The Creation of the Tribe Ptolemais at Athens 9781463222383

Citation preview

The Creation of the Tribe Ptolemais at Athens

A n a l e c t a Gorgiana

366 Series Editor George Anton Kiraz

Analecta Gorgiana is a collection of long essays and

short

monographs which are consistently cited by modern scholars but previously difficult to find because of their original appearance in obscure publications. Carefully selected by a team of scholars based on their relevance to modern scholarship, these essays can now be fully utili2ed by scholars and proudly owned by libraries.

The Creation of the Tribe Ptolemais at Athens

Allan Chester Johnson

gorgia* press 2009

Gorgias Press LLC, 180 Centennial Ave., Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2009 by Gorgias Press LLC Originally published in All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. 2009

1

ISBN 978-1-60724-653-4

ISSN 1935-6854

Extract from The A^merican Journal of Philology 34 (1913)

Printed in the LTnited States of America

AMERICAN

JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY VOL. X X X I V , 4.

WHOLE NO. 136.

I.—THE CREATION OF T H E T R I B E AT ATHENS.1

PTOLEMAIS

Neither the date of the establishment of the tribe Ptolemais at Athens nor the motive prompting its creation is recorded by any ancient historian. From other writers of antiquity very little evidence can be gleaned, and all of it is untrustworthy. T h e traveller Pausanias asserts that Ptolemaios Philadelphos was the eponymous hero of the tribe (I. 5, 5 ; 6, 8 ; 8 , 6 ) . This might lead us to infer that Ptolemais was created before his death in 247 B. C. Inscriptions prove, however, that there were only twelve prytanizing tribes at Athens during his lifetime, and since Athens was under Macedonian influence from 262 to 232, it is clear that Ptolemais was not created during the reign of Ptole1 T h i s study w a s u n d e r t a k e n w h i l e I was h o l d i n g a research f e l l o w s h i p f r o m t h e C a r n e g i e I n s t i t u t i o n in the A m e r i c a n S c h o o l of C l a s s i c a l S t u d i e s at A t h e n s . I wish to e x p r e s s my o b l i g a t i o n s to those w h o m a d e p o s s i b l e my w o r k at A t h e n s , as w e l l as to M r . H i l l , the D i r e c t o r of the S c h o o l , to M r . L e o n a r d o s , then E p h o r of the E p i g r a p h i c a l S e c t i o n of the N a t i o n a l M u s e u m at A t h e n s , w h o k i n d l y g a v e me e v e r y opportunity for s t u d y i n g the i n s c r i p t i o n s , a n d to P r o f e s s o r C a p p s , of P r i n c e t o n , w h o has read the m a n u s c r i p t a n d offered m a n y v a l u a b l e s u g g e s t i o n s .

W h i l e I w a s c o r r e c t i n g the proof of this a r t i c l e I r e c e i v e d K i r c h n e r ' s r e v i s e d edition of the I n s c r i p t i o n e s G r a e c a e V o l . I I a n d I I I ( I G . V o l . I I a n d I I I , edit. m i n . pars I , f a s c . 1 ) . T h i s edition with its l a r g e n u m b e r of n e w r e a d i n g s , n e w i n s c r i p t i o n s a n d v a s t l y i m p r o v e d a r r a n g e m e n t w i l l so soon s u p e r s e d e the old v o l u m e s , that I h a v e a d d e d r e f e r e n c e s w h e r e v e r possible in accord with the n e w n u m b e r i n g . I h a v e d e n o t e d the n e w edition as K . a n d such a r e f e r e n c e as K . 791 ( I I . 334) m e a n s number 791 in the n e w v o l u m e , or I G . I I . 3 3 4 a c c o r d i n g to the older edition.

25

382

AMERICAN

JOURNAL

OF

PHILOLOGY.

maios Philadelphos. One other reference to Ptolemais is found in an epigram of Kallimachos (Anth. Pal., V I I . 520) who died about 240 B. C. T h e poet is alluding, however, to a tribe o f t h a t name known to exist in Alexandria (Westermann, ßioypäoi, p. 5 0 ; Beloch, D i e Errichtung der P h y l e Ptolemais, Fleckeisen's Jahrb. f. cl. Phil., 1884, 481 if".; Bates, T h e F i v e Post-Kleisthenean Tribes, Cornell Studies V I I I , 1898, 29-30). Neither of these passages, therefore, can be used to prove the existence of Ptolemais at A t h e n s before 232 B. C. Pausanias m a y be right in claiming that Ptolemaios Philadelphos was the eponymous hero, but it is certain that the new tribe was not created during his reign. T h e only positive evidence as to the date of the establishment of Ptolemais has been stated by Beloch (loc. cit., cf. Gr. Gesch., I I I . 2. 5 6 - 7 ) as follows: Since the deme Berenikidai was created along with the tribe Ptolemais, and since Berenike, in whose honor the deme was established, was the wife of Ptolemaios Euergetes (Stephanus, s. v. BepcviKt&ai), he was therefore the eponymous hero and the tribe must have been created during his reign ( 2 4 7 - 2 2 2 ) . Beloch then observed that the thesmothetai in I G . I I . 859 are recorded in the official order of the twelve tribes up to the archonship of Niketes ; are disarranged in the y e a r of Antiphilos (probably due to error of the mason), and in the archonship of Menekrates are in the official order of the thirteen tribes. Hence he argued that Ptolemais was established between the archonships of Niketes and Menekrates. Kirchner ( G G A . 1900. 450) following the suggestion of Schebelew (quoted by Kirchner, loc. cit.) noted further that the archon Antiphilos was from the deme Aphidna ( I I . 859, 1. 53), which was assigned to Ptolemais when the new tribe was formed. H e was thus led to infer that Ptolemais was established in that y e a r , and as a compliment to Ptolemy, the archonship was given to Ptolemais. This date ( 2 2 4 / 3 ) has been accepted universally (Ferguson, Priests of Asklepios, p. 158 ; Maltezos, 'A PX • 'evas ei/ei Kai viai €p[0o\tp.an, eiKotrrei 7—]

irpvravetas KT\. T h e restoration of the p r y t a n i z i n g tribe in the first line must be either 'AvnyoviSos or A?j/j>;rpt note). In the accompanying photograph (which is taken from a squeeze of the upper part of K . 791 (II. 334) the cross bar of the letter alpha may readily be seen. From an examination of the stone itself, it is quite clear that the line is not a flaw but the original chiseling of the stonecutter. Wilheim offered this reading only as a possibility while studying some Euboean inscriptions where the name suggested the restoration [, AldaXiSris (Antigonis). W e shall see later that we must restore 'Ayvoiatos and assume that this line had only 47 letters. If we turn now to the next datable inscription of this period we have undoubted evidence for the existence of thirteen prytanies. This is K . 783 (II. 5, 373c), which Ferguson has dated from the secretary-cycle in 230/ 29 (Priests of Asklepios, p. 134). Lines 1 - 4 are to be restored as follows : [f7T . . . . ftiov apx]oi>TOS €7Tl TJ)S AlavTl&OS §G>8ffK«T)?? TTpVTIlpeiat [ ]>of 'EmKrj I. G. II. 5. 614b. T h e following inscriptions have the n a m e of the royal tribes or king still r e m a i n i n g : K . 458 ( I I . add. 320b), 466 ( I I . 239), 469 ( I I . 266), 470 ( I I . 246; 253), 4 7 1 ( I I . 247), 477 ( I I . 238), 478 ( I I . 5. 2 5 1 b ) , 480 ( I I . 5. 2 5 2 d ) , 484 ( I I . 5. 256c) 486, 491 ( I I . 2 6 1 ) , 492 ( I I . 5. 264c; II. 268), 495 ( I I . 263), 498 ( I I . 5. 2Ó4d), 507, 555 ( I I . 2 5 1 ) , 558 ( 2 4 3 ) , 559 (II- 419). 560 ( I I . 265), 561 ( I I . 267), 562, 563, 641 (II. 297), 646 (II. 300), 647, 653 (II. 3 1 1 ) , 657 ( I I . 3 1 4 ; II, 5. 314), 658 ( I I add. 314b), 660 (II. 5. 345c), 666 (II. 317), 679 (II. 322), 685 ( I I . 5. 331c), 743 ( I I . 352), 772 (II add. 352b), 776 (II. 374), 777 (II. 306), 784, 797 ( I I add. 252b). T h e r e are twelve inscriptions (including one doubtful case, K . 708) in which the names were excised, while in thirty-eight they were left undisturbed. T h o s e in c h a r g e of the work of excision d o not seem to have been g u i d e d by any particular rule. But in general those decrees containing lists of ephebes, and those recording sacrifices to the kings were defaced. T h e work of excising the names was confined almost without exception, however, to the A k r o p o l i s

THE CREATION

OF THE TRIBE

PTOLEMAIS.

389

and preferably to ephebic lists and those decrees recording sacrifices to the kings. W e might therefore infer that the work was confined to certain precincts on the Akropolis where such inscriptions were set up, and that in other precincts the w o r k was more perfunctorily done. W i t h these figures in view, we certainly cannot a r g u e that /SAOTXEW 'A . . in I I . 384 must refer to king A t t a l o s . Further, if we date this inscription in 229/8, it is v e r y doubtful if it can refer to Attalos, because it must still be proven that he had the royal title in that year. T h e balance of evidence is against it A c c o r d i n g to P o l y b i u s ( X V I I I . 41. 7) he first declared himself k i n g after his victory over the Galatians (cf. L i v y , 33. 21 ; Strabo, X I I I . 624). Polybius g o e s on to say : He lived 72 years of which he held the throne for 44 (TOVTO>I> fie PA *lKO(j\_Trj irjs 7TpVTa~\veias Kr\. K i r c h n e r ' s explanation of this d e c r e e (Sitzungsberichte der königlichen Preussischen A k a d e m i e der Wissenschaften, 1 9 1 0 , p. 9 8 3 - 4 ) can only be accepted, if we allow that this inscription is an e x a m p l e of double dating, although there is nothing to indicate that such is the case. Moreover, his very complicated solution of the arrangement of the prytanies seems to be entirely at variance with the usual simplicity of the Athenians in dating their decrees. T h e r e is a much simpler solution of the p r o b l e m , if we assume that there were thirteen prytanies in the archonship of E r g o c h a r e s . In that case we have the choice of two solutions of the problem. I f Mirayetrvtawos; e'rar[/; Kai ScKiirp 8]evrepa ¿pßo\ifim means the 19th of the intercalated month Metageitnion, as K i r c h ner explains it, then the 20th day o f the third pry tany could easily fall on the 19th day of the third month in an intercalary year with thirteen prytanies. T h e r e is a similar situation in 2 0 9 / 8 ( K e r n , Inschriften von Magnesia, No. 37), where the 7th day of the 5th prytany can only fall on the 6th day of Pyanopsion, if we suppose a month to have been intercalated earlier in the y e a r . T h e n the 7th d a y of the 5th prytany falls on the 6th day of the 5th month. If, however, the date of I G . I I . 3 8 1 is correctly interpreted b y the editor o the I G . , then this is the 20th day of Metageitnion and we must assume that Hekatombaion was the intercalated month. T h i s is quite possible, for we know from I G . I. Suppl. 27b. 53, p. 59 (ftefa 8e e'p.ßäWep EKarovßatopa tov viov äpxovTo) that Hekatombaion was sometimes intercalated. In that case month and prytany exactly coincide. It is not necessary to study those decrees which belong undoubtedly to the period of the 1 3 tribes. In all cases where the arrangement of the prytany is preserved, we find the same system as in K . 7 9 1 ( I I . 3 3 4 ) , K . 7 8 3 ( I I . 5. 3 7 3 c ) , and I G . I I . 3 8 1 . T h o s e peculiarities found in the decrees of the archon Archelaos do not violate the rules of the thirteen p r y t a n y system, but will

THE

CREATION

OF

THE

TRIBE

393

PTOLEMAIS.

be e x p l a i n e d under that name in the discussion of the individual archons. If P r o f e s s o r K i r c h n e r ' s system of prytanies of different lengths for I G . I I . 3 8 1 is valid, then I G . I I . 3 3 4 and I I . 5. 3 7 3 c will h a v e to be p r o v i d e d for in s o m e w a y which differs from this again. T h i s , h o w e v e r , is most u n l i k e l y and we must conclude that the s y s t e m of d o u b l e dating cannot a p p l y to decrees which d o n o t h a v e t h e p h r a s e KOT' apxovra,

Kara 6(6v o r

rjpepoXeybov.

W e can no l o n g e r reasonably doubt the existence of thirteen tribes w h e n these three d e c r e e s were passed. W e must therefore push back the date of the creation of Ptolemais before the y e a r 2 2 4 / 3 B. C., or else revise the dating of these decrees. The latter course is impossible in the case of K . 7 8 3 ( I G . I I . 5. 3 7 3 c ) and I I . 3 8 1 if we a r e to place a n y v a l u e in the cycle of the secretaries or the list of archons in I G . I I . 859. S i n c e we confirm K o e h l e r ' s r e a d i n g of K . 7 9 1 ( I G . I I . 3 3 4 ) , the date of this inscription must be considered anew. B e f o r e the date of D i o m e d o n is discussed, the data for determining J a s o n ' s archonship must be considered. T h i s is established f r o m the accounts of the life of Z e n o and K l e a n t h e s ( P h i l o demos, V o l . H e r c u l . V I I I , col. 4 ; I n d e x S t o i c o r u m , coll. 28 a n d 29), w h i c h run as follows I1 ftp1 prjves

ov (rrjp.€La>0rjvai TcreXevTrjicevai rpcis.

2 . yeyavivai

axo^RFV diaKaTna^lf

I.

¿iro K X f a p ^ o v yap e V '

Zfocova,

K\iav&T)v err1

eV' eTT/ rpiaKovra

(TT)

COTXV

ap^ovros

Kai EV.

ivvca

A'ppevflbrjv,

Kai rpiaKovra

' ApiaTotfravovs

3 . ¿7Tr)Wayr] 8' ¿IT'

Ka\

Kai Trjv iipxovros

'hio-ovos erav ra p.d\iuTa p (for other allusions, see F e r g u s o n , A t h e nian A r c h o n s , Cornell S t u d i e s X , p. 30). T h e date of K l e a r c h o s is fixed in the y e a r 3 0 1 / 0 . Ferguson ( P r i e s t s of A s k l e p i o s , 1 5 3 - 4 ) dates A r i h e n e i d e s by the e x c l u s i v e s y s t e m of reckoning in 2 6 1 / 0 , but places J a s o n b y the inclusive s y s t e m in 2 3 1 / 0 . K o l b e dates A r r h e n e i d e s b y the inclusive method in 2 6 2 / 1 , J a s o n b y the e x c l u s i v e reckoning in 2 3 1 / 0 (op. cit. 4 0 - 4 5 , 66). It is clear that P h i l o d e m o s is not using the double system of r e c k o n i n g in the s a m e p a s s a g e , and neither of these scholars can be right in both cases. B y the accepted dating of D i o m e d o n in 2 3 2 / 1 , h o w e v e r , t h e y h a v e been forced to date J a s o n in 2 3 1 / 0 . T h e inclusive s y s t e m of r e c k o n i n g is u n d o u b t e d l y the correct o n e (cf. K i r c h n e r , R h . M u s . 53, p. 383, n. 1 ) . B y this system thirty-nine y e a r s a n d three months from K l e a r c h o s to A r r h e n e i d e s b r i n g us to the beginning of the fourth month in the y e a r 2 6 2 / 1 . 1 I have not i n d i c a t e d the restorations. 1 9 1 2 , pp. 226 ff.

F o r these see M a y e r , Pliilologus,

394

AMERICAN

JOURNAL

OF

PHILOLOGY.

T h a t Antipatros and Arrheneides were archons in the same year, according to the theory of K o l b e , can no longer be doubted ( K o l b e , op. cit., pp. 40 ff.; K i r c h n e r , B P W . 1909, 847; cf. Ferguson, Hellenistic A t h e n s , 182 note. F e r g u s o n ' s objections to K o l b e ' s arguments are not valid so long as he himself dates Jason by inclusive r e c k o n i n g in 231 / o ) . If we calculate the date of Jason by the inclusive system of reckoning, then one hundred years from the archonship of A r i s t o p h a n e s (331/0) bring us to 232/1 and thirty-one years from the archonship of Arrheneides (262/1) bring us to the same year. 1 Similarly by inclusive reckoning Kallistratos is dated in the year 206/5 ( L a k y d e s became head of the school in the fourth year of the 134th O l y m p i a d and died 36 y e a r s later). W e may now turn to the problem of dating D i o m e d o n . From the possibilities suggested above, w h e n we discussed the restoration of K . 791 ( I G . II. 334), the secretary must belong to one of the following tribes: Aiantis, Aigeis, Akamantis, Antigonis, Antiochis, Hippothontis, Leontis, Pandionis, or Ptolemais. The decree must be dated in the time of the twelve or of the thirteen tribes (306-201 B. C.) It cannot be later than 202/1, for the tribes Antigonis and Demetrias were abolished alter that date. 2 T h e prosopographical evidence enables us to limit the document to the last half of the third century. W e can infer from the fact that the powerful democratic leader E u r y k l e i d e s of K e p h i s i a was military steward, that the Macedonians exercised no control o v e r the city or the elections. T h e inscription must therefore be later than 233/2 at least. T h e officer ó eVí rjj Sioutíjcríi3 w h o pays for the cost of the inscription did not exist between 218/7 a n d 202/1 (cf. I G . II. 5. 385c; K e r n , Inschriften von Magnesia, Nr. 37). Therefore Diomedon m a y be limited to the years 233/2218/7. T h e year 229/8 is excluded because it requires a secretary from K e k r o p i s . It is practically certain that the archon K a l laischros is to be placed in the year 220/19. W e are therefore compelled to place D i o m e d o n in 231/0. W i t h this date' the historical content of the decree agrees. 4 Since the y e a r is settled 1 M a y e r ( P h i l o l o g u s L X X I , p . 237, n o t e 60) i n a v o i d i n g o n e h o r n o f t h e d i l e m m a b y r e a d i n g rptaKovra. nal [ro]^ áiovíioiov TOÍVVV . . in t h e P h i l o d e m o s f r a g m e n t q u o t e d a b o v e , is f o r c e d u p o n t h e o t h e r i n i n t e r p r e t i n g ¡iá7,iü~a p. M o r e o v e r , I d o u b t v e r y m u c h if h e c a n find s u p p o r t f o r t h e c o l l o c a t i o n o f p a r t i c l e s x.al . . . . romvv w h i c h h e h a s p r o p o s e d . 2 3 4

P W . V o l . I , 32. 38 f f . ; T o d , B S A . 1 9 0 2 - 3 , 1 7 3 ff. T h e h i s t o r y o f t h i s o f f i c e r w i l l b e t a k e n u p in a l a t e r p a p e r . F e r g u s o n , H e l l e n i s t i c A t h e n s , p. 205.

THE CREATION

OF THE TRIBE

PTOLEMAIS.

395

we can now determine the tribe which held the secretaryship. In 231/0 the secretaryship was held b y Akamantis, the 8th in the official order during the period of the thirteen tribes. T h e only deme in this tribe beginning with alpha is 'kyvolaios. W e mast therefore make this restoration in line 2 and assume that there were only 47 letters in the completed line. W e must, however, consider the other possibility, since F e r g u son, Kirchner and K o l b e are all agreed on assigning D i o m e d o n to a secretary from Leontis. This, however, is impossible, and apart from the restoration of the deme of the secretary in line 2, our clearest proof is found in K 780 ( I G . II. 307). T h e formula for sacrifices in honor of king Antigonos contains only ca. 40 letters ( K . 775 or IG. II. A d d . 373b). T h e formula for king Demetrios is more elaborate and consists of 62 letters as we see from II. 5. 614b (cf. K . 790, 776 or I G . II. 374) ; Kai toO jWtXeW ArjprjTptov Kai Trjs ¡HarrtXivtrrji #ms 1 Kai rwv iyyovvc en\j£i [detijarei Ti/< 7rpvrave\ia(;

Tirnpr/jr] kypap-~\ ¿e/ca' rerapTEi real] Teraprric

P y a n o p s i o n is t h e f o u r t h m o n t h , s o w e m a y r e s t o r e By

restoring

Aigeis

or

Oineis

as the

s h o r t e s t l e n g t h o f l i n e is 4 1 l e t t e r s .

n a m e of

for the

trial to be the only possible

Chronologie,

the following w h i c h

UiOcvi the

first

fill

o r 'Y/}a(TiKpaT7]i MiXriu'Sou 2$j)rrios w a s e l e c t e d rafiias t5>v oTpaTiaTiKav and was p r a i s e d b y the citizens of E l e u s i s for the w a y in w h i c h he p e r f o r m e d his duties. T r o o p s w e r e stationed at E l e u s i s from 225 B. C. until a b o u t t h e end of the c e n t u r y ( F e r g u s o n , Hellenistic A t h e n s , 249 and note 2, 251 and note 1). T h e possible d a t e s for Philinos are 2 1 2 / 1 , 210/9, 2 0 8 / 7 - 2 0 6 / 5 , 204/3 o r 2 0 3 / 2 A definite c h o i c e is not p o s s i b l e with o u r present e v i d e n c e , b u t since most of the d e c r e e s from E l e u s i s h o n o r i n g A t h e n i a n officials b e l o n g to t h e p e r i o d before 208, it is p r o b a b l e that Philinos s h o u l d be assigned to o n e o f the earlier y e a r s . K o l b e has r e s t o r e d I s o k r a t e s p r o v i s i o n a l l y in I G . II. 385 w h i c h w a s p a s s e d in the y e a r 210/9 (°P- cit., p. 73). If this restoration be a c c e p t e d , then Philinos must b e d a t e d in the y e a r 2 1 2 / 1. W e must assign t o the y e a r 209/8 the A t t i c d e c r e e found at M a g n e s i a ( K e r n , Inschriften v o n M a g n e s i a , 37). T h e arrangement of t h e p r y t a n i e s s h o w s that it is to be dated in the time of the thirteen tribes, for the 7th d a y of the 5th p r y t a n y can o n l y fall on the 6th d a y of P y a n o p s i o n if w e s u p p o s e a m o n t h to h a v e b e e n intercalated earlier in the y e a r . T h e n the 7th d a y of the 5th p r y t a n y falls o n the 6th d a y of the 5th m o n t h . T h i s is of c o u r s e o n l y possible w h e n there are thirteen tribes. S i n c e the s a m e a m b a s s a d o r s m e n t i o n e d in this d e c r e e g o also to the court of P h i l i p V . o f M a c e d o n ( K e r n , o p . cit., N o . 4 7 ) , this inscription 27

AMERICAN

414

JOURNAL

OF

PHILOLOGY.

must be dated after his accession in 2 2 1 . T h e only place for a secretary from the deme Erchia ( A i g e i s ) is in 209/8. T h e name of the archon had 1 1 or 1 2 letters Nikophon and Dionysios ( I G . I I . 4 0 1 , I I . 5. 623b, 1 1 6 1 b ) hold the archonship in successive y e a r s as is evident from I G . II. 5623b. T h e prosopographical evidence shows that they should be dated not long before Phanarchides (Kirchner, G G A . 1900, 455). T h e only possibilities are 2 0 8 - 6 or 2 0 5 - 3 . T h e historical evidence favors the y e a r 2 0 5 / 4 - 2 0 3 / 2 ( F e r g u s o n , Hellenistic Athens, p. 256, note). W e should probably restore »V1 N I K O ;rpt note). In the accompanying photograph (which is taken from a squeeze of the upper part of K . 791 (II. 334) the cross bar of the letter alpha may readily be seen. From an examination of the stone itself, it is quite clear that the line is not a flaw but the original chiseling of the stonecutter. Wilheim offered this reading only as a possibility while studying some Euboean inscriptions where the name suggested the restoration [, AldaXiSris (Antigonis). W e shall see later that we must restore 'Ayvoiatos and assume that this line had only 47 letters. If we turn now to the next datable inscription of this period we have undoubted evidence for the existence of thirteen prytanies. This is K . 783 (II. 5, 373c), which Ferguson has dated from the secretary-cycle in 230/ 29 (Priests of Asklepios, p. 134). Lines 1 - 4 are to be restored as follows : [f7T . . . . ftiov apx]oi>TOS €7Tl TJ)S AlavTl&OS §G>8ffK«T)?? TTpVTIlpeiat [ ]>of 'EmKrj I. G. II. 5. 614b. T h e following inscriptions have the n a m e of the royal tribes or king still r e m a i n i n g : K . 458 ( I I . add. 320b), 466 ( I I . 239), 469 ( I I . 266), 470 ( I I . 246; 253), 4 7 1 ( I I . 247), 477 ( I I . 238), 478 ( I I . 5. 2 5 1 b ) , 480 ( I I . 5. 2 5 2 d ) , 484 ( I I . 5. 256c) 486, 491 ( I I . 2 6 1 ) , 492 ( I I . 5. 264c; II. 268), 495 ( I I . 263), 498 ( I I . 5. 2Ó4d), 507, 555 ( I I . 2 5 1 ) , 558 ( 2 4 3 ) , 559 (II- 419). 560 ( I I . 265), 561 ( I I . 267), 562, 563, 641 (II. 297), 646 (II. 300), 647, 653 (II. 3 1 1 ) , 657 ( I I . 3 1 4 ; II, 5. 314), 658 ( I I add. 314b), 660 (II. 5. 345c), 666 (II. 317), 679 (II. 322), 685 ( I I . 5. 331c), 743 ( I I . 352), 772 (II add. 352b), 776 (II. 374), 777 (II. 306), 784, 797 ( I I add. 252b). T h e r e are twelve inscriptions (including one doubtful case, K . 708) in which the names were excised, while in thirty-eight they were left undisturbed. T h o s e in c h a r g e of the work of excision d o not seem to have been g u i d e d by any particular rule. But in general those decrees containing lists of ephebes, and those recording sacrifices to the kings were defaced. T h e work of excising the names was confined almost without exception, however, to the A k r o p o l i s

THE CREATION

OF THE TRIBE

PTOLEMAIS.

389

and preferably to ephebic lists and those decrees recording sacrifices to the kings. W e might therefore infer that the work was confined to certain precincts on the Akropolis where such inscriptions were set up, and that in other precincts the w o r k was more perfunctorily done. W i t h these figures in view, we certainly cannot a r g u e that /SAOTXEW 'A . . in I I . 384 must refer to king A t t a l o s . Further, if we date this inscription in 229/8, it is v e r y doubtful if it can refer to Attalos, because it must still be proven that he had the royal title in that year. T h e balance of evidence is against it A c c o r d i n g to P o l y b i u s ( X V I I I . 41. 7) he first declared himself k i n g after his victory over the Galatians (cf. L i v y , 33. 21 ; Strabo, X I I I . 624). Polybius g o e s on to say : He lived 72 years of which he held the throne for 44 (TOVTO>I> fie PA *lKO(j\_Trj irjs 7TpVTa~\veias Kr\. K i r c h n e r ' s explanation of this d e c r e e (Sitzungsberichte der königlichen Preussischen A k a d e m i e der Wissenschaften, 1 9 1 0 , p. 9 8 3 - 4 ) can only be accepted, if we allow that this inscription is an e x a m p l e of double dating, although there is nothing to indicate that such is the case. Moreover, his very complicated solution of the arrangement of the prytanies seems to be entirely at variance with the usual simplicity of the Athenians in dating their decrees. T h e r e is a much simpler solution of the p r o b l e m , if we assume that there were thirteen prytanies in the archonship of E r g o c h a r e s . In that case we have the choice of two solutions of the problem. I f Mirayetrvtawos; e'rar[/; Kai ScKiirp 8]evrepa ¿pßo\ifim means the 19th of the intercalated month Metageitnion, as K i r c h ner explains it, then the 20th day o f the third pry tany could easily fall on the 19th day of the third month in an intercalary year with thirteen prytanies. T h e r e is a similar situation in 2 0 9 / 8 ( K e r n , Inschriften von Magnesia, No. 37), where the 7th day of the 5th prytany can only fall on the 6th day of Pyanopsion, if we suppose a month to have been intercalated earlier in the y e a r . T h e n the 7th d a y of the 5th prytany falls on the 6th day of the 5th month. If, however, the date of I G . I I . 3 8 1 is correctly interpreted b y the editor o the I G . , then this is the 20th day of Metageitnion and we must assume that Hekatombaion was the intercalated month. T h i s is quite possible, for we know from I G . I. Suppl. 27b. 53, p. 59 (ftefa 8e e'p.ßäWep EKarovßatopa tov viov äpxovTo) that Hekatombaion was sometimes intercalated. In that case month and prytany exactly coincide. It is not necessary to study those decrees which belong undoubtedly to the period of the 1 3 tribes. In all cases where the arrangement of the prytany is preserved, we find the same system as in K . 7 9 1 ( I I . 3 3 4 ) , K . 7 8 3 ( I I . 5. 3 7 3 c ) , and I G . I I . 3 8 1 . T h o s e peculiarities found in the decrees of the archon Archelaos do not violate the rules of the thirteen p r y t a n y system, but will

THE

CREATION

OF

THE

TRIBE

393

PTOLEMAIS.

be e x p l a i n e d under that name in the discussion of the individual archons. If P r o f e s s o r K i r c h n e r ' s system of prytanies of different lengths for I G . I I . 3 8 1 is valid, then I G . I I . 3 3 4 and I I . 5. 3 7 3 c will h a v e to be p r o v i d e d for in s o m e w a y which differs from this again. T h i s , h o w e v e r , is most u n l i k e l y and we must conclude that the s y s t e m of d o u b l e dating cannot a p p l y to decrees which d o n o t h a v e t h e p h r a s e KOT' apxovra,

Kara 6(6v o r

rjpepoXeybov.

W e can no l o n g e r reasonably doubt the existence of thirteen tribes w h e n these three d e c r e e s were passed. W e must therefore push back the date of the creation of Ptolemais before the y e a r 2 2 4 / 3 B. C., or else revise the dating of these decrees. The latter course is impossible in the case of K . 7 8 3 ( I G . I I . 5. 3 7 3 c ) and I I . 3 8 1 if we a r e to place a n y v a l u e in the cycle of the secretaries or the list of archons in I G . I I . 859. S i n c e we confirm K o e h l e r ' s r e a d i n g of K . 7 9 1 ( I G . I I . 3 3 4 ) , the date of this inscription must be considered anew. B e f o r e the date of D i o m e d o n is discussed, the data for determining J a s o n ' s archonship must be considered. T h i s is established f r o m the accounts of the life of Z e n o and K l e a n t h e s ( P h i l o demos, V o l . H e r c u l . V I I I , col. 4 ; I n d e x S t o i c o r u m , coll. 28 a n d 29), w h i c h run as follows I1 ftp1 prjves

ov (rrjp.€La>0rjvai TcreXevTrjicevai rpcis.

2 . yeyavivai

axo^RFV diaKaTna^lf

I.

¿iro K X f a p ^ o v yap e V '

Zfocova,

K\iav&T)v err1

eV' eTT/ rpiaKovra

(TT)

COTXV

ap^ovros

Kai EV.

ivvca

A'ppevflbrjv,

Kai rpiaKovra

' ApiaTotfravovs

3 . ¿7Tr)Wayr] 8' ¿IT'

Ka\

Kai Trjv iipxovros

'hio-ovos erav ra p.d\iuTa p (for other allusions, see F e r g u s o n , A t h e nian A r c h o n s , Cornell S t u d i e s X , p. 30). T h e date of K l e a r c h o s is fixed in the y e a r 3 0 1 / 0 . Ferguson ( P r i e s t s of A s k l e p i o s , 1 5 3 - 4 ) dates A r i h e n e i d e s by the e x c l u s i v e s y s t e m of reckoning in 2 6 1 / 0 , but places J a s o n b y the inclusive s y s t e m in 2 3 1 / 0 . K o l b e dates A r r h e n e i d e s b y the inclusive method in 2 6 2 / 1 , J a s o n b y the e x c l u s i v e reckoning in 2 3 1 / 0 (op. cit. 4 0 - 4 5 , 66). It is clear that P h i l o d e m o s is not using the double system of r e c k o n i n g in the s a m e p a s s a g e , and neither of these scholars can be right in both cases. B y the accepted dating of D i o m e d o n in 2 3 2 / 1 , h o w e v e r , t h e y h a v e been forced to date J a s o n in 2 3 1 / 0 . T h e inclusive s y s t e m of r e c k o n i n g is u n d o u b t e d l y the correct o n e (cf. K i r c h n e r , R h . M u s . 53, p. 383, n. 1 ) . B y this system thirty-nine y e a r s a n d three months from K l e a r c h o s to A r r h e n e i d e s b r i n g us to the beginning of the fourth month in the y e a r 2 6 2 / 1 . 1 I have not i n d i c a t e d the restorations. 1 9 1 2 , pp. 226 ff.

F o r these see M a y e r , Pliilologus,

394

AMERICAN

JOURNAL

OF

PHILOLOGY.

T h a t Antipatros and Arrheneides were archons in the same year, according to the theory of K o l b e , can no longer be doubted ( K o l b e , op. cit., pp. 40 ff.; K i r c h n e r , B P W . 1909, 847; cf. Ferguson, Hellenistic A t h e n s , 182 note. F e r g u s o n ' s objections to K o l b e ' s arguments are not valid so long as he himself dates Jason by inclusive r e c k o n i n g in 231 / o ) . If we calculate the date of Jason by the inclusive system of reckoning, then one hundred years from the archonship of A r i s t o p h a n e s (331/0) bring us to 232/1 and thirty-one years from the archonship of Arrheneides (262/1) bring us to the same year. 1 Similarly by inclusive reckoning Kallistratos is dated in the year 206/5 ( L a k y d e s became head of the school in the fourth year of the 134th O l y m p i a d and died 36 y e a r s later). W e may now turn to the problem of dating D i o m e d o n . From the possibilities suggested above, w h e n we discussed the restoration of K . 791 ( I G . II. 334), the secretary must belong to one of the following tribes: Aiantis, Aigeis, Akamantis, Antigonis, Antiochis, Hippothontis, Leontis, Pandionis, or Ptolemais. The decree must be dated in the time of the twelve or of the thirteen tribes (306-201 B. C.) It cannot be later than 202/1, for the tribes Antigonis and Demetrias were abolished alter that date. 2 T h e prosopographical evidence enables us to limit the document to the last half of the third century. W e can infer from the fact that the powerful democratic leader E u r y k l e i d e s of K e p h i s i a was military steward, that the Macedonians exercised no control o v e r the city or the elections. T h e inscription must therefore be later than 233/2 at least. T h e officer ó eVí rjj Sioutíjcríi3 w h o pays for the cost of the inscription did not exist between 218/7 a n d 202/1 (cf. I G . II. 5. 385c; K e r n , Inschriften von Magnesia, Nr. 37). Therefore Diomedon m a y be limited to the years 233/2218/7. T h e year 229/8 is excluded because it requires a secretary from K e k r o p i s . It is practically certain that the archon K a l laischros is to be placed in the year 220/19. W e are therefore compelled to place D i o m e d o n in 231/0. W i t h this date' the historical content of the decree agrees. 4 Since the y e a r is settled 1 M a y e r ( P h i l o l o g u s L X X I , p . 237, n o t e 60) i n a v o i d i n g o n e h o r n o f t h e d i l e m m a b y r e a d i n g rptaKovra. nal [ro]^ áiovíioiov TOÍVVV . . in t h e P h i l o d e m o s f r a g m e n t q u o t e d a b o v e , is f o r c e d u p o n t h e o t h e r i n i n t e r p r e t i n g ¡iá7,iü~a p. M o r e o v e r , I d o u b t v e r y m u c h if h e c a n find s u p p o r t f o r t h e c o l l o c a t i o n o f p a r t i c l e s x.al . . . . romvv w h i c h h e h a s p r o p o s e d . 2 3 4

P W . V o l . I , 32. 38 f f . ; T o d , B S A . 1 9 0 2 - 3 , 1 7 3 ff. T h e h i s t o r y o f t h i s o f f i c e r w i l l b e t a k e n u p in a l a t e r p a p e r . F e r g u s o n , H e l l e n i s t i c A t h e n s , p. 205.

THE CREATION

OF THE TRIBE

PTOLEMAIS.

395

we can now determine the tribe which held the secretaryship. In 231/0 the secretaryship was held b y Akamantis, the 8th in the official order during the period of the thirteen tribes. T h e only deme in this tribe beginning with alpha is 'kyvolaios. W e mast therefore make this restoration in line 2 and assume that there were only 47 letters in the completed line. W e must, however, consider the other possibility, since F e r g u son, Kirchner and K o l b e are all agreed on assigning D i o m e d o n to a secretary from Leontis. This, however, is impossible, and apart from the restoration of the deme of the secretary in line 2, our clearest proof is found in K 780 ( I G . II. 307). T h e formula for sacrifices in honor of king Antigonos contains only ca. 40 letters ( K . 775 or IG. II. A d d . 373b). T h e formula for king Demetrios is more elaborate and consists of 62 letters as we see from II. 5. 614b (cf. K . 790, 776 or I G . II. 374) ; Kai toO jWtXeW ArjprjTptov Kai Trjs ¡HarrtXivtrrji #ms 1 Kai rwv iyyovvc en\j£i [detijarei Ti/< 7rpvrave\ia(;

Tirnpr/jr] kypap-~\ ¿e/ca' rerapTEi real] Teraprric

P y a n o p s i o n is t h e f o u r t h m o n t h , s o w e m a y r e s t o r e By

restoring

Aigeis

or

Oineis

as the

s h o r t e s t l e n g t h o f l i n e is 4 1 l e t t e r s .

n a m e of

for the

trial to be the only possible

Chronologie,

the following w h i c h

UiOcvi the

first

fill

o r 'Y/}a(TiKpaT7]i MiXriu'Sou 2$j)rrios w a s e l e c t e d rafiias t5>v oTpaTiaTiKav and was p r a i s e d b y the citizens of E l e u s i s for the w a y in w h i c h he p e r f o r m e d his duties. T r o o p s w e r e stationed at E l e u s i s from 225 B. C. until a b o u t t h e end of the c e n t u r y ( F e r g u s o n , Hellenistic A t h e n s , 249 and note 2, 251 and note 1). T h e possible d a t e s for Philinos are 2 1 2 / 1 , 210/9, 2 0 8 / 7 - 2 0 6 / 5 , 204/3 o r 2 0 3 / 2 A definite c h o i c e is not p o s s i b l e with o u r present e v i d e n c e , b u t since most of the d e c r e e s from E l e u s i s h o n o r i n g A t h e n i a n officials b e l o n g to t h e p e r i o d before 208, it is p r o b a b l e that Philinos s h o u l d be assigned to o n e o f the earlier y e a r s . K o l b e has r e s t o r e d I s o k r a t e s p r o v i s i o n a l l y in I G . II. 385 w h i c h w a s p a s s e d in the y e a r 210/9 (°P- cit., p. 73). If this restoration be a c c e p t e d , then Philinos must b e d a t e d in the y e a r 2 1 2 / 1. W e must assign t o the y e a r 209/8 the A t t i c d e c r e e found at M a g n e s i a ( K e r n , Inschriften v o n M a g n e s i a , 37). T h e arrangement of t h e p r y t a n i e s s h o w s that it is to be dated in the time of the thirteen tribes, for the 7th d a y of the 5th p r y t a n y can o n l y fall on the 6th d a y of P y a n o p s i o n if w e s u p p o s e a m o n t h to h a v e b e e n intercalated earlier in the y e a r . T h e n the 7th d a y of the 5th p r y t a n y falls o n the 6th d a y of the 5th m o n t h . T h i s is of c o u r s e o n l y possible w h e n there are thirteen tribes. S i n c e the s a m e a m b a s s a d o r s m e n t i o n e d in this d e c r e e g o also to the court of P h i l i p V . o f M a c e d o n ( K e r n , o p . cit., N o . 4 7 ) , this inscription 27

AMERICAN

414

JOURNAL

OF

PHILOLOGY.

must be dated after his accession in 2 2 1 . T h e only place for a secretary from the deme Erchia ( A i g e i s ) is in 209/8. T h e name of the archon had 1 1 or 1 2 letters Nikophon and Dionysios ( I G . I I . 4 0 1 , I I . 5. 623b, 1 1 6 1 b ) hold the archonship in successive y e a r s as is evident from I G . II. 5623b. T h e prosopographical evidence shows that they should be dated not long before Phanarchides (Kirchner, G G A . 1900, 455). T h e only possibilities are 2 0 8 - 6 or 2 0 5 - 3 . T h e historical evidence favors the y e a r 2 0 5 / 4 - 2 0 3 / 2 ( F e r g u s o n , Hellenistic Athens, p. 256, note). W e should probably restore »V1 N I K O ;rpt note). In the accompanying photograph (which is taken from a squeeze of the upper part of K . 791 (II. 334) the cross bar of the letter alpha may readily be seen. From an examination of the stone itself, it is quite clear that the line is not a flaw but the original chiseling of the stonecutter. Wilheim offered this reading only as a possibility while studying some Euboean inscriptions where the name suggested the restoration [, AldaXiSris (Antigonis). W e shall see later that we must restore 'Ayvoiatos and assume that this line had only 47 letters. If we turn now to the next datable inscription of this period we have undoubted evidence for the existence of thirteen prytanies. This is K . 783 (II. 5, 373c), which Ferguson has dated from the secretary-cycle in 230/ 29 (Priests of Asklepios, p. 134). Lines 1 - 4 are to be restored as follows : [f7T . . . . ftiov apx]oi>TOS €7Tl TJ)S AlavTl&OS §G>8ffK«T)?? TTpVTIlpeiat [ ]>of 'EmKrj I. G. II. 5. 614b. T h e following inscriptions have the n a m e of the royal tribes or king still r e m a i n i n g : K . 458 ( I I . add. 320b), 466 ( I I . 239), 469 ( I I . 266), 470 ( I I . 246; 253), 4 7 1 ( I I . 247), 477 ( I I . 238), 478 ( I I . 5. 2 5 1 b ) , 480 ( I I . 5. 2 5 2 d ) , 484 ( I I . 5. 256c) 486, 491 ( I I . 2 6 1 ) , 492 ( I I . 5. 264c; II. 268), 495 ( I I . 263), 498 ( I I . 5. 2Ó4d), 507, 555 ( I I . 2 5 1 ) , 558 ( 2 4 3 ) , 559 (II- 419). 560 ( I I . 265), 561 ( I I . 267), 562, 563, 641 (II. 297), 646 (II. 300), 647, 653 (II. 3 1 1 ) , 657 ( I I . 3 1 4 ; II, 5. 314), 658 ( I I add. 314b), 660 (II. 5. 345c), 666 (II. 317), 679 (II. 322), 685 ( I I . 5. 331c), 743 ( I I . 352), 772 (II add. 352b), 776 (II. 374), 777 (II. 306), 784, 797 ( I I add. 252b). T h e r e are twelve inscriptions (including one doubtful case, K . 708) in which the names were excised, while in thirty-eight they were left undisturbed. T h o s e in c h a r g e of the work of excision d o not seem to have been g u i d e d by any particular rule. But in general those decrees containing lists of ephebes, and those recording sacrifices to the kings were defaced. T h e work of excising the names was confined almost without exception, however, to the A k r o p o l i s

THE CREATION

OF THE TRIBE

PTOLEMAIS.

389

and preferably to ephebic lists and those decrees recording sacrifices to the kings. W e might therefore infer that the work was confined to certain precincts on the Akropolis where such inscriptions were set up, and that in other precincts the w o r k was more perfunctorily done. W i t h these figures in view, we certainly cannot a r g u e that /SAOTXEW 'A . . in I I . 384 must refer to king A t t a l o s . Further, if we date this inscription in 229/8, it is v e r y doubtful if it can refer to Attalos, because it must still be proven that he had the royal title in that year. T h e balance of evidence is against it A c c o r d i n g to P o l y b i u s ( X V I I I . 41. 7) he first declared himself k i n g after his victory over the Galatians (cf. L i v y , 33. 21 ; Strabo, X I I I . 624). Polybius g o e s on to say : He lived 72 years of which he held the throne for 44 (TOVTO>I> fie PA *lKO(j\_Trj irjs 7TpVTa~\veias Kr\. K i r c h n e r ' s explanation of this d e c r e e (Sitzungsberichte der königlichen Preussischen A k a d e m i e der Wissenschaften, 1 9 1 0 , p. 9 8 3 - 4 ) can only be accepted, if we allow that this inscription is an e x a m p l e of double dating, although there is nothing to indicate that such is the case. Moreover, his very complicated solution of the arrangement of the prytanies seems to be entirely at variance with the usual simplicity of the Athenians in dating their decrees. T h e r e is a much simpler solution of the p r o b l e m , if we assume that there were thirteen prytanies in the archonship of E r g o c h a r e s . In that case we have the choice of two solutions of the problem. I f Mirayetrvtawos; e'rar[/; Kai ScKiirp 8]evrepa ¿pßo\ifim means the 19th of the intercalated month Metageitnion, as K i r c h ner explains it, then the 20th day o f the third pry tany could easily fall on the 19th day of the third month in an intercalary year with thirteen prytanies. T h e r e is a similar situation in 2 0 9 / 8 ( K e r n , Inschriften von Magnesia, No. 37), where the 7th day of the 5th prytany can only fall on the 6th day of Pyanopsion, if we suppose a month to have been intercalated earlier in the y e a r . T h e n the 7th d a y of the 5th prytany falls on the 6th day of the 5th month. If, however, the date of I G . I I . 3 8 1 is correctly interpreted b y the editor o the I G . , then this is the 20th day of Metageitnion and we must assume that Hekatombaion was the intercalated month. T h i s is quite possible, for we know from I G . I. Suppl. 27b. 53, p. 59 (ftefa 8e e'p.ßäWep EKarovßatopa tov viov äpxovTo) that Hekatombaion was sometimes intercalated. In that case month and prytany exactly coincide. It is not necessary to study those decrees which belong undoubtedly to the period of the 1 3 tribes. In all cases where the arrangement of the prytany is preserved, we find the same system as in K . 7 9 1 ( I I . 3 3 4 ) , K . 7 8 3 ( I I . 5. 3 7 3 c ) , and I G . I I . 3 8 1 . T h o s e peculiarities found in the decrees of the archon Archelaos do not violate the rules of the thirteen p r y t a n y system, but will

THE

CREATION

OF

THE

TRIBE

393

PTOLEMAIS.

be e x p l a i n e d under that name in the discussion of the individual archons. If P r o f e s s o r K i r c h n e r ' s system of prytanies of different lengths for I G . I I . 3 8 1 is valid, then I G . I I . 3 3 4 and I I . 5. 3 7 3 c will h a v e to be p r o v i d e d for in s o m e w a y which differs from this again. T h i s , h o w e v e r , is most u n l i k e l y and we must conclude that the s y s t e m of d o u b l e dating cannot a p p l y to decrees which d o n o t h a v e t h e p h r a s e KOT' apxovra,

Kara 6(6v o r

rjpepoXeybov.

W e can no l o n g e r reasonably doubt the existence of thirteen tribes w h e n these three d e c r e e s were passed. W e must therefore push back the date of the creation of Ptolemais before the y e a r 2 2 4 / 3 B. C., or else revise the dating of these decrees. The latter course is impossible in the case of K . 7 8 3 ( I G . I I . 5. 3 7 3 c ) and I I . 3 8 1 if we a r e to place a n y v a l u e in the cycle of the secretaries or the list of archons in I G . I I . 859. S i n c e we confirm K o e h l e r ' s r e a d i n g of K . 7 9 1 ( I G . I I . 3 3 4 ) , the date of this inscription must be considered anew. B e f o r e the date of D i o m e d o n is discussed, the data for determining J a s o n ' s archonship must be considered. T h i s is established f r o m the accounts of the life of Z e n o and K l e a n t h e s ( P h i l o demos, V o l . H e r c u l . V I I I , col. 4 ; I n d e x S t o i c o r u m , coll. 28 a n d 29), w h i c h run as follows I1 ftp1 prjves

ov (rrjp.€La>0rjvai TcreXevTrjicevai rpcis.

2 . yeyavivai

axo^RFV diaKaTna^lf

I.

¿iro K X f a p ^ o v yap e V '

Zfocova,

K\iav&T)v err1

eV' eTT/ rpiaKovra

(TT)

COTXV

ap^ovros

Kai EV.

ivvca

A'ppevflbrjv,

Kai rpiaKovra

' ApiaTotfravovs

3 . ¿7Tr)Wayr] 8' ¿IT'

Ka\

Kai Trjv iipxovros

'hio-ovos erav ra p.d\iuTa p (for other allusions, see F e r g u s o n , A t h e nian A r c h o n s , Cornell S t u d i e s X , p. 30). T h e date of K l e a r c h o s is fixed in the y e a r 3 0 1 / 0 . Ferguson ( P r i e s t s of A s k l e p i o s , 1 5 3 - 4 ) dates A r i h e n e i d e s by the e x c l u s i v e s y s t e m of reckoning in 2 6 1 / 0 , but places J a s o n b y the inclusive s y s t e m in 2 3 1 / 0 . K o l b e dates A r r h e n e i d e s b y the inclusive method in 2 6 2 / 1 , J a s o n b y the e x c l u s i v e reckoning in 2 3 1 / 0 (op. cit. 4 0 - 4 5 , 66). It is clear that P h i l o d e m o s is not using the double system of r e c k o n i n g in the s a m e p a s s a g e , and neither of these scholars can be right in both cases. B y the accepted dating of D i o m e d o n in 2 3 2 / 1 , h o w e v e r , t h e y h a v e been forced to date J a s o n in 2 3 1 / 0 . T h e inclusive s y s t e m of r e c k o n i n g is u n d o u b t e d l y the correct o n e (cf. K i r c h n e r , R h . M u s . 53, p. 383, n. 1 ) . B y this system thirty-nine y e a r s a n d three months from K l e a r c h o s to A r r h e n e i d e s b r i n g us to the beginning of the fourth month in the y e a r 2 6 2 / 1 . 1 I have not i n d i c a t e d the restorations. 1 9 1 2 , pp. 226 ff.

F o r these see M a y e r , Pliilologus,

394

AMERICAN

JOURNAL

OF

PHILOLOGY.

T h a t Antipatros and Arrheneides were archons in the same year, according to the theory of K o l b e , can no longer be doubted ( K o l b e , op. cit., pp. 40 ff.; K i r c h n e r , B P W . 1909, 847; cf. Ferguson, Hellenistic A t h e n s , 182 note. F e r g u s o n ' s objections to K o l b e ' s arguments are not valid so long as he himself dates Jason by inclusive r e c k o n i n g in 231 / o ) . If we calculate the date of Jason by the inclusive system of reckoning, then one hundred years from the archonship of A r i s t o p h a n e s (331/0) bring us to 232/1 and thirty-one years from the archonship of Arrheneides (262/1) bring us to the same year. 1 Similarly by inclusive reckoning Kallistratos is dated in the year 206/5 ( L a k y d e s became head of the school in the fourth year of the 134th O l y m p i a d and died 36 y e a r s later). W e may now turn to the problem of dating D i o m e d o n . From the possibilities suggested above, w h e n we discussed the restoration of K . 791 ( I G . II. 334), the secretary must belong to one of the following tribes: Aiantis, Aigeis, Akamantis, Antigonis, Antiochis, Hippothontis, Leontis, Pandionis, or Ptolemais. The decree must be dated in the time of the twelve or of the thirteen tribes (306-201 B. C.) It cannot be later than 202/1, for the tribes Antigonis and Demetrias were abolished alter that date. 2 T h e prosopographical evidence enables us to limit the document to the last half of the third century. W e can infer from the fact that the powerful democratic leader E u r y k l e i d e s of K e p h i s i a was military steward, that the Macedonians exercised no control o v e r the city or the elections. T h e inscription must therefore be later than 233/2 at least. T h e officer ó eVí rjj Sioutíjcríi3 w h o pays for the cost of the inscription did not exist between 218/7 a n d 202/1 (cf. I G . II. 5. 385c; K e r n , Inschriften von Magnesia, Nr. 37). Therefore Diomedon m a y be limited to the years 233/2218/7. T h e year 229/8 is excluded because it requires a secretary from K e k r o p i s . It is practically certain that the archon K a l laischros is to be placed in the year 220/19. W e are therefore compelled to place D i o m e d o n in 231/0. W i t h this date' the historical content of the decree agrees. 4 Since the y e a r is settled 1 M a y e r ( P h i l o l o g u s L X X I , p . 237, n o t e 60) i n a v o i d i n g o n e h o r n o f t h e d i l e m m a b y r e a d i n g rptaKovra. nal [ro]^ áiovíioiov TOÍVVV . . in t h e P h i l o d e m o s f r a g m e n t q u o t e d a b o v e , is f o r c e d u p o n t h e o t h e r i n i n t e r p r e t i n g ¡iá7,iü~a p. M o r e o v e r , I d o u b t v e r y m u c h if h e c a n find s u p p o r t f o r t h e c o l l o c a t i o n o f p a r t i c l e s x.al . . . . romvv w h i c h h e h a s p r o p o s e d . 2 3 4

P W . V o l . I , 32. 38 f f . ; T o d , B S A . 1 9 0 2 - 3 , 1 7 3 ff. T h e h i s t o r y o f t h i s o f f i c e r w i l l b e t a k e n u p in a l a t e r p a p e r . F e r g u s o n , H e l l e n i s t i c A t h e n s , p. 205.

THE CREATION

OF THE TRIBE

PTOLEMAIS.

395

we can now determine the tribe which held the secretaryship. In 231/0 the secretaryship was held b y Akamantis, the 8th in the official order during the period of the thirteen tribes. T h e only deme in this tribe beginning with alpha is 'kyvolaios. W e mast therefore make this restoration in line 2 and assume that there were only 47 letters in the completed line. W e must, however, consider the other possibility, since F e r g u son, Kirchner and K o l b e are all agreed on assigning D i o m e d o n to a secretary from Leontis. This, however, is impossible, and apart from the restoration of the deme of the secretary in line 2, our clearest proof is found in K 780 ( I G . II. 307). T h e formula for sacrifices in honor of king Antigonos contains only ca. 40 letters ( K . 775 or IG. II. A d d . 373b). T h e formula for king Demetrios is more elaborate and consists of 62 letters as we see from II. 5. 614b (cf. K . 790, 776 or I G . II. 374) ; Kai toO jWtXeW ArjprjTptov Kai Trjs ¡HarrtXivtrrji #ms 1 Kai rwv iyyovvc en\j£i [detijarei Ti/< 7rpvrave\ia(;

Tirnpr/jr] kypap-~\ ¿e/ca' rerapTEi real] Teraprric

P y a n o p s i o n is t h e f o u r t h m o n t h , s o w e m a y r e s t o r e By

restoring

Aigeis

or

Oineis

as the

s h o r t e s t l e n g t h o f l i n e is 4 1 l e t t e r s .

n a m e of

for the

trial to be the only possible

Chronologie,

the following w h i c h

UiOcvi the

first

fill

o r 'Y/}a(TiKpaT7]i MiXriu'Sou 2$j)rrios w a s e l e c t e d rafiias t5>v oTpaTiaTiKav and was p r a i s e d b y the citizens of E l e u s i s for the w a y in w h i c h he p e r f o r m e d his duties. T r o o p s w e r e stationed at E l e u s i s from 225 B. C. until a b o u t t h e end of the c e n t u r y ( F e r g u s o n , Hellenistic A t h e n s , 249 and note 2, 251 and note 1). T h e possible d a t e s for Philinos are 2 1 2 / 1 , 210/9, 2 0 8 / 7 - 2 0 6 / 5 , 204/3 o r 2 0 3 / 2 A definite c h o i c e is not p o s s i b l e with o u r present e v i d e n c e , b u t since most of the d e c r e e s from E l e u s i s h o n o r i n g A t h e n i a n officials b e l o n g to t h e p e r i o d before 208, it is p r o b a b l e that Philinos s h o u l d be assigned to o n e o f the earlier y e a r s . K o l b e has r e s t o r e d I s o k r a t e s p r o v i s i o n a l l y in I G . II. 385 w h i c h w a s p a s s e d in the y e a r 210/9 (°P- cit., p. 73). If this restoration be a c c e p t e d , then Philinos must b e d a t e d in the y e a r 2 1 2 / 1. W e must assign t o the y e a r 209/8 the A t t i c d e c r e e found at M a g n e s i a ( K e r n , Inschriften v o n M a g n e s i a , 37). T h e arrangement of t h e p r y t a n i e s s h o w s that it is to be dated in the time of the thirteen tribes, for the 7th d a y of the 5th p r y t a n y can o n l y fall on the 6th d a y of P y a n o p s i o n if w e s u p p o s e a m o n t h to h a v e b e e n intercalated earlier in the y e a r . T h e n the 7th d a y of the 5th p r y t a n y falls o n the 6th d a y of the 5th m o n t h . T h i s is of c o u r s e o n l y possible w h e n there are thirteen tribes. S i n c e the s a m e a m b a s s a d o r s m e n t i o n e d in this d e c r e e g o also to the court of P h i l i p V . o f M a c e d o n ( K e r n , o p . cit., N o . 4 7 ) , this inscription 27

AMERICAN

414

JOURNAL

OF

PHILOLOGY.

must be dated after his accession in 2 2 1 . T h e only place for a secretary from the deme Erchia ( A i g e i s ) is in 209/8. T h e name of the archon had 1 1 or 1 2 letters Nikophon and Dionysios ( I G . I I . 4 0 1 , I I . 5. 623b, 1 1 6 1 b ) hold the archonship in successive y e a r s as is evident from I G . II. 5623b. T h e prosopographical evidence shows that they should be dated not long before Phanarchides (Kirchner, G G A . 1900, 455). T h e only possibilities are 2 0 8 - 6 or 2 0 5 - 3 . T h e historical evidence favors the y e a r 2 0 5 / 4 - 2 0 3 / 2 ( F e r g u s o n , Hellenistic Athens, p. 256, note). W e should probably restore »V1 N I K O