¹ ZPE 41 (1981), 153–70 (hereinafter referred to simply as ‘Osborne’).

² This paper is a somewhat modified version of one originally read to the Classics section of the AULLA Congress XXI at Massey University, New Zealand, on 28 January 1982. I should thank that audience for helping to expose flaws and weaknesses in my arguments.

³ Awards of αíτη σις will be dealt with in my forthcoming book, Honours and Privileges in Athenian Decrees.

⁴ In addition to the standard abbreviations I shall use the following in this paper: ML = Meiggs, R. and Lewis, D.M. A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the End of the Fifth Century B.C. (Oxford 1969).Google Scholar

Tod = Tod, M.N. A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions, vol. 2 (Oxford 1948).Google Scholar In referring to inscriptions in the Corpus I omit the letters I.G. : thus i³ 11 = Inscriptiones Graecae, vol. 1³ no. 11. All dates are B.C.

⁵ Osborne (156) cites Pollux 9.40, who notes that there were in all three categories: (i) envoys; (ii) benefactors; (iii) those in receipt of permanent αíτη σις.

⁶ Demosthenes says: και επήνεσα τούτους (the earlier embassy) και εις πρυτανεϊον εκάλεσα. This combination of commendation and invitation is one which is extremely common in Athenian decrees.

⁷ Perhaps from as early as 458/7, if the infamous Segesta Decree (i³ 11 ) may be assigned to that year.

⁸ Cf. ii² 1051 c, d. 22–3 (post 38/7) and ii² 1053.9–10 (c. post 38/7). In both of these late instances the venue is described as έπί την κοινην της πόλεως εστίαν, as opposed to the earlier standard terminology εις το πρυτανεϊον.

⁹ i³ 131, dated perhaps c. 440–432.

¹⁰ Cf. Hesperia 4 (1935), 525–9 no. 39.

¹¹ I leave for the moment the problem as to why Prytanis is invited to δεϊττνον rather than ξένια, the type of entertainment for which he, as a foreigner, is strictly eligible ( see below p. 106).

¹² So Koehler (see IG ii 414). Cf. also the useful commentary on this inscription given by Pečirka, J. The Formula for the Grant of Enktesis in Attic Inscriptions (Prague 1966), 118.Google Scholar

¹³ Osborne does not explain why he assumes that Heris and his colleagues are benefactors who have acted in an official capacity on behalf of Athens.

¹⁴ The joint text will be published by Woodhead, A.G. in his forthcoming The Athenian Agora, vol. 16.1 Google Scholar am indebted to Mr. Woodhead for his kindness in furnishing me with a draft version of the text.

¹⁵ See Osborne, M.J. Ane. Soc. 7 (1976), 119,Google Scholar note 38, and cf. Tracy, S.V. GRBS 14 (1973), 189.Google Scholar The lower limit of Tracy’s ‘Mason l’ is now the year 192/1 as a result of the redating of Diodotos after Phanarchides to that year (see Meritt, B.D. Historia 26 [1977], 161–91.Google Scholar

¹⁶ On p. 170 of his article Osborne makes it clear that he considers that the abolition of awards of single invitations to ordinary benefactors was part of some comprehensive legislation on the matter of entertainment in the prytaneion.

¹⁷ Hesperia 37 (1968), 271–2 no. 10.

¹⁸ We do not know what precisely the difference was, although it seems a reasonable assumption from the very fact of the differentiation itself that δεΐττνον was somehow a more prized form of entertainment (cf. Osborne 155). Some members of my AULLA audience, however, felt that it was unlikely that the Athenians would risk offending foreign benefactors by offering them something less than a citizen received, and hence that ξένια may have been something more elaborate than δείττνον. That view, however, does not seem to me consonant with the Athenians’ outlook in such matters (especially in the fifth and fourth centuries), although it could well be that a realization that benefactors in later periods were not impressed by this sort of privilege that led the Athenians to award it so infrequently.

¹⁹ The reading of the Corpus κ[αλέσαι κ]αί is certainly wrong: cf. McDonald, W.A. , AJA 59 (1955), 153–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁰ Note too a case such as that of the Rhodian honorand of ii² 19 è (394/3). In the main decree he is made aproxenos and invited to ξένια, but in an amendment he is upgraded to the citizenship, with a consequent alteration of the invitation to δεϊπνον. Obviously, the drafters of Athenian decrees felt that there was some element of importance in maintaining the correct distinction.

²¹ Cf. ii²149, considered below, p. 108.

²² At least in the case of ii² 1 and ii² 109 (see Osborne 155 note6. ii² 109 is dealt with ibid, note 7). Note that I exclude from this discussion ii² 21 (?390/89), the treaty with Seuthes of Thrace, since it is not clear in vv. 17–18 which ambassadors are being invited toδεΐπνον, and Sii G 21.230 (c. 377), a fragment of a treaty with Arethousa in Euboea, where the same problem arises. In the latter, however, I see less reason than Osborne does to argue that the ambassadors there invited to δεϊπνον are Athenian ones: the word ήκοντας would suggest that they are rather Arethousans. As regards ii² 456, a decree of the year 307/6 in honour of the people of Kolophon, where at vv. b. 26–28 the Kolophonian ambassadors are invited to δεΐπνον, I would agree, in view of the fact that the Kolophonians are referred to in this text as άποικοι of Athens, with Osborne’s suggestion that Kolophon had isopoliteia. Osborne applies the same explanation — but with less assurance — to the Ephesian ambassadors invited to δεΐπνον in 25.108 (c. 220): ‘this last may postdate the breakdown in terminology’. If isopoliteia is not the explanation in these two instances, then I would view them as further examples of arbitrary preferential treatment. (I do not believe in Osborne’s ‘breakdown in terminology–: see my comments on ii² 884 below.)

²³ The stone is inscribed ‘stoichedon, but sometimes observing the syllabic division of words, 57–61’ (ML no. 94).

²⁴ As in the case of the Rhodian honoured in ii² 19 b (see note 20 above).

²⁵ 155 n.7. (Note too that the new citizen of vv. 5–6 of SEG 16.73 + Ag. I 5322 is also invited to ξένια instead of the δεϊπνον customarily afforded to recipients of citizenship grants: καλέσαι δε αύτον κα] επί ξένια ές το πρυτανεϊον [εις αυριον. This shows that, although all newly enfranchized citizens were eligible for an invitation to δεϊπνον at the time of the citizenship decree in their favour, not all were so invited. Here too the Athenians seem to have exercised a degree of discretion.

²⁶ Note the omission of the article, perhaps another sign of masonic carelessness, although we do find is πρυτανεϊον in the anomalous i³ 118.45–7 (408/7), which is the only extant example where the formula does not begin with καλέσαι δε or και καλέσαι; and it is also restored in i³ 11.15 (?458/7).

²⁷ There is further evidence of masonic carelessness later in this text. The disbursing officials are given in v.26 as τους ταμ]Ίας [τ]ών [στρατιωπκών], a non-existent financial board. The confusion is doubtless between τον ταμ ιαν των στρατιωτικών and τους επί τηι διοικήσει.

²⁸ Although this article has been critical of some of Dr Osborne’s conclusions about invitations to the prytaneion, I should like to acknowledge here how much I have benefited from his various studies of Athenian decrees.