¹ Before Dittenberger useful work had been done by Reisch, E., De musicis Graecorum certaminibus (Vindobonae, 1885).Google Scholar Foremost among subsequent contributions were those of Holleaux, M., BCH xiv (1890) 1–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar; 181–203; ibid, xvi (1892) 460–1; and esp. ibid, xxx (1906) 469–81; P. Jamot, ibid, xix (1895) 311–79; W. Vollgraff, ibid, xxv (1901) 365–78; O'Connor, J. B., Chapters in the History of Actors and Acting in Ancient Greece (Chicago, 1908)Google Scholar; Bizard, L., BCH xliv (1920) 227–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar More recent contributions will be mentioned in the course of this article.

² The last-mentioned of these inscriptions was attributed by Skias to the Mouseia, but Feyel, M. (Contribution à l'épigraphie béotienne [Le Puy, 1942] 57, note 2)Google Scholar, in a study of the removal of inscribed stones from one district of Boiotia to another, would attribute it to the Theban Agrionia. (For the Agrionia cf. Robert, L., BCH lix [1935] 195–8.)Google Scholar The agonistic events and their arrangement, so far as can be judged from this fragment, would not be inconsistent with an attribution to the Mouseia or the Agrionia (if IG vii 2448 is a record of this festival), or to the Charitesia at Orchomenos, or even to the Oropian Amphiaraia. In view of the fact that the particular celebration of the festival concerned probably took place in the same year as a celebration of the Charitesia—as will be suggested below, p. 123—it is unlikely that an occasion of the Charitesia is recorded here. Otherwise the attribution must remain in doubt. Generally speaking, it should be noted that while many stones bearing inscriptions can be proved to have been moved from one locality to another, the assumption of movement without clear proof can lead to confusion.

IG vii 1762 is clearly earlier than the first century B.C.; cf. Jamot, , BCH xix (1895) 333 f.Google Scholar, no. 7, and ibid. 346 fr.; Feyel, op. cit. 112–14.

³ The inscriptions mentioned here (and also IG vii 1764) were originally attributed to the Thespian Erotideia, but scholars have subsequently assumed for various reasons that this attribution was incorrect. Feyel (op. cit. 60–3) argued that 1764 relates to the Basileia at Lebadeia—although when he says (p. 61) ‘il ne peut être question des Erotideia de Thespies’ and adds (ibid, note 4), ‘au surplus, les textes dont l'attribution aux Érotideia demeure assurée sont tous de l'époque impériale’, he begs the question; fortunately, he has other arguments better than this. His attribution of 1764 to the Basileia will be considered below (pp. 123–5). No. 1765 was attributed by Feyel (op. cit. 57) to the Theban Herakleia on the grounds that the stone had been moved to Leuktra from Thebes (cf. Haneil, , ‘Die Inschriftensammlung des Konstantinos Laskaris’, Bulletin de la Société royale des lettres de Lund (1934–1935), mem. iv 135Google Scholar; Feyel, , REA xxxviii [1936] 397Google Scholar). It is of course possible that it had earlier been taken to Thebes from Thespiai, as many other stones were (cf. Feyel, Contribution 56); but this consideration is inconclusive. Again, to say that there is no definite evidence for the celebration of the Erotideia before imperial times (Feyel, 61, note 4; see above) is not a good argument. The attribution of 1765 to the Theban Herakleia is arbitrary: its programme of agonistic events cannot be shown to resemble the programme of the Herakleia in the first century B.c. any more than that of the Erotideia, since there is no further definite evidence of either of these. What is most striking in the list in 1765 is that this was a flourishing festival with a substantial programme of events attracting competitors from Asia Minor as well as Boiotia and other parts of mainland Greece. One might ask whether this feature could be expected in a place like Thebes, compelled by Sulla to make financial restitution to those places in Greece from which he had ‘borrowed’ treasures in the Mithridatic War, rather than in Thespiai, which had remained loyal to Rome in the war, was a centre of activity for negotiatores in the first century, received tokens of Roman favour, and was able to support a festival like the Mouseia. If 1765 is Theban, the festival must have been supported by a wealthy agonothetes at his own expense. Feyel (Contribution 128, note 1) doubts the attribution of BCH xix (1895) 369, no. 19 to the Thespian Erotideia and suggests either the Theban Herakleia or the Basileia at Lebadeia as its place of origin. This would help to clear the evidence away from the Erotideia, but the case remains doubtful.

⁴ Feyel (Contribution 58–63) has shown convincingly that these two inscriptions relate to the same festival, but his attribution of them to the Basileia at Lebadeia is less convincing; see below, pp. 123–5.

⁵ For inscriptions relating to the Basileia see esp. Feyel, op. cit. 67–87, and, for SEG iii 367 in particular, ibid. 67–75.

⁶ Hermes xx (1885) 274 and note 2. It should be mentioned here that 417 is dated by L. Moretti (Olympionikai 147) ‘indubbiamente anteriore al 96 av. Cr.’ on the grounds that Parmeniskos of Kerkyra, who is known from Sex. Julius Africanus to have been victor in the men's stadion at Olympia in 96 and 88 B.C., is to be identified with the Parmeniskos, son of Philiskos, of Kerkyra, who in 417 is still only a boy. But the patronymic of the Olympic victor is unknown and in any case 417 so clearly belongs to a post-Sullan group of inscriptions that a date before 96 B.C. would be out of the question. (For possible family connections of Parmeniskos the Olympic victor see below, note 45.) On the strength of his dating of 417, Moretti (loc. cit.) assigns the Olympic victories of Nikokles, son of Nikatas (Paus., iii 22, 5), to the 170th Olympiad = 100 B.c. They should be dated rather to the post-Sullan era, possibly in 76 B.C. (These victories must have been in track-events other than the stadion, as Rutgers [Sexti Iulii Africani Olimpiadon Anagrafi 106] observed.) For Nikokles see further, below, p. 133.

⁷ A special celebration was held at Thebes after the victory at Chaironeia (Plutarch, , Sulla 19, 11–12Google Scholar), but this cannot be identified with any of the regular festivals known to have been held in Boiotia.

⁸ e.g. IG iv² 652/3 I, lines 3–7.

⁹ Klee, T., Zur Geschichte der gymnischen Agone an griechischen Festen (Leipzig and Berlin, 1918) 59Google Scholar; Preuner, E., Hermes lvii (1922) 85Google Scholar; Ringwood, I. C., Agonistic Features of Local Greek Festivals chiefly from Inscriptional Evidence (Diss. Columbia, 1927) 46.Google Scholar The omission of reference to musical events in 4254 can be explained in other ways: it may have been accidental, or (lines 18–19) may have been intended to include these events; in any case they are not specifically excluded. The annual or biennial festival is not mentioned afterwards.

¹⁰ Cf. Preuner, , Hermes lvii (1922) 88Google Scholar; Leonardos, , AE (1925–1926) 40.Google Scholar

¹¹ For the correct form of Ariston's name in 3197 cf. Tod, M. N., JHS liv (1934) 161–2.Google Scholar The Alexandras, son of Ariston, , of FdD iii 2, 48Google Scholar (= Syll.³ 711L), lines 3, 15, and 47, and ibid. 49 (= Sylt.³ 728K), line 1, can hardly be identified with the Alexandres of 3197 as Tod suggested, but in view of the likely date of 3197 must rather have been his grandson. For this family see below, note 37. For the implications of victories won by fathers and sons in the same year see below, p. 128. For IG vii 3195–7, in general, see Amandry, P. and Spyropoulos, T., BCH xcviii (1974) 224 ff.Google Scholar

¹² Cf. Holleaux, , BCH xxx (1906) 478Google Scholar, note 3.

¹³ This has been referred by Feyel to the Theban Agrionia; see above, note 2.

¹⁴ Feyel, Contribution, 67–87.

¹⁵ Holleaux, , BCH xxx. (1906) 469 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and, for Ptolemy Philopator, ibid. 480–1. Feyel (op. cit. 79, note 1) curiously overlooks this point and speaks of ‘le roi d'Égypte’ as a second-century B.c. personality.

¹⁶ Feyel (op. cit. 59, note 2) thought it not impossible that the Mnasarchos, of BCH xxv 365 ff.Google Scholar, no. 19, was the grandfather of the Mnasarchos of 2871, but in fact this is impossible.

¹⁷ Holleaux, (BCH xxx [1906] 480, note 1)Google Scholar restored in BCH xxv (1901) 366–8, no. 19A, line 5, which is a most reasonable conjecture.

¹⁸ If Leukinos had been the younger brother, 2871 would be some years earlier than 417, perhaps too early to be post-Sullan. In view of its other prosopographical affinities, however, the inscription appears rather to be post-Sullan. The Mnasarchos, son of Damon, who is victor as epic poet in BCH xix (1895) 337–9, no. 12, line 20, cannot be identified with the Theban victor of 2871 since no. 12 is demonstrably earlier than 1760 (see above, p. 122) and therefore probably earlier than 2871 also; furthermore, the Mnasarchos, of BCH xix 337–9Google Scholar, no. 12 was probably a son of Damon, son of Mnasarchos, who is named in the same inscription (line 4) as priest of the Muses and must therefore have been a Thespian and not a Theban.

¹⁹ Feyel, op. cit. 58–61; cf. Foucart, , BCH ix (1885) 430 ff.Google Scholar, no. 46.

²⁰ Another argument possibly favouring the attribution of 2871 to the Pamboiotia is to be found in the mention of two equestrian events which took the statue of Ares as their starting-point Speaking of the celebration of the Pamboiotia in the precincts of the temple of Athena Itonia near Koroneia, Strabo (ix 2, 29, 411) says: Foucart's emendation of to (BCH ix [1885] 433), which has not generally been received with much favour, would place the identification of the festival recorded in 2871 beyond doubt and is worth more serious consideration.

²¹ Eiranos, son of Phrynidas, was evidently one of the most versatile performers of his age. O'Connor, J. B. (Chapters in the History of Actors and Acting in Ancient Greece [Chicago, 1908] 43)Google Scholar mentions him as one of the few examples of actors who performed in both tragedy and comedy. In Polemon iii (1947/8) 75, if his name is correctly restored, he is also a rhapsode. Cf. also Robert, L., Etudes épigraphiques (Paris, 1938) 93Google Scholar; Parenti, I., Dioniso xxxv (1961) 20, no. 261.Google Scholar (Parenti's article, unfortunately, contains some errors: under no. 261, for example, for ‘L. Robert, BCH xliv …’ read ‘L. Bizard, BCH xliv …’; and the name of W. Vollgraff is persistently mis-spelt.)

²² See also Koumanoudis, S., ‘Remarques prosopo-graphiques sur une inscription béotienne’, RP xxxv (1961) 106–8Google Scholar; Calvet, M. and Roesch, P., ‘Les Sarapieia de Tanagra’, RA (1966) 297–332Google Scholar (with prosopographical considerations 324 ff.).

²³ Cf. Calvet and Roesch, op. cit. 327.

²⁴ IG ii–iii² 1009, lines 14–15; 33–4.

²⁵ Cf. Kirchner, on IG ii–iii ²1009Google Scholar; Dinsmoor, The Ardions of Athens 223; 274–5. Christou was misled by his use of the first edition of IG ii and iii.

²⁶ In this case it is impossible to tell which is the father and which the son, and no help is given by the fact that a certain Protogenes, son of Protarchos, was honoured by the Thespians and the foreigners and the Roman negotiators in Thespiai for his contribution towards the care and education of their children (IG vii 1861 and 1862), since the precise date of these benefactions is not known. If the Protogenes, son of Protarchos, who is named in a Delphic inscription of 48/7 B.C. (FdD iii 1, 480 [= Syll.⁸ 761A], lines 26–7), was a Thespian, he may have been a son of the Protarchos and a grandson of the Protogenes of 2727.

²⁷ Statius, , Siluae v 3, 133–7.Google Scholar

²⁸ Syll. ³ 690, line 20; for the date cf. G. Daux, Delphes 359. note 2.

²⁹ FdD iii 2, 69, line 3; cf. IG ii–iii² 1134, line 5, as restored from the copy at Delphi. Calvet, and Roesch, (RA (1966) 326–7)Google Scholar rightly consider the description of Askle-piades in the Tanagra inscription (line 12) as a Theban to be an error on the part of the stone-cutter. He is correctly described as Athenian in line 18. For other details of Asklepiades' career cf. Sifakis, G. M., Studies in the History of Hellenistic Drama (London, 1967) 25–6.Google Scholar

³⁰ Thompson, M. (The New Style Silver Coinage of Athens i 290–2)Google Scholar dates the Hikesios/Asklepiades tetradrachms to 135/4 B.C. If this is correct, Asklepiades will certainly have reached an advanced age by go B.C. It should, however, be noted without further discussion (for which there is insufficient space here) that Miss Thompson's treatment of the New Style coinage, whatever satisfactory explanations of numismatic affinities it may give, raises serious historical and prosopographical problems.

³¹ FdD iii 2, 25, line 16.

³² Cf. Calvet and Roesch, op. cit. 328. Chrestou (p. 46) refers to the of FdD iii 2, 11 (138/7 B.C.), whom he identifies with the comic actor of FdD iii 2, 48 (but he wrongly assigns this inscription to 106/5 B.C.), and he does not mention the of FdD iii 2, 25.

³³ e.g. IG ii–iii² 1039 w, line 20.

³⁴ Furthermore, Calvet and Roesch (op. cit. 330) rightly point out that the use of the Boiotian dialect in 557 suggests a date before the middle of the second century B.C.

³⁵ Another possible clue to the date of this inscription is to be found in a tentative restoration of the Antigon-Diogenes family. Unfortunately, since Diogenes was not an uncommon name in Thebes, this restoration can at best be regarded as no more than hypothetical. Another actor in the Argos inscription is Aristokrates, son of Diogenes, of Thebes. An agonothetes named in BCH xxv (1901) 368–9, no. 19C, and 376, no. 20, is Platon, son of Aristokrates. Four generations of this family would then appear thus:

The most important effect of this reconstruction would be to make it obvious that neither the Argos inscription nor 540 + SEG xix 335 could be later than about the mid nineties B.C. Two other Thebans named Diogenes, however, the one a son of Theodotos (2727; IG xii 9, 92) and the other a son of Leonidas, (SEG xix 335)Google Scholar, both of them poets, should be mentioned here. Platon, the agonothetes, could possibly have been a grandson of Diogenes, son of Leonidas. The other chronological affinities of BCH xxv 368–9, no. 19C, and 375–6, no. 20, however, would not allow him to be a grandson of Diogenes, son of Theodotos, whose victories occurred only a few years earlier. BCH xxv 375–6, no. 20, is earlier than ibid. 366 ff., no. 19, as was seen above, p. 125. For Diogenes, son of Antigon, see further Parenti, I., Dioniso, xxxv (1961) 15Google Scholar, no. 138; and for Philon, son of Glauketes, ibid. 26, no. 493a.

³⁶ Parenti (op. cit. 17, no. 168b) argues that ‘la contemporaneità di fioritura di costui (se. Kallistratos) con Esacesto impedisce di stabilire, come il Vollgraf [sic] stesso osserva, una diretta discendenza da padre a figlio, come a tutta prima parrebbe’. It seems more logical, however, to establish the comparative dates of the inscriptions from likely prosopographical links (such as the more or less obvious father-son relationship in question here) than to assume dates for the inscriptions as a basis for calculating family relationships. Kallistratos, son of Exakestos, appears in another list of names from Argos, (SEG xiii 248)Google Scholar, which is therefore to be dated approximately to the same years as 419 and 3197. For Athenias cf. Parenti, op. cit. 10, no. 10b; for Dorotheos cf. ibid. 16, no. 163; for Eubios cf. ibid. 18, no. 186a.

³⁷ Cf. Preuner, E., Rh. Mus. xlix (1894) 362–9Google Scholar, with stemma at 366; PA ii 325, no. 13824 (stemma); Tod, , JHS liv (1934) 161–2Google Scholar; Chrestou, op. cit. 44–5; Calvet and Roesch, op. cit. 328; Sifakis, Studies in the History of Hellenistic Drama 28–9.

³⁸ See above, p. 121, and note 11.

³⁹ BCH xxx (1906) 478, note 3. Holleaux discussed the date of 4149 in BCH xvi (1892) 460–1.

⁴⁰ Cf. Dittenberger ad loc; Holleaux, , BCH xvi (1892) 461Google Scholar, note 1; Jamot, , BCH xix (1895) 351.Google Scholar

⁴¹ For IG vii 2446 cf. Dittenberger's comments ad loc. and Jamot, , BCH xix. (1895) 354–5Google Scholar and esp. 355, note 2. Jamot (ibid. 352 ff.) also discusses earlier generations of the same family.

⁴² His name is given by Dittenberger in IG vii 3078 as and by Vollgraff, in BCH xxv (1901) 369Google Scholar, no. 19B, line 18 (cf. ibid. 375) as The correct form was restored by Holleaux, , BCH xxx (1906) 469–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar, note 2.

⁴³ BCH xiv (1890) 190.

⁴⁴ See above, p. 124.

⁴⁵ The Parmeniskos mentioned by Sex. Julius Africanus as victor in the stadion at Olympia in 96 and 88 B.C. was probably the father of the hoplitodromos. A son of Parmeniskos is probably named in BCH xix (1895) 372–3, no. 22, which is otherwise too small a fragment to be of any value for the present purpose.

⁴⁶ Another victory of Nikokles is known from RP xxxv (1911) 124–5, no 27 (Larisa), which must therefore be dated close to 417 and IG ix¹ 2, 529. For Nikokles cf. Preuner, , Hermes lvii (1922) 88Google Scholar, note 1; Leonardos, , AE (1923) 50Google Scholar; see also above, note 6. For Kallon, son of Xenophilos, cf. Jardé, , BCH xxx (1906) 466Google Scholar; Preuner, loc. cit.; Leonardos, loc. cit.

⁴⁷ Cf. Wilhelm, A., Jahreshefte viii (1905) 9.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Appian, (BC i 99)Google Scholar says that no event was held at Olympia in the 175th Olympiad (= 80 B.c.) except the foot-race. This is to be modified in view of what is reported by Africanus: for 80 B.C. he departs from his usual practice of recording the winner of the men's foot-race and records instead the winner of the boys' foot-race. His explanation is: This may mean that all events except the boys' foot-race, or (as seems a more natural interpretation of the whole entry for the year) all the men's events, were transferred to Rome. Moretti (Olympionikai 148, no. 676) prefers the former interpretation.

⁴⁹ Phlegon, (FgrH ii 1163, no. 257)Google Scholar frag. 12. Africanus gives the nationality of Hekatomnos, victor in three events, also as In Phlegon's account he is

⁵⁰ It is not unlikely that Sulla made financial provision for other festivals in Boiotia: cf. J. A. O. Larsen, Roman Greece 365, no. 13; Feyel, Contribution 86–7.

⁵¹ Cicero, , in Pisonem 40, 96Google Scholar: ‘Locri, Phocii, Boeotii exusti …’ The Oropian and Plataian festivals are men tioned in a list of victories won by a Halikarnassian athlete late in the Republic (Syll. ³ 1064).

⁵² IG vii 2712, line 56. For later celebrations of the Ptoïa cf. ibid. 2726; 4151; 4152; BCH xiv (1890) 202; xxvii (1903) 296–9.

⁵³ Plutarch, Moralia 748F ff.; IG vii 1772 ff.; 2517; BCH xix (1895) 340–6, nos. 15–18; Plassart, , Laografia vii (1923) 177–85Google Scholar; idem, BCH 1 (1926) 431 ff.; IG v i, 659. Other Boiotian festivals recorded in imperial times include the Plataian Eleutheria (frequent references in inscriptions; cf. also Pausanias, ix 2, 6; Robert, L., Hellenica viii [1950] 91–2)Google Scholar, the Herakleia, Theban (IG ii–iii ²3158Google Scholar; 3162; 3169/70; vii 49; FdD iii i, 550; 555), the Trophoneia and Basileia of Lebadeia (IG ii–iii² 3158; 3169/70; vii 49; 3106; FdD iii i, 550; 555) and a Pamboiotia (IG vii 2711, line 56).