UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The decree of Kleinias Mark, Gwyneth Anita 1974

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1974_A8 M37_2.pdf [ 4.25MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0093189.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0093189-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0093189-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0093189-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0093189-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0093189-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0093189-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0093189-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0093189.ris

Full Text

i THE DECREE OF KLEINIAS by GWYNETH ANITA MARK B.A., Un i v e r s i t y of Toronto, 1971 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n the Department of C l a s s i c s We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A p r i l , 1974 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the requirements f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and study. I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be gran t e d by the Head o f my Department or by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s understood t h a t c o p y i n g or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be allowed w ithout my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department o f c l a s s i c s The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada Date 2 9 A P r i l > 1 9?4 THE DECREE OF KLEINIAS ABSTRACT The purpose of t h i s thesis i s to study the decree of K l e i n i a s , with a view to determining i t s purpose and date, using epigraphic c r i t e r i a and i n t e r n a l evidence. The arguments from h i s t o r i c a l con-text are merely summarized i n Chapter 1, Introduction. Chapter 2 determines the readings. Chapter 3 discusses the evidence of the letter-forms and characterizes the mason. The conclusion of t h i s chapter i s that a date i n the 430s i s best. Chapter 4 discusses the evidence of s p e l l i n g , which i s of no help for dating, and formulae, which suggest a date i n the l a t e 440s or 430s. Chapter 5 gives the r e s t o r a t i o n of the text, and commentary. From i n t e r n a l evidence discussed i n t h i s chapter, a date a f t e r 453 and before 426 i s necessary. The decree seems to be concerned not with r e c a l c i t r a n t subject c i t i e s , but only with dishonesty and poor bookkeeping. Chapter 6 b r i e f l y restates the evidence found i n the previous chapters TABLE OF CONTENTS i i i Chapter 1: Introduction pages 1-4 Chapter 2: The Fragments 5-26 Chapter 3: The Cutting of the Stone 27-46 Chapter 4: S p e l l i n g and Formulae 47-56 Chapter 5: The Text: Restoration and Commentary 57-84 Chapter 6: Conclusion 85-86 Bibliography and Abbreviations 87-93 LIST OF FIGURES i v Figure 1: Fragment 1 page 8 Figure 2: Fragment 2 11 Figure 3: Fragment 3 18 Figure 4: Fragment 4 22, 23 Figure '5,: Letter-forms i n the Decree of K l e i n i a s 29, 30, 31 Figure 6: Fragment 4: Intermingling of Elements 44 1 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION The date of the decree of Kleinias has been much discussed, and various proposals have been put forward based on epigraphic arguments and on historical context. The latter involves a certain amount of subjectivity i n the interpretation of the decree, as is shown by the fact that i t s date could be shifted from the 420s to the 440s upon the discovery of a new fragment that did reveal the name of the mover, but otherwise merely confirmed the tenor of previous restorations. I, therefore, do not propose to argue the historical context of the decree, but shall summarize here the proposals made and confine the main part of the thesis to epigraphic arguments, in order to establish upper and lower limits for the decree. The se-cond chapter re-examines the text of the inscription to establish readings. The third chapter deals with the significance of the letter-forms used in this inscription, and the fourth with the sig-nificance of the spelling and formulae. The f i f t h chapter discusses the restoration of the decree and gives a commentary on i t . Finally, the conclusion gathers together the indications of the previous chapters concerning the date and subject of the decree, but does not produce a definite date and context; i t seems best, since the evidence is inconclusive, to state merely that the decree cannot be dated epigraphically. Briefly, the historical arguments for a date have been these. At f i r s t , Meritt assigned the decree to the early 420s, because i t appeared to come shortly before the decree of Kleonymos, D8, which 2 required the appointment of collectors of tribute.''" Doubt that the two decrees were passed so close together, however, arising from a consideration of the differing use of the daseia, and of the general appearance of the cutting of the two decrees, was expressed 2 by Woodward. The bases for his doubt were invalid (see below, chapters 3 and 4), but doubt was reasonable: both decrees, i t is true, concern the collecting of tribute, but this need not mean that they must have been passed at about the same time. After the discovery of fragment 4, in which the name of the mover of the decree, Kleinias, is preserved, H i l l and Meritt proposed a date before 446, the battle of Koroneia, for Kleinias was iden-3 t i f i e d as the father of Alkibiades, who died there. Wade-Gery preferred a specific date, 447; he argued that the decree was passed in reaction to the short quota-list of 447, Li s t 7, and resulted in the long l i s t , L i s t 8, of 446, where the main body of the l i s t shows complete payments for the current year, and arrears of payment 4 are recorded in an appendix. The letter-forms were considered to support this re-dating: Raubitschek, even before the discovery of fragment 4, had proposed a date in the 440s on that basis.~* This historical argument was elaborated in A.T.L., I I I , in a reconstruction of the events of the early forties that involved the 1. D.A.T., p. 59. 2. J.H.S., LVIII (1938), p. 108. 3. Hesperia, XIII (1944), pp. 8-9. 4. Hesperia, XIV (1945), pp. 226-228. 5. A.J.P., LXI (1940), pp. 477-479. 3 Peace of K a l l i a s and the r e s u ltant remission of t r i b u t e i n 449/8.^ The decree of K l e i n i a s , according to t h i s reconstruction, was passed to help r e - e s t a b l i s h Athenian authority i n the Empire a f t e r the r e -imposition of t r i b u t e i n 448/7, along with the Papyrus Decree, D13, and the Coinage Decree, D14. De Ste Croix has argued that t h i s reconstruction of the 440s i s wrong, i f the decree of K l e i n i a s i s indeed to be dated then. " I f the decree of C l e i n i a s . . . i s to be dated i n the spring of 447, as by A.T.L. I l l , 281, 289., the fact that i t gives no i n d i c a t i o n at a l l of any a l l i e d ' r e c a l c i t r a n c e 1 but only of incompetence and d i s -honesty which i t was hoped to put r i g h t by more e f f i c i e n t machinery, with no reference to apyupoXoYOl vrjeq or any kind of force, i s rather strong evidence against supposing that the a l l i e s had been refusing to pay."^ This forms part of h i s argument that the t r i b u t e of 449/8 was not i n f a c t remitted at a l l . I f , however, the decree of K l e i n i a s be interpreted as purely a book-keeping decree, then there i s no reason, beyond that of the name of the mover, for r e -t a i n i n g i t i n the 440s; i t could have been passed l a t e r . Meiggs and Lewis have also expressed some uneasiness about t h i s h i s t o r i c a l case, because some complements recorded i n the appendix to L i s t 8 have been shown by A.T.L., I I I , 59-61, to be the r e s u l t , not of r e c a l c i t r a n c e , but of l a t e reporting of payments made to generals i n the f i e l d . They r e t a i n a date i n the 440s, however, because they f e e l that "the s p i r i t of K l e i n i a s 1 decree strongly 6. A.T.L., I l l , pp. 275-300, esp. p. 281. 7. The Origins of the Peloponnesian War, p. 312. 4 resembles that of the Coinage decree, and for that decree also we g accept a date i n the early f o r t i e s . " F i n a l l y , Mattingly would date the decree of K l e i n i a s to 425, shortly a f t e r the decree of Thoudippos, the re-assessment decree 9 of 425/4, A9. Of a l l the dates proposed, t h i s alone can be ruled out completely. References to the bases of h i s proposal w i l l be found from time to time; they are not v a l i d , and i t can be shown that the decree of K l e i n i a s was passed before the decree of Kleonymos, D8, which belongs firm l y i n 426. These then are the dates suggested on h i s t o r i c a l grounds. 8. Greek H i s t o r i c a l I n s c r i p t i o n s , pp. 120-121. 9. H i s t o r i a , X (1961), pp. 150-169, esp. pp. 153-154; he also discusses the decree i n several other a r t i c l e s , for which see the bibliography. 5 CHAPTER TWO THE FRAGMENTS Fragment 1 Bi b l i o g r a p h y 1 : .E.M. 13045; B. D. M e r i t t , D.A.T., p. 49; A. M. Woodward, J.H.S., LVIII (1938), pp. 108-109; S t e r l i n g Dow, A.J.A., XLII (1938), p. 602; A.T.L., I, D7; B. H. H i l l and B. D. Mer i t t , Hesperia, XIII (1944), pp. 7-8; A.T.L., I I , D7. Photographs: B. D. M e r i t t , D.A.T., p. 44; A.T.L., I, p. 121; A.T.L., I I , p i . I I . 'This fragment was found i n 1926, when the p o s t - c l a s s i c a l additions to" the west door of the Parthenon were removed, and was f i r s t pub-lished by M e r i t t i n 1937. According to h i s report, the stone i s 0.47 metres high, 0.37 metres wide, and about 0.107 metres th i c k . The stone i s preserved at the top and on the r i g h t side. "In i t s present condition fragment 1 has been reworked... the back has been cut away with a running d r i l l . Along both preserved edges of the back there was executed a d r a f t i n g about 0.005 metres to 0.008 metres wide. A s i m i l a r d r a f t i n g appears also at the bottom of the obverse face, where i t runs along the under surface of the stone. I t also returns across the bottom surface below the l a t e r a l face. Thus i t appears that the present height of the block as preserved dates from the period of the reworking, when the back was chipped away and the rough surfaces were given a marginal dressing. The stone was again 1. The bibliography does not include mere re p r i n t i n g s of the text. 2. D.A.T., pp. 43-60 (text and commentary). 6 broken before being b u i l t into the door of the Parthenon and only a very small section of the drafted surface along the bottom now ,.3 remains. In the top r i g h t of t h i s fragment there i s an uninscribed area seventeen l e t t e r spaces wide and t h i r t e e n l i n e s long. According to S t e r l i n g Dow, " I t may be noted that the uninscribed area...is exactly 4 square, as i f for a square or round painted f i g u r e . " Woodward suggests that t h i s space was perhaps occupied by a painting, presumably sym-b o l i s i n g some process of the c o l l e c t i o n of tribute.~* The use of decoration i n t h i s p o s i t i o n , at the top right-hand corner of the 2 s t e l e , i s found i n I.G., I I , 2496, which i s dated to some time af t e r the middle of the fourth century. I t has a sculpture occupying ten l i n e s and about sixteen l e t t e r spaces (the i n s c r i p t i o n i s non-stoichedon). The text records the purchase of some buil d i n g s i n the Peiiarisus, but the sculpture decorating i t does not appear to be in s p i r e d by the context. Kirchner ^ reports that i t shows a man, po s s i b l y a hero, wearing a cloak and seated on a chair, s t r e t c h i n g out h i s r i g h t hand to a woman standing on h i s l e f t , who i s holding what may be a w a l l e t . Nearer i n date to the decree of K l e i n i a s i s another decorated i n s c r i p t i o n , the decree of Kleonymos, D8, from 426. This decree has a sculptured r e l i e f on the top, which probably shows the jars or sacks i n which the t r i b u t e was c a r r i e d . These •3. D.A.T., p. 49. 4. A.J.A., XLII (1938), p. 602. 5. J.H.S., LVIII (1938), p. 108. 6. The d e s c r i p t i o n i s given i n the commentary to I.G., I I , 2496. 7 i n s c r i p t i o n s and a l l other decorated i n s c r i p t i o n s , however, have sculp-tured decorations. As Woodward admits, there i s no p a r a l l e l for a painted decoration on an i n s c r i p t i o n , although paint was used on l e t t e r s . Woodward thinks he sees part of a s h i e l d i n three-quarter view i n the photograph published by M e r i t t i n D.A.T., p. 44. I cannot see any trace of i t there, nor i s there any trace of paint l e f t on the stone. I f i n f a c t there was p a i n t i n g i n t h i s space, none of i t 2 remains, and the example of I.G., II , 2496 shows that i t s subject need not have been d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to the text of the i n s c r i p t i o n . FIGURE ONE FRAGMENT ONE 16 20 25 30 35 40 A E 0 Y 0' N M B T E £ n o z E Y A A E T 0 Z ft A 9 E N A £ e A I n A • M M E E X z z I T 0 M n 0 A I Z E z p 0 N h 0 N T I N A N A n 0 n E M n E I Z E M E i A n .0 n E M n E T 0 A e E N A z E T 0 Z A E A T 0 r P A M M A T E I 0 N E N T E I B 0 A E I A p T 0 M <b 0 P 0 N A n 0 A i A 0 Z I h 0 I A E "II P Z I A E K K A E Z I A N n 0 I E z A N T 0 N T 0 I n 0 A E I X Z A I A G E N A I 0 I Z T 0 M n 0 A N T E A E K A I T 0 z E A A I n 0 E N A I 0 z A E h E A 0 M E T A z n 0 A E A N T .1 A n A i O N T T 16 20 25 30 35 40 9 Line 3, stoichos 22: @ M e r i t t ; 0 H i l l and"Meritt. The reading given by H i l l and M e r i t t i s accepted by a l l other e d i t o r s . The squeezes show an elongated, s l i g h t l y o f f - c e n t r e dot, not of the same depth as the r e s t of the l e t t e r . Other examples of theta have neat, pre-c i s e l y centred dots. Although the l e t t e r i s badly scarred, there can be no doubt that omicron, undotted, i s the correct reading. Line 10, stoichos 19: A s c r i p s i ; A c e t t . On the squeezes a l l I can see i s the lower part of the r i g h t leg of the l e t t e r . A 7 Line 12, stoichos 17: A McGregor .; The lower part of the r i g h t leg was seen on the stone by McGregor, and appears on the squeezes. Line 18, stoichos 16: ^ s c r i p s i ; M e r i t t reads nothing; P c e t t . A l l ! • II •• ••—• i » • i. ••• -that can be seen on the squeezes i s the loop, but, since t h i s could form a part of no other l e t t e r (there i s no trace of the lower curve of beta), I p r i n t undotted rho. Line 23, stoichos 31: A s c r i p s i ; A c e t t . Only the top i s v i s i b l e , and there i s no trace of a crossbar. Line 24, s t o i c h o i 36, 37: J-A s c r i p s i ; IA c e t t . Of the i o t a , only the top i s v i s i b l e . I t i s centred, but the v e r t i c a l of lambda i s sometimes centred i n t h i s i n s c r i p t i o n a l s o . Of the alpha, only the top angle i s v i s i b l e . Line 26, stoichos 40: J s c r i p s i ; T c e t t . Only the crossbar can be seen on the squeezes, and that f a i n t l y . 7. A fresh examination of the stone was made by McGregor i n 1972; t h i s and other comments are from h i s notebook. 10 Fragment 2 Bibliography: E.M. 6578; A. R. Rangabe, Ant. H e l l . , I, no. 277; K. S. Pit t a k y s , i n fop, j ^ p x # , 1854, no. 2071; I.G., I, 39, from 2 t r a n s c r i p t s by U. Koehler and I. Velsen; I.G., I , 66b; B. D. Me r i t t , D.A.T., pp. 43-47; A.T.L., I, D7; S t e r l i n g Dow, A.J.A., XLII (1938), p. 602; B. D. Me r i t t , Epigraphica A t t i c a , p. 38; B. H. H i l l and B. D. Mer i t t , Hesperia, XIII (1944), pp. 7-8; A.T.L., II , D7. Photographs: B. D. Me r i t t , D.A.T., p. 46; A.T.L., I, p. 121. 2 The fragment was found on the Acro p o l i s . According to I.G., I , 66b, the stone i s 0.32 metres wide, 0.33 metres high, and 0.13 metres th i c k . These measurements are the maximum: the stone i s broken onuall sides and i r r e g u l a r l y shaped. A part of the r i g h t edge i s 2 preserved (not the l e f t , as i s reported i n I.G., I , 66b, noted and corrected by M e r i t t ) , which fix e s the p o s i t i o n of the fragment h o r i -z o n t a l l y i n the s t e l e . The v e r t i c a l p o s i t i o n i s determined by the r e l a t i o n of t h i s fragment to fragment 4, since the text of fragment 2 complements the text of fragment 4. The numbering of l i n e s i s that of A.T.L., I I . FIGURE TWO FRAGMENT TWO 11 22 25 30 35 40 34 35 45 0 A 0 M . E N 0 N E Z E z A Z A r • r: • P A ® Z E T A E Z E K A z T 0 Z 0 I K Y • P I A E Z T 0 A N A E A 0 X z E I T A N E Z h 0 T I A N A 0 K A • N T I Z n E P I T E N A n Z A A I K E I T A Z r P A A T A T A Y T A T 0 z A E I N A K I 0 N.. A\ E A • N T 0 $ 0 P 0 K A • I A n 0 A -22 25 30 35 40 Line 34, stoichos 26: Q I.G., 1^, 66b, M e r i t t . The reading given 2 by I.G., I , 66b, according to M e r i t t , i s based apparently on Velsen or Koehler, but i s not found i n P i t t a k y s or Rangabe. M e r i t t alone accepted the reading, because of evidence that t h i s fragment may have become more damaged since the o r i g i n a l reading was made. H i l l and M e r i t t drop the omicron, because the stone i s too badly damaged for any l e t t e r ever to have been seen there. ) 2 Line 35, stoichos 35: T J_.G., I , 66b; T c e t t . Nothing at a l l can be seen on the photographs; on the squeezes I see a slanted stroke at an odd angle, rather below the l i n e and not as deep as the other l e t t e r s . I do not believe i t i s a part of any l e t t e r , nor do I see any other trace. 2 Line 36, stoichos 25: £ i'9_*> 1 > 66b; £ c e t t . s t o i c h o i 2 7, 28: I T s c r i p s i ; IT c e t t . Only the lower part of the l e f t leg of the f i r s t l e t t e r and the lower part of the r i g h t leg of the second l e t t e r are v i s i b l e . stoichos 35: A M e r i t t ; A c e t t . Only the l e f t leg i s v i s i b l e on the squeezes. Line 37, stoichos 24: M e r i t t . M e r i t t ' s reading i s rejected by H i l l and M e r i t t , because of the "necessities of r e s t o r a t i o n ? " I can see no trace of the lower l e f t leg of the gamma reported by M e r i t t . stoichos 25: ^ P i t t a k y s , M e r i t t ; ^ c e t t . Traces of the two lower horizontals and of the v e r t i c a l are v i s i b l e on the squeezes; therefore I do not dot the l e t t e r . stoichos 27: £ P i t t a k y s ; ® M e r i t t . The marks interpreted by P i t t a k y s as sigma are v i s i b l e on the squeezes, but are c l e a r l y 13 scratches. Meritt's reading of theta also results from mistaking scratches for cuttings. The scratches can be seen on the squeezes, but are not deep enough to be letters. Of the original letter there is no trace. H i l l and Meritt rejected Meritt'I;s earlier reading, again on the grounds of the necessities of restoration. Line 38, stoichos 25: 0 I.G., I 2 , 66b, Meritt; ? cett. The omicron is clear though incomplete on the squeezes and could not be part of any other letter. 2 stoichos 26: I.G., I , 66b; j cett. In this stoichos there i s a vertical stroke more than usually off-centre for an iota, and a very faint, high vertical stroke at the right edge of the stoichos, visible on the squeezes. The second vertical stroke, however, is also found on the line below and is probably a scratch. It is clear from the squeezes that no chisel cut touched the f i r s t v e r t i c a l . The letter to be read in this space then i s iota. 2 stoichos 2 7: K I , 66b; K cett. The vertical stroke and the top arm of the kappa are visible on the squeezes; no dot is needed. stoichos 28: Y omnes. Meritt reports that the upsilon i s no longer on the stone, though part of the upright was read by earlier editors. The squeezes show part of the upright clearly. stoichos 35: 0 nonnulli. I see no traces of any letter in this stoichos on the squeezes. 2 Line 39, stoichos 23: 0 I.G., I , 66b; I Pittakys; £ Meritt; £ cett. This stoichos contains scratches, some of which may be the original marks of the chisel, which can be interpreted as the faint remains of sigma, mu, or iota. Of the three sigma i s perhaps the most l i k e l y , but I am by no means c e r t a i n ; I prefer to read nothing. I t i s c e r t a i n , however, that no daseia was cut here, since, where the r i g h t hand v e r t i c a l should be, the stone has c l e a r l y not been cut. This i s p a r t i c u l a r l y important, since we have here as a r e s u l t the only unrestored instance i n the decree of the omission of the daseia; t h i s one omission makes restorations without the daseia acceptable. stoichos 24: 0 n o n n u l l i . stoichos 25: I P i t t a k y s ; T a l i i . There i s no trace on the squeezes. Line 40, stoichos 22: T Velsen, M e r i t t ; T c e t t . Koehler reports merely a h o r i z o n t a l . Only the r i g h t h a l f i s v i s i b l e . stoichos 24: A Rangabe; n Koehler; ^ I.G., I , 66b; N c e t t . The fragment seen by Koehler i s c l e a r on the squeezes. Line 41, stoichos 22: A s c r i p s i ; ^ Koehler; I_.G., 1 ,^ 66b; A c e t t . Only the top angle of the l e t t e r i s v i s i b l e . stoichos 24: E P i t t a k y s ; T c e t t . 2 Line 42, stoichos 22: E I_.G., I , 66b; £ c e t t . The angle of the diagonals v i s i b l e can only be the remains of a sigma. 2 stoichos 36: A I.G., I , 66b; A c e t t . Only the bottom of the l e f t leg can be seen. 2 Line 43, stoichos 22: A I.G., I , 66b, M e r i t t ; A c e t t . Only the bottom of the r i g h t leg can be seen at the very edge of the break i n the stone. Line 44, stoichos 22: 2 n o n n u l l i . McGregor reports that on the stone there i s a trace of the centre angle, and some colour perhaps i n d i c a t i n g a sigma. I see no trace of any l e t t e r on the squeezes. stoichos 23: il cett. Of the p i read by other editors, 'M see only what may be the top of the right ver t i c a l , but the stone i s so mutilated that I cannot be sure whether the squeezes show a scar or a chisel-cut. McGregor reports the same stroke on the stone, and considers the reading doubtful. 2 stoichos 33: A I_.G., I , 66b; A cett. Only the vertical i s visible on the squeezes. Line 45, stoichos 31: A s c r i p s i ; A cett. Only the top angle is visible on the squeezes. 2 stoichos 32: I I.G., I , 66b, Meritt; I cett. There is no trace of any letter on the squeezes. A 2 8 Line 46, stoichos 28: A scripsi ; A I.G., I , 66b, Mattingly ; A Meritt; T cett. A l l that remains is the apex. The context does not rule out delta or gamma. stoichos 29: ~~ scr i p s i . Meritt reports that Pittakys read additional letters on this and on following lines, but that these are to be attributed to blemishes on the stone. No other editor mentions them, or prints anything in this stoichos. McGregor, however, reports a horizontal chisel cut in the upper l e f t of the stoichos, from the stone, and on the squeezes I see the same chisel cut quite clearly. It is not clear of what letter i t forms a part. 8. B.S.A., LXV (1970), p. 129. Fragment 3 Bibliography: Richard Pococke, Inscriptionum Antiquarum Graec(arum) et Latin(arum) Liber, p. 52, no. 42; Hugh James Rose, Inscriptiones Graecae Velnstissimae, p. 252 and p i . x x x i i ; F r i e d e r i c h Osann, Sylloge Inscriptionum Antiquarum Graecarum et Latinarum, pp. 11-14, no. I l l ; August Boeckh, Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum, I, no. 75 with Addenda, p. 896; I.G., I, 38e, where readings by Mueller are used; E. L. Hicks, The C o l l e c t i o n of Greek In s c r i p t i o n s i n the B r i t i s h Museum, I, A t t i k a , 2 no. VI; I.G., I, suppl., p. 13, no. 38a; J_.G., I , 66a; H. T. Wade-Gery, B.S.A., XXXIII (1§33) p. 122, n. 1; B. D. M e r i t t , D.A.T., p. 47; A.T.L., I, D7; B. H. H i l l and B. D. M e r i t t , Hesperia, XIII (1944), pp. 7-8; A.T.L., I I , D7. Photographs: B. D. M e r i t t , D.A.T., p. 48; A.T.L., I, p. 122. The fragment was found on the A c r o p o l i s . According to M e r i t t , the stone i s 0.493 metres high, 0.215 metres wide, and 0.148 metres thi c k . "The thickness alone i s o r i g i n a l , and shows the reverse face dressed smooth, and uninscribed. The l e f t edge has also been dressed smooth, presumably by the same modern workman who squared o f f the top (and possibly also the bottom) with a view to making a shapely piece of marble out of a broken fragment." The r i g h t edge i s preserved, not the l e f t : a l l restorations before that of M e r i t t have the l e f t margin i n t a c t , and occasionally p r i n t extra l e t t e r s beyond the r i g h t margin. There i s an uninscribed area 0.115 metres high below the l a s t l i n e ; t h i s fragment then contains the concluding l i n e s of the decree. However, the measurements of both t h i s uninscribed area and the t o t a l height of the fragment are n e c e s s a r i l y approximate, since i t has been set i n a socle of unknown depth i n the British Museum. FIGURE THREE FRAGMENT THREE 18 5 7 6 0 6 5 7 0 7 5 2 7 B 0 0 £ A T E I A E E T I 0 £ E e A i A S T 0 A I T 0 2 T E N A I 0 K A E E £ A N A I K A T $ 0 P P 0 B II E P E £ h 2 7 3 0 A E N 0 I A r p A 1 X £ £ T 0 0 £ $ T 0 K A £ n A E M 0 0 E A E r N I E £ E £ r o N 0 I £ E £ M O K A 0 A E I- T E A I P 3 0 3 5 T E N E E T E N <X> A T A A I T 0 M n 0 A A £ K 0 0 I N 0 0 A E £ E E X £ A E T 0 P A <£> E A N A E h E B 0 T 0 N A T O M ® E N Y £ 1 T 0 n Y £ A £ •I h Y £ E £ E 0 3 5 4 0 Z I • A D A I 0 <E> E • I A E M ' E 0 N A £ A A n N T E £-K A I T E N A N I h o r p N E N A T I £ A A E B 0 E h 0 I 0 P 0 N E 0 £ E E P Y £ A N E X T E P A £ X P E 4 0 Line 57, stoichos 2 7 stoichos 30 stoichos 31 stoichos 37 stoichos 38 1 9 Boeckh. £ Pococke; A cett. I Pococke; N cett. I Pococke; 2 cett. I scripsi; I nonnulli. Only the lower tip of the iota is vi s i b l e . Line 59, stoichos 40: E s c r i p s i ; E nonnulli. A l l that can be seen is the angle made by the vertical and the lowest horizontal, which appears to t i l t upwards slightly. Line 60, stoichos 2 7: N Boeckh; I cett. Line 61, stoichos 40: A Mueller in I.G., I, 38e; A cett. stoichos 41: A Mueller in I.G., I, 38e, Boeckh; M I.G., I , 66a. This stoichos was uninscribed, since the margin i s at stoichos 40. Line 64, stoichoi 27, 28: AE. Pococke, Rose, I.G., I, 38e, Boeckh; A £ cett. Line 65, stoichos 38: M Rose; N cett. Line 66, stoichos 38: 0 Rose; 0 cett. stoichos 39: A Pococke, Rose; p cett. Line 72, stoichos 27: £ Mueller; Rose; g cett. 2 stoichos 41: A Boeckh, I.G., I, 38e, I.G., I , 66a. There is not, and cannot be, any letter in this space. Line 74, stoichos 27: P Meritt, H i l l and Meritt; p cett. stoichos 40: X bmnes3 (Pocockio excepto). 2 Line 75, stoichos 41: I 1 J 66a. There can be no letter in this stoichos. 20 Fragment 4 Bibliography: E.M. 13044; Gorham P. Stevens, Hesperia, Suppl. I l l , p. 78, f i g . 59; E. P. Blegen, A.J.A., XLIII (1939), p. 132; M. N. Tod, J.H.S., LXII (1942), p. 58; B. H. H i l l and B. D. M e r i t t , Hesperia, XIII (1944), pp. 1-4; J . and L. Robert, R.E.G.', LVII (1944), pp. 186-187; Stephen B. Luce, A.J.A., XLVIII (1944), p. 285; M. N. Tod, J.H.S., LXV (1945), p. 67; A.T.L., I I , D7. Photographs: B. H. H i l l and B. D. M e r i t t , Hesperia, XIII (1944), p. 5; Gorham P. Stevens, Hesperia, Suppl. I l l , p. 78, f i g . 59; A.T.L., II , p i . I I . This fragment was found i n 1938 by Gorham P. Stevens i n the south jamb of the east door of the Parthenon; i t was f i r s t published by H i l l and M e r i t t , who give a complete d e s c r i p t i o n of i t s use i n the Parthenon. The stone i s 0.82 metres high, 0.20 metres wide, and 0.148 metres t h i c k . "The thickness i s the only original-.dimension f u l l y preserved, and i t corresponds exactly with the f u l l y preserved o r i g i n a l thickness of D7, fragment 3.. . . I t i s c l e a r l y for i t s use... in the Parthenon that the block was cut to i t s present form and dimensions. I t s r i g h t side and lower end were very roughly c h i s e l e d and i n the rear h a l f of the l e f t side was cut a rabbett 0.015 metres deep and 0.083 metres wide. This was cut with some p r e c i s i o n , though the f i n i s h i s d i s t i n c t l y i n f e r i o r to the band of o r i g i n a l surface 9 (0.065 metres w i d e ) l e f t i n t a c t . " The stone i s preserved at the top and on the l e f t side, and broken at the bottom and on the r i g h t side. 9. Hesperia, XIII (1944), p. 1. The discovery of this fragment made necessary a complete revision of a l l restorations, which previously had been made on the assumption that on the upper l e f t corner of the stone was another uninscribed square. Thus Meritt calculated that the inscription was stoichedon 23 to line 14, and stoichedon 57 thereafter. This fragment shows that in fact the inscription i s stoichedon 23 to line 14, and stoichedon 40 thereafter. FIGURE FOUR ., . 22 FRAGMENT FOUR 5 10 1 e. E 0 I E A 0 X £ E N T E I B 0 M 0 i 0 I N E I £ E n P A I A z E r P A M M A T E 5 E n E z T A T E K A E N I 0 A E N K A I T 0 £ A P X . 1 n 0 A E £ -I K A • I T 0 £ II i M E A' E £ e A I h 0 n r E T A I h 0 0 P 0 £ K 10 E K A £ T 0 T i\ K A I A n A 2 E X £ Y M B 0 A A A E II P 0 Z T A £ n 0 A E £ h 0 E I A A I K E N T 0 I Z A 0 P 0 N r "D j. A 0> £ A £ A A • 15 r P A M M A T E I 0 N T 0 N A M E N E T 0 I £ Y M B • n A r 0 N T A £ A n 0 A 0 N A r N 0 N A I h 0 T A M Y T A N E £ M E T A A I 0 20 z h E A A E N 0 T A M I A E 0 N T A £ A II 0 A 0 £ A z A Z X 0 P I £ h 0 £ A I N 0 Z A N A P A Z T E T T I r p A £ 0 M E N 0 £ T 25 T E z 0 N T A £ T 0 M M FIGURE FOUR 23 FRAGMENT FOUR (CONT'D) 5 10 26 0 M E N A Y 0 11 A E N E P I E P 0 £ T A X E I A I E n I e P A I K E Z E B 0 A E N K A I E Z T 0 30 A E Y E z 8 A I n E P I E I E A N A E T i Z A e N 0 0 P 0 N h 0 N A E i 0 N T 0 I A n A r o P A <£> E £ e A i n P 0 z 35 I 0 N K A i T 0 N x z E Z T E M B 0 A E N Y N E e 0 A 0 p K A T A r N 0 I h <E> E P E T 0 E z T 40 N r N 0 M A z n 0 0 M n A e E N E A N T E Z B 0 0 z E I K A T A Y T 0 K • 0 5 10 Line 2, stoichos 13: A H i l l and Meritt; A cett. I see no trace of the lambda. The squeezes, however, are rather faint, especially at the edges where the stone is worn, and the photographs are no more clear. Line 3, stoichos 13: Y omnes. Line 25, stoichos 13: E .omnes. Line 26, stoichos 13: II omnes. • ______ Line 2 7, stoichos 13: £ omnes. Line 30, stoichos 13: T omnes. Of the letters reported by a l l other editors for these five lines, I see no trace on the squeezes or photographs. See above on line 2. Line 14, stoichos 13: A s c r i p s i ; A cett. Only the top of the le: leg is visible on the squeezes; See above on line 2. Line 16, stoichos 13: B scripsi; B. cett. Only the vertical and the beginning of the top of the f i r s t curve are v i s i b l e . Line 33, stoichos 12: £ omnes. Line 37, stoichos 10: 0 omnes. The O r i g i n a l Stele From a close examination of fragment 4, H i l l and M e r i t t made the following reconstruction of the o r i g i n a l s t e l e . "The north side of t h i s Parthenon doorway i s less w e l l preserved, but enough remains to show that repairs were effected there i n ju s t the same manner as on the south, with a block l i k e the one here under discussion i n width and thickness, though only 0.755 metres long....It i s quite probable that t h i s block (now lo s t ) came from the lower l e f t side of the same s t e l e ; [and] that i t s southern end...was the o r i g i n a l bottom.... "These observations lead to some speculation about the t o t a l height of the i n s c r i p t i o n , for i f they are corre c t the t o t a l height cannot have been less than 1.575 m. (0.82 m. plus 0.755i->ml). With some allowance for cu t t i n g one might estimate a minimum of 1.60 m. This i s s u f f i c i e n t for at least 81 l i n e s , more probably for 82 or 83. I t must be noted, however, that the lower portion of the B r i t i s h Museum fragment (D7, f r a g . 3) i s uninscribed. We do not know whether the o r i g i n a l base of t h i s fragment i s preserved, but i n any case we may assign to t h i s piece a p o s i t i o n so high i n the stone that only four l i n e s intervene between the l a s t l e t t e r s of D7, frag. 2 and the f i r s t l i n e of D7, frag. 3. These stones cannot be moved closer together. Inasmuch as D7, f r a g . 2 i s t i e d to the new piece from the Akropolis by i t s r e s t o r a t i o n , an absolute minimum of 71 l i n e s i s determined for the i n s c r i p t i o n . " I f one adds to these 71 l i n e s an a d d i t i o n a l f i v e l i n e s to represent the bottom part of the B r i t i s h Museum fragment which i s s t i l l v i s i b l y uninscribed, a minimum t h e o r e t i c a l height i n li n e s for the original stele may be determined as 76. This figure comes so near to the height in lines of 82 or 83 which was suggested by adding the lost fragment from the north jamb of the Parthenon door to the preserved fragment from the south jamb, that we believe that disposition substantially correct. Translated into terms of textual reconstruction this means that we assume a lacuna of about ten lines between the upper and lower halves of the inscription."''"^ 10. Ibid., pp. 2-4. 27 CHAPTER THREE THE CUTTING OF THE STONE The Letter-forms The following table of letter-forms extant in this document gives the largest and smallest sizes, as well as the various shapes of each letter. To each letter-form a number has been given; this refers to the number assigned to that form in the table of letter-formsccompiled by Walbank from securely dated documents.1 Variants within each form are designated a, b, c. These variants do not affect the dating of the document, but w i l l be useful in characterising the mason. When a form does not f i t Walbank's table, I have employed the designation v(ariant). To produce the drawings, I made a rubbing of each occurrence of each letter on the squeezes, selected the most characteristic forms of the letter, and checked these for accuracy against the squeeze, particularly in the case of letters significant for dating. These tracings I then transferred to the final table. While studying the letter-forms, I counted the number of occur-rences of each form. This, however, seemed to give the false impression that the forms are always separate and distinct, whereas in fact i t i s often almost impossible to distinguish between forms. Where a variation seemed significant, therefore, I have given a ratio, based on rough st a t i s t i c s , of how often a given form occurs, in pro-portion to other forms of the same letter, and have given actual 10. M. B. Walbank, Athenian Proxenies, p. 74. 28 s t a t i s t i c s only where these seemed necessary and j u s t i f i e d . In the descriptions, the term "well-cut" means that joins are neatly made, curves are smooth, strokes are true, v e r t i c a l s are ver-t i c a l , and horizontals h o r i z o n t a l . I have taken i t into account that i n some l e t t e r s , for example, nu and p i , v e r t i c a l s at s l i g h t l y less than an angle of 90° may be so cut d e l i b e r a t e l y , and i n epsilon and lambda the s l i g h t t i l t i n g of horizontals may also be d e l i b e r a t e . The o v e r a l l e f f e c t should be balanced and, where appropriate, symmetri-c a l . The term "well-cut" does not r e f e r to whether or not a l e t t e r i s i n proportion to other l e t t e r s i n the same area. I I have noted the chronological s i g n i f i c a n c e of each letter-form or combination of forms, using Walbank's "Letter Shapes Found i n Dated Fifth-century I n s c r i p t i o n s , " and "Chart Depicting the Appearance 2 or Disappearance of Key Shapes," and also McGregor's note-book, which includes undated documents. I have summarized the evidence at the end of the chapter. 2. Walbank, pp. 75, 85. FIGURE FIVE LETTER-FORMS IN THE DECREE OF KLEINIAS FIGURE FIVE LETTER-FORMS IN THE DECREE OF KLEINIAS (CONT'D) FIGURE FIVE LETTER-FORMS IN THE DECREE OF KLEINIAS (CONT'D) 31 S L l a lb P P S,6 L,6 S,8 L,8 < < S L 7 8 9 v S ,2 L , l v v S L 4 5 6 7 S,4 L,5 5 S L L 32 Alpha: 3, 4, 5 (4, 5) 3 Alpha 5 occurs only twice before 445 in securely dated documents. The exceptions are in 446. Neither the combination of forms, nor the variety, has any sig-nificance for dating. The combinations alpha 3 and alpha 4, and alpha 4 and alpha 5, are very common. The combination alpha 3, alpha 4, and alpha 5 is found in only two dated inscriptions, in 440 and 406; and a combination of three or more forms of alpha occurs in only five inscriptions. In the decree of Kleinias, alpha 4 occurs about twice as often as alpha 5, and four times as often as alpha 3. A l l three forms occur about twice as often small as large, and about four times as often well-cut as not. The worst cut letter in the inscription, however, is an alpha. Very few are cut ^n proportion to the letters nearby. The use of two or more cuts is often evident on both large and small letters of a l l types. Beta: 3a, 3b Before 445, beta 3 is found possibly twice, in 451 and 446. After 445 beta 3 is found in almost every inscription. Out of ten examples of the letter, the type beta 3b is found only twice. There is not much variation in height for this letter, but considerable variation in width. The letter is well-cut only once. 3. The numbers in parentheses are those assigned to the letter-shapes by McGregor in a note-book compiled in 1967-1968. I include them only when I disagree. Gamma: 1, la, 2 The letter-forms have no significance for dating. Gamma 2 occurs only once. Gamma la is found almost as often as gamma 1, and may be the result of a slip of the chisel. The letter is usually small and well-cut. Two chisel cuts are rarely evident. Delta: 1, 2 (1) The letter-forms have no significance for dating. Delta 2 occurs only a l i t t l e oftener than delta 1. The letter i s normally small, and frequently badly cut. For example, one line may curve at the end, in order to meet the end of another; or the whole letter may be lopsided, with the horizontal and one leg longer than the other; or the horizontal may t i l t . The very small deltas are often, but not always, above the line. Epsilon: 4, 5, two unclassifiable variants (4) Epsilon 5 does not occur before 435 in securely dated documents. There are three possible exceptions in undated documents. Epsilon does not occur in combination very often, but, of the combinations, epsilon 4 and epsilon 5 i s the most common. Epsilon 4 occurs more than three times as often as epsilon 5. Epsilon 4 is rather more often large than small, about 4:3, and about as often badly cut as well cut. Epsilon 5 is about twice as often large as small, and is badly cut in only about half the large versions There are about a dozen variants. In the badly cut letters, there are two types of error discernibl In one, the three horizontal strokes were apparently cut f i r s t , then the vertical was made with two cuts, one joining the f i r s t and second horizontals, and one joining the second and third. The result i s that 34 the vertical appears curved. In the other type, the vertical has been cut f i r s t , and the mason has miscalculated where the horizontals ought to begin, so that they do not join the vertical neatly. Zeta: 1 The letter-form has no significance for dating. Daseia: 1,2 (1) The letter-form has no significance for dating. Daseia 2 occurs only twice, once small and once large. The letter is usually small and well-cut. It occurs badly cut only once, when apparently the verticals were made in two strokes each, f i r s t down to the crossbar, then to the line, with the result that they appear curved. Theta: 4 The letter-form has no significance for dating. The letter i s usually somewhat irregular in shape, although i t is never badly cut, and the centre dot is neat and well placed. Iota: An exceptionally large iota, extending well below the line, i s found in fragment 4, line 13. This may well be the result of a s l i p of the chisel, since i t occurs nowhere else in this inscription. Kappa: 2 The letter-form has no significance for dating. The letter is usually small. The vertical often appears curved, probably because i t was cut with two strokes. There are two large kappas. Lambda: 4, 5 Lambda 5 does not usually occur before 425, but Walbank notes 35 exceptions in 447, 431, and 428. However, I cannot find the exception from 447 in the chart of "Letter Shapes Found in Dated Fifth-century Inscriptions." Variation in lambda is f a i r l y common, although the combination of lambda 4 and lambda 5 occurs in only a third of the inscriptions with variation inllambda after 425. On lambda 5, Raubitschek reports, VLambda with i t s shorter stroke 2 almost horizontally engraved occurs in I.G., I , 19, 20, 529, and on the Koroneia epigram." I , 19, 20 is the treaty with Egesta, which is dated by Meiggs and Lewis to 458/7"*, but by Mattingly to 418/7.^ The Koroneia epigram is dated by Bradeen to the mid-7 8 2 century , but by Mattingly to the 420s. The reference to I.G., I , 529 is unclear, since this inscription i s undated but has Ionic x i and is probably late. Of the inscriptions studied by McGregor, the ear-2 l i e s t with lambda 5 is I.G., I , 73, from the late 430s or 420s. Before that of the inscriptions described as having f l a t t i s h lambda 4, 2 the earliest is I_.G., I , 53, from the late 430s. This letter-form then tends to be late, although there are some early examples. There are about twice as many examples of lambda 5 as of lambda 4. Of the examples of lambda 4, only four at most have an angle at a l l pronounced. The letter is usually small and well-cut, although 4. A.J.P., LXI (1940), p. 478. 5. Greek Historical Inscriptions, pp. 81-82. 6. Historia, XII (1963), pp. 267-268. 7. C.Q., XIX (1969), pp. 145-159. 8. Historia, XII (1963), pp. 261-2. 36 the horizontal does not always join the vertical neatly. Mu: 1, 2 (2) Mu 1 occurs only twice before 445 in securely dated inscriptions, in the Salamis decree, which is certainly very early, and again in 447. In other inscriptions i t issnever very common; i t does not, then, have any significance for dating. Most examples are mu 2, small. The letter is cut badly about half the time. Mu 1 occurs definitely once, and four times the centre is cut to a level with one of the outside strokes. The other stroke is longer, perhaps because of a sl i p of the chisel. I do not think i t is a definite style, because the mason evidently had d i f f i c u l t y with this letter, which he normally did not cut in this way, and because there is evidence elsewhere for slipping of the chisel. There is a tendency for this letter to be lopsided. Nu: 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 (9, 7, 6, 4) The statistics alone speak for the f u t i l i t y of trying to date a document by the forms of nu. In securely dated documents, nu 3 occurs only once after 445, in 440. Nu 6 does not occur before 445 or after 435. Nu 8 does not occur before 445, except once in 460. Nu 9 does not occur before 445, except once in 460. Nu 10 probably does not occur more than once after 435; i t may occur in 425, and again in 408. A l l these have further probable exceptions in undated documents. In addition, i t is often very d i f f i c u l t to decide between two different forms of nu. There are examples of each form in the docu-ment, but the number of variants, and theunumber of badly cut examples, imply that this letter was d i f f i c u l t to cut. Moreover, the verticals are often only just off the vertical, which makes i t d i f f i c u l t to distinguish between nu 7 and nu 10, and nu 6 and nu 8. Both nu 7 and nu 10 occur about fifteen times each. These two forms prevail. Nu 4 has two clear examples, and nu 9 a few more; together, there are about a dozen examples of nu 4 and nu 9. Nu 3 has three clear examples, nu 6 has four, and nu 8 has seven. Variation in nu is no more helpful than the forms of nu. In securely dated documents, the occurrence of more than two forms of nu in one inscription-'cappears to be an early phenomenon, although there are examples found up un t i l 418. In documents that are not securely dated, however, the majority of those showing variation are found probably after 434, down to 409. This letter i s often badly cut, with the use of two or more cuts often evident. The incompetence of the mason, then, rather than the date when the stone was cut, accounts for the great variety. Some of the smaller examples of this letter are cut above the line. The letter is about as often large as small. Omicron: 1 The letter-form has no significance for dating. The size of the letter varies in proportion to the size of the surrounding letters. The letter is often well cut, and never very badly cut. P i : la, lb The letter-form has no significance for dating. There are about twice as many examples of lb as of l a . The form la occurs as often small as large; and lb occurs twice as often small as large. Rho: 6, 8 The letter-form has no significance for dating. Rho 8 occurs about twice as often as rho 6. There are approxi-mately the same number of large letters as small for each type. The curves are usually well made and smooth, but do not always join the vertical neatly, and are sometimes out of proportion to the size of the ver t i c a l . Raubitschek reports, as an early feature, "the rho, which closes against the upright at an acute angle about two-thirds of the way 9 down towards the bottom." In reply to this Meiggs notes, "Similar 2 rhos can be found in S_.E.G., X, 81 (Equals I_.G., I , 68/9), very probably to be dated in 424/3."''"^  It should also be pointed out that a rho such as Raubitschek describes occurs perhaps three times, out of at least thirty-five examples of the letter. Sigma: 7, 8, 9, one variant (8, 9) Sigma 7 occurs only once before 445, in 452. Sigma 8 occurs only once before 445, in 460. Sigma 9 does not occur before 445; there are no exceptions in securely dated documents. After 445, these forms, especially sigma 7, become the prevailing forms immediately. Three forms of sigma in one inscription are never very common, but examples are found throughout the second half of the f i f t h century. The amount of variety seems to be another indication of the lack of s k i l l of the mason. Raubitschek says that "to determine an upper limit [for this 9. A.J.P., LXI (1940), p. 478. 10. J.H.S., LXXXVI (1966), p. 97. i n s c r i p t i o n ] , we may p o i n t out t h a t on ly few p u b l i c i n s c r i p t i o n s (engraved i n A t t i c s c r i p t ) of the p e r i o d be fo re 449 B.C. con ta in examples of four bar sigma, and i n these i t appears almost e x c l u s i v e l y 11 i n the h e a d i n g . " There are about the same number of examples of sigma 8 as of sigma 9. I n each fo rm, there areaabout tw ice as many smal l examples as l a r g e . Sigma 7 occurs tw ice d e f i n i t e l y , a l though i t may be s imply sigma 9, badly c u t . There are four examples of the v a r i a n t , which may be sigma 8, w i t h a s l i p of the c h i s e l account ing f o r the l eng th of the bot tom s t r o k e . Tau: 1 , 2 (1) The l e t t e r - f o r m has no s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r d a t i n g . Tau occurs only r a r e l y . The l e t t e r i s cut badly more than h a l f the t ime . The most f r e -quent e r r o r i s the c u t t i n g of the h o r i z o n t a l o f f - c e n t r e , sometimes s loped. Three t imes the h o r i z o n t a l crosses the v e r t i c a l below the t o p , and tw ice the h o r i z o n t a l has been made i n two sec t ions on e i t h e r s ide o f the v e r t i c a l , w i t h the r e s u l t t h a t i t looks curved. U p s i l o n : 4 , 5, 6, 7 (4 , 6, 7) U p s i l o n 4 does n o t occur a f t e r 430, except once i n 414. U p s i l o n 5 occurs on ly tw ice a f t e r 430, i n 419 and 417. Ups i l on 5 i s merely the m i r r o r image of u p s i l o n 6, which occurs u n t i l 425, then tw ice more i n 413 and 412. These conc lus ions are borne out by the evidence from undated i n s c r i p t i o n s . V a r i e t y i n u p s i l o n combining some curved form of the l e t t e r w i t h 1 1 . A . J . P . , LXI (1940), p. 479. some s t r a i g h t form i s quite common. Great v a r i e t y i n upsilon such as i s found i n t h i s i n s c r i p t i o n i s not p a r t i c u l a r l y common, and i s found almost e x c l u s i v e l y a f t e r 450, and before 433. Raubitschek gives as an example of early letter-forms i n t h i s 12'i i n s c r i p t i o n u p s i l o n 4. Meiggs says, "Upsilon with curving strokes continues through the t h i r t i e s but i s extremely rare a f t e r 430. The only examples I have found are in Parthenon inventories of 414/3 . 2 and 411/0 (I^G., I , 272 and 253).. . . U n t i l an upsilo n with curving strokes i s found i n an i n s c r i p t i o n securely dated i n the twenties i t i s reasonable to i n s i s t on a date before 430 for the C l e i n i a s decree." 1^ Upsilon 4 occurs i n f i v e clear examples, u p s i l o n 5 and upsilon 6 i n f i v e , and up s i l o n 7 i n only one. P h i : 4, 5 (4) Phi 5 does not occur before 445 i n securely dated i n s c r i p t i o n s . This conclusion i s confirmed by the evidence of undated i n s c r i p t i o n s . There are about an equal number of examples of each type, about h a l f of which, i n each case, are badly cut. There are two types of error. In the f i r s t , the oval i s cut asymmetrically, and i s o f f -centre on the v e r t i c a l . In the other, the two halves of the oval have been cut separately, and do not j o i n the v e r t i c a l at the same points. Chi: 2 The letter-form has no s i g n i f i c a n c e for dating. 12. A.J.P., LXI (1940), p. 479. 13. J.H.S., LXXXVI (1966), p. 97, and n. 43. The l e t t e r has a tendency to be wide and s l i g h t l y l o p s i d e d . The t a l l , t h i n c h i i s unusua l . The summary of l e t t e r - f o r m s , as they are s i g n i f i c a n t f o r d a t i n g , i s as f o l l o w s . Not common be fo re 445: . A l p h a 5.r Excep t ions : 446, tw ice Beta 3 4 5 1 , 446 Sigma 7 452 Sigma 8 460 Sigma 9 none Ph i 5 none Not common be fo re 435: Eps i l on 5 Excep t ions : t h r e e , i n undated documents Not common be fo re 425: Lambda 5 Except ions : 431 , 428, and p o s s i b l y two more Not common a f t e r 430: U p s i l o n 5 Except ions : 419, 417 U p s i l o n 4 414 Not common a f t e r 425: U p s i l o n 6 Excep t ions : 413, 412 I n a d d i t i o n , v a r i e t y i n u p s i l o n i s no t normal ly found a f t e r 433. The problem then i s t h a t i n t h i s i n s c r i p t i o n are found forms t h a t are e a r l y , f o r example u p s i l o n , combined w i t h forms t h a t are l a t e , f o r example e p s i l o n and lambda. I f i t i s accepted as a genera l r u l e t h a t e a r l y forms may be found l a t e , f o r example, i n i n s c r i p t i o n s made by inexper ienced s t o n e - c u t t e r s who are s t i l l i m i t a t i n g forms cu t by the masons from whom they learned and have no t y e t developed a d e f i n i t e s t y l e o f t h e i r own, bu t t h a t l a t e forms are less o f t e n found e a r l y , s ince once a d e f i n i t e s t y l e has been adopted by a mason 42 14 he rarely changed i t to accommdate a new letter-form, t then the best period in which to place this inscription according to the evidence of the letter-forms is in the 430s. Another method of dating based on the cutting of thesstone has been suggested by Meiggs, who says, "The disposition of the letters over the space is unlike the style of the twenties but can be paralleled in the forties."''""' This statement assumes consistent spacing of the letters in the inscription. Since, however, the letters vary so much in size, both height and width, and in style, and since some letters, for example mu, nu, and delta, are sometimes on the line, sometimes above i t , such consistency i s impossible. Thus fragment 3, line 76 is crowded as are most of the lines towards the end of this fragment, whereas in fragment 1, line 15, and in the top of fragment 2, line 34, the letters are smaller and therefore further apart. No conclusion for the date of this inscription can be drawn from the disposition of the letters over the space. The Mason The above conclusion i s based in part on the assumption that this inscription was cut by an inexperienced cutter, and also that i t was cut by only one mason. That the second assumption is correct is clear. The two most striking elements in the cutting of this inscription are the variation in the size of the letters, and the forms used. As to the letter 14. Stephen Tracy, G.R.B.S., XI (1970), pp. 321-333. 15. H.S.C.P., LXVII (1963), p. 22. 43 sizes, although the division between large and small letters i s easy to see on fragment 3, line 69, where small lettering stops, the same distinction is impossible to see on fragment 4, where the letters of lines 2 and 3 and lines 14 and 15. are definitely large, but the letters of lines 4 and 5 are not, and the letters of lines 11 and 16 are definitely small. No distinction then between one mason and another can be made on the basis of letter-size, and the dividing line on fragment 3 must be attributed to the end of one day's work and the beginning of the next. Nor can a line be drawn on the basis of letter-forms or competence in cutting. To ill u s t r a t e this, I have shown on a chart the distribution of epsilon 4 and epsilon 5 on frag-ment 4, lines 1-28, and in addition have marked on this chart the letters that are exceptionally badly cut. It i s clear from the inter-mingling of these elements that the stone was cut by one mason. That the mason was inexperienced cannot be so clearly shown, but there i s sufficient evidence of incompetence and indecision over what form to use to make i t at least very likely that this is the right conclusion. The amount of variety in the inscription i s the strongest argument for an inexperienced mason. Inscriptions showing three or more forms of a letter, for more than one letter, are quite uncommon. In the 16 inscriptions studied by McGregor , there are only ten. In the chart of securely dated documents given by Walbank, there are eleven. Although these tend to be before 435, there are not enough to use for purposes of dating. Rather, the small number seems to indicate 16. See above, note 3. FIGURE SIX FRAGMENT 4: INTERMINGLING OF ELEMENTS poorly cut letters epsilon 4 epsilon 5 10 5 4 10 15 20 25 4 4 P 4 . 5 P P P 4 P P 5 . that with experience a mason dropped some of the variants, which, as I have suggested, may simply have been unsuccessful attempts at other forms. This inscription is very unusual in having four letters with such variation of three or more forms (alpha, nu, sigma, and upsilon). Here then is a very strong indication of a mason who has not yet definitely established a style. A necessary result of this is that i t i s highly unlikely that another inscription cut later by the same mason could be identified as such, since we cannot know which forms of the letters he f i n a l l y decided on. In addition, the number of badly made letters argues for an inexperienced mason. There are a number of places where the chisel seems to have slipped, so that the resulting letter is lopsided. There are also several places where an attempt has been made to correct a letter, for example, in the curving strokes of some deltas. Finally, there are several letters that are simply badly planned and badly executed, of which the most striking example i s on fragment 3, line 70, the f i r s t alpha. The mason has not yet settled on a method of cutting even the simplest of letters. The crossbar of tau, for example, is sometimes made in a single cut, sometimes in two cuts. Some of the straight lines that appear to curve may have been cut by driving the point of a very short chisel along for an indefinite distance, a method that would explain the slipping of the chisel in, for example, iota. It would also explain why i t is impossible to decide what tools the mason used, and thereby to identify other inscriptions cut by him, since, i f he used only straight chisels of the length of the various 46 s t r a i g h t l i n e s , he would have had a very large number indeed. I t seems c l e a r , then, that t h i s i n s c r i p t i o n was cut by an inex-perienced mason, s t i l l using some of the forms he had, perhaps, been taught, but also experimenting with some new forms. CHAPTER FOUR 47 SPELLING AND FORMULAE Spelling In the decrees of the f i f t h century there are various charac-ter i s t i c s that can be used as c r i t e r i a for dating. 1 None of these, unfortunately, appear in the decree of Kleinias, whose spelling can be paralleled throughout the second half of the f i f t h century. In this section, then, I shall simply discuss the types of spelling that, because they vary from document to document, might be considered as indicating some date for an inscription, in order to demonstrate how valid they might be, and how they affect the dating of the decree of Kleinias. The following characteristics of spelling w i l l be discussed: the use of __; for X£ > the use of the daseia to represent rough breathing; and one- and two-syllable dative plural endings of the f i r s t and second declensions. In addition I shall discuss the spelling of the name Kleinias. It is not clear with whom the fin a l responsibility for the spelling of a decree rested. In some decrees i t is evident that the spelling 1. The most recent discussion of the spelling in Attic inscriptions is a thesis by L. L. Threatte, The Phonology of Attic Inscriptions (1970), summarized in H.S.C.P., LXXIV (1970), pp. 344-348. Another discussion is by K. Meisterhans, edited by Eduard Schwyzer, Grammatik  der Attische Inschriften (Berlin, 1900) ; see also W. Lademann, De T i t u l i s Atticis Quaestiones Orthographicae et Grammaticae (1915). 4 8 of some words has been altered; for example, in the Athenian treaty 2 ~ with Leontini, I.G., I , 52, line 16, 2 has been deleted and re-placed by On this occasion, what the mason cut was corrected, but i t is impossible to decide whether normally his own spelling would stand, should i t differ from that of the secretary who normally was responsible for the fi n a l draft of a decree , or i f slight aberrations would be overlooked. Further, even when correction has taken place, the mason may have originally been following his copy rather than his preference. Since on many decrees, including the decree of Kleinias, the spelling is inconsistent, we may well be dealing with a mixture of the stonecutter's and the secretary's spelling, of whom the former may often have been Ionian, the latter always Athenian. Variants and early Ionicisms, then, may not be used as c r i t e r i a for dating. Only i f a document consistently shows a late form, for example £ in place of X2 , may the form be taken as a possible indication of late date. Use of £ for X2 : The decree of Kleinias uses X2 rather than 2 on a l l but one occasion; thus X2 appears in the text in lines 11 and 35, and is restored in lines 8, 30, and 31. The use of 2 for X2 appears once, in line 16, CuyaBoXa • Mattingly has twice attempted to show that this mixture of spellings indicates a 3 transitional period in the 420s. However, the use of both 2 and 2. Aristophanes, Thesmophoriazusae, line 432. 3. Ancient Society and Institutions, p. 198; B.C.H., XCII:II 3 (1968), p. 468. 49 2 X£ appears as early as 460, in I.G., I , 6, and the use of £ for X£ is found in the quota-lists in 454/3, L i s t 1; 446/5, L i s t 9; and 445/4, L i s t 10. Meritt considers that i t was the stonecutter 4 who decided which form should be used in .a given inscription; we cannot, however, be sure. Use of the daseia: Rough breathing is represented by the daseia in unrestored text on a l l but one occasion throughout this decree, for example, in lines 9/10, h jexaaTOV A N D I N L I N E 1 5 > - / J O ' V T I V . Only once can the symbol be shown to have been omitted, in line 39, O T d V . That i t was omitted here is clear because of the certain restoration; moreover, as was pointed out in Chapter 1, while i t is Cr™ impossible to discern from the impressions on the squeeze what letter originally came before the omicron, i t could not possibly have been a daseia. This certain example is important in that i t allows the omission of the daseia i n restoration, for example, in line 71, e A u x i a v . The use of the daseia in this decree and in the decree of Kleonymos, D8, appeared to Woodward to indicate a considerable difference in the dates of the two decrees, since the latter consistently omits the daseia, while the former, in the state of preservation i t was then in, appeared always to use i t ; this observation is no longer valid, however.~* The use of the daseia is not important for the dating of inscriptions. "Though there seems to be a period in the 450s and 440s in which 4. Hesperia, XIV (1945), p. 80. 5. J.H..S., LVIII (1938), p. 108. i t was frequently omitted, there is no discernible pattern of gradually increasing use or disuse."^ Dative Plurals: The masculine dative plurals in this inscription a l l have one-syllable endings, for example, A©evaioi<_ . Such datives are common at a l l times.T There are also two-syllable dative plural endings to be found in some inscriptions, for example, * 2 2 A©£ VCX l'o i a l V in 1 > 349 from 437/6, and. I.G., I , 352 from 434/3. After this date a l l masculine plurals in securely dated inscriptions are of the form to be found in the decree of Kleinias. Feminine dative plural endings of the f i r s t declension are a l l of two syllables in this inscription. Thus there i s Teat in lines 6/7; .[iXiXt'aiGl ] or [y.upi'aiO'l ] in line 37, where the certain restoration makes necessary the longer version with two iotas, rather than either [xiAiacri ] or [ x i x T a i q ] ; and [Spctxii ]ecr [ i ] i n line 37. These examples make the two-syllable restoration he.AA£vOTapt a [ol ] in line 20 virtually certain. These two-syllable endings are, however, of no use for dating. "Our evidence is...that the two syllable ending of the dative plural persists much longer, and more exclusively, than that of the second declension, and then disappears, with great suddenness, round about the year 420."^ KAeviac; : The spelling of the name is of no significance either for identifying the mover of the decree, or for dating the decree. " K A I V I O is the spelling used on the ostraca of the elder Alcibiades (c. 460), and inscriptions on vases of the sixth century provide 6. Walbank, p. 66, n. 31. 7. H.'.T. Wade-Gery, J.H.S., LI (1931), p. 81. s i m i l a r examples; K \ £ V t a < _ and KXeivia<_ are the forms on stone g i n s c r i p t i o n s of the l a t e r f i f t h century." The only other examples of t h i s name i n i n s c r i p t i o n s from the second h a l f of the f i f t h century concern Alk i b i a d e s . In one of them, from about 414, which records the sale of h i s confiscated property, h i s patronymic i s spelled K A e t v T o ; and i n the other, I.G., I 2 , 302, l i n e 39, from 416/5, i t i s p l a u s i b l y restored as K X e i y i o . The s p e l l i n g K X e v t a q , as i n our decree, occurs nowhere else, and could then be either yet a further v a r i a t i o n on the name within the Alkmaionid family, or the name of someone from outside i t . Formulae I t i s tempting, since dating by letter-forms and by s p e l l i n g i s so inconclusive, to use dating by formulae, although the evidence for these i s comparatively quite small. Dating by formulae, however, can surely be v a l i d only i f there are two or more possible formulae, one of which ceases to be used by a c e r t a i n date, at which the use of another begins. I f s i m i l a r phrases appear i n two documents on the same subject, and i f there are no other documents,on the same subject preser v e d , i i n which a d i f f e r e n t phrase i s used, then the s i m i l a r i t y of phrase i n the f i r s t two documents cannot be considered an i n d i c a t i o n that they are to be dated at about the same time. I have selected only f i v e formulae for discussion i n t h i s section, three of them used by Mattingly for dating the decree of K l e i n i a s , and two others that seem to be v a l i d for dating. Other phrases i n 8. L. L. Threatte, H.S.C.P., LXXIV (1970), pp. 344-5. the decree are of l i t t l e help. Where formulae are used, they are so common that they provide no useful termini, as for example the phrase rraOev e aJVroTeTffai ] ( l i n e 41), which appears i n the regulations for M i l e t o s , D l l , from 450/49, and i n the decree of Kleonymos, D8, from 426/5; where, on the other hand, formulae are not used, although appropriate ones are found i n other documents, this may be pure chance, and need not indicate a date before the development of the formulae. Thus, for example, i n the decree of Kleonymos, D8, from 426/5, he naCTaxoOe [v ] i s used to mean 'yearly,' but this i s expressed by K a r a T O V e J v i a u T O V i n the f i n a n c i a l decrees of K a l l i a s , D2, lines 26/7, from 434, and s i m i l a r phrases are used both i n the Methone decrees, D4, l i n e 36, from 426/5, and i n the decree of K l e i n i a s , l i n e s 9/10. For these reasons I have l i m i t e d my discussion of formulae to r e f u t a t i o n of i n v a l i d arguments based on formulae, and suggesting two that seem to me to be p l a u s i b l e . Line 1: Geo I ! In decrees and laws t h i s heading i s found only after 433/2, when two securely dated instances of i t are found, i n 2 I.G., I , 51 and 52, the Athenian t r e a t i e s with Rhegion and Leontinoi. 2 Thereafter i t i s found quite frequently, i n I.G., I , 53 from before 2 , 432; I.G., I , 60 from 427/6; the reassessment decree, A9, from 425/4; I.G., 1 , 84 from 421/0; I.G., I 2 , 94 from 418/7; I.G., I 2 , 101 2 2 from 412/1, I.G., I , 108 from 410/09; I.G., I , 110a from 410/09; 2 2 I.G., I , 120 from 408/7; and I.G., I ,128 from before 428/7. 2 In accounts the heading i s found somewhat e a r l i e r . I.G., I , 376, from sometime after 446/5, i s the e a r l i e s t example; the next i s from 437/6 where i t i s restored i n the accounts of the Propylaia. I t i s also found, restored, i n the accounts of the Propylaia from 434/3, 2 i n I.G., I , 366, and unrestored i n the accounts of the Pronaos, 2 I.G., I , 232, from the same year. I t i s not found again u n t i l 422/1, when i t i s on the stone i n the accounts of the Hekatompedon, 2 2 I.G., I , 264, and of the Parthenon, I.G., I , 280; i t i s not found i n the e a r l i e r accounts of either of these b u i l d i n g s . The heading 2 2 also occurs i n I.G., I , 370 from 421, I_.G., I , 313 from 408/7, and 2 I.G., I , 355a, of uncertain date. The evidence of decrees then shows that the use of the heading i s a phenomenon of the 430s and l a t e r ; b u i l d i n g accounts demonstrate that i t does appear somewhat e a r l i e r i n a s p e c i f i c type of document. Lines 6/7: a p x [ o v r a q e v ] TEG J i nokeoi . Mattingly argues that t h i s phrase, which also appears i n the decree of Klearchos, D14, from 7450-446, may be an i n d i c a t i o n of late date. "In the f i r s t Leonides decree of c. 430 B . C . , the apXOVTec ; ev T a t e ; T T O A E ^ I appear i n the periphrasis ev be T e a t aXXEOl rtOkeoi frotTtvec; A e e v c u o v apxoat e v r e t hwne p o p t ' a t (I.G., I 2 , 56, 5 f f . ) . Perhaps t h i s i n i t s e l f i s a good i n d i c a t i o n that the shorthand des-9 c r i p t i o n was not yet current." The "shorthand d e s c r i p t i o n , " however, 2 never became absolutely standard usage: i n I.G., I , 108, l i n e s 45ff., from 410/09, the phrase used i s T o q apXOVTac , TO<^ AGevatOV hoi av heuadroTe apxocrt T O V crup/p.axov , and a s i m i l a r phrase, T O V a p x o v T a T O V e v £Hia6oi oq av e t e n a c r T O T e , i s found i n I.G., I 2 , 118, l i n e 19, from 409/8. The choice of phrase seems to depend on the whim of the secretary; we have no evidence of e a r l i e r 9. Ancient Society and I n s t i t u t i o n s , p. 205. long d e s c r i p t i o n s g r a d u a l l y be ing rep laced by a sho r te r phrase, and we may on the con t ra ry have evidence t h a t e a r l y "shor thand d e s c r i p t i o n s " i n o f f i c i a l language were g r a d u a l l y rep laced by a g rea te r regard f o r accuracy. L ine 2 2 : hooai [Sv T i v e t . o a i v ] . M a t t i n g l y has accepted t h i s r e s t o r a t i o n as c e r t a i n , and on the bas is of i t has argued t h a t t h i s decree i s t h e r e f o r e to be dated c lose to the decree of Kleonymos, D8, from 426, where the phrase i s found mos t l y , though n o t comple te ly , r e s t o r e d ( l i n e 5 2 ) . "The v a r i a t i o n from normal i d iom, though s l i g h t , i s unmis takeable . I t could be a passing fash ion of the 4 2 0 s . " He adds, "The a d d i t i o n of T I v e <. g ives the phrase a d i s t i n c t i v e f l a v o u r - -an almost persona l t r i c k o f s t y l e . " ^ He has f a i l e d t o show, however, what the normal i d iom is; and the "persona l t r i c k of s t y l e " i s found both i n Homer and i n . H e r o d o t o s . 1 1 Lines 26-28: T ^ erci Necrov Hat en' t ovt'a <.]... '[kni rac, ecp' E A A e c f T t o v r o n a ] i kn\ ©pott net . : The number of geograph ica l d i s t r i c t s has been used t o date the decree. H i l l and M e r i t t argue, "Inasmuch as one may gather f rom l i n e s 26-28 o f t h i s i n s c r i p t i o n t h a t the date o f i t must be du r ing those years when t h e r e were four a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d i v i s i o n s of the Athenian Empire, i t i s ev iden t t h a t i t must be placed e i t h e r between 450 and 12 446, or a f t e r 4 3 8 . " They g ive a date be fo re 447 f o r the decree. Between 443 and 438 the re were f i v e d i s t r i c t s of the Empire; and there 10. Anc ient Soc ie ty and I n s t i t u t i o n s , p. 203; p. 219, n . 55. 1 1 . See, f o r example, Odyssey, X, 45, and Herodotos, I , 193. 12. Hesper ia , X I I I (1944), p. 8. i s ev idence, i n a fragment of the assessment o f 454/3 mentioned by K r a t e r o s , and preserved by Stephanos o f Byzan t ion , t h a t such a grouping 13 went back to the f i f t i e s . M a t t i n g l y , r e j e c t i n g the e a r l y da te , uses the number of d i s t r i c t s , and the order i n which they are g i v e n , to date t h i s decree, t h a t o f K learchos, D14, and P e r i k l e s ' Congress Decree, D12, t o sometime a f t e r 14 438; the decree of K l e i n i a s he dates to 426. I do no t t h i n k t h a t t h i s c r i t e r i o n , the number and order o f the d i s t r i c t s i n a g iven decree, can be used f o r ass ign ing a date to the decree, s ince the word ing of decrees i s no t c o n s i s t e n t . I n the decrees o f K learchos, D14, and P e r i k l e s , D12, K a r i a , though v i s i t e d by the he ra ld fo r I o n i a , i s a t l e a s t ment ioned; and the decree of Thoudippds, A9, the reassessment decree of 425/4 , when there were c e r t a i n l y four d i s t r i c t s , a lso mentions K a r i a . The q u o t a - l i s t s , on the other hand, do n o t ment ion K a r i a a t a l l by t h i s t i m e . Moreover, the r e s t o r a t i o n of the passage i n the decree of K l e i n i a s i s no t c e r t a i n , 13. . A . T . L . , I I , A l ; see a lso A . T . L . , I , pp. 203-204, and A . T . L . , I l l , p. 9, and comments, pp. 11-12: "These geograph ica l headings do n o t , of course, imply a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d i s t r i c t s ; nor do the geograph ica l d i v i s i o n s i n the l a t e r assessment decrees and quota l i s t s imply a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d i s t r i c t s . There i s no reason, i n f a c t , except t h a t o f o r d e r l y record and bookkeeping convenience, why the geograph ica l d i s t r i c t s should ever have appeared i n the quota l i s t s ; i n the assess-ment decrees they were probably u s e f u l p r i m a r i l y i n d e f i n i n g the rou tes o f the hera lds who announced the assessments." 14. H i s t o r i a , X (1961), pp. 148-188, esp. 166-169. since i t is possible to restore line 26 to include Karia (see Chapter For a detailed refutation of Mattingly's arguments, see Meritt and Wade-Gery, J.H.S., LXXXII (1962), pp. 67-74. Lines 30/31: [ x o- U V £xo<. fieoq Sv 61a/rpaxO ]| e i : T h i s P h r a s e is found in the decree of Thoudippos, A9, from 425/4, and also occurs, though with CUVEXOc; separated from the rest by a qualifying phrase, in the second Methone decree, D4, from 424/3, lines 54-5. These provide the basis for the restoration of the phrase in the decree of Kleinias. A variant, x f . c ? u V e X ^ 1 . hiva T ]a [ x ^ ]e <_ Y[e [jvovrai , is also found in the decree of Thoudippos. The same sentiment i s expressed, by the use of the phrase EO)<_ ctv 2 in the second decree of Kallias, D2, line 7, from 434, and in I.G., I , line 15, from soon after 442/1. These decrees use a specific verb, in place of the all-purpose 6lCt7Tpax©£l . The use of the phrase, then, could go back at least as far as 442. The conclusion of this examination of spelling and formulae i s , then, that the former cannot be used as evidence, while the latter provide two possible bases for dating the decree in or after 442. CHAPTER FIVE THE TEXT: RESTORATION AND COMMENTARY Geo r 'iboxaev r e t 8 o [ A e i nai TO] I 6e%-p , o i , O i v e t c ; knp [ u r a v e ue , Z > r ] o u -61'ac; e y p a p p - a r e | u e , . . . 6 . . ] o v 5 I r r e a T a T e , K X e v t ' [ a ^ e i T r e " r e ]p, B -o X e v n a i r o q a p x f o v r a q e v ] r e a -i r c o A e a i n a i TOC; [ETTICIHO ~]ITOC, e -7tip,e 'Aea '0a i /ZO7T[OC, a v x o ^ u A A e ' -y e r a i /JO cpopoc, n f a r a TO e ] T o q /z-10 e ' n a c r T o v n a i and^yErai ] A O e ' v a -£E- x o ' u p . B o A a 6e TT[O I e 'aa ] a e a t ; r -poc, T a c , 7 t o A e ^ , hofixoc,] a n l ie e x a -e t a S i n e v TOTC; a [ r r a . Y o ] o ' i Top, cp-o p o v Y P a c p a a a a 6 ; [e he] 7TOXIC, ec, 15 YPctnP 'Ci.TeTov TO [ i i '>cpo ] p o v , hovxiv' a v aTTOTrep/rte i , c r e p , E -vap,e 've TOI crup,8 [ 6 x o ] I a7C07tep ,7re 'T0 A e e ' v a ^ E " TOC; 6 e a -T r a y o v T a ^ a r r o f S o v a t ] TO Y P a W a T £ T o v e v T e i B o X e i a -v a y v o v a i / i 0 T a p , [ 7 c e ] p T o p c p o p o v a / r o 6 i 6 o a i ' hoi Se / c p -U T a v e c ; ]iexa A t o [ v u ] c u a E K H X e a T a v TTOIEOCLVTOV TOT-20 c; ^ e X X E v o T a p u a . [ c a a, J T r o S e T x c a i A e e v c u o i c ; T o n t o X -e o v Tac; a7ro6oaa[<5 Top, c p o p o v eJVTEXE n a i rac, s A X i / t o -aac, xopi'c,, / z o o ' a i [ a v . . . . 9 . . . . "A© J e v a i ' o c , 6e fteXop,e'-vocj a v 6 p a ^ Te ' T T [ a p a c , a.7ro/re'p,''TEv e r r i ] r a ^ /ToXecj CCVT-i Ypa.cpo 'op.E'voc, T[OP- cpopov TOV a 7 T o 6 o Q e ' v T a n a ] i a . 7 t a i -25 T e ' a o v T a ^ T o p , p , [ e a v t o d o G e ' v T a r r a p a TOV e X X i T r o o " ]OV, T-0 p,Ev 6uo TXXEY e [rc 23 £7ri ] T -pis'poc; Taxsicx[<., T O 6 E 6 U O W I Ta<_ ecp' &XXeon6vro n a ] -1 E T C I epaiKEcj* e[adyev be r a u r a T O C J T T P U T C X V E C J ec,' Tsp,] B O A E V n a i e . T O [ V 6 E U . O V E U © U < _ ) I ETa A i o v u a i a n a i Bo J -30 AsuEcrGai TTEpi [ T O U T O V X C U V E X O C J heoc, av Sta/rpax©]-E i ' eav 6e' T I C ; A©[Eva7oc_ £ xtfuu-pxtxoc; a 6 i n e i 7CEpi T O ] -v cpopov hov 6 e i |_Tac_ ixoXec, ypacpoaaacj E.<_ Y p a p , p a T E i J -ov TOT<_ andyo[aiv axorre'pxEv kQevale', earo a u t o v Y ] -pacpea© a i Trpoc; [ T O < _ T T P U T O C V E C ; T O I p]oAops'vo[t A © £ v a ] -35 i o v n a i r o v x c [ u p u a x o v * hoi be 7rpuTa]v£<_ e a a _ Y o v T o v ] ec, rep, B O A E V [ T E V ypayev hev r i ] c , ay ypd^aera [ t e evQl-U V E ' O ' G O 6op[ov. . . .8. . . 6 p a x p ] i c f [ i h ]e'Hao"TO<_' [ho 6'av] n a T a Y v o i h[e BoAs, p,s T i p a v auTt]oi n u p i a E O T [ o , aXX' ea] cpspe'ro ec, T [ E V EXtai'av E U 0 U C J * ] o [ r ] a v 6 E S O X C E I [a6iHE~!-40 v, Yvopat. no[ieaQov hoi rrpujTavEc; ho ri av 6 O H [ I I a u r ] -op, rcaQev e a [ 7 r o T £ T a a i * n a i e ]av Ttcj Ttspi T E V a/rafYOYE]-v T E C _ B O O C J E [ T E < _ xavhonXia]^ a 6 i H £ i , rac, ypaya'lc, s v a l -i n a r ' a u r o n [ a i T E V 2.ep,t'av n j a T a TauTa' roc, be [heXXev] o[Tap,tac; avaYPacpaavTac; . _ 7t]ivaHiov X E X [ E U H O P , E ' V ] -45 [ov 2 0 ]v T O cpopo na [ i . . . . 8.. . ] [ 23 ] i euro [ 1 2 ] (c. 1 0 lines lost) [ 24 T E U . ] B O X E V T E V eoi [ o o ] -[av yrspi r o v ctTraYOVTOv Top, cpopov' h)6aoi be r o v d7tafY]-[ O V T O V 21 JaYEYPaV'CiTai ocps'-6 0 [ X O V T E C J 2 0 Ji&sTxo'ai T O I 6EU .-[ 2 2 Eav 6 ] E ' T I C ; rop, T T O A E O V a-[ pep i a Be r e i 7repi TO cpopo rec, arcob J o t r e o c ; , cpaanocra an-[ o 6 e 6 o H e v a i 16 ] 6 a t TO HOIVOV Tec; [TTOAEOC. 20 ]a<_ raq nokec, nat r -65 [ 26 ] 0 a i 6e p,e e x c r e v a i [ 26 ] T O C J o c p e A e r o ho y p -[acpaap,evo<_ 17 ] r e v Se y p a c p e v Iva-[ 1 7tpo<. Top- 7to \ e p , a p x o v p , e v t r a p , e ] A t o v f e a v 6 e TIC, a-[ 26 ]KAe'cre<., /ze BoAe B o -70 [ A e u 2 3 ] e c f a y o v r o v be hot [eaayoyec, rev e A i a t ' a v r e x ; A © e ] v a t o t < . Top, cpopov [ 19 Top, Ttiva ] n a TEC, p,evuaeo<_ e [ 2 1 TO v e o ] cpopo n a t TO n e p u a -[ t v o 12 Tev 6e B o A e v rr J p o p o A e u e c r a c a v e x -75 [ a e v e y n e v 18 ]n£pi Tet huarepa-[ t a t ec_ TOV S e p o v 1 2 T]e<_ ha 1 pe'creoc_ x p e -[u-aTiOai ] vacat. Line 1: Qeoi • For a discussion of the s i g n i f i c a n c e of t h i s heading, see Chapter 4. 6 e o T o ' l v would give a symmetrical arrangement of the l e t t e r s , with one l e t t e r of the invocation f a l l i n g over every t h i r d l e t t e r of l i n e 2. The dative form used as a heading, however, has no p a r a l l e l i n Athenian decrees of the f i f t h century: 6 e o i ' i s the usual form. Symmetry, moreover, i s of no apparent concern i n the cutt i n g of th i s document. For a b r i e f discussion of the meaning and h i s t o r y of such headings see Paul Traywick, H.S.C.P., LXXXIII (1969), pp. 325-328. Line 3: [£rc:]o06 tac; j Mattingly has used the name of the secretary to date this decree. "Timoteles of Acharnai, secretary of Kekropis in 425/4, came from the tribe Oineis. The secretary of Oineis this year was a certain Spoudias, whose demotic is unknown. I think that this dating must now be accepted for the famous decree of Kleinias.... It becomes very tempting to identify this Spoudias with Spoudias Phlyeus, the hellenotamias of 410/09 from Kekropis (I.G., I , 304, A19), though the name is found with other possible tribes in the fourth century (PA 12866 and 12868: SEG XVII, 83).' If I am right, Oineis and Kekropis w i l l have provided secretaries for each other in 425/4. This would of course have been the chance result of the lot. But we find the same phenomenon in 422/1, when Kekropis apparently provided the secretary for Aigeis ((Prepis), and Aigeis for Kekropis (Mnesitheos). Within so short a space of time I again incline to reject coincidence. It looks as though the tribes at the period may have 'paired off' each year before balloting for the f i r s t period began. We have no material for checking the theory properly before 403/2, when i t breaks down."^ Briefly, then, his argument is this: Spoudias is probably from the .tribe Kekropis. He is acting as secretary for the tribe Oineis. We know that in 425/4 Oineis supplied the secretary for Kekropis. If tribes customarily paired off to supply each other with secretaries, as we know happened once, then the decree of Kleinias must be from 425/4. There are two d i f f i c u l t i e s with this argument. F i r s t , we do not have enough evidence to assume such 'pairing off' was customary, nor 1. B.C.H., XCII (1968), p. 485. 61 do we have any statement from any ancient author. Second, the name Spoudias occurs twice in inscriptions from before 440, precisely the period from which Mattingly wishes to remove the decree of Kleinias. 2 One, I.G., I , 853, is an unidentified inscription of early date. 2 The other, I.G., I , 942, is a l i s t of the dead from about 446. Between 446 and 410, when Spoudias Phlyeus appears, the name is found 2 only once, in I.G., I , 949, a casualty l i s t of about 425; however, this Spoudias is from the tribe Oineis, and, according to Ferguson, the tribe of the secretary and the tribe for which he was secretary 2 were never the same. The evidence of the name of the secretary, then, i s inconclusive. Line 5:KXevi [ac, ]. The name of the man who moved this decree has been used to date i t . "[T]he only Kleinias who can be considered orator of the decree is the father of Alkibiades. And inasmuch as he died in 447 the prosopographical argument serves to fix the date s t i l l more precisely in the early forties. Surely the brother and cousin of Alkibiades can be ruled out. Alkibiades himself was born about 450 and his brother Kleinias was younger than he. Consequently he can hardly have attained the necessary thirty years to entitle him to a seat on the Council before 426. Nor is i t probable that 2. W. S. Ferguson, The Athenian Secretaries, Cornell Classical  Studies, VII (1898), p. 19. This conclusion i s based on the evidence of twenty-eight inscriptions over an eighty-year period, in which the two tribes were never the same, and not on any statement by any ancient author that this was law. the cousin belonging to the younger branch of the family should have been sufficiently old to act as councillor at any time when this 3 decree may have been passed." However, the identification i s by no means certain. "Apart from the serious possibility that the mover is otherwise unknown to us, there are s t i l l one or two known bearers of the name...P.A. 8510 is two persons, Alkibiades' father being distinct from the Kleinias of Herodotos VII.17 (P.A. Addenda no. 597). The latter who fought at Artemision in 480 was perhaps born between 520 and 510...; he would be something over 60 in 447, and i t is possible (though not very likely) that the decree is his. He was Alkibiades' great-uncle. It was perhaps the same man whose son was strategos in 431 and 430: i f not the same, then here i s another claimant of the right age and standing. And there is Kleinias the son of Pedieus, named as xaAoc; on vases of the second quarter of the century..., who would perhaps be old enough i f the decree i s of 447, and certainly would be i f i t be of 438 or later. That is to say, Alkibiades' father is not the 4 only Kleinias among the leading Athenians of about this time." In addition, there are a few appearances i n the fourth century of the name Kleinias. In the period 400-350, a Philon son of Kleinias is found.^ In 325, Kleinias the son of Philon of the deme Xypetaion i s diaitetes.^ At the end of the fourth century, another Philon 3. H i l l and Meritt, Hesperia, XIII (1944), p. 9. 4. Wade-Gery, Hesperia, XIV (1945), pp. 216-217, n. 10. 5. P. A., 14814. 6. P.A., 8509. son of Kleinias i s mentioned.' The reference to the deme makes i t clear that this family i s not connected with that of Alkibiades. Here then i s evidence of a p o l i t i c a l l y active family, of which the Kleinias of this decree might have been a member. To judge from the number of possible candidates, therefore, a date cannot be determined solely on the assumption that the mover of the decree is the father of Alkibiades. Line 6: & P X [ o v r a < _ ] . This term refers to the Athenian o f f i c i a l s in each city. In cases where there were no Athenian o f f i c i a l s , local r » ' i o f f i c i a l s might be used, but see below, on I^TK1 CHO'."-,J7COcj. The powers of these local archontes were limited early, for example, in lawsuits 2 involving the citizens of thei states honoured by Athens, by I.G., I , 16 8 2 (dated perhaps to 465) , and possiblysalso by I.G., I , Z9 (from before 446) . When the Coinage decree, D'14, was passed, the local archontes in those cities that did not have Athenian archontes were made responsible for f u l f i l l i n g the measures of that decree. Such citie s were probably to be found in the Athenian Empire at any time; DZ1, from 4Z8/7, for example, shows that there were no Athenian 9 o f f i c i a l s in Therambos. The presence of Athenian archontes in the citi e s need not be considered an indication of a date in the 4Z0s, on the grounds'that 7. P. A., 14815. 8. For a discussion of the date, see Wade-Gery, in Essays in Greek  History, pp. 180-200. 9. See the discussion in A.T.L., I l l , pp. 145-146. 64 10 i t -shows developed imperialism: i U i t i s attested throughout the second half of the f i f t h century. Archontes are found in Miletos, where they may have been appointed specifically for the task at hand.^ 12 Thucydides mentions their presence in Samos in 440. They may have been present there in connexion with the establishment of a new constitution, that i s , again appointed specially for the task at hand. They are f i r s t generally attested in cities of the Empire 13 in the decree of Klearchos, which was probably passed in 449/8. Proxeny-decrees, whose context i s less controversial, give.more 2 evidence. I.G., I , 56, from about 440-35, mentions ftoiftvec; A0evat'ov a p x o o't ev ret ftintepopiai ; ; a similar phrase, [ a p x o v r e c j ev r e i /zu7c]ep[opi'at ], is restored in I.G., I , 177, from about 445-430. After 430, these o f f i c i a l s disappear from proxeny-decrees for a time, and the generals are found looking after the interests of the honorands outside Athens. They reappear in I.G., I , 368, from about 430-415, where they are acting with the generals. 10. This i s the argument of Mattingly, in Ancient Society and Institutions, pp. 204-206. 11. D l l , lines 37, 41, 47, 64. See the discussion of this decree by Oliver, T.A.P.A., LXVI (1935), 177-198, esp. p. 188; see also Bradeen and McGregor, in Studies in F i f t h Century Attic Epigraphy, pp. 24-70. 12. Thucydides.,I, 115. 13. For a summary of the problem of the date of this decree, see Meiggs and Lewis, Greek Historical Inscriptions, pp. 114-117. Other suggestions for a date are after 439. In addition to the evidence from the f i f t h century for the pre-sence of archontes, there are also two later references. Aristotle says that there were "about seven hundred" Athenian state o f f i c i a l s 14 abroad. Archontes are also mentioned in Bekker's Anecdota (A.T.L., II, T44), in the definition of c~ ;e Kko ye T<_ : o i k KM.\Eyov"tE c, r o u _ cpopouq i'va 0 1 apxovTE . AaBcbcJlv. Neither of these references gives any indication of the period to which they belong. The evidence of the decrees and of Thucydides seems to show that throughout the period in which dates for the decree of Kleinias have been suggested, that i s , from 447 to 425, Athenian archontes were found throughout the Empire. r' ' i 15 Line 7: j_E7tt OHO JTXOcj _ These are the "travelling Commissioners" who may have carried out the provisions of this decree in those c i t i e s that did not have Athenian archontes, or have ensured that the local archontes did so. There are only three fifth-century references to these o f f i c i a l s . Two of these are in the regulations for Erythrai,L)D10, from 453/2, where they are acting in conjunction with the phrourarch; in lines 12-16 they are helping to establish a council, after which they w i l l leave. The third reference is i n Aristophanes' Birds (lines 1022-1026), produced in 414, in which an episkopos arrives apparently to help set up the constitution of the new nation. "Aristophanes shows that 14. Aristotle, Ath. Pol., 24, 3; the number has been questioned. But see A.T.L., I l l , p. 146. 15. Meiggs and Lewis, p. 119; see also Oliver, T.A.P.A., LXVI (1935), p. 188. 66 they counted on the support of local Athenian proxenoi, that they were interested in legal and p o l i t i c a l affairs, and that they expected 16 to be treated with deference." There is no reference in either to any connection with the collection of tribute. This suggests that the decree of Kleinias was passed before there were any o f f i c i a l s whose sole duty i t was to see to the collection of tribute, that i s , 17 before the decree of Kleonymos, D8, in 4Z6. Harpokration refers to two ancient authors who use the term 18 episkopoi, Antiphon and Theophrastos. His explanation of the term suggests that they represented tight control over al l i e d affairs by the Athenians; their presence, then, from before 450 indicates 'deve-loped imperialism' by that time. Line 11: XCUP-POAO. ; There is some dispute about the exact s i g n i f i -cance of this word. Lewis maintains that what is meant i s a stick, or coin, or something of that sort, broken in half, of which one half was used by the a l l i e d cities to seal the grammateion, and the other kept at Athens and used to verify the impression when the tribute arrived at Athens. Such an impression would not be as easy to forge as that of an ordinary state-seal; moreover, there is no evidence 19 to show that a l l cit i e s had such seals at this time. Wallace 16. A.T.L., I l l , p. 144. 17. Mattingly gives the decree of Kleinias a date after the decree of Kleonymos; we may have here an indication that this is wrong. 18. A.T.L., II, T14 and T65. 19. Phoenix, IX (1955), pp. 32-34. 67 agrees that the a l l i e s may not, before this decree, have had special seals, but that by i t s provisions Athens made special seals for them, of which impressions were kept for verification. "Why should states clumsily use half coins or stick ends to seal with instead of seal-20 stones which had been in common use for centuries? The wording of this decree, and the one parallel instance of the use of symbola, in which the wording i s exactly the same (I.G., II , 141, line 19, from 367, honouring the king of Sidon), indicate only that what is i n question i s something made specifically for the occasion, not state-seals already in use. Of the suggestions made, i t is impossible to choose, on the basis of the evidence, between seals made especially for the tribute, and broken seals, which would be easier to use than broken sticks, and harder to forge than seals; perhaps specially-made seals of the ordinary type are more lik e l y . The seals were used to seal the tablet on which the amount of tribute was written, not the container i t s e l f , which was quite bulky. 2 For the procedure of verification, see I.G., II , 141, lines 18-25. Lines 16-18. There is some disagreement whether the apodektai played any part in the receiving of tribute along with the hellenotamiai. In support of this view is the testimony of Pollux (VIII, 97 = A.T.L., 21 II, T98a), who specifically says that they did. Rhodes, who feels 20. Phoenix, IX (1955), p. 34. See also his ar t i c l e in Phoenix, III (1949), pp. 70-73. 21. The view that they did play a part is presented in A.T.L., I l l , p. 12. 68 that the apodektai were not involved, comments, "In view of Thucydides' contempt for technicalities and the pre-454 context of the passage this [that the apodektai were not involved] cannot be inferred with certainty from T. I. 96. i i . Pollux indeed would have imperial revenue like domestic paid in the f i r s t instance to the apodectae... .But des-pite the Cleisthenic origin alleged for the apodectae in Andr. 324 F 5 they are not mentioned before 418/17...and i f in the 440s they did exist and receive tribute their absence from M&L 46, 16-22 [the decree 22 2 of Kleinias] i s surprising." In 418/17 they are found in I.G., I , 94, lines 15-18, where they are to give their revenue,whose source is not mentioned, to the treasurers of the Other Gods. In the decree, of Kleinias, the procedure is described virtu a l l y in shorthand: even the hellenotamiai are not mentioned in connection with the actual receiving of the money. It is impossible to decide on the basis of this inscription, then, whether or not the apodektai took part in receiving the al l i e d tribute. Line 22: [av Tivec; o a i v Ae ] H i l l and Meritt, A.T.L., II, D7; [ap, p,£ a7To6o0i* Ae ] a possibility noted but rejected by H i l l and Meritt; [av £AAi7TOcrtv' Ae ] R.G. Thomas, reported in Meiggs and Lewis; [ap,- ... 9. ... " Ae ] Meiggs and Lewis. The restoration made by Thomas is redundant even for o f f i c i a l language, although linew36 of this decree shows that i t is certainly not impossible. H i l l and Meritt reject the second suggestion because i t "does not seem to make allowance for partial payments." "The use of the word 22. P. J. Rhodes,.The Athenian Boule, pp. 98-99, n. 8. [e J v T e A e i n l i n e 21 implies the d i s t i n c t i o n between c i t i e s that paid i n f u l l on the one hand, and c i t i e s whose obligations were not com-23 p l e t e l y met on the other." The r e s t o r a t i o n f i n a l l y accepted by H i l l and Me r i t t does not add much to the meaning of the passage, unless i t be taken as, ' a l l , whether they have paid nothing, or even i f they have paid i n part,' or, ' a l l , whether they have not paid through i n a b i l i t y , through dishonesty on the part of the courier, or through r e c a l c i t r a n c e . ' On t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i t shows sternness and i n f l e x i b i l i t y on the part of the Athenians. Lines 23-24: C X V T | lypacpaopevoq . __ t]-, e giving of re c e i p t s i s a p r o v i s i o n for the year of t h i s decree and for subsequent years also, why are they not given to the bearers of the t r i b u t e , at Athens, to take home with them again? I f t h i s i s a pr o v i s i o n for t h i s year only, then how much of what follows i s a pr o v i s i o n only for t h i s year? Why have r e c e i p t s not been given before? The answer to the f i r s t two questions may be that for th i s year, since some of the tribute-bearers brought the money early and have already l e f t Athens, the receipts w i l l be brought to them, but that for the future they w i l l be given i n Athens, and that t h i s p r o v i s i o n i s the only one that applies only to t h i s year. As to the l a s t , the recording of the payment at Athens may have been considered s u f f i c i e n t before. 23. Hesperia, XIII (1944), p. 12. In support of t h e i r argument i s the use of the word eXklrco | 0'a.c; i n l i n e s 21-22; the same word i s used i n l i n e 18 of the decree of Kleonymos, D8, where i t appears to summarize the longer s p e c i f i c a t i o n of l i n e s 14-15. 69 Line 24: [rov a/toSoGeVra] A.T.L., 1 1 > 07> lx^ax anob6oeoi ] A. G r i f f i n , reported in Meiggs and Lewis. I accept the restoration of G r i f f i n , because i t allows for the giving of receipts both to those who have paid in f u l l , and to those who have paid only in part. Lines 26-28: '£,[ni rd<_ kni Neaov nai en' lovi'ac;]... [erri raq ecp> txkearcovro xa ] i kni 9pai HEC_ .~he restoration given is based on D14, section 9, where the same order occurs, but slightly different wording is used. It is possible, however, to give a different wording, which inc ludes Karia: ETC' lovtav xai Kapiav xa t Neaocj m This restoration receives support from the fact that the phrase e/ti rac, krci Ne'cov is n°t found elsewhere, although the phraseology is by no means fixed. For a discussion of the significance of the number and order of the di s t r i c t s see Chapter 4 and the works referred to there. Lines 30/1: [xcruvexocj heoq av 6tarcpax0]ei '• F o r a discussion of this phrase and the bases of i t s restoration here see Chapter 4« Lines 33/4: [ecro aurov y ] pacpeo'Gat rcpoc; [roc, rcpuravecj ] . For the procedure here described see Aristotle, Ath. Pol., 43, 4. The decree of Kleinias here is making arrangements closely paralleling those i n private law. Oliver, in commenting on the decree concerning Miletos, D10, defines epimeletai as "Athenian o f f i c i a l s who received from a l l i e s charges against those persons who tried to persuade their government 24 not to f u l f i l l the obligations in respect to tribute." This decree 71 was probably passed before that of Kleinias, yet we do not find these o f f i c i a l s handling the indictments. Either therefore they were responsible only for receiving indictments elsewhere than at Athens, or the indictments mentioned in the decree of Kleinias are not against those trying to prevent the collection of tribute, that i s , attempting to persuade c i t i e s to defy Athens, but against those who interfere with the delivery of tribute;va private crime rather than treason, involving defaulting couriers or men stealing from them, for reasons of private gain, not p o l i t i c a l disturbance. In this case, we are not dealing with recalcitrant cities at a l l . Line 37: [xiXi'atai ] Meiggs and Lewis; [pup t'a 10*1 ] ' A«T_.L., II, D7. The amount of the fine to be restored seems only partially dependent on the date to be assigned to this decree. Generally, the larger amount is later, but a fine of ten thousand drachmai is found in a 2 decree from before 450, I.G., I , 16, Athenian relations with Phaselis. The amount of the fine has some significance for the procedure prescribed by the subsequent lines of the decree, and explains why the boule was not made responsible for the f i n a l decision concerning the penalty. "Since each of the prytanes could be fined a sum which must be restored as 1,000 or 10,000 drachmae i f they failed to bring the case before the boule, any suitable penalty would obviously be in excess of the boule's 500 drachmae limit. 24. T.A.P.A., LXVI (1935)', p. 194. 25. Rhodes, p. 152. 72 Line 38: [too 6 ' c i v ] x a T a y v o i to [ e B O A E , u e r ; p , a v a u r j o i n u p t a ecfTO. There is no parallel in inscriptions to this c u r t a i l -ment of the powers of the boule, although an indication that they were sometimes curtailed may be found in the decree concerning Miletos, D l l , line 86: he B o X e a u T O K p a r [ o p e a r o ] . A reference to the restriction of the powers of the boule i s found in Aristotle, Ath. Pol., 45, 1, an account of the circumstances i n which the powers were cur-tailed, but with no indication of when this took place. Rhodes argues that the powers of the boule were restricted from the time when i t was f i r s t given judicial powers through the reforms of Ephialtes, but that the restriction was not quite as complete as Aristotle would have us believe, since in the fourth century i t had authority 26 to impose fines of 500 drachmai. The arrangements described by Aristotle are not exactly the same as those found in the decree of Kleinias, but are closer to the decree of Kleonymos, D8, from 426. This may indicate that the decree of Kleinias represents an earlier stage of court-procedure. Line 39: [ s A t a t a v ].Rhodes considers that this term i s being used in a very specific way. "The development of the separate & t H a o J T r ] p i a and reduction of the archons' judicial power are poorly attested, but I suspect that the old concept of the heliaia as a judicial session of the ekklesia lingered for some time after i t had become normal for the heliaia to be divided into 6 t x a a T r i p t a . perhaps the last active occurrence of the old sense of the word is i t s restoration 26. Rhodes, pp. 179-207. 73 in Clinias' tribute decree. We cannot, however, deduce this. The term 61 Haafn pi ov i s more usual, and is found from 450/49, in the decree concerning Miletos, D10, on. The term eAiaia is used in only two other decrees, one from 446, the Athenian settlement with Chalkis, D17, line 75, where i t is described as Tev TOV GecruoeeTOV and the other, A9, from 425/4, line 14, where i t is not given any further description. A9 also uses 6 i Hao*TT)p i ov three times, without qualification. By this time, then, either the two were being used synonymously, or they were used of two separate institutions or functions of .the same institution. How the term i s being used in the decree of Kleinias is impossible to decide, but the use of the term in other decrees shows that i t certainly need not indicate an^earlyy date. Line 40: TTO [t e'cGov ] P. J. Rhodes; 7to[iovrov] A.T.L., II, D7. In justification of his restoration, Rhodes says, "The prytanes are surely expected to hold a debate in the boule rather than make pro-2 8 posals on their own account." For a similar instance, see Thucydides III, 36, 2. Line 42: TECJ Booc; e [recj navhOTcXia^ = "The restoration of 2 TXavhOTtXiac, [here and in I_.G., I , 45, the decrees of Brea, and A9, the reassessment decree of 425/4] rests on evidence of Inschriften von Priene"* in which Priene votes, shortly before 325 B.C., to send 27. Rhodes, pp. 168-169. 28. Rhodes, p. 189, n. 4. to Athens for each 4-yearly Panathenaia a panoply in memory of ancient friendship and kinship. We must probably understand this "ancient kinship" in the sense that Priene was a colony of Athens and that she assumes the consequent obligation." In the second Athenian confederacy, ca 372/1, Paros also sent a cow and panoply, "precisely because they were acknowledged to be Athenian colonists. The obligation i s f i r s t mentioned, aside from the decree of 2 Kleinias, in the decree for the colonists of Brea, ••I.G., I , 45, in 445. It had probably become the standard contribution of the a l l i e s after 453/2, when Erythrai as a colony of Athens was required to bring CtTOV instead. In 425/4, by a provision of the assessment-decree, A9, the sending of a cow and panoply is made an obligation of a l l subject c i t i e s . Since, however, by this assessment-decree some ci t i e s were assessed for the f i r s t time, i t may simply be exten-ding the obligation to these cities also, in addition to previously assessed c i t i e s who had already come under the obligation; i t need not be extending the obligation to a l l subject cit i e s for the f i r s t time, and indeed the brevity of the reference seems to indicate that i t i s already a well-known requirement. Line 44: [TTJIVCIHIOV XeAeuKopev j ov] The term TTivavuov i S found in three other inscriptions of the f i f t h century. In two of these, 2 DI, line 11, and I.G., I , 127, line 10, i t i s used- of records of 2 debts; in the third, I.G., I , 76, line 27, i t i s used of a record of f i r s t fruits at Eleusis. In the decree of Themistokles, the term 29. Meritt and Wade-Gery, J.H.S., LXXXII (1962), pp."69-70. 75 XeuHCOjiara is used of a l i s t of Athenian citizens. The term TTivavtiov A e X e U K O P , E ' V O V is used in Aristotle, Ath. Pol., 48, 20 of that on 2 which an individual writes a charge against a magistrate. In I.G., II , 1237, line 62 i t is used to mean simply 'notice board.' Although the term may be used in this straight-forward way, i t may also be used of accusations; we might therefore expect to find i t used here not to record the names of those who have paid in f u l l , but of those citi e s that have defaulted, or the names of couriers or others who have offended. For this reason I have not accepted the restoration proposed for lines 45-6, [ctTrocpat'vev nai rev Taxon ]v T O cpopo nai [Tac, 7T0Xeq ] hoaai av arroSoaiv e V T E X E v x a ] i . . . Line 46: aTTOY'f pacpev ] Meiggs and Lewis; anoy'lpdyoat ] H i l l and » E 30 Meritt, A.T.L., II, D7; aTTOO Mattingly . There i s not enough of the letter following a 7 l ,° to justify a valid restoration. Line 57: [• • • XPSP-aTlOat 6e nai Tep] BoXev - H i l l and Meritt, A.T.L., II, D7; [ ' • • r e V l J PoXev Meiggs and Lewis.? For another use of the verb XPEP-ttT10*at; see the fin a l lines of this decree. Against the restoration of i t here is simply the fact that we do 'not know the context, nor even whether the council is the subject. Lines 57-58: r e v eo-tfoo-jav] For a similar phrase seeLG., I 2 , 94, line 31, from 418/7. The restored term is important for the timetable^of action 30. B.S.A., LXV (1970), p. 129. 76 envisaged by the decree. "Inasmuch as the provisions of the earlier lines, notably lines 18-19 with their reference to a meeting of the Ekklesia to be called after the Dionysiac festival, imply a date for the inscription at about the time of the Dionysia i t i s apparent that the action to be taken by the new council as envisaged in lines 57 f f . can have been begun only in midsummer after a lapse of several months. " 3 1 Lines 58-59: [av ]aye YPacpara i has been the accepted restoration in line 59 since i t appeared in C.I.G., I, no. 75. [/ijocroi 6e rov aTtafyjovrov A0eva£,e ec; r o rtiva.Hiov av Jayeypacparat H i l l and Meritt, A.T.L., II, D7, Meiggs and Lewis; '[h]6aoi be rov ana[YOMTOV Top. cpopov ec; rev,- ;aaviba. .. ] Mattingly; 3 2 [ev r e i Oavi 6 1 ] Mattingly. 3 3 Thei:restoration given by H i l l and Meritt closely follows the thought of lines 44f,, through the repetition of 7tlvaKlOV, and should therefore assume that the a7taYOVTOV are the c i t i e s , as they are in other inscriptions. Meritt in his commentary on D8, lines ZOf., says, "The aTrayovrec; were not the men who brought the money from the cities to Athens, but the ci t i e s themselves. The form of the participle (masculine) is conditioned by the type of record which the hellenotamiai made with the cities 34 listed (as in the quota l i s t s ) by the nominatives of the ethnic." 31. Hi11sand Meritt, Hesperia, XIII (1944), p. 14. 32. C.Q., XVI (1966), p. 189: 33. B.S.A.y-LXV (1970), p. 130. 34. D.A.T., p. 34. 77 H i l l and Meritt, however, in their commentary on line 58 of the decree of Kleinias, say, "The word arret yovrecj a s n e r e u s e d is almost a technical term and this inscription makes i t clear that when the apagontes are spoken of the people named are the couriers who trans-ported the money. Meritt's argument... that they were the citi e s who paid and not the couriers who travelled was correct for the tribute 35 quota l i s t s but is not applicable here." If the couriers are referred to, and not the cit i e s , then the reference to 7rivaHtOV is perhaps wrong, for i t involves the ci t i e s , not individuals, with whom the hellenotamiai of lines 43-44 were in no way concerned. Mattingly has attempted a different solution by giving a restora-tion closely parallel with D8, the decree of Kleonymos. "The purpose of the record was presumably to ensure that responsibility could be brought home — either to the community that gave short measure or. to the agent who played false. This was Kleinias' main aim...D8 ensured that the couriers' names were listed, whenever any tribute was missing, and D7. 58ff. in fact reflects this arrangement. The discovery that a clause of D7 depends on D8 means that Kleinias' decree must be put 3 6 later than the second prytany of 426/5." The restoration of these lines is however by no means certain. It is possible to restore them as a close parallel of D3, lines 9-11, thus: /.OCOl 6e TOV 35. Hesperia, XIII (1944), p. 11. 36. B.S.A., LXV (1970), p. 131. [va]<(r)op, MeOovaTot ocpe I'XOVTE q. i t i s a lso p o s s i b l e t o restore them w i t h a re fe rence to the 7ttva.Ka o f l i n e 72, t h u s : /joffot be rov a 7 r a [ Y J o v T o v Aee'va£e ec, rop, Tci'vana nar ]ayeypacpaTai. For t h i s reason I have l e f t the l i n e s u n r e s t o r e d . L ines 59-60: ocpe' [AOVTEC, ev T e i BOAEI en ] i b e i x ^ a i H i l l and M e r i t t , Ai-T. L . , I I , D7; [ n a ] i fieixcrai, [eav 6 u v o v T a ] i , beixaai 37 M a t t i n g l y . M a t t i n g l y has emphasized the i m p o s s i b i l i t y of r e s t o r i n g these l i n e s w i t h any conf idence, and f o l l o w i n g his doubt I have l e f t them u n r e s t o r e d . L ines 6 0 - 6 1 : TOi b e ] X j [ o t ] H i l l and M e r i t t , A . T . L . , I I , D7, Meiggs and Lewis . The p o s s i b i l i t y suggested above i s perhaps the most l i k e l y , g iven the procedure descr ibed a t l i n e 20 . Another p o s s i b i l i t y , however, i s TO t 6 ejifocf t O tj '; f o r an example o f t h i s word used i n connect ion w i t h t r i b u t e see the phrase from D3 quoted above, on l i n e s 58-59. The p a r a l l e l ph ras ing f rom D3 and my f i r s t suggested a l t e r n a t e r e s t o r a t i o n o f l i n e 59 support t h i s r e s t o r a t i o n . I have p r e f e r r e d t h e r e f o r e to leave the word unres to red because o f the lack of secure c o n t e x t . L ines 6 0 - 6 1 : f o t & e p , j [ o i naTa Tev TTOXIV h e y i a a r e v ' eav file The f u l l r e s t o r a t i o n o f f e r e d by H i l l and M e r i t t and by A . T . L . , I I , D7 i s based on the r e s t o r a t i o n of 6e.p,0l } which i s no t c e r t a i n , as I have po in ted o u t . Fur thermore, i t assumes t h a t the 6ep,oc; i s t h a t 37. B.S.A., LXV (1970), p. 131, n .9 . 79 of each individual city, and therefore that each city was a democracy, but i t is more likely, i f 6ep,ot is the right restoration, that the Athenian demos is meant here, to whom a report concerning the state of arrears or of debt i s being given. The assembly of each individual city is referred to by the term T O H O I V O V . Lines 61-62: a [...] D.A.T., A.T.L., I, D7; a j [u.cp t o B E re i] " K i l l and Meritt, A.T.L., II, D7, Meiggs and Lewis. This restoration was f i r s t made by Boeckh, who read a mu at the end of line 61. The mu has been relinquished; the restoration, which did not appear in A.T.L., I, D7 or D.A.T., has since reappeared. I am not completely satisfied that there are enough letters l e f t to make this restoration certain, a l -though the restorations of [Tec; ccxro6 ]oO£Oc; and of ccrcf [ 0 6 £ 6 o H E ' V C C l ] which are mutually confirmatory, narrow the possibilities for line-61. Line 63: [x t fuvc-Yea ]9al Boeckh. s / " Line 63: T O H O I V O V . This can refer simply to the main assembly of the state as a whole, for example in A9, line 6 and in Aristophanes' Knights, line 774, or to the assembly of the state as a financially 2 responsible body, as in I_.G., I , 116, the Athenian treaty with Selymbria, lines 23-24, from 407. It does not mean, as was suggested by Boeckh, the assembly of the a l l i e s . Here i t seems to mean the assembly of the citizens of a state, gathered to hear the decree of the Athenians, to learn the extent of their responsibility for arrears, and i f appropriate to enter protests. Mattingly suggests that the term "surely implies a contrast between community and individuals 80 (here o j a r r a y o v T e q ?) against whom the ypctcpai of 66ff. probably '38 l i e . " The HOtvov then is apparently responsible for collecting the money to send to Athens, not, as later under the provisions of the decree of Kleonymos, D8, lines 8-9, the collectors of tribute. Line 65: . . . ]8ai D.A.T., A.I.L., I, D7; [ypacpecf ]Ga i Boeckh, H i l l and Meritt, A.T.L., II, D7, Meiggs and Lewis. Hicks, who accepts the restoration rec, xcup,p,axietc; i n line 64, comments that these lines "seem to prescribe that disputes should be referred to a general court of the confederation and in the meantime that other legal 39 proceedings (ypacpeaGal ) should be suspended." His suggestion may be sound, in that other proceedings in the court of the Polemarch (cf. line 68) may be suspended, although the two passages are rather widely separated for this. It may alternatively be a restriction, that t r i a l s not be held elsewhere than at Athens. The restoration is not, however, certain, and I have not printed i t . Line 66: [TO HOIVO Se ]X£. e i7rov ]TOC, . Boeckh; [ r o Se ypayev ]TOC; A.T.L., II, D7, H i l l and Meritt. Boeckh's restoration, although probably wrong, demonstrates that the word ending in -Toc, need not be dependent on ocpEAETO ; I have therefore not printed any restoration. Lines 66-67: yp j [acpoiiE'voc, ] Boeckh; y p | [acpaayiEvocj ] D.A.T., A.T.L., IJ 5D7, Meiggs and Lewis; ho YP ) [acpo'ap.e voc; rev ri]iev eav 38. B.S.A., LXV (1970), p. 131, n.9. 39. The Collectionlqf Greek -Inscriptions"in'^the JBritish,Museum, I, Attika, no. VI. 81 cp£vys l ] - H i l l and Meritt, A.T.L., II, D7. Line 68: [rcpoc; rov r c o X e p i a p X O V ] This restoration receives support from A9, line 13,-.and from D23, lines 20-24, and from Aristotle, Ath. Pol.,58, a l l of which demonstrate that the Polemarch handled cases in which foreigners were involved; from A9 in particular i t is clear that he also handled cases involving tribute. Photius also mentions the Polemarch, and says 7rpoE iCTTrJHE l p , £ V Tcov T E £ E ' V C O V nai rcov U - E T C H H C O V , O U H fip,£ti | /E 6 E T T ) V x A r j a r v . This is interesting in view of the mention in line 69 of H X E ' C E C J but not particularly illuminating, except in that i t may show that the two lines are part of a provision dealing with the same judicial procedure. Line 68: [ E V T O I T a p E j A t o v i Boeckh; [ p , e v i P a p ^ X o v i ,.Hill and Meritt, A.T.L., II, D7, Meiggs and Lewis. The restoration of the name of the month is supported by the evidence of A9, in which i t is specified that, during the immediately preceding month of Posideion, decisions are to be made in the Polemarch's court concerning appeals and the fi n a l assessment of tribute. If this was also the case in earlier years, and since appeals could be made concerning assessment in years other than assessment-years, then the logical time for hearing cases concerning incomplete payment due to cheating would be in the following month. Moreover, the only other poss i b i l i t i e s are Elaphe-bolion, when the Great Dionysia were held, and Thargelion, two months later than Elaphebolion and the second last month of the year; i t s restoration then would contradict lines 57-58, i'Tep-J &okev T E V E C U [ o c f a v ] . 82 The restoration of the month i s interesting for the interpretation of the second half of the document. As can be seen from line 18, the decree was probably passed just before the Dionysia in Elaphe-bolion; Gamelion is ten months later, by which time, as the urgency of the f i r s t part of the decree shows, a l l outstanding money from the tribute w i l l have been paid. The decree i s now concerned with whether or not some individual was responsible for incomplete pay-ment, and is ensuring his prosecution and possible reimbursement for the cit i e s cheated. If this was standard procedure, that the arrears of tribute should be paid by the cit i e s and the reason for the lateness questioned later, then we cannot expect any irregularity of the type whose causes this decree is supposed to regulate to appear in the quota l i s t s . Lines 68-69: a [p/p t a Be r e i ] Boeckh, H i l l and Meritt, A.T.L., II, D7, Meiggs and Lewis; ct [ ] D.A.T., A.T.L., I, D7; a [AAoq ]Mattingly.4° There is not enough l e f t for any secure restoration. Lines 69-70: B o [ A e u e r o ] Boeckh; Bo [ A e ue 'aOo ] I.G., I , 66a; Bo[AeucrctTO ] P.-A.T., A.T.L., I, D7; Bo[Aeucrap-eve ] H i l l and Meritt, A.T.L., II, D7, Meiggs and Lewis. Lines 70-71: e c r a Y O v r o v 6s ho\ j [ e a a Y O Y E S ; T O C J ocpAovraq A 6 e ] v u t ' o t c ; I.G., I , 66a; [ . . . AOs ]vct l o i cj D.A.T., A.T.L., I, D7; eoayovTOV be ho 11 [koayoyec, ec, rev E A t " a i a v ro<g A o e j v a t o t q H i l l and 40. C.Q., XVI (1966), p. 188. 83 Meritt, A.T.L., II, D7, Meiggs and Lewis. The restoration suggested Z by I.G., I , 66a has been retained in s p i r i t by the restoration of line 72, [ocpeXovTacj ]. Line 72: Nothing is restored by either D.A.T. or A.T.L., I, D7, except for [ n i ' v a J n a . [ocpeAOvrac, toextfec; K a r a fop , Tti'vaJKa H i l l and Meritt, A.T.L., II, D7, Meiggs and Lewis. This restoration is by no means certain, since a r r a y o v r a c j is an alternative for OCpEAOVTac; a n d a longer word, eliminating the need for the following fteXOec, is also possible. A.T.L., I, D7 and D.A.T. did not restore the words K a r a TOp 7which leaves yet more space for an alternative restoration. Line 72: [ K a r a rop , TTIVO. Jxa The / r i v a x a does not refer back to the TClvctKiov of line 44, although i t may be referred to i n line 59 (see note, above). The term p/rivuci cj is used of cases against indi-41 viduals, not states. Line 72: H i l l and Meritt, A.T.L., II, D7, and Meiggs and Lewis a l l puctuate at the end of the line thus: p,evuo"eocj* e . No punctuation after p-EVUtfeoc, i s elsewhere given. Moreover, i t cannot be assumed that the word to follow had smooth breathing, since the daseia to show rough breathing i s omitted in line 39 and might also have been 41. See, for example, Andokides, ' \-^Z3, and Plato,oLaws, 932d. In the decree regulating relations with Chalkis, D17, the word used for 'denounce' is KCXTEpo f i i n e 25. 84 omitted here. Lines 73 - 74: rre p u c | [ t otl j] Boeckh. That the spelling of Boeckh is wrong, and 7t£ p u o 1 | [ l vo ] right, i s clear from A.T.L., II, p. 30 (List 26, IV, 10). This passage may perhaps refer to the prosecution of those who have committed a crime concerning the previous year's tribute, and w i l l be found to have done so with the tribute of the present year also. CHAPTER SIX CONCLUSION The indications of date emerging from the preceding chapters are as follows: 1. From letter-forms, a date somewhere in the thirties i s best suited to the evidence. 2. From spelling, there is nothing to conclude. 3. From formulae, a date at the very end of the 440s or later seems to f i t the evidence best. 4. The study of individual provisions shows that the decree was probably passed after 453, when Erythrai was required to bring Ctrov to the Great Panathenaia (see Chapter 5, on line 42), and before the decree of Kleonymos, D8, from 426, when collectors of tribute were to be appointed (see Chapter 5, on line 63; in addition, possible evidence from judicial procedure, on line 38.) The primary purpose of this decree is to ensure that couriers shall have no chance to embezzle on the way to Athens; since they are expected to deliver what remains of the money, clearly only small sums can have been involved, for in previous years they can scarcely have expected large sums missing to go unnoticed. The decree of Kleinias is not then concerned with the defaulting reflected in the quota-lists before 447/6. Moreover, the decree of Kleinias emphasizes the speed with which the four men are to collect what is s t i l l owing from the tribute, and clearly expects no d i f f i c u l t y in collecting i t . I conclude then that the decree of Kleinias is primarily a 86 book-keeping decree, passed to prevent couriers from embezzling tribute on i t s way to Athens, and in no way concerned with or expecting recalcitrance on the part of the c i t i e s ; i t was probably passed some time in the 440s or 430s. A more accurate date, or a more detailed context, cannot be determined on the basis of epigraphic and internal evidence. 87 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND ABBREVIATIONS :i ANCIENT AUTHORITIES Aristophanes, Aristophanis Comoediae, edited by F.W. H a l l and W.M. Geldart (O.C.T., 2 volumes, second e d i t i o n , Oxford, 1906-1907). A r i s t o t l e , Ath. P o l . , A r i s t o t e l e s 'A6e v a u w UokiTE ia edited by H. Oppermann (B.T., Stuttgart, 1961). Thucydides, Thucydidis H i s t o r i a e , edited by H.S. Jones and J.E. Powell (0.£.T., second e d i t i o n , Oxford, 1942). 88 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND ABBREVIATIONS Z MODERN AUTHORITIES _.T.L. E.P. Blegen, August Boeckh, D.W. Bradeen, D.W. Bradeen and M.F. McGregor, D.A.T. Sterling Dow, Ecp. Apx-W.S. Ferguson, A.W. Gomme, E.L. Hicks, see B.D. Meritt, H.T. Wade-Gery, and M.F. McGregor, The Athenian Tribute L i s t s . ''News Items from Athens," A.J.A., XLIII (1939), pp. 124-132. Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum, I (Berlin, 1828), no. 75 with Addenda, p. 896 (frag. 3) "The Athenian Casualty L i s t s , " C.Q., XIX (1969), pp. 145-159. Studies in Fifth-Century Attic Epigraphy (Norman, Oklahama, 1973). see B.D. Meritt, Documents on Athenian Tribute. review of Meritt, D.A.T., in A.J.A., XLII (1938), pp. 601-603. Ecpripeptq Apxct i okoyi KT\ The Athenian Secretaries, Cornell Classical  Studies, VII (1898). A Historical Commentary on Thucydides, I: Introduction and Commentary on Book I (Oxford, 1945). The Collection of Ancient Greek Inscriptions in the British Museum, I, Attika (Oxford, 1874), no. VI (frag. 3). B.H. H i l l and B.D. Meritt, "An Early Decree Concerning Tribute, Hesperia, XIII (1944), pp. 1-15. Inscriptiones Graecae. I.G. I.G., I I.G., I I.G., II , 1-3. J. Kirchner, David M. Lewis, Stephen B. Luce, H.B. Mattingly, Inscriptiones Atticae Anno Euclidis  Vetustiores, edited by A. Kirchoff (Berlin, 1873; supplements in 1877, 1886, and 1891). Inscriptiones Atticae Euclidis Anno Anteriores, editionminor, edited by F. Hiller von Gaertringen (Berlin, 1924). Inscriptiones Atticae Euclidis Anno Posteriores, editionminor, edited by J. Kirchner (Berlin, 1913-1940). Prosopographica Attica (2 volumes, second edition, Berlin, 1913). "The Public Seal of Athens," Phoenix, IX (1955), pp. 32-34. "Archaeological News arid Discussions," A.J.A., XLVIII (1944), p. 285. "The Athenian Coinage Decreej," Historia, X (1961), pp. 148-188. "The Growth of Athenian Imperialism," Historia, XII (1963), pp. 257-273. "Athenian Imperialism and the Founding of Brea;" C.Q., N.S. XVI (1966), pp. 172-192. "Periclean Imperialism," in E. Badia'n (ed.), Ancient Society and Institutions: Studies Presented to Victor Ehrenberg on his 75th 90 Birthday (Oxford, 1966), pp. 192-223. "Athenian Finance in the Peloponnesian War," B.C.H., XCII (1968), II, pp. 450-485. "Epigraphically the Twenties are too late," B.S.A., LXV (1970), pp. 129-149. "Formal Dating Criter i a for F i f t h Century Attic Inscriptions," Acta of the Fi f t h  International Congress of Greek and Latin Epigraphy Cambridge 1967 (Oxford, 1971), pp. 27-33. R. Meiggs, "The Dating of Fifth-Century Attic Inscriptions," J.H.S., LXXXVI (1966), pp. 86-98. "The Crisis of Athenian Imperialism," H.S.C.P., LXVII (1963), pp. 1-36. The Athenian Empire (Oxford, 1972). R. Meiggs and D.M. Lewis, A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the End of the Fi f t h Century B.C. (Oxford, 1969). B.D. Meritt, Documents on Athenian Tribute (Cambridge, Mass., 1937),. pp. 43-60. Epigraphica Attica (Martin Classical  Lectures, IX, Cambridge, Mass., 1940). B.D. Meritt and H.T. Wade-Gery, "The Dating of Documents to the Mid-Fifth Century, I," J.H.S., LXXXII (1962), pp. 67-74. B.D. Meritt, H.T. Wade, and M.F. McGregor, •Gery, J.H. Oliver, Friederich Osann, P. A. S. Pittakys, Richard Pococke, A.R. Rangabe, A. R. Rangabe, A.E. Raubitschek, P.J. Rhodes, J. and L. Robert, The Athenian Tribute Lists, I (Cambridge, Mass., 1939). II (Princeton, 1949). III (Princeton, 1950) . IV (Princeton, 1953) . "The Athenian Decree Concerning Miletus in 450/49 B.C.," T.A.P.A., LXVI (1935), pp. 177-198. Sylloge Inscriptionum Antiquarum Graecarum et Latinarum (Leipzig and Darmstadt, 1834), pp. 11-14, no. I l l (frag. 3). see J. Kirchner, Prosopographica Attica. Ecp. Apx- , 1854, no. 2071. Inscriptionum Antiquarum Graec(arum) et Latin(arum) Liber (London, 1752), p. 52, no. 42 (frag. 3). Ant. Hell. : see following entry. Antiquites Helleniques ou Repertoire d'Inscriptions et d'autres Antiquites Decouvertes depuis 1'Affranchissement de l a Grece, I (Athens, 1842), no. 277. "A New Fragment of A.T.L., D8," A. J.P., LXI (1940), pp. 475-479. The Athenian Boule (Oxford, 1972). "Bulletin Epigraphique,"!'.1R.E,iG. / LVII 92 Hugh James Rose, G. E. M. de Ste Croix, Gorham P. Stevens, L. L. Threatte, M. N. Tod, •Stephen Tracy, H. T. Wade-Gery, M. B. Walbank, W. P. Wallace, (1944), pp. 175-241. Inscriptiones Graecae Vetustissimae (Cambridge, 1825), p. 252 and p i . x x x i i (frag. 3). The Origins of the Peloponnesian War (London, 1972). The Setting of the P e r i c l e a n Parthenon (Hesperia, suppl. I l l , 1940), p. 78. "The Phonology of A t t i c I n s c r i p t i o n s , " H.S.C.P., LXXIV (1970), pp. 344-348. "The Progress of Greek Epigraphy, 1939-1940," J.H.S., LXII (1942), pp. 51-83. "The Progress of Greek Epigraphy, 1941-1945," J.H.S., LXV, (1945), pp. 58-99. "Id e n t i f y i n g Epigraphic Hands," G.R.B.S_., XI (1970), pp. 321-333. "The F i n a n c i a l Decrees of K a l l i a s (I.G., I 2 , 91-92)," J.H.S., L i (1931), pp. 57-85. "Studies i n A t t i c I n s c r i p t i o n s of the F i f t h Century B.C.," B.S.A., XXXIII (1933), pp. 101-135. "The Question of Tribute i n 449/8 B.C.," Hesperia, XIV (1945), pp. 212-229. Athenian Proxenies o_f the F i f t h Century B.£. (Vancouver, 1970). "The P u b l i c Seal of Athens," Phoenix, I I I (1949), pp. 70-73. 93 "Note," Phoenix, IX (1955), p. 34. A. M. Woodward, review of Meritt, D.A.T., in J.H.S., LVIII (1938), pp. 601-603. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0093189/manifest

Comment

Related Items