. Mauerbauinschriften no. 12.

[1] M. B. Walbank's attempt (ZPE 59 [1985] 110-111) to date this text to late 333 and to connect it with IG II 342 is unlikely to be correct, as he himself admits (ABSA 84 [1989] 404 n. 38). See also SEG 39 no. 109; and above 36 n. 2.

[2] The inscriptions marked with a W were assigned to one hand by M. B. Walbank; see the Addendum on pages 148-149 below.


+ IG II2 496 + 507

Archon [L]eostr[atos] (303/2). Osborne, Naturalization no. D61

+ IG II2 497 (W)

Archon Leostra[tos] (303/2).

+IG II2 504 (W)

Archon [Nikokles] (302/1).

+ IG II2 505 (W)

Archon Nikokles (302/1). Maier, Gr. Mauerbauinschriften no. 13; Peçirka, Enktesis 80-81.

IG II2 538 (W)

Osborne, Naturalization no. D59.

IG II2 573 (W)


IG II2 591 (W)


IG II2 641 (W)

Archon E[uktemon] (299/8). Kirchner-Klaffenbach, Imagines2 no. 73.

IG II2 727 (W)

S. Dow provided a new text and suggested a date of ca. 330-308/7 (Hesperia 32 [1963] 356-357); B. D. Meritt (ibid . 439) thought a date in the third century, scil . in the period of twelve tribes, was possible. If Meritt is to be correct, the tribe in prytany will have to have been Antigonis (I), for the chairman is from Demetrias (II) and the first symproedros from Erechtheis (III). The chances of that are 1 in 10. It appears much more probable that this decree belongs to the period of ten tribes, i.e., before 308/7.[3] This probable fact and the dates of the cutter point to a date ca . 320-308/7 for this text.

+ IG II2 733


IG II2 1194 + 1274 + Eleusis inv. no. 714

Hesperia 8 (1939) 177-180.

IG II2 1230


IG II2 1241

Archon Hegemachos (300/299).

+ IG II2 1260

Maier, Gr. Mauerbauinschriften no. 23.

+IG II2 1262

Archon [Kl]earchos (301/0).

+IG II2 1264

Archon Hegemachos (300/299).

[3] Walbank, ABSA 84 (1989) 402, failed to realize this point or to note Dow's work on this text. He does suggest that the demotic of the secretary ended in -YS ; this appears to be correct, for on the (not very good) squeeze available to me the sigma seems clear.


IG II2 1265


IG II2 1487a A (W)

Line 31 has larger letters and appears to be the work of a different cutter.

IG II2 1491A, B (W)

Archon [Koroi]bos (306/5). On this text and related inventories, see D. M. Lewis, "The Last Inventories of Athena," in Comptes et inventaires dans la cité grecque (en l'honneur de J. Tréheux ), ed. D. Knoepfler (Geneva 1988), 297-308, esp. 299-300.

Agora I 1541 (W)

Osborne, Naturalization no. D63.

Agora I 1947

Published below.

+ Agora I 2636 (W)

Hesperia 8 (1939) 35-41; H. H. Schmitt, Die Staatsverträge des Altertums III (Munich 1969) no. 445.

Agora I 2995

Hesperia 29 (1960) 5-6. The date "post med. saec. IV a. " should be changed to ca. a . 310 a .

Agora I 3293


Agora I 3661

Published below.

Agora I 5251

Hesperia 29 (1960) 80-81.

Agora I 5361


Agora I 5439 (W)

Hesperia 11 (1942) 278-280. Habicht, Untersuchungen 20-21, dates this text to the first half of the year 298/7.

Agora I 5444

Part of Agora I 5709, q.v .

Agora I 5491


Agora I 5709 (W)

Hesperia 9 (1940) 348-351. M. B. Walbank has joined Agora I 5444 (Hesperia 58 [1989] 89-90). For a discussion of Adeimantos and this text see L. Robert, Hellenica II (Paris 1946) 15-32. On the league of Corinth, see E. Badian and T. Martin, "Athenians, Other Allies, and the Hellenes in the Athenian Honorary Decree for Adeimantos of Lampsakos," ZPE 61 (1985) 167-172.

Agora I 5723

Hesperia 30 (1961) 211-212, where the date assigned by B. D. Meritt, "ca. a . 285/4-283/2 a .," is somewhat late. Meritt connected the reference to Piraeus in line 5 with the attempts to recover it from Macedonian control in these particular years. But one can scarcely be this specific. The strategic importance of Piraeus to the city throughout the last years of the fourth century and the first years of the third make any number of dates dur-


ing this man's working career (ca . 320-ca. 296) possible. Indeed, the upheavals after 307 seem to offer a very probable time for this text.

Agora I 5772

Hesperia 13 (1944) 242-243; Peçirka, Enktesis 132-133. On account of the fact that the trittyarchoi and the exe-tastes paid for the stele, its date can be narrowed to the years 301/0-295/4; indeed Habicht (Untersuchungen 15) has argued that it belongs to the time of Lachares, whose dates he establishes as 298/7-295/4 (ibid . 16-21).

Agora 15836 (W)

Hesperia 30 (1961) 258-259.

+ Agora I 5884

Archon [Anaxikrates] (307/6). Pritchett and Meritt, Chronology 8.

Agora I 6314 (W)

Hesperia 30 (1961) 257-258.

Acropolis Museum inv. no. 7010

Archon Leostrato[s] (303/2). AE , 1971, B 26 no. 16 (= SEG 30 no. 70).

EM 5423


EM 12573


EM 12706 (W)

Archon Anaxik[rates] (307/6). Hesperia 2 (1933) 398-399 .[4]

EM 12906 (W)

Hesperia 7 (1938) 307.

Preliminary publication of fragments from the Athenian Agora

1 (fig. 13). Fragment of white marble, back (rough-picked) preserved, found built into the wall of a late pit in the Bouleuterion plateia (F 11) on 10 May 1934.

H 0.135 m; W 0.14 m; Th 0.095 m; LH 0.005 m

Checker ca . 0.01 m × 0.01 m

Inv. no. I 1947

[4] Walbank, ibid . 404, suggests that this might be the top of IG II 418. There is really no positive evidence. Many fragments "might" go together. The question is, Is there compelling evidence to put them together?



Figure 13.
Agora I 1947.

ca. a . 310 a. .


[............]T[_ _ _ _]







[...........]OTE[_ _ _]


6 [..........]OY[.]E[ _ _]

[............]ND [_ _ _ _]







[....]TO[.]NTIKAq E[_ _ _]

12 [....]YN[_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _]

This fragment is heavily scratched and worn smooth on the left side. As a result it is quite difficult to read.

Line 1. Only the vertical of dotted tau remains.

Line 2. Merely a small segment from the bottom of omikron is visible.

The possible names in line 9 are inline image and inline image. This is part of an honorary inscription. The reference in line 10 is most probably either to a gift (inline image) or to citizenship (inline image) previously granted. No exact parallel exists. For the former, see Vitae X Oratorum 851f (inline imageinline image); and, for the latter restored in a citizenship decree, see IG II2 734 lines 10-11 (= Osborne, Naturalization no. D46), [inline imageinline image].

2 (fig. 14). Fragment of gray marble, face only preserved, found in the foundations of the Church of Christ, outside the market square to the southeast (T 17), on 2 March 1936.

H 0.095 m; W 0.10 m; Th 0.032 m; LH 0.006 m

Checker ca . 0.013 m × 0.013 m

Inv. no. I 3661

ca. a . 310 a .


1 ...... H

..... PO

3 .... ID H

.. HSf ..


6 NOS T...

q HN ....

Line 4 . Of dotted eta the bottom third of the right vertical hasta is legible.



Figure 14.
Agora I 3661.

Lines 5, 7 . Of the dotted nus just the top of the left vertical can be made out. Line 5 should perhaps be restored [-- inline image --]. This city in Bithynia, if this restoration is correct, here receives its first mention in Attic epigraphy.[5]


IG II2 440 line 8

The cutter inscribed nu, not mu, as the fourth preserved letter.

IG II2 460 lines 7-10

These lines are inscribed in rasura . Numerous traces of the originally inscribed text reveal that the first text was displaced to the left one letter-space. This in turn shows that the mason originally omitted one letter at

[5] For its history and inscriptions, see T. Corsten, Die Inschriften von Kios (Bonn 1985).


the beginning of line 7. It is of some technical interest to note that the stoichedon order was apparently important enough to him that he was willing to erase and reinscribe quite a large number of letters rather than simply crowd in the single omitted letter.

IG II2 496 + 507, 497, 504, 505

The first two decrees were passed at the same meeting at the dose of the year 303/2; IG II2 495 was also passed at this same session.[6] The second two were enacted at meetings held on successive days near the dose of 302/1. For examples of decrees passed on the same or successive days inscribed by the same cutter, see 110-111, 126-127, 162-163.

IG II2 733

Line la . Above the second epsilon in line 1 appears omega.

Line 6 . Under the lambda in line 5 appears the top of a round letter, most probably omikron, and before it the top part of what appears to be nu, though mu could also be read. I can discern no other sure remains of letters in this line.

IG II2 1260 line 12

As B. Stais recorded in his editio princeps (AE , 1900, 147), inline image, not inline image, is the first preserved word in this line.

IG II2 1262 line 17

The reading of this line in both instances is inline image, not inline image (IG ). inline image is clearly a transliteration of a foreign word; it is not, so far as I can determine, attested elsewhere. The closest reflex I can discover is inline image, the name of a place on the west side of Thebes in Egypt that is known from papyri of the mid-second century B.C.[7] According to Wilcken the word transcribes an Egyptian phrase meaning "the grave of Nbunn " and may be a reference to the grave of the high priest Nb-wnnf of Rameses II (1290-1224 B.C. ). Given the existence in Attica before 333/2 of shrines of Isis (IG II2 337 lines 43-45) and Ammon (IG II2 338 line 14),[8] it is

[6] On these decrees see above 22 n. 99.

[7] U. Wilcken, Urkunden der Ptolemäerzeit II (Berlin 1957) pp. 129-136 nos. 175a-c, esp. p. 133.

[8] Ammon had a special interest for the Greeks as having an important oracle (Dow, "The Egyptian Cults in Athens," HThR 30 [1937] 183-232, esp. 184-185). Alexander's visit to that oracle is legendary. The Athenian generals of the year 333/2 sacrificed to Ammon (IG II 1496 lines 96-97). Ammon also has important associations with Thebes as the major tutelary god of the city. In addition, Rameses II's tomb was located to the west of Thebes.


not impossible that there was an association of devotees of an ancient Theban (Egyptian) cult in Piraeus in the late fourth century B.C.

IG II2 1264 line 1

The first reported letter seems to have a central bar or very flattened oval; phi (dotted) should be read rather than iota. In the letter-space before it occurs a centered vertical. ['inline image is the almost certain restoration. He is perhaps identical with, and surely related to, Antiphon of Teithras who was the father of Euthios (Hesperia 7 [1938] 102 line 24). Euthios served as archon in 283/2.

Agora I 2636

E. Schweigert in the editio princeps in Hesperia dated this alliance between Athens and Sikyon to the year 303/2. W. S. Ferguson, however, doubted that this date was correct, for in 303 Sikyon was renamed Demetrias.[9] H. Taeuber has argued that this renaming lasted scarcely beyond the year 300.[10] The alliance has therefore been redated to soon after 300.[11] However, I am informed, thanks to the kindness of J. McK. Camp II, that a new fragment of this alliance has been discovered which shows that Schweigert's date was correct. We await publication of the new fragment.

Agora I 5884

A nu is preserved in line 10 after the omikron; the only name attested in Attic epigraphy that suits the remains is 'inline image. Before the first alpha in line 14 a kappa can be discerned.

The inscriptions of this cutter that are dated by archon cluster in the years of Anaxikrates to Euktemon, that is, from 307/6 to 299/8. He was dearly very busy in these years and was one of the leading inscribers of decrees. That he began work about 320 is revealed by two inscriptions, IG II2 394 and II2 400. The mention in the former of the anagrapheus (line 18) as responsible for the writing-up and erection of the stele places it in the first period of the anagrapheus (321/0-319/8). The speaker of the second

[9] "Demetrius Poliorcetes and the Hellenic League," Hesperia 17 (1948) 126 n. 39.

[10] "Sikyon statt Aigeira," ZPE 42 (1981) 181-186.

[11] A. Griffin, Sikyon (Oxford 1982) 78.


was almost certainly Demades the eider, who was executed in 319, probably in the late spring or summer.[12] It therefore belongs to the first half of the year 319 or before. See page 33 above for the relevance of this text to the grain supply. The probable date of IG II2 727, ca . 320-308/7, suggests that this cutter may well have done some inscribing during the years of Demetrios of Phaleron's control.

[12] On the date of Demades' death see J. K. Davies, Athenian Propertied Families (Oxford 1971) 101; and B. Gullath and L. Schober, "Zur Chronologie der frühen Diadochenzeit," in Studien zur alten Geschichte [Festschrift Lauffer ] I (Rome 1986) 331-378, esp. 350. Concerning the date of IG II 400, see also Pritchett and Meritt, Chronology 2-4.


Addendum to the Cutters of IG II2 1187 and 1262

Recently M. B. Walbank, "Two Attic Masons of the Late 4TH Century B.C., " ABSA 84 (1989) 395-405, has published an article that overlaps with the study of the present cutters. My primary work on these hands was done in the summer of 1989, independent of Walbank's work and with no knowledge of it. I completed my study and final dossiers of the inscriptions that are in my opinion attributable to these cutters before seeing Walbank's article.

Walbank's second workman ("The Mason of IG ii2 . 497") is the same for the most part as the Cutter of IG II2 1262. There is, indeed, a good deal of overlap between his list and mine[1] —this much is encouraging. However, his study has serious methodological shortcomings. Most notably, it is my opinion that IG II2 497 does not have a large enough sample of lettering-it has 52 well-preserved letters—to enable one to establish reliably the peculiarities of the hand.[2] Using this inadequate base, Walbank attributed to this cutter a form of phi, viz. a double cruciform, which he never to my knowledge made.[3] This led to the erroneous assignment of IG II2 541, II2 542, and Agora I 5972 and 1441 (SEG 30 no. 69) to this hand. These three texts also share a "bobby-pin"-shaped omega, another shape unknown in this cutter's lettering. Walbank also assigned to this hand IG II2 1492A (non vidi ), IG II2 2414, a very worn text,[4] and Agora I 1997 (Agora XV no. 58). The last has a horseshoe-shaped omega and, though close in style, is not, I think, by this cutter.

Walbank's first mason ("The Mason of IG ii2 . 1195") is largely identi-

[1] I have placed W's in parentheses in my list after the texts which he definitely assigns to his IG II 497 Mason.

[2] Ideally several hundred are the minimum needed; on this point see ALC 3-4.

[3] It does not occur on IG II 497, and so I do not know by what methodology one can attribute it to him. All the other texts of this group that Walbank claims have a phi "with two horizontals" have one either with a very flattened oval or with an arc.

[4] Neither the sigma nor the epsilon of this text are to my eye characteristic of this cutter.


cal with the Cutter of IG II2 1187[5] —again the overlap in assignments is notable—but this presentation also strikes me as flawed. It is, in the first place, contaminated with three texts by the Cutter of IG II2 1262, namely IG II2 273,[6] II2 394, and Agora I 2995. Second, IG II2 1195, the inscription chosen as the exemplar, has about 170 well-preserved letters. This is about the minimum needed to establish accurately the writing of a cutter. In addition, the photograph on page 396 is not legible and does not, therefore, allow one to see the writing for oneself and thus potentially to be in a position to accept or reject proposed assignments to the hand.[7] Unless one studies these hands as the present writer does, the reader is simply left to take the author's word for it. Walbank in this article also assigned to this "mason" IG II2 362, 382, 428 + 277, 1462, 1467, and Agora I 4071. Of these, IG II2 382 and 1462 are close in style, though I would not include either in the dossier of this cutter. The letter-shapes of the others are not in my opinion characteristic of this cutter.

In conclusion, Walbank's criteria and methods remain rather unclear. This much can be said: I am a minimalist and very conservative in my assignments. In addition, I adhere as strictly as possible to writing as the sole criterion for attribution. If anything about the writing of a fragment strikes me as uncharacteristic, I exclude it. Walbank is, I think it fair to say, a maximalist. Whatever his criteria, they are fairly elastic. He obviously allows criteria other than the writing to influence his assignments; it is, of course, difficult to do otherwise. Supposed dates or historical arguments clearly become at times a controlling factor in his assignments.[8] To risk prejudicing one's eye in this manner is, in my opinion, no way to proceed in a study which is subjective by nature and requires precise, not to say very difficult, stylistic judgments.

[5] The W's in parentheses indicate texts which he attributes to this cutter.

[6] Walbank, be it noted, attributes this only tentatively to his "Mason of IG ii . 1195" (p. 399).

[7] See my comments on the need for good photographs in GRBS 11 (1970) 327; Studies Presented to Sterling Dow on His Eightieth Birthday , Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Monograph 10 (1984) 279; and Chiron 20 (1990) 60.

[8] See especially his discussion of dates and assignments on pages 404-405.


The Cutter of IG II2 498
Dates: 321-302

General characteristics of the lettering (fig. 15)

This cutter inscribes lettering which has a neat and regular appearance. With the exception of omikron and omega, which are smaller than the other letters, the lettering is quite uniform in height. Round letters are quite round, and the individual strokes are placed carefully. The exceptions to this are the horizontals of epsilon, which often cut through the vertical, and the central strokes of sigma, which not infrequently cross.

Peculiarities of individual letters


This letter is of medium width; the crossbar is straight and occurs at about the middle of the letter or a bit lower.


The vertical tends to extend above and below the horizontals just a bit. The central horizontal varies in length; sometimes it is quite long, i.e., as long as the other two, and at other times it is clearly shorter. It tends to thicken at the end more than the other two.


The horizontal has a tendency to cut through the left vertical.


This is a wide letter. The slanting strokes do not usually reach the top and bottom of the letter; the lower tends to be a bit longer than the upper.


This letter appears to be two thin lambdas placed contiguously.


This letter is quite tall and thin; the diagonal connects the two verticals rather precisely.


This letter is round and quite carefully inscribed. It is slightly smaller than the other letters and placed in the center of the stoichos .



Figure 15.
IG  II2  498 lines 9-16 (right part).


The horizontal extends just slightly past the verticals.


This letter consists of three strokes; the vertical is usually half the height of the letter or less .


This letter is the same height as the others, with a flattened oval which fills the width of the letter; it is placed at the midpoint or slightly below.


This letter tends to sit on the baseline; it is quite round and usually was inscribed so that initially a space was left open at the bottom. Straight strokes were then added to right and left which extend out and into the letter, often closing it. The extension on the left is usually longer than that on the right.


List of inscriptions

+ IG II2 304 + 604 lines 1-16

R. O. Hubbe, "Decrees from the Precinct of Asklepios at Athens," Hesperia 28 (1959) 169-171; Schwenk no. 14; photographs in Hesperia 28 (1959) pl. 35.

IG II2 358

Archon [Anaxikrate]s (307/6). Dow's establishment of the date as 307/6 (archon Anaxikrates) depended on the calculation that only the archon and secretary of that year suited the spatial requirements. By moving this text to the period of twelve tribes he also removed the troubling problem of the calendar date[1] —for it, see Kirchner ad loc . in IG II2 . Schwenk, although she accepts the restoration of Anaxikrates as archon, includes this text as no. 62 in her collection.

IG II2 372

Archon [Philokles] (322/1). Schwenk no. 87; photograph in Hesperia 8 (1939) 174 fig. 3.[2]

IG II2 483

Archon Pherekles (304/3).

+ IG II2 489

Archon Leostratos (303/2). The height of the letters of this text is erroneously reported in IG as 0.008 m; it is 0.005 m or a bit smaller.


Osborne, Naturalization II 122-123, has pointed out that the tribe to be restored in lines 1-2 is not Kekropis, but rather Erechtheis or Antiochis.[3]

+IG II2 498

Archon [Leostratos] (303/2). The chairman's name in line 7, inline image, was first restored by the editor of

[1] HSCP 67 (1963) 58-60. In an otherwise quite critical article, B. D. Meritt ("The Year of Neaichmos," Hesperia 32 [1963] 425-438) accepted Dow's date as a "most noteworthy achievement" (p. 435).

[2] E. Schweigert, Hesperia 8 (1939) 173-175, was wrong to associate IG II 289 with this text. It is not by this hand; the writing is very different. J. Peçirka, Enktesis 57, saw this and rejected the association already in 1966. SEG 32 (1982) 93, however, still apparently accepts it. M. B. Walbank, Hesperia 58 (1989) 85-86, has now suggested the association of Agora I 4421 with this text. However, the single omega preserved on the Agora fragment has a wide opening at the bottom and very small finials. This shape sharply differs from the omegas made by this cutter. The Agora fragment, therefore, was not inscribed by this cutter and is not part of IG II 372.

[3] M. B. Walbank, ABSA 85 (1990) 446, claims that IG II 532 is by the same hand as IG II 489 and part of the same inscription. IG II 532 is worn and has few well-preserved letters. The lettering is similar in style, but I cannot affirm that it is the same hand. Without more to go on, I think the proposed association has little to recommend it.


Hesperia Index 1-10 p. 180; for his name fully preserved see Agora XV no. 62 line 80.

IG II2 555



IG II2 304 + 604 lines 17-19

These lines are by a different hand. Hubbe interpreted them, I think correctly, as a dating formula by the name of the priest and accepted Kirchner's restoration of Theopha[nes] of Ach[arnai]. The restoration is very probable, but hardly certain. Hubbe then used Kirchner's date ("decreta propter scripturae rationem a. 352/1-337/6 tribuenda ") and the tribal cycle for the priests of Asklepios to establish 337/6 as the date for this text. Schwenk follows him in this. If the present attribution is correct, this date is probably too early. We may note that a priest from Acharnai, if that is in fact the correct restoration of line 19, can be accomodated in quite a number of years from 327 to 300 and later.[4] Schwenk's suggestion (p. 71) that this text refers to honors conferred for the treatment of wounded after Chaironeia must therefore be abandoned.

IG II2 489 line 9

On the squeeze in Princeton I can read the beginning of this line as [ . . .. ] D HS [.]KPATHSSW KP. Kirchner read an undotted upsilon in stoichos 8. There is no trace of it, and, in view of the present evidence, the reading should be disregarded as a mistake. The demotic of the speaker in line 8 is now known to be Sphettios .[5] Lines 8 and 9 may therefore be restored as follows:

inline image

IG II2 498

Above the first line the stone is preserved uninscribed to a height of 0.182 m.

[4] For an up-to-date list of the annual priests and the cycles, see S. Aleshire, The Athenian Asklepieion (Amsterdam 1989) 370-373.

[5] Agora XV no. 62 line 79.


The Cutter of IG II2 650
Dates: 318/7-283/2

General characteristics of the lettering (fig. 16)

This workman makes tidy lettering, with strokes that are rather thin. Occasionally the ends of strokes thicken or even have a tiny serif. He tends to curve slightly some verticals or vertically slanting strokes, particularly those of mu, nu, and pi. His round letters are quite round and appear to be inscribed just a shade deeper than the other letters. He generally inscribes his texts stoichedon , but sometimes confines iota with the letter following it to a single stoichos .

Peculiarities of individual letters


This letter varies in width from average to quite wide. The crossbar comes at about the middle or a bit above.


This can be quite a wide letter. The central horizontal is shorter than the other two. Not infrequently the bottom horizontal is a bit longer; occasionally it curves slightly.


The upper slanting stroke reaches almost to the top of the letter, while the lower does not ordinarily approach the base.


This letter tends to be asymmetrical, with the left side often slightly smaller than the right. The central v usually extends down no more than halfway, and often much less. The outer strokes tend to curve.


The initial vertical sometimes leans in slightly. The diagonal joins the verticals quite neatly. The second vertical is occasionally taller than the first and/or curves out a bit.


The cutter varies the size of this letter and its position. It is usually quite large and can be in the upper part of the space or sit on the baseline.



Figure 16.
IG  II2  650 lines 6-14.


The second vertical varies in length; it is always shorter than the first and sometimes very short.


The loop is often relatively small, particularly in width.


The top and bottom strokes slant. The upper sometimes extends out beyond the lower and imparts to the letter the impression of leaning forward.


The oval is relatively small and centered.


This letter is large and round, open at the bottom and with fairly small finials, of which the one on the right tends to be larger.

List of inscriptions

+ IG II2 487

Not earlier than 304/3.

+IG II2 592

Ch. Habicht, Studien 200-201, proposes a line length of 37 letters and restores the speaker as inline image


inline image. His son [Aris]teides is known as a general in 290/89[1] and as an ambassador honored in Arcadian Orchomenos at the start of the Chremonidean War.[2] The father, then, is likely to have been active well before 300 B.C. , and this inscription is probably to be dated before 300. It may even belong to the years of Demetrios of Phaleron.

+IG II2 646

Archon [Nikostrat]os (295/4). Osborne, Naturalization no. D68; Meyer, Urkundenreliefs no. A169 and plate 45.2 (upper part only); Kirchner-Klaffenbach, Imagines2 no. 74. On Herodoros, see Habicht, Untersuchungen 4-8; and Billows, Antigonos 389-390.

+IG II2 649

Archon O[lym]pi[o]doro[s] (293/2). The right half of this inscription was found in 1928, and a new text was published by W. B. Dinsmoor, The Archons of Athens (Cambridge, Mass. 1931) 3-15.

+ IG II2 650

Archon Diokles (286/5). Kirchner-Klaffenbach, Imagines2 no. 75. For discussion of Zenon's actions regarding the grain supply, see T. L. Shear, Jr., Hesperia Suppl. 17 (1978) 20-21, 63, 92-93; and, contra , Habicht, Untersuchungen 48; and M. J. Osborne, "Kallias, Phaidros and the Revolt of Athens in 287 B.C. ," ZPE 35 (1979) 189-190.

IG II2 651

Archon [Diok]les (286/5). Peçirka, Enktesis 92-93.

+ IG II2 659

Archon Euthios (283/2). For an improved text, see Sokolowski, LSCG 73-74.

IG II2 692


IG II2 723

Peçirka, Enktesis 100-101.

IG II2 753


+Agora 1559

Archon Archippos (318/7). Hesperia 4 (1935) 35-37; and B. D. Meritt, The Athenian Year (Berkeley 1961) 127.

Agora I 2841

Archon [Diokles] (286/5). Hesperia 8 (1939) 42 and photograph. Schweigert, the first editor, seems to have been correct in concluding that this fragment and IG II2 651 were passed at the same meeting. For other exam-

[1] IG II 2797 = Moretti, ISE no. 12.

[2] BCH 38 (1914) 451 = Moretti, ISE no. 53. See also Ch. Habicht, "Aristeides, Sohn des Mnesithos, aus Lamptrai," Chiron 6 (1976) 7-10.


pies of texts passed at the same meeting being inscribed by the same cutter, see 126-127, 145, 162-163.

Agora 15415

Agora XV no. 66.

Agora 15760

Hesperia 30 (1961) 258.

+Agora 15886

Hesperia 11 (1942) 281 and photograph.

Agora 17360

Hesperia 49 (1980) 251-255. The initial editor, M. B. Walbank, sought to connect this inscription to "the grain shortage of the Lykourgan era" (p. 252) and dated it with a mark of interrogation ca. a . 331-324 a . This date is too early; this inscription belongs ca . 285 (see p. xxx).


IG II2 487 line 9

Pi stands in stoichos 13, and not gamma.

IG II2 592

Small improvements can be made in the readings of this text, as follows.

Line 5 . In the center of the stoichos before theta appears the lower half of a vertical stroke that can only be part of an iota or a tau.

Line 7 . After the second iota appears the top of an apex; it is centered in the letter-space and is directly under the omikron in line 6. Only alpha, delta, and lambda are possible. The restoration inline image immediately comes to mind. However, I see no obvious way to fill out the letters OI at the beginning of this line.

Line 8 . The top half of a sigma can be discerned before omikron.

IG II2 646 line 5

Psi is superimposed on a phi; the cutter simply got ahead of himself.

IG II2 649 line 39

In stoichos 14, directly under the iota of inline image, occurs an eta. We thus have the following sequence of letters at the end of line 38 and in line 39: inline image. This reading reveals that both Dinsmoor's restoration of the line after inline image as inline image and E Roussel's (in REA , 1932, 196 n. 1) as inline image are impossible. I can cite no exact parallel, but perhaps inline image is not impossible.


IG II2 650 line 21

The first preserved letter is not sigma but xi.

IG II2 659

Line 1 . This line has been added, and squeezed in, at the top clearly after the decree was inscribed.

Line 5 . The letters K Y A are spaced out in a rasura . Though erased, the letters S T[.]AT can be easily read. The cutter first inscribed inline image.

Line 9 . Lambda should be printed in pointed brackets, for alpha was inscribed.

Agora I 559

The last preserved letter in line 4 as well as the second preserved letter in line 5 is omega. P. Roussel noted these readings and suggested some restorations in Rev. Arch . 18 (1941) 220-222.

Agora I 5886

Line 1 . B. D. Meritt, the editor of the editio princeps , read the fourth letter as dotted nu and restored Nikias the archon of 296/5. All that remains for certain, however, of this letter is the lower half of a vertical. There may be a trace of a horizontal at the top. Gamma or pi appears to be a more likely reading on purely epigraphical grounds. However, if Meritt's reconstruction is wrong, the name of the archon must have been very long. I have no probable alternative to suggest.

Line 6 . The stone is preserved blank where Meritt prints rho in square brackets. The top of the rho ought to be preserved, if it had been inscribed here. The basis for dotted alpha is an apexlike gouge under epsilon. If indeed there was a letter inscribed here, and this space was not blank, then it was alpha, delta, or lambda.

The temporal distribution of this cutter's known work is curious. His earliest known inscription, Agora I 559, was passed very early in the year 317, probably before Demetrios of Phaleron came to power. His next inscription that can be dated precisely is from some twenty-two years later, IG II2 646 of the year 295/4. However, both IG II2 487 and 592, as indicated above, could date to the period before 300 B.C. Still, it appears unlikely that this workman did much inscribing before 300, for none of the numerous inscriptions known from the years 307-300 came from his hand. Per-


haps he was very young, just at the start of his trade in 317. With the demand for the work of cutters sharply curtailed under Demetrios, he may have had to give up inscribing for some years. If this is indeed what happened, it took him some time to get back his trade. By the mid-290's in any case he had become one of the major cutters of the city.


The Cutter of IG II2 495
Dates: 304/3-303/2

General characteristics of the lettering (fig. 17)

When one considers the letters individually, this lettering is plain and solid enough. There is, however, a tendency for strokes to overlap slightly and for horizontals to be not quite horizontal. When, moreover, one considers the lettering as a whole, one becomes aware that the letters vary greatly in shape. Just as the hastae are placed imprecisely, so the letters seem to float both vertically and horizontally in the stoichoi . Although the texts of this cutter are stoichedon , the vertical alignment is not precise, with the result that the vertical lines meander some. This cutter had particular problems with iota, which he often places on the left side of the letter-space instead of in the center. In summary, while I would not characterize this lettering as sloppy, it is hardly careful.

Peculiarities of individual letters


This letter is relatively wide. The crossbar usually is placed in the middle-to-upper part of the letter; it often slants and is thicker and deeper on the right side.


The horizontal is often longer than the vertical.


This letter is very idiosyncratic. The three horizontals tend to be nearly the same length and longer than the vertical. Occasionally the central stroke is somewhat shorter than the other two.


The slanting strokes usually meet the vertical at the midpoint or below.


This is a wide letter, with a central v which reaches to the base of the letter. The outer slanting strokes often join the inner strokes below the tops.



Figure 17.
IG  II2  495 lines 15-23 (left part).


This letter is quite wide. The diagonal usually is placed below the top of the first vertical and often crosses the second. The second vertical often does not extend down to the base of the letter.


This letter varies in size but is usually quite a bit smaller than the other letters and placed in the upper part of the letter-space.


This letter tends to be taller than the others; the loop varies in size and is often quite small.


The top and bottom strokes often slant, but sometimes they are virtually parallel to one another. The two strokes which make up the lower half of the letter are each usually positioned in from the ends of the strokes to which they are attached. The variety of this letter is one of the hallmarks of this cutter.



The three strokes which compose this letter are of about equal length and thicken at the ends. This letter tends to be slightly taller than the others.


This letter is the same height as the others.

List of inscriptions

+IG II2 486

Archon Pherekles (304/3). Osborne, Naturalization no. D45. See Horos 4 (1986) 13-14 for an improved restoration of lines 11-14.

+IG II2 495

Archon Leostratos (303/2). Osborne, Naturalization no. D60; Moretti, ISE no. 6.[1]

Agora I 4484


Agora I 4906

Hesperia 26 (1957) 208-209.

Agora I 5215

Joins Agora I 6516.

+Agora I 6516 + 5215

Archon [Leostratos] (303/2). Hesperia 21 (1952) 367-368 and 58 (1989) 89.

+Horos 4 (1986) 11-18

Archon [Pherekles] (304/3). SEG 36 no. 163.


IG II2 486, Horos 4 (1986) 11-18

These two decrees were passed at the end of the year at the same meeting as two others, viz. IG II2 597 (+ add. p. 662)[2] and Hesperia 7 (1938)

[1] M. B. Walbank, ABSA 85 (1990) 446, asserts (without discussion) that IG II 709 is by the same hand as IG II 495 and suggests that they are part of the same stele. IG II 709 is very worn. The one dearly preserved epsilon (the one in line 3) has a relatively short central horizontal and is uncharacteristic of this cutter. Both kappas reveal a lower slanting stroke which verges on the horizontal. The IG II 495 Cutter habitually makes his kappa with a lower slanting stroke that extends down at a much sharper angle. Finally, the omega with little points on its feet in line 3 (the one in line 4 also appears to have them, but it is worn and scratched) contrasts with the practice of this cutter, who makes definite lines of varying size at the base of his omegas. In short, I think it impossible that IG II 709 is the work of this cutter. The association should be discounted.


297.[3] All but IG II2 597 are well enough preserved to reveal that Stratokles of Diomeia proposed, at Demetrios Poliorketes' specific request, these honorary decrees for his followers. The two inscriptions which are the work of the present cutter are both relatively short decrees granting citizenship and could therefore have been inscribed by him in a timely fashion. The other two are not the work of this cutter, nor of any other known to me.

IG II2 495, Agora I 6516 + 5215

These decrees were passed on successive days at the dose of the year 303/ 2, the former on the thirty-first day of the prytany, the latter on the thirty-second. Both have a line length of 29 stoichoi and could, like the pair above, have been inscribed in a relatively short time. Two further decrees passed at the same session as IG II2 495, viz. IG II2 496 and 497, were inscribed by the IG II2 1262 Cutter (above 145).

[3] A. M. Woodward, ABSA 51 (1956) 5-6, suggested a restoration of the name. Koumanoudes, Horos 4 (1986) 14-17, has demonstrated that the restorations of Schweigert (the initial editor) and Woodward for line 16 of this text are incorrect.


The Cutter of Agora I 4266
Dates: ca. 304-271

General characteristics of the lettering (fig. 18)

This lettering is, generally speaking, tidy and plain. Double cutting is not infrequently in evidence on long strokes. This cutter's round letters, i.e., beta, omikron, rho, phi, omega, tend to be rather small.

Peculiarities of individual letters


This letter tends to be quite wide. The left slanting stroke is often longer and less vertical than the right. When this is the case, it joins the right hasta just below the top. This is also true of delta and lambda.


This letter is normally very thin.


The top and bottom horizontals tend to be longer than the vertical and to curve slightly. The central stroke is usually quite short, lightly inscribed, and often does not quite touch the vertical.


This letter is of average width or a bit more; the crossbar is placed a little above the midpoint.


The slanting strokes do not usually approach closely the top and bottom of the letter-space.


This letter is made with slanting outer hastae and tends to be quite symmetrical. The depth of the central v varies from about half to two-thirds or extends down to the base of the letter.


This is a wide letter.


The loop tends to be small, sometimes very small. It usually curves nicely, but sometimes it sags.


The vertical is often quite short and is surmounted by a wide v.



Figure 18.
Agora I 4266 lines 2-12.


This letter is the same height as the others. The central part is small, being in shape a rather flattened oval, an arc placed on a small horizontal, or (less often) simply an arc.


This letter is open at the bottom, raised a bit in the letter-space, and has finials of moderate size. The round part sometimes has a segment which is straight. One side of the letter can extend lower than the other. The letter at times has a rather awkward appearance.

List of inscriptions

+ IG II2 379


IG II2 479

Not before 305/4 (line 12). For a complete restoration of this text and its counterpart, IG II2 480, A. Wilhelm, "Beschluss der Athener zu Ehren eines Herakleoten,"


Anz. Wien , 1942, 65-72.[1]IG II2 480 is not the work of this cutter, nor of any other cutter as yet known to me.

IG II2 571


+IG II2 652

Not before 286/5 (line 7). Osborne, Naturalization no. D75.

IG II2 653

Archon [D]iotimos (285/4). For discussion of the family of Spartokos and their relations with Athens, see Osborne, Naturalization no. T21; and S. M. Burstein, "I.G . II2 653, Demosthenes and Athenian Relations with Bosporus in the Fourth Century B.C. ," Historia 27 (1978) 428-436.

IG II2 663

Archon [Diokles] (286/5). Osborne, Naturalization no. D74 B. IG II2 662, the companion of this text, was inscribed by the Cutter of Agora I 3238 (Hesperia 57 [1988] 304).

+IG II2 684 and 752b

Archon [Philokrates] (276/5). A. Wilhelm, "Attische Urkunden III," SB Wien 202.5 (1925) 47-49 (= SEG 3 no. 94), associated these two texts and restored them. IG II2 752a is also part of this text; see below.

IG II2 704

Archon [Lysitheides] (272/1). B. D. Meritt provides a new text and photograph in Hesperia 26 (1957) 56-57 and pl. 10. On the reading in lines 2-3, see S. Dow, "Three Athenian Decrees," HSCP 67 (1963) 62-63.

IG II2 716 and 1226.

Osborne, Naturalization no. D86. I have not seen IG II2 1226.

+ IG II2 752a


IG II2 752b

Part of IG II2 684.

+IG II2 1263

Archon Hegemachos (300/299).

+ IG II2 2390

If the present attribution is correct, the date in the corpus, "med. s. IV a., " should be changed to ca . 290.

Agora I 4266

Archon Nikias (282/1). Hesperia 7 (1938) 100-105; Moretti, ISE no.14.

Agora I 4424

Archon Euthios (283/2). Agora XV no. 71; photograph in Hesperia 9 (1940) 84.

Agora I 5039

Osborne, Naturalization no. D77; photograph in Hesperia 9 (1940) 354.

[1] Kuenzi, EIIID OS IS (Bern 1923) 42, suggests a somewhat different restoration for line 4.


IG II2 752a and IG II2 684

The hand, marble, and text all suggest that IG II2 752a is part of the same inscription as IG II2 684. Its first line forms part of line 9 of IG II2 684 and reveals that Wilhelm's restoration ("Attische Urkunden III," SB Wien 202.5 [1925] 48) was correct. The combined text is as follows:

a . 276/5 a .


IG II2 752a

IG II2 684



uncertain number of lines lost

The underlined letters in lines 14 and 16 are not legible on the squeezes available to me.

Just as they had come to the aid of the Athenians in 340/39,[2] the people of Tenedos have now sent ambassadors and rendered signal service to Athens and to the sanctuary at Eleusis for which they are praised during the year 276/5. The chairman of the meeting in line 6, Kalliades, is not attested elsewhere. The number of lines missing between IG II2 684 + 752a and IF 752b is uncertain, but enough so that on the latter the cutter had increased the line length to 35 stoichoi . He was influenced to do this

[2] See IG II 232 and 233.


no doubt by the increased surface width created by the tapering sides of the stele. For the text of b see Wilhelm, "Attische Urkunden III," SB Wien 202.5 (1925) 47-48.


IG II2 379

If this attribution is correct, the date of this text must be ca . 290. It honors a former military man and recounts some of his previous good deeds. The reading and restoration of the archon's name in line 12 as 'inline image, the archon of 321/0 or 318/7, seems correct. The chi, however, is far from certain and should at least be dotted. I can make out no sure trace of it, though there is a rough chi shape in the worn area at the edge. The inscribed surface in fact may be gone at this point. There is, however, no other archon name known during the period when this cutter was active which will fit the space.

W. K. Pritchett, Hesperia 9 (1940) 112, has restored inline image for inline imageinline image? in line 3; and J. H. Kent, Hesperia 10 (1941) 349 and note 14, questioned the restoration of inline image in line 11. He prefers inline image.[3] If Kent is correct, the cutter will have left two spaces blank at the end of this line (as he did in line 4) so as to begin the next line with a word of one syllable.

IG II2 652 line 22

The second nu was completely omitted by the cutter. Kirchner underlined it; Osborne prints it as though it were preserved.

IG II2 1263

This is a carefully inscribed complete text; nevertheless, three incorrect letters stand on the stone. Those in lines 8 and 38 are noted by Kirchner. In line 32, pi has been inscribed as the second letter of the archon's name.


Presumably these incorrect letters were corrected with paint. The final line is spaced out slightly in a rasura . It is probable that the cutter first inscribed the patronymic and then erased it and put in the ethnic.

IG II2 2390 line 22 (II)

The first part of this line is preserved, and it is uninscribed.

This cutter shows a marked preference for dark gray or gray marble. Of the fourteen texts assignable to him, only the citizenship decree, IG II2 716, and the decree of the thiasotai, IG II2 1263, are inscribed on white marble.



As mentioned on page 44 above, it is my opinion that the lettering of IG II2 2971, the very important statue base at Eleusis for the general Demetrios, son of Phanostratos, of Phaleron, was done by the same workman who inscribed IG II2 788, an inscription of the year of Lysanias (235/4) that honors the priest Antidoros of Pergase.[1] The Cutter of IG II2 788 was one of the most prolific workmen of the third century B.C.[2] His floruit may be placed ca . 250. Indeed, his dated work is now known to span the period ca . 262-235/4.[3]

The basis for the attribution is the exact correspondence of letter-shapes between the lettering in the crowns of IG II2 2971 (figs. 19, 20) and the lettering of IG II2 788 (fig. 21).[4] These letters are almost precisely the same height, viz. 0.005-0.006 m.[5] This cutter has two very marked idiosyncrasies. First, he often makes alpha, delta, and lambda with the apex open and left slanting stroke shorter and more angled. Compare, for example,

[1] For a photograph see Kirchner-Klaffenbach, Imagines no. 91.

[2] For a complete description of his lettering and list of inscriptions, see the present writer's study in Hesperia 57 (1988) 311-322.

[3] A recently published ephebic text by this cutter (Hesperia 59 [1990] 543-547) must be assigned to the Chremonidean War. In addition, several of his texts are dated by the archon Antimachos. The date of this archon has been controversial, with B. D. Meritt (Hesperia 50 [1981] 96) placing him in 233/2 and Ch. Habicht (Untersuchungen 128-133) and S. V. Tracy (Hesperia 57 [1988] 320-321) opting for an earlier date of ca . 250. A recently discovered inscription (as yet unpublished) now reveals that he was archon right after the Chremonidean War, perhaps for the year 261/0.

[4] For the method and criteria employed, see above 2 n. 2.

[5] By contrast, the lettering of the first four lines on the statue base is large, indeed 0.015 m in height, not 0.01 as reported in IG . Big letters were apparently inscribed with different techniques from lettering less than a centimeter in height and thus often differ in shape from a cutter's small lettering. Such large letters are very difficult to assign to an individual workman. See ALC 5-6.



Figure 19.
IG  II2  2971 crown b .


Figure 20.
IG  II2  2971 crown e .



Figure 21.
IG  II2  788 lines 4-18 (right part).

the alphas in lines 5 and 8 of crown b with those in line 10 of IG II2 788. He inscribes sigmas which characteristically have a lower segment that is larger than the upper and with central strokes that tend to overlap. Compare the sigmas of crown e with those of II2 788 line 10.

Other characteristic peculiarities also appear: the crossbar of delta slants and is not precisely positioned at the bottom of the letter (crown e line 10, II2 788 line 7); the bottom horizontal of epsilon is sometimes longer than the top one (crown b line 6, II2 788 line 11); the left vertical of eta at times is clearly shorter than the right (the second eta of line 9 in crown e , the final eta of line 18 in II2 788); the left slanting hasta of upsilon is usually longer than the right (crown e line 9, II2 788 line 5 and elsewhere). In short, these similarities can leave little doubt that IG II2 2971 was inscribed around the middle of the third century B.C. by the Cutter of IG II2 788. It,


therefore, has no bearing on the career of the famous Demetrios of Phaleron but rather throws welcome light on the activities of his homonymous grandson.[6]

[6] Above 44 and n. 51; see also S. Tracy, "Hands in Greek Epigraphy—Demetrios of Phaleron;" in Boeotia Antiqua IV, ed. J. M. Fossey (Amsterdam 1994), 156-157.



Because of circumstances beyond this writer's control, it has not been possible to have the repeated access necessary to all the inscriptions in order to claim completeness. I list below those decrees datable to the period 340-290 B.C. of which I did not have a good squeeze or adequate photograph available for study.



















































































































[1] Located in the municipal museum of Avignon.

[2] This stone is built into a wall somewhere on the north slope of the Acropolis.

[3] This inscription is listed as "in arce " in IG II . It could not be found there in the summer of 1994, nor is it in the Epigraphical Museum. I owe sincere thanks to my good friend A. P. Matthaiou for his efforts to locate it.




inline image143

inline image167

inline image167


inline image89

inline image89

inline image89

inline image89

inline image89

inline image89

inline image89

inline image89

inline image89

Important Words

inline image72

inline image167

inline image144

inline image71

inline image167




Aelian VH

3.17: 50 n.81

12.57: 9 n.9

Aischines 3.27: 8 n.6

3.165-167: 14 n.50

3.252-253: 16 n.60

Aristotle Ath. Pol . 42: 10 n.21

42.2-5: 40 n.24

43.4: 30 n.1

61: 44 n.48

Politics 1.1323a7: 39 n.13

Arrian Anab . 1.1.2: 14 n.52

1.7.2-3: 9 n.9

1.10.4: 9 n.10

1.16.7: 9 n.14

inline image20 n.87

1.14-15: 20 n.90

Athenaios 1.3a-b: 50 n.87, 51 n.89

4.167f: 44 n.51

12.542b-c, e-f: 48 n.68

12.583b: 9 n.15

13.586d: 31 n.6

Cicero De Finibus 5.19.53: 49 n.78

De Legibus 2.64-66: 47 n.67

3.6.14: 48 n.70

Pro Rab. Post . 9.23: 48 n.70

De Re Publ . 2.1.2: 48 n.70

Deinarchos Against Aristogeiton , 17 n.65

Against Demosthenes , 17 n.65, 27 n.30

Against Philokles , 17 n.65, 26 n.22


[Demades] 9: 7 n.3

16-20: 9 n.11

17: 9 n.9

Demetrios On Style 289: 42 n.36

Demosthenes De Corona , 16 , 85

[Demosthenes] Against Dionysodoros , 32 n.15

Against Phormio , 31 ,33

[Dio Chrysostom] Oration 37.41: 49 n.76

Diodoros 15.95.2-3: 24 n.9

16.87: 7 n.3

17.22.5: 9 n.13

17.62.4-7: 14 n.49

17.109.1: 42 n.38

17.111.1: 23 n.1

17.111.2-3: 23 n.4, 24 n.8

18.8.2-5: 42 n.38

18.8.7: 19 n.80

18.9.2: 24 n.13

18.9.5: 24 n.12

18.11.2: 27 n.27

18.13.5: 25 n.17, 27 n.31

18.15.2-4: 29 n.39

18.15.4: 90 n.13

18.15.5-8: 28 n.32

18.17.4-5: 29 n.39

18.17.6: 90 n.13

18.17.7: 28 n.36

18.18.9: 19 n.81

18.38.5-6: 90 n.14

18.56.6-7: 92 n.19

18.64-65: 42 n.38

18.72.3-9: 42 n.38

18.74.2-3: 38 nn.9, 10

18.74.3: 43 n.41, 45 n.56, 46 n.60, 47 n.61

18.75.1: 42 n.38

19.68.3: 41 n.29, 47 n.63

19.73: 73 n.7

19.77.2-4: 92 n.19

19.78.4: 47 n.62

20.27: 38 n.8

20.40.1-42.5: 36 n.2


20.45.2-7: 46 n.61

20.45.3: 45 n.53

20.81-88: 35 n.30

20.91-100: 35 n.30

20.100.5-6: 22 n.96

20.106-121.1: 22 n.97

Diog. Laert. 5.11-12: 42 n.38

5.11-17: 50 n.87

5.37: 49 n.80

5.39: 48 n.72

5.52: 50 n.86

5.75: 42 nn.33, 34; 47 n.64, 49 n.76

5.76: 48 n.68

5.78: 49 n.79

5.79: 49 n.75

5.80: 45 n.52

5.80-81: 48 n.71

Dion. Halik. Din . 2: 42 n.33

2-3: 45 n.53

9: 73 n.7

FGrHist 228 T6e: 50 n.84

257a F1: 168 n.3

Hibeh Papyri I no. 15: 24 n.10

Hypereides 5 Against Demosthenes , 17 n.65

Epitaphios 3, 10 -13: 23 n.6, 26 n.23

13: 24 n.12

14: 28 n.33

23: 27 n.31

24: 28

Lucian Demos. Encore . 31: 8 n.7, 11 n.27

Lykourgos In Leocratem , 14 , 15 , 21 n.92

P. Oxy . I (1898) no. 12: 73 n.7

Pausanias 1.25.5: 24 n.7

1.25.6: 42 n.33

8.52.5: 24 n.7

Philochoros frg. 64: 38 n.11

frg. 65: 47 n.67

Plutarch Alex . 11.4-6: 9 n.10

16.8: 9 n.14


Plutarch (cont .)

Camillus 19.5: 18 n.72, 28 n.35

Demetrios 8.3: 46 n.60

8.4-10: 45 n.53, 46 n.61

10.2: 48 n.69

10-13: 21 n.94

13: 119 n.1

11: 17 n.68, 28 n.37

15-19: 21 n.95

23: 22 n.96

28-31: 22 n.97

33-34: 35 n.24

34.4: 119 n.1

Demos . 3.3-4: 18 n.73

22: 9 n.8

23.1: 9 n.9

23.2-5: 9 n.11

24.1: 14 nn.50, 54

27.1: 26 n.25

27.4-6: 27 n.29

28: 11 n.27, 18 n.71, 20 n.87

31.3-4: 20 n.90

Moralia 189d: 50 n.82

715c: 7 n.3

820e: 49 n.76

869c-d: 12 n.40

Phokion 1: 20 n.87

16.4-6: 7 nn.1, 3

16.6: 9 n.8

17.1-3: 9 n.10

23.1: 23 n.2

23.2: 24 n.10

23.4: 27 n.26

26: 28 n.35

26.2: 20 n.86

28.1: 18 n.72

28.4: 18 n.70

30.5-6: 20 n.90

31-33: 42 n.38

32: 21 n.92

32.3: 126

Pyrrhos 1.4: 23 n.2, 29 n.40, 90 n.13

Sulla 26.1-2: 51 n.88


Pollux 8.53: 39 n.15

Polyainos 4.7.6: 45 n.53

Polybios 12.13.9: 43 n.42

Strabo 9.1.20: 43 n.42, 48 n.69, 49 n.76

13.1.34: 50 n.87, 51 n.88

SudaD 429: 42 n.33

Themist. Orat . 21.252b: 48 n.72

Thucydides 2.33.1: 98 n.1

2.42.3: 72 n.6

4.78.1: 88

Vit. X Orat . 841f: 11 n.24

847c: 9 nn.9, 12

849f: 23 nn.2, 6

851b: 32 n.11

851f: 143

852a: 72 n.6

852: 10 nn.16, 18 ; 11n.22, 13 n.44, 21 n.92

Inscriptions Mentioned

(For inscriptions studied, see pages 55-65)

Agora I 2426: 70

I 2580: 70

I 2799: 134 n.4

I 4071: 149

I 4421: 152 n.2

I 4772: 28 n.34

I 5263: 70 and n.3

I 5464: 115

I 5496: 122

I 5572: 134 n.4

I 5626: 9 -20

I 6524: 8 n.7

I 6969: 12 n.40, 85 n.1

I 7070: 22 n.99

I 7180: 45 n.54

Agora XV no. 15: 75 n.13

no. 49: 93 n.24

no. 58: 148

no. 62: 40 n.25, 153 n.5


Agora XIX nos. P5-16, 18-30, 32-41, 43, 44, 50, 51: 10 n.17

nos. H78, 84: 39 n.18

AE , 1917, 40-48: 93 n.24

BCH 38 (1914) 451: 156 n.2

93 (1969) 56-71: 39 n.19, 49 n.76

Béquignon, Recherches archéol. à Phères p. 95 no. 74: 88

Collitz, Sammlung Dialekt-Inschriften no. 2659: 91

Demetrias I p. 182: 89

p. 183: 88

Eleusis inv. no. E 1103: 10 n.21

EM 12736: 24 n.12

12773: 122

13262: 73 n.7

13379: 39 n.19, 49 n.76

13412: 124 n.6

13354: 71

Fouilles de Delphes III.1 no. 511: 8 n.4

III.2 nos. 20, 79, 93, 228: 123 n.5

III.4 nos. 225, 246, 280c: 123 n.5

III.5 no. 47: 89

H2 (1933) 397-398: 24 n.12

H4 (1935) 169-170: 122

H5 (1936) 201-205: 34

H7 (1938) 297: 22 n.99, 162 -163

H9 (1940) 332-333: 34

H13 (1944) 234-241: 19 -20

H21 (1952) 355-359: 45 n.54

H30 (1961) 208-210: 115

H40 (1971) 181: 124 n.6

H40 (1971) 281: 72 n.6

H43 (1974) 158-188: 45 n.54

H47 (1978) 281: 44 n.51

H59 (1990) 543-547: 171 n.3

HSuppl. 9 (1951) 33 no.17: 39 n.18

Helly, Gonnoi II no. 24: 89

no. 25: 89

no. 50: 89

no. 56: 89

Horos 4 (1986) 19-23: 22 n.96


Inscr. de Delphes II no. 9: 89

no. 32: 123 n.5

no. 76: 123 n.5

no. 94: 123 n.5

IG I2 760: 110 n.3

IG I3 386: 103

IG II2 1: 72 n.6

25: 72 n.6

116: 29 n.38

130: 123 n.3

131: 69 n.1

133: 123 n.3

136: 123 n.3

138: 69 n.2

140: 45 n.54

145: 72 n.6

162: 123 n.3

175: 29 n.38

205: 123 n.3

207: 69 n.2

222: 45 n.54

229: 72 , 100 , 115

231: 74 n.12, 123 n.3

236: 7 n.1

273b : 138

277: 149

289: 152 n.2

312: 33 n.18

329: 7 n.2

342: 33 , 138 n.1

343: 33

349: 15 n.55

351: 15 nn.56, 59

357: 123 n.3

360: 31 , 32 n.10

362: 149

363: 31

367: 24 n.12

370: 24 n.11

378: 41 n.28

380: 18 n.76, 20 , 90


IG II2 , (cont .)

382: 149

388: 90

398a : 28 n.34, 33

398b : 38 n.12

399: 8 n.4, 20 n.88, 36 n.2

403: 11 n.28

408: 33

409: 34

416a : 123 and n.4

423: 34

428: 149

438: 33 n.16

452: 8 n.4, 20 n.88, 36 n.2, 73 n.7

453: 36 , 40

454: 36 n.2

456: 40 n.21

456b : 72 n.6

457: 10 nn.16, 18, 20; 13 n.44, 15 n.56, 40 n.21

458: 40 n.21

459: 40 n.21

461: 40 n.21

462: 40 n.21

463: 40 n.21

465: 40 n.21

472: 124

478: 40 n.24

480: 34 , 165 -166

492: 28 n.34

493: 28 n.34

499: 34

500: 72 n.6

506: 23 n.3, 28 n.34

532: 152 n.3

541: 148

542: 148

546: 23 n.3, 90 n.15

556: 40 n.24

585: 36 n.2, 40 n.24

597: 162 and n.2

654: 35 n.25

655: 35 n.25


657: 34 n.22

662: 166

682: 44 n.48, 99 n.3, 168 n.3

709: 162 n.1

734: 143

788: 171 -174

903: 32 n.13

1129: 39 n.19

1156: 115

1159: 40 n.24

1184: 12 n.32

1200: 39 n.16

1201: 37 n.7, 39 n.16, 43 , 45 -46, 47 n.65

1247: 134 n.3

1259: 39 n.19, 73 n.7

1272: 44 n.47

1280: 44 n.47

1285: 44 n.47

1287: 44 n.50

1299: 44 n.47

1303: 44 n.47

1304: 44 n.47

1305: 44 n.47

1306: 44 n.47

1307: 44 n.47

1462: 149

1467: 149

1476: 39 n.17

1478: 39 n.17

1479: 39 n.17

1480: 39 n.17

1483: 39 n.17

1492: 39 n.17

1492A: 148

1496-1641: 93

1532b : 86

1573: 100

1575: 100

1575A: 11 n.29

1623-1632: 10 n.19

1623A: 41 n.28

1631: 21 n.91, 24 n.14, 25 nn.15, 16; 31 n.9, 75 n.13


IG II2 (cont .)

1670: 12 n.30

1672: 12 nn.30, 31; 31 n.7

1673: 12 n.30

2323a: 40 n.24

2394: 39 n.19, 73 n.7

2414: 148

2680: 39 n.18, 73 n.7

2725: 39 n.18

2726: 39 n.18

2727: 39 n.18

2744: 39 n.18

2745: 39 n.18

2762: 39 n.18, 73 n.7

2797: 156 n.1

2847: 44 n.48

2854: 44 n.49

2856: 44 n.49

2942: 125 n.7

2968: 119

2970: 40 n.22

2971: 43 -44, 171 -174

3104: 39 n.19, 73 n.7

3105 + 2401: 10 n.21

3460: 44 n.50

IG VII 414: 13 n.47, 92 n.22

4254: 8 n.4, 13 n.47, 45 n.54, 92 n.22, 93 n.23

IG IX.2 68: 88

234: 88 , 89

359c : 89

517: 88 , 89

527: 89

934: 89

1127: 88

1295: 88 n.3

Marmor Parium , 17 n.68, 28 n.37, 38 n.8, 43 n.43, 73 n.7

MDAIA 44 (1919) 4-15 nos. 5F-O: 19 n.82

66(1941) 218-219: 36 n.16, 73 n.7

72(1957) 156ff. nos. 1-4, 13, 20-28: 19 n.82

72(1957) 157 no. 1A: 16 n.63, 19 n.84

87(1972) 191-202 nos. 2, 4: 19 n.82

Michel, Receuil I nos. 366-369: 19 n.82


Osborne, Naturalization no. D62: 22 n.99

Pouilloux, La forteresse de Rhamnonte 114 no. 4: 119

118-120 no. 7: 44 n.49, 46 n.58

Reinmuth nos. 1-9: 10 n.21

no. 15: 25 n.15, 44 n.48, 93 n.25, 119

SEG 1 no. 126: 13 n.47

3 no. 86: 40 n.21

15 no. 370b: 88

15 no. 370c: 88

24 no. 151: 125 n.7

24 no. 154: 44 n.49

30 no. 69: 148

34 no. 476: 89

35 no. 798: 88

Tod, GHI no. 196: 31 n.5

no. 202: 16 n.63



Eponymous Archons of Athens

(Texts in which they are named and, if applicable, pages where they are discussed.)

A naxikrates,2 358,2 455,2 460,2 464, I 5884, EM 12706: 15 n.55

Anttikles,2 1629 (line 794),2 1926: 73 n.7

Antimachos, 44 n.50, 171 n.3

Apollodoros, I 3878

Archippos,2 448, I 559, I 6496: 168

Aristophanes,2 348

Aristophon,2 1627 (line 216)

Chairondas,2 238, I 58: 8 n6.

Chremes,2 359,2 1157,2 1198, H54 (1985) 137 -139

Demetrios of Phaleron, 37 -38

Demokleides, 38 n.8

Dioldes,2 650,2 651,2 663, I 2841

Diotimos,2 653

Euainetos,2 330, EM 13067

Euktemon,2 641

Euthios,2 659, I 4424: 146

Euthykritos,2 354

Euxenippos, H5 (1936) 201-205

Hegemachos,2 1263,2 1264

Hegemon,2 113,2 1497, I 3625

Hegesias,2 547,2 1176, I 4224

Kephisodoros,2 369: 73 n.7

Kephisophon,2 1533

Klearchos,2 1262


Koroibos,2 1491

Ktesikles, 2 335, 2 405,2 414a ,2 1189,2 1493

Leostratos,2 489,2 495,2 496+507,2 497,2 498, Acr. Mus. inv. no. 7010, I 6516+5215

Lykiskos,2 221

Lysimachides,2 1155

Lysitheides,2 704

Molon,2 112

Nausigenes,2 105,2 107

Neaichmos,2 381,2 383b

Niketes,2 345,2 346,2 347,2 1544, IG VII 4252-4253, I 3364, REG 91 (1978) 289

Nikias (296/5): 158

Nikias (282/1), I 4266

Nikodoros,2 450

Nikokles,2 504,2 505

Nikokrates,2 336,2 337,2 338,2 339a , EM 13051

Nikomachos,2 228

Nikophemos, EM 13354a

Nikostratos,2 646

Olympiodoros,2 649

Peithidemos, 44 n. 49

Pherekles,2 483,2 486, Horos 4 (1986) 11 -18

Philokles,2 372

Philokrates,2 684 + 752a

Phrynichos,2 241,2 242+373,2 243, EM 12893, I 2409 and 5234

Polemon, 38 n. 8

Polyzelos, I 3812

Pythodotos,2 224,2 1532a ,2 1590

Theophrastos (340/39),2 233,2 451,2 1202: 73

Theophrastos (313/2),2 2680,2 2762: 73 n. 7

Theophrastos (340/39 or 313/2),2 1259,2 2394,2 3104, EM 13262

Athenians, except for Eponymous Archons

Aischines, 16

Antiphilos, 28

Antiphon of Teithras, 146


Apollodoros of Otryne, 46 n. 58

Archedikos of Lamptrai, 8 n. 5, 90 , 98

Aristokrates, s. of Aristodemos, of Oinoe, 41 n. 28

Aristonikos of Marathon, 11

Aspetos, s. of Demostratos, of Kytheros, 74

Charisos, s. of Theodotos, of Sphettos, 153

Demades of Paiania, 8 -9, 10 , 13 , 17 -21, 24 n. 14, 27 , 33 , 42 n. 37, 47 n. 62, 93 , 126 , 147

Demetrios, s. of Phanostratos, of Phaleron, 21 , 36 -51, 159

Demetrios, s. of Phanostratos, of Phaleron, the Younger, 44

Demosthenes, 8 -9, 14 n. 54, 15 -18, 20 , 27 , 32 , 42

Derkylos of Hagnous, 126

Dikaiogenes of Kydathenaion, 25 n. 15

Diotimos, 126 , 127

Dromokleides of Sphettos, 119 n. 1

[Epigenes, s. of Metro]doros, of Kydathenaion, 134 n. 3

Eukrates of Piraeus, 8 n. 7

Euthygenes, s. of Hephaistodemos, of Kephisia, 90

Himeraios of Phaleron, 42

Hypereides, 18 , 27 , 28 , 42

Iatrokles, s. of Pasiphon, 126

Kephisodoros, s. of Smikythos, of Kydathenaion, 75 n. 13

Ktesiphon, 15

Lachares, 141

Leokrates, 15

Leosthenes, 20 -21, 23 -26

Leosthenes, s. of Leosthenes, of Kephale, 24 -26

Lykourgos, 8 -16, 34 , 93 , 114 , 126

Lysias of Diomeia, 15 n. 55

Menander (comic poet), 48 -49

Menekles of Hippotomadai, 103

Mnesitheos, s. of Aristeides, of Lamptrai, 155 -156

Neoptolemos, s. of Antikles, of Melite, 12 -13, 84 -85

Nothippos of Diomeia, 15 n. 55


Phaidros of Sphettos, 35

Phanodemos of Thymaitadai, 13 , 45 n.55, 92

Pherekleides, s. of Pherekles, of Perithoidai, 119

Philon, s. of Exekestides, of Eleusis, 10 , 12 n.30

Philokles, s. of Phormion, of Eroiadai, 26 n.22

Philoumene, sister of Leosthenes of Kephale, 24 n.14

Phokion, 8 , 10 , 17 , 20 , 24 , 42

Pytheas of Alopeke, 84 , 92 -93

Sokrates, s. of Sokrates, 153

Sopolis, s. of Kephisodoros, of Kydathenaion, 75

Sopolis, s. of Smikythos, of Kydathenaion, 75 n.13

Stratokles of Diomeia, 10 n.16, 11 n.22, 163

Telokles, s. of Telegnotos, of Alopeke, 40

Theophanes of Acharnai, 153

Thrasyboulos, 12

Thrasykles of Thria, 41

Kings, Their Retainers, and Others

Adeimantos of Lampsakos, 140

Agis III of Sparta, 13 -14, 27 n.27

Alexander the Great, 7 , 9 -10, 14 , 16 -17, 23 , 24 , 26 , 33 , 42 , 46

Alexander of Pherai, 24 , 29 n.38

Amphis of Andros, 12 n.35

Amyntor, s. of Demetrios, 126

Antigonos Gonatas, 44 , 46 n.58

Antigonos the One-eyed, 21 -22, 41 , 47 n.62. 92

Antileon of Chalkis, 16 n.63

Antipatros, 8 n.7, 14 , 17 , 19 -21, 26 -29, 42

Apellikon of Teos, 51

Apollonides of Sidon, 33

Aratos of Tenedos, 91

Aristotle, 13 , 39 , 42 n.38, 48 n.72, 50 -51

Asandros, s. of Agathon, 41

Audoleon, king of Paionia, 35 n.25

Cicero, Marcus Tullius, 48

Demetrios Poliorketes, son of Antigonos, 21 -22, 35 , 37 n.6, 45 , 46 n.61, 47 n.62, 163

Dionysios, 31

Dionysios (Macedonian commandant at Mounychia), 46 , 47 n.63


Eudemos of Plataia, 15 n.59

Eucharistos, 20 , 33

Eupolemos (general), 43 n.40

Gorgos, 9 n.15

Harpalos, 16 -17, 23 , 31 , 42

Herakleides of Salamis (Cyprus), 31

Iatrokles, 126

Kallistotimos of Tenedos, 91

Kassandros, 21 -22, 34 , 38 , 41 , 42 n.38, 43 , 47 nn.62, 63; 92 n.19, 125

Kleitos, 42 n.38

Krateros, 17 , 28 -29, 42

Leonnatos (satrap of Hellespontine Phrygia), 27 -29

Lysimachos, 22 , 34

[Meg]atimos of Tenedos, 91

Memnon (governor of Thrace), 14

Menon of Pharsalos, 29 , 90

Neleus of Skepsis, 50 -51

Nikanor of Stagira, 42 and n.38, 47 n.62

Nikostratos, 19 -20

Pairisades, king of the Bosporos, 32 n.11

Pandios the Herakleote, 34

Perdikkas, 16 n.63, 19

Phalakrion, s. of Sosikrates, of Lamia, 89 n.9

Phalakrion, s. of Philoinos, of Larisa, 89 n.9

Pheidias of Rhodes, 22 n.96

Philip of Macedon, 7 -9, 16 n.60, 126

Pleistarchos (brother of Kassandros), 43 n.40

Polemaios, 47 n.62, 92

Polyperchon, 21 , 42 -43, 92 n.19, 125

Praxiadas, 127

*Praxiaidas, 123 n.4

Praxias of D[elphi], 123

Ptolemy I, 22 , 35 , 49 -50

Ptolemy II, 50 -51

Pyrrhos, king of Epeiros, 90 n.13


Rheboulas of Thrace, 14 -15

Seleukos, 22

Sopatros of Akragas (Sicily), 34

Spartokos, king of the Bosporos, 35 n.25, 166

Theophrastos of Eresos (Lesbos), 41 , 48 -49, 50




Abydos, 28

Agathe Tyche, 26

Agoranomoi , 18 n.76

Aitolia, 24 , 29

Alexandria, 49 -51

Amorgos, 17 , 28

Amphiaraia, 11 n.25, 13 , 92 -93

Amphiaraion, 13 , 26 n.22, 45 n.55, 92 -93

Anagrapheus , 18 , 41 , 90 , 146 -147

Areopagos, 8 n.7

Ares, 12 , 126

Argives, 27 n.27

Asklepios, priests of, 153

Astynomoi , 18 n.76

Athena Areia, 12 , 126


building program of Lykourgos at, 10 -11;

cleruchs of on Samos, 16 , 19 -20, 34 ;

democracy of, 8 , 18 , 37 -38, 48 ;

failure to support revolt of Agis III, 14 ;

fleet, destruction of, 17 , 28 -29;

fleet, maintenance of, 10 ;

law code of, 47 ;

law courts of, 15 , 39 -39;

oligarchy at, 17 -21;

opposition of to Macedonians, 8 -9, 14 -16, 29 , 90 ;

Panathenaic stadium at, 10 , 15 ;

powerlessness of, 14 , 16 , 18 , 21 -22, 29 , 47 ;

religious institutions at, Lykourgan support of, 11 -13, 126 ;

rule of by Demetrios of Phaleron, 21 , 36 -49;

settlement imposed by Kassandros in 317, 43 -47;

theater of Dionysos at, 10 ;

triremes of given to Alexander, 9 ;

walls at, 8 , 16

Attic countryside:

general over, 25 -26, 44 ;

invasion of anticipated, 30 , 125


Brauroneion inventories, 93


Chaironeia, 7 , 14 , 15 , 30 , 92 , 125

Checker patterns, 70 n.4, 88

Chersonese, 7

Chremonidean War, 44 , 156 , 171 n.3


Coastal region of Africa, general over, 44 , 46 n.58

Corinth, league of, 7 , 14 n.52, 140 .

See also Hellenic league

Crown of gold, price of, 110 and n.2

Curse tablets, 27 n.26, 43 n.40

Cyrene, 31


Decrees passed at the same meeting or on successive days, 22 n.99, 110 -111, 126 -127, 145 , 156 -157, 162 -163

Delphi, Pythaïs to, 8 n.4

Demes, activity of in support of Lykourgan program, 12 -13

Demeter, 43

Dionysia, 11

Dipolieia, 11 n.25

Dittography, 91 , 115

Dyskolos of Menander, 49


Eleans, 27 n.27

Eleusinia, 11 n.25

Eleusinian district, general over, 44

Eleusis, 11 -12, 31 , 119 , 167

Ephebeia, 10 , 19 , 40 and n.24, 47 , 93

Exetastes , 141

Exiles decree, 16 -17, 19 , 42 n.38


Food supply, 30 -35.

See also Grain supply

Funeral speech of Hypereides, 28


Generals: hoplite, 26 ;

over the Attic countryside, 25 , 44 ;

over the coastal district, 44 ;

over the Eleusinian district, 44 ;

inline image168 n.3

Grain fund, 31

Grain supply, 13 n.48, 16 n.61, 156 .

See also Food supply

Granikos, 9


Hands, study of: methodology for, 2 n.2, 4 , 148 -149;

subjectivity of, 4 , 149 ;

usefulness of, 1 , 3 -4, 171 -174

Haplography, 115

Harpalos affair, 16 -17, 26 n.22, 42

Hellenic league, 28 .

See also Corinth, league of

Hellenic War, 23

Hellespont, 33


Ipsos, 22



Kadmeia, at Thebes, 8

Kollytos (deme), 26 -27

Kore, 43

Kos, 34 , 123 n.4, 127

Krannon, battle of, 11 , 17 , 28 -29, 42 , 90

Kythnos, 99

Kyzikos, 33


Lamia, 26 , 27

Lamian War, 17 , 23 -29, 32 , 89 -90, 125 -128

Laureion, silver mines at, 10

Lemnos, 41

Letter-cutting, under Demetrios of Phaleron, 1 , 3 , 39 -40, 147 , 156 , 159


tiny in fourth century B.C. , 2 , 79 ;

common style of in fourth century B.C. , 76 -81

Library, at Alexandria, 50 -51

Lokris, 24 n.12

Lyceum, 13



influence of over Athens, 7 -10, 21 ;

garrison of in Piraeus, 18 , 20 , 42 , 46 -47.

See also fortress of Mounychia at under Piraeus

Megalopolis, 27 n.27

Messenians, 27 n.27


Naval accounts, 31

Nomophylakes , 38 -39

Nomophylakia , 39

Nomothetai , 43 , 45

Numerals, alphabetic, 110


Olympic games, 16

Olynthos, 126

Oropos, 7 , 13 , 45 n.55, 92 -93


Panakton, 43

Panafthenaia, 11 , 14 , 15 n.59, 92 n.22

Peripatos (Peripatetic School), 48 -51

Persia, 9

Persians, 8 , 9 , 13 , 24

Pharsalos, 88 , 89 , 90 , 128

Phokis, 24 n.12

Phyle, 43


Piraeus: arsenal at, 10 ;

foreign traders in, 11 n.23, 114 ;

fortress of Mounychia at, 18 , 21 , 42 n.38, 46 n.61;

theater at, 12 ;

strategic importance of, 42 -43, 140 -141


Rhodians, 35


Samos, 17 and n.63, 19 , 34

Sestos, 72 -73

Sikyon, 27 , 146

Sinope, 34

Spartans, 27 n.27

Symproedroi , 73 -74, 99


Tainaron, 23 , 25

Tegea, 16 n.63

Tenedos, 91 , 167

Thebes, 9 , 14 n.51, 33 , 45

Thermopylai, 26 , 29

Thessalians, crucial role of in Lamian War, 24 n.12, 29 , 87 -90, 128

Thessaly, 24

Thrace, 14 -15

Trierarchs, 26 , 31

Trittyarchoi , 141



This concordance does not list every reference to a particular inscription in SEG ; rather, an attempt is made to give a reference to the most recent substantive treatment of the inscription. That entry will in turn provide references to earlier treatments in SEG . I here record a debt of gratitude to S. B. Aleshire, assistant editor of SEG , for providing me with a very helpful concordance between the Agora blue volumes (XV, XVII, and XIX), the volumes of Hesperia, and SEG . This aided my task immensely in compiling the Agora entries in this comparatio numerorum .



2 105

SEG 31 no. 68


2 107

SEG 39 no. 70


2 112

SEG 32 no. 61


2 113

SEG 39 no. 91


2 132

SEG 24 no. 86


2 143

SEG 39 no. 182


2 161


2 192


2 221

SEG 14 no. 52


2 224


2 228

SEG 15 no. 93


2 230

SEG 35 no. 59


2 232


2 233


2 235

SEG 34 no. 261


2 238

SEG 35 no. 61


2 240

SEG 31 no. 77


2 241


2 242

SEG 40 no. 74


2 243


2 244

SEG 38 no. 64


2 257

SEG 40 no. 70


2 264


2 272

SEG 35 no. 65


2 273a


2 274


2 276


2 279

SEG 24 no. 83


2 280

SEG 39 no. 79


2 285

SEG 24 no. 89


2 287

SEG 24 no. 90


2 292


2 298


2 300

joins2 257


2 304

SEG 18 no. 11


2 306

SEG 14 no. 54


2 307


2 308

SEG 24 no. 91


2 309


2 310


2 330

SEG 39 no. 81


2 333

SEG 31 no. 78


2 334

SEG 39 no. 88


2 335

SEG 21 no. 274


2 336

SEG 36 no. 153


2 337

SEG 39 no. 84


2 338

SEG 39 no. 85


2 339a

SEG 16 no. 54


2 339b

SEG 16 no. 54


2 345


2 346


2 347

SEG 39 no. 86


2 348

SEG 26 no. 76


2 354

SEG 18 no. 14


2 358

SEG 26 no. 87


2 359

SEG 36 no. 156


2 369

SEG 24 no. 102


2 372

SEG 23 no. 60


2 373

SEG 24 no. 105


2 379


2 381


2 383b

SEG 21 no. 305


2 392

SEG 26 no. 83


2 393


2 394


2 400


2 401


2 402


2 405

SEG 21 no. 275


2 407

SEG 37 no. 83


2 414a

SEG 21 no. 276


2 414b, c

part of2 369


2 414d

part of2 285


2 415


2 416b

SEG 26 no. 78


2 418

SEG 39 no. 109


2 426

SEG 24 no. 97


2 429

SEG 26 no. 77


2 430


2 434


2 437


2 440


2 445

part of2 330


2 448

SEG 37 no. 81


2 449

SEG 32 no. 98


2 450

SEG 25 no. 75


2 451

SEG 32 no. 99


2 455

SEG 21 no. 327


2 460

SEG 21 no. 331


2 464


2 468

SEG 19 no. 60


2 479

SEG 33 no. 93


2 483


2 486

SEG 36 no. 163


2 487


2 489


2 495

SEG 25 no. 79


2 496


2 497


2 498

SEG 21 no. 338


2 504

SEG 21 no. 339


2 505

SEG 37 no. 87


2 507

joins2 496


2 523

part of2 105


2 538


2 539

SEG 33 no. 83


2 545

SEG 24 no. 106


2 547

SEG 32 no. 88


2 549


2 553


2 555


2 564

SEG 24 no. 112


2 571


2 573


2 586

joins2 392


2 591


2 592

SEG 32 no. 104


2 601


2 604

joins2 304


2 620

SEG 39 no. 90


2 641


2 646

SEG 31 no. 88


2 649

SEG 35 no. 85


2 650

SEG 29 no. 98


2 651

SEG 24 no. 122


2 652

SEG 23 no. 65


2 653

SEG 33 no. 111


2 659

SEG 25 no. 88


2 663

SEG 28 no. 56


2 684

SEG 3 no. 94


2 692



2 704

SEG 21 no. 368


2 716


2 723

SEG 24 no. 123


2 727

SEG 39 no. 108


2 733


2 752a


2 752b

part of2 684


2 753


2 1155b


2 1157


2 1158


2 1176

SEG 33 no. 143


2 1187

SEG 22 no. 118


2 1189

SEG 34 no. 106


2 1192


2 1194


2 1195

SEG 39 no. 90


2 1196B

SEG 30 no. 91


2 1198


2 1202

SEG 36 no. 185


2 1226

part of2 716


2 1229


2 1230


2 1231

SEG 39 no. 151


2 1238

SEG 38 no. 128


2 1241

SEG 21 no. 524


2 1244

SEG 22 no. 121


2 1257


2 1260

SEG 34 no. 109


2 1262


2 1263


2 1264


2 1265


2 1266


2 1274

joins2 1194


2 1361

SEG 25 no. 167


2 1438

SEG 19 no. 129


2 1451

SEG 28 no. 113


2 1457

SEG 33 no. 150


2 1458


2 1487a A

SEG 38 no. 144


2 1491A,B

SEG 38 no. 142


2 1493

SEG 22 no. 133


2 1494

SEG 22 no. 133


2 1495

SEG 22 no. 133


2 1496A


a-d, f-g (III)


2 1496A e


2 1496A h


2 1496B b,c


2 1496B h


2 1497


2 1498A, B


2 1499


2 1500A, B


2 1501A


2 1514

SEG 21 no. 555


2 1515


2 1517

SEG 28 no. 115


2 1518Bb


2 1519


2 1520


2 1521A

SEG 21 no. 555


2 1523

SEG 21 no. 555


2 1524

SEG 38 no. 147


2 1525

SEG 21 no. 555


2 1528


2 1530


2 1531


2 1532a

SEG 39 no. 164


2 1533

SEG 39 no. 164


2 1543


2 1544

SEG 15 no. 124


2 1560

SEG 18 no. 38


2 1561

SEG 18 no. 39


2 1562


2 1563


2 1564

SEG 18 no. 40


2 1565

SEG 18 no. 40


2 1571

SEG 18 no. 45


2 1574

SEG 18 no. 45


2 1582

SEG 36 no. 210


2 1583

SEG 28 no. 125


2 1584



2 1590

SEG 37 no. 111


2 1591

SEG 37 no. 111


2 1593


2 1599

SEG 21 no. 574


2 1620


2 1621


2 1622

SEG 35 no. 118


2 1623B

SEG 38 no. 151


2 1627


2 1628

SEG 24 no. 159


2 1629

SEG 35 no. 119


2 1641A,C

SEG 37 no. 116


2 1648


2 1649


2 1668

SEG 37 no. 119


2 1671

SEG 35 no. 120


2 1675


2 1681


2 1684


2 1692


2 1751


2 1752

SEG 39 no. 179


2 1926


2 2390


2 2402


2 2406

part of2 545


2 2408


2 2493

SEG 37 no. 123


2 2494

part of2 2493


2 2500


2 2813

part of2 143




identical with2 338








I 58


I 226

SEG 21 no. 288


I 559

SEG 22 no. 97


I 631a

SEG 28 no. 130


+ 939


I 631d,f

part of (?) 11851


I 679

part of I 1851


I 686

SEG 28 no. 130


I 810

part of (?) I 1851


I 817

part of2 1582


I 882


I 1000


I 1010


I 1095


I 1535


I 1541


I 1570

part of (?) I 1851


I 1664

part of2 1582


I 1749

part of2 1582


I 1782

part of2 1582


I 1816

part of2 1582


I 1851

SEG 28 no. 121


I 1947


I 2205

SEG 28 no. 129


I 2260

SEG 15 no. 120


I 2381

joins I 1095


I 2409

SEG 35 no. 63


I 2440

joins2 1176


I 2636


I 2719

SEG 19 no. 55


I 2738

joins I 1570


I 2752

part of2 369


I 2767

SEG 19 no. 63


I 2821

SEG 39 no. 98


I 2841


I 2995

SEG 19 no. 54


I 3023


I 3060

SEG 16 no. 129


I 3134


I 3247


I 3293


I 3364

SEG 35 no. 71


I 3371

SEG 19 no. 56


I 3625


I 3661



I 3806


I 3812


I 3878

SEG 25 no. 74


I 3983

part of I 3806


I 4133

SEG 33 no. 167


I 4224

SEG 35 no. 75


I 4266

SEG 31 no. 89


I 4355


I 4424


I 4448

joins I 1000


I 4484


I 4783


I 4870


I 4883


I 4902b


I 4906

SEG 17 no. 28


I 4930

part of I 4870


I 4935a-f

part of2 369


I 4944

SEG 28 no. 134


I 4973

SEG 17 no. 43


I 4990

joins2 402


I 5039


I 5093


I 5215

joins I 6516


I 5234

part of I 2409


I 5250


I 5251

SEG 34 no. 77


I 5280


I 5361


I 5415

SEG 19 no. 69


I 5439

SEG 29 no. 92


I 5444

part of I 5709


I 5477

part of2 334


I 5491


I 5500


I 5605

part of2 1496A


I 5645

SEG 21 no. 348


I 5709

SEG 39 no. 106


I 5723

SEG 21 no. 358


I 5749

SEG 28 no. 123


I 5760

SEG 21 no. 360


I 5772

SEG 24 no. 119


I 5824


I 5825

joins2 1195


I 5836

SEG 21 no. 361


I 5884

SEG 21 no. 334


I 5886

SEG 29 no. 101


I 6016


I 6030

joins I 3983


I 6250

SEG 21 no. 557


I 6314


I 6354


I 6421

SEG 25 no. 82


I 6434

SEG 21 no. 345


I 6439

joins2 1176


I 6496

SEG 21 no. 303


I 6516

SEG 39 no. 105


I 6630

part of2 1195


I 7050

SEG 37 no. 83


I 7062

SEG 33 no. 167


I 7063

SEG 35 no. 73


I 7116A

SEG 33 no. 168


I 7116B

SEG 33 no. 168


I 7117

SEG 33 no. 167


I 7123

SEG 33 no. 167


I 7134

SEG 32 no. 74


I 7178


I 7198

SEG 28 no. 152


I 7360

SEG 30 no. 65


I 7447

SEG 28 no. 52








SEG 33 no. 169











part of EM 13393





SEG 29 no. 88





part of (?)2 113



part of2 143



part of2 1438



SEG 24 no. 203



SEG 39 no. 82



SEG 36 no. 184



SEG 36 no. 131


lines 1-12



SEG 16 no. 60





SEG 33 no. 101


Acropolis Mus. inv. no. 7010

SEG 30 no. 70


Eleusis inv. no. 714

joins2 1194



31 (1962) 54-56

SEG 21 no. 644


54 (1985) 137-139

SEG 35 no. 74


55 (1986) 177-182

SEG 36 no. 149


Horos 4 (1986) 11-18

SEG 36 no. 164


Kourouniotes, Eleus . 1189-208


REG 91 (1978) 289-306

SEG 28 no. 103


Robert, Études 293-296

SEG 21 no. 519

Preferred Citation: Tracy, Stephen V. Athenian Democracy in Transition: Attic Letter-Cutters of 340 to 290 B.C.. Berkeley:  University of California Press,  c1995 1995.