No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 December 2013
The object of this article is to examine the latest arrangement of the Athenian archons of this period, made by Dr. A. C. Johnson. Johnson's studies in third-century chronology begin earlier than 288/7 and extend far beyond 262/1, and embrace Delphi as well as Athens; but the period here examined is obscure and difficult, and can be treated by itself, since everyone agrees that there was a break in the secretary rotation in or following 262/1. Recognising that I have proved the absolute impossibility of placing Diokles (the fall of Demetrios) anywhere but in 288/7, and taking this therefore as a starting-point, Johnson has constructed an archon list with an unbroken secretary rotation from 288/7 to 262/1, which exhibits various new features and furnishes a number of facts which were new when put forward; some of these are permanent acquisitions.
1 The articles here material, in whole or in part, are: ‘Attic archons from 294—262 B.C.,’ Claw. Phil. 9 (1914), 248; ‘;Notes on Attie inscriptions,’ ib., 417: ‘Studies in the financial administration of Athens,’ Am. Journ. Phil. 36 (1915), 424; ‘The archon Philokrates,’ Class. Phil. 10 (1915), 457; ‘Problems in Delphian chronology,’ Am. Journ. Phil. 39 (1918), 145; ‘The archon Lysitheides,’ Class. Phil. 13 (1918), 209.
2 Published by Plaasart, MM. A. and Blum, G., B.C.H. 38 (1914–1915) p. 451Google Scholar.
3 B.C.H. 39 (1915) p. 125. The appointment of ‘Kallippos of Eleusis’ is recorded I.G. ii2 687, a fragment which really belongs to I.G. ii2. 686 (Chremonides', decree), and is so printed Syll. 3434/5Google Scholar.
4 Paus. 10, 20, 5.
5 Paus. 10, 20, 5: καὶ ἡγεμονίαν οὗτοι (the Athenians) κατ᾿ ἀξίωμα εῖχον τὸ ἀρχαῖον Pausanias (1, 3, 5) saw a picture of Kallippos at Athens, which may have recorded the fact.
6 I.G. ii. 1158; [᾿Αρισ]τείδους Λαμπτρέως Of course Kumanudis' restoration was conjectural at the time, and though Koehler followed it in I.G. as ‘probable,’ he also suggested the possibility of e.g. [Λακρα-] τείδους But I think no one will doubt that the Orchomenos decree renders [῾Αρισ]τείδους certain; and the editors of that decree unhesitatingly identify the two. If Aristeides was important enough to come before Glaukon, he must at least have been strategos. I may add that the name Aristeides does not occur in any other deme beginning with Λ (Leukonoe, Lousia, Lakiadai), and is the only name in τείδης known in Lamptrai, where it occurs again both in the 4th and the 2nd centuries (Prosop. Alt. 1709, 1710). Lakrateides is a very rare name at Athens; the P.A. gives five cases only, two 5th century, one middle 4th, two late 2nd (both deme Ikaria).
7 I.G. ii2 666, 667; two copies.
8 περὶ τῶν φιλοσόφων V.H. 1 viii. c. 5, 7 = Usener, , Epicurea, 133Google Scholar.
9 I.G. ii2 657.
10 Class. Phil. 9, 264.
11 It seems certain, and is now generally agreed, that Antigonos only took the royal title in 284/3 and not in 286/5 (evidence in my Antigonos Gonatas, 112 n. 3). The Philodemos fragment published in 1912 by Mayer, A. (Philol. 71, p. 226Google Scholar) does not bear on this point; but Kolbe, (Philol. 74, 1917. p. 58CrossRefGoogle Scholar: written before the war though published 1919) has attempted to found on it an argument for dating Euthios 284/3, drawn from hypothetical theories as to who it was Apollodorus was refuting and what it was they said, one of which is not even correct as mathematics. What Apollodorus says is quite clear: Antigonos could not have written the (forged) letter to Zeno in Euthios' year, because in that year he was, not only not king of Macedonia, but not even king at all, οὔ(πω ὅ)᾿ εἴχε τ(οτ᾿ ὔντως βα) σιλ(είαν) i.e. Euthios comes before 284/3 (which date Kolbe accepts for Antigonos' assumption of the royal title); and he could not have written it in Anaxikrates' year because [breaks off; obviously it ran] in that year he was not king of Macedonia either, he had merely seized a bit of the country, ἀπ(οτ)ρέψαντος (αὐτὸν) τοῦ μ(ία)ν λαμβάνεν(τ)ὴν βασιλεἰαν Of course my note on p. 478 of Antigonos Gonatas is wrong, as Kolbe points out; but that does not help him. How he reconciles Euthios in 284/3 with his acceptance of 277/6 for Polyeuktos (see posi), which would involve a five years break in the secretary rotation, I do not know; I may have missed some article.
12 I.G. xi. 2; 105, 106, 107, 108, 111, 113. Nos. 109 and 112 are broken away, and 110 is a pro-Macedonian year (268), in which no Athenian appears.
13 For the date, Antigonos Gonatas, p. 122.
14 Phylarchos, ap. Athen. vi. 254Google Scholar F; correctly interpreted by Ferguson, , Hellenistic Athens, p. 155Google Scholar.
15 In Antigonos Gonatas I carried this war on till Lysimacheia, much too late.
16 See note 11. The passage here material runs μετἀ τὴν Λυσιμάχου τελευ(τὴν παρέ) χ(οντ᾿) αἰ σπονδ(α)ὶ<τῷ> Γονατᾷ καί(Λακό)νων κρατήσας τῆς Μακε(δυ)νίας ἐκπίπτει πἁ(λιν εἰς τὴν)᾿ Ασίην followed by Lysimacheia. There is little doubt that the unknown form (Λακό)νων is wrong, whether it conceals Μαμ<εδ>όνων (Johnson)—the sense required—or some local name. Λυσιμἁχου should of course be Πτολε μαίον
17 Memnon 14. Πτολεμαίου ἀνῃρημἐνου (Antigonos) τὴν Μακεδόνων λαμβάνει ἀρχήν
18 Memnon 18.
19 This seems to be the meaning of Justin 25, 1,1; but it is very confused.
20 It can have nothing to do with the σπον δοφόροι who announced the religious truce at a festival, though the hymn may have treated its subject by analogy to them. A somewhat similar use of σπονδὁφορος = ὁ τὰς σπονδὰς φέρων occurs Ar. Ach. 216, 207.
21 Polyb. 1, 6, 5 puts the Γαλατῶν ἔφοδος in the year after Pyrrhos crossed to Italy, i.e. in 280/79.
22 To get room, Johnson has to lengthen out the whole period from Koroupedion to Lysimacheia at both ends. He gets the Gallic invasion too late (see previous note; Pausanias puts only the ἀπώλεια in Anaxikrates' year); and he makes Delphi May 278, on the ground that the Koan, decree (Syll. 3398Google Scholar) was not passed till September 278. I think this is misconceived. The decree was not passed in Panemos; the envoys were instructed to sacrifice in Panemos; and Panemos at Kos may be a good deal earlier than September; in many Dorian states it was May—June The decree could have been passed any time in spring or summer 278; and it is certain that if the defeat of the Gauls was in November or December it would not be known at Kos till March—April. News rarely crossed the sea in winter.
23 Because of the parallelism between I.G. ii, 620 (Lysitheides) and Ἐψ. ἘἈρχ. 1915, 1 (Hieron).
24 Plut., Ages. 28Google Scholar.
25 Xen., Hell. v. 3, 15Google Scholar.
26 ib. iii. 5, 25.
27 I.G. ii2. 684 combined with 752 b, if Wilhelm, 's combination of these two Ath. Mitt. 39, 1914, p. 315Google Scholar) be correct; he does not discuss it or give his reasons.
28 Amigonos Gonatas pp. 105, 106, 290 are cited.
29 I.G. xi. 4, 1098 - -ο]φάνης Δημ [--] [Τ]ενέ[δ]ιο[ς]; a later and fuller reading than that in O.G.I.S. 216.
30 Usener, , Epicurea, pp. 148Google Scholar, 413.
31 Kirchner, 's note to I.G. ii 2. 700Google Scholar.
32 He cannot follow—λαιος, as only three lettere seem to be missing; Usener, , Epicurea, p. 134Google Scholar.
33 Note to I.G. ii2. 700.
34 I.G. ii2. 682, 1. 58, συνεπελήθη καὶ τού των πάντων
35 Note that when Athens fell in Nikias', year, after her long spell of Nationalist government, Phaidros held office at once; I.G. ii 2. 682Google Scholar, 1. 53.
36 Of course in my view the pro-Macedonian Euboulos is impossible in 272/1. But I am neglecting this deliberately.
37 Hegesandros ap. Athen. 4, 167 F.
38 See Johnson, in Am. Journ. Phil. 34 (1913), pp. 391, 417 (add.)Google Scholar; Maltezos, K., Ἀψ Ἐρχ. 1913, 115Google Scholar.
39 Also a Φίλιππος ᾿Αφιδναῖος is known, (Protop. Att. 14386, trierareh cire. 323/2).
40 Maltezos gives the first two alternatives only, Johnson the first three. But Amumone was an unimportant deme, and is not known to have been transferred to Ptolemais; so the chances are that it belonged to Hippothontis throughout.
41 Loc. cit.
42 Maltezos, whose article is a detailed study of the formula μετ᾿ εἰκάδας filled in ῾Αλιμοὑσιος and put Theophilos in 228/7. But he wrote without knowing of Ronssel's reading.
43 Klio 14 (1914–15) p. 270: erst nach ihm (Lysimaeheia) ward die Soterienstiftung möglich.
44 ib. p. 265 seq.
45 Klio 15 (1917–18) p. 40: hier niemals ganze Arbeit getan und nichts Abschliessendes erreicht werden kann.
46 Omitting older lists, there was one in 1918, G.G. A. 1913, 125; a revised edition next year, Klio 14, 265; in 1917 two new archons appeared and were not welcomed, Klio, 15, 40.
47 A useful summary of these by Pomtow, in his introductory note to Syll. 3402Google Scholar.
48 The possible exception is this argument, that the proposer of the Athenian decree of Polyeuktos' year for the Soteria, (Syll 3. 408Google Scholar = I. G. ii2. 680) was Kybernis son of Kydias, and that in the year of the Delphic archon Kraton the Delphians, bestowed proxeny on him ‘gratias agentes,’ (Syll. 403Google Scholar). But there is nothing in No. 403 about ‘gratias agentes’ or any other reason; and if one is to guess why the Delphians (i.e. Aetolia) gave Kybernis proxeny one might just as well guess that it was on account of his son's heroic death against the (Gaula; (details Paus. 10, 21, 5; it evidently became famous). But in any case this decree cannot equate Kraton with Polyeuktos; he might be a year later, or even more.
49 Hibeh Papyri, vol. 1 App. 1; see p. 347.
50 For the various considerations involved in the Sotion question see Ferguson, , Hellenistic Athens, p. 164Google Scholar, n. 1.
51 Klio 14, 280.
52 Klio 14, 277–280; Syll 3. 402 n. 10, Prima vero Soteria nullo modo una cum Pythiis celebrata esse posse per se patet.
53 Klio 14, 279.
54 Stoic literature brings out sharply the distinction between ἲσος and ὃμοιος.
55 See Kirchner, 's introductory note to Syll. 3408Google Scholar for an a priori answer.
56 Decree of Argos for Alexander of Sikyon, published by Vollgraff, , Mnemosyne 44 (1916) p. 65Google Scholar; see 1. 16, τὸνς δὲ ἑλλανοδί[κα]νς τῶν Νε μέων καὶ ῾ Ηραίων τῶν ποτεχεῖ καρῦξαι ὲν τῶι ἀγῶ[νι]τῶν῾ Ηραίων καὶ Νεμέων
57 Livy 27, 30
58 The Soteria question has produced a curiosity of editing. The Ghian and Athenian Soteria decrees admittedly belong to the same year; but in Syll 3 the former (402), edited by Pomtow, is dated a. 276, the latter (408), edited by Kirchner, is dated c. 275/4.
59 Klio 14, 267–270; largely occupied with discussing the date of Glaukippos.
60 Because of the sacrifices for the σωτηρία of Athens and her allies, I.G. ii2. 674. (Add the sacrifices to Zeus Soter and Athene, Soteira, I.G. ii. 305Google Scholar).
61 He sees in the ‘mysteries’ of I.G. ii2. 683, (Polyeuktos' year), the Little Mysteries (4th year of an Olympiad). See on this Kirchner, 's introductory note to Syll. 3408Google Scholar.
62 Athens' acceptance of the invitation to the Soteria was of course a purely religious act, and has no political bearing at all.
63 I.G. ii2. 677 (decree for Herakleitos). Great Panathenaia, because of the preparations, adorning the stadion, etc. Date; Ferguson, , Klio 8, 349Google Scholar.
64 Shewn by the gap in 1. 29 of the Soteria, Chian decree, Syll 3. 402Google Scholar; it unquestionably requires either ᾿ Ολίμπια or Πύθια but of course the decree alone does not enable us to say which.
65 Class. Phil. 9, 254.