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: 27 September 2013
This inscription consists of two decrees, one of which gives a certain Sthorys the Athenian citizenship, the other of which provides for a simple amendment. Despite fairly numerous editions, a number of difficulties of detail remain which seem sufficient to warrant a further discussion. In the first place, the most recent editors, Wilhelm and Meritt, while agreeing on the general substance of the text, have a number of discrepancies in their readings, though neither has provided a detailed commentary on the readings adopted. In addition, the full implications of fragment (b) have not been taken into account hitherto. Secondly, Sthorys, the recipient, is a very shadowy figure, and the precise circumstances in which he received Athenian citizenship are not altogether clear. Thirdly, the formula employed for the grant of citizenship in this decree is somewhat unusual compared with that found in other such decrees of the fifth and early fourth centuries. The purpose of this article therefore is, firstly, to provide a new text with a full critical commentary, and also to consider the physical details of the stele; secondly, to consider fully the contents of the two decrees, and in particular the status of Sthorys and the possible reasons for his honours; and finally, to discuss the formula for the grant of citizenship in this decree and in the other preserved examples of the fifth and early fourth centuries.
Abbreviations, in addition to those current in the Annual:
ATL = The Athenian Tribute Lists by B. D. Meritt, H. T. Wade-Gery, and M. F. McGregor.
AU = Wilhelm, A., Attische Urkunden (SB. Ak. Wien, ccxx. 5 (1942)).Google Scholar
ML = Meiggs and Lewis, Greek Historical Inscriptions (Oxford, 1969).
Tod = Tod, Greek Historical Inscriptions, vol. ii.
Kirchner = Kirchner, Inscriptions Graecae ii–iii ed. minor.
Acknowledgements
I should like to thank Mrs. D. Delmouzou-Peppas, the Director of the Epigraphical Museum, and Professor T. L. Shear, the Director of the Agora, for extending to me the facilities to study the inscriptions covered in this article. I have also to thank Mrs. Delmouzou-Peppas for permission to publish the photographs of the bottom fragments of IG ii2. 17; and the Department of Oriental and Classical Antiquities, National Museum, Copenhagen for permission to publish that of fragment (b). I owe a special debt of gratitude to Mr. D. M. Lewis who kindly read an earlier draft of this paper and made a number of suggestions for its improvement.
1 AU v. 87 ff.
2 Hesperia xxvi (1957) 51 f.
3 Hence no dimensions are given for this fragment. See Plate 42a. Since writing this I have had the benefit of an inspection of this fragment by Mr. P. A. Hansen. Fuller details are given in the Addendum, pp. 173 f.
4 Fragment (h) was first published by Meritt, loc. cit., with a photograph (pl. 8). He gives the dimensions as: H. 0·127 m., W. 0·08 m., Th. 0·105 m.
5 Assuming, of course, that the layout of the inscription was as suggested below.
6 Kirchner (in the Corpus) records the thickness of fragment (a) only, which he gives as 0·075 m. This is the thickness of the dressed edge of (a).
7 A fairly cursory inspection in the Epigraphical Museum and Agora revealed a number of stelai that thicken towards the centre, though not usually quite so markedly as this one. Cf. (e.g.) IG ii2. 405 (= EM 7190); 663 (= EM 483); SEG xxi. 310 (= Agora I 5454), etc.
8 For some comments on the problem of siting, specifically with reference to the Attic Stelai, cf. Lewis, D. M. in Ancient Society and Institutions, Studies presented to Victor Ehrenberg (Oxford, 1966) 180.Google Scholar
9 The left edge is preserved and the incision is clear at the bottom. Towards the top it seems to disappear, but this is due to an accretion on the stone's edge. The incision on this example is not at all neatly cut.
10 For the latter cf. (e.g.) IG ii2. 1928, 1929, 1932; and the comments of Lewis, D. M., BSA xlix (1954) 37.Google Scholar
11 The inward slope of the sides is very marked indeed on IG ii2. 508 (= EM 7369). The back is rough picked, as is the case with the majority of the stelai with inward-sloping sides. In these cases the back presumably was not intended to be seen.
12 e.g. IG ii2. 2049 (142/3); 2066 (inter a. 150–160)—both Ephebic decrees. Cf. SEG xii. 94 (= IG ii2. 1073 + 1074 = Dow, Prytaneis no. 121 with pl. 121) dated c. A.D. 120. Also SEG xix. 172 (= Hesperia xxix (1960) no. 37 with pl. 8) dated c. 170–190.
13 The clearest description is given by Rangabé, Antiquités Helléniques, no. 810: ‘l'inscription était entourée d'un rebord en relief, en surmontée d'un bas-relief, dont on voit quelques traces.’ Both he and Pittakys (AE 1408) mention traces of red paint in the letter cuts, but these are not visible now.
14 e.g. IG ii2. 1704, which is a catalogue (dated c. 300–250); SEG xiv. 92, which is a prytany catalogue of A.D. 182/3. Cf. Hesperia xxxvi (1967), pl. 18 for a photograph.
15 Cf. l. 34 of the inscription (= l. 29 in Wilhelm and Meritt).
16 Cf. Pouilloux, , Recherches sur l'histoire et les cultes de Thasos i. 139, no. 18 (with pl. 13).Google Scholar
17 Cf. (e.g.) IG ii2. 950, 971b, 1156, 1533; Dow, , Prytaneis 137 ff.Google Scholar, no. 76 (with photograph); SEG xix. 172 (= Hesperia xxix (1960) no. 37, with pl. 8). This last example has the stump preserved in toto. The text is inscribed on a sunken surface surrounded by a cyma reversa moulding. Underneath the moulding there are some 65 mm. of clean stone, the lower 25 mm. of which are rough picked, and then the stump. The actual stump is not set in from the stone above it at back or front, and is rough picked at both back and front.
18 The maximum width of the inscription at the bottom is 0·340 m., as against 0·320 m. for the base. The thickness of the inscription is 0·160 m., that of the base or stump 0·115 m. The base is rough picked at both front and back A partial facsimile is provided in IG i Supp. p. 45, 418e.
19 Cf. ATL i. 123 ff. for photographs. Cf. Binneboessel, R., Urkundenreliefs (1932) 3 and 27 f. (no. 4).Google Scholar
20 As (e.g.) in IG i2. 96 cf. IG i2. 22 (= ATL ii. D 11). Photograph in ATL ii, pl. 4.
21 Cf. (e.g.) IG i2. 60 (= ATL ii. D 22). Photograph in ATL ii, pl. 15. Cf. R. Binneboessel, op. cit. 5 and 33–4 (no. 10). Cf. also ATL ii. D 23 with pl. 14; Binneboessel, ibid. 4 and 29 (no. 6). The evidence of fragment (b) seems to show that the first of the alternatives given here is the case. See Addendum (pp. 173 f.).
22 Line 11 has only thirty-six letters as restored. But there appear to be special reasons to account for this. See p. 161. For l. 14 see p. 162.
23 Such an hypothesis is perhaps aided by the observable fact (on fragment (ƒ)) that the thirty-ninth letter is very close indeed to the rim when it is employed. Cf. the epsilon of l. 22, where the horizontal strokes reach right up to the rim.
24 See pp. 161 ff.
25 Except for the letters in l. 12 which are cut in rasura and are rather larger.
26 The first decree seems to be an amendment to the second, and makes a direct reference to it. So it is unlikely that anything else intervened between the two decrees.
27 IG ii. v. 25.
28 Antiquités Helléniques ii, no. 410.
29 Velsen (apud Koehler) was disposed to read mu. The reason for Rangabé's reading is perhaps the fact that the surface of the stone wears down in a circular shape to the left of the cross stroke of the nu. But the top of the right vertical stroke is quite clearly preserved on the stone.
30 IG ii. v. 25. This is followed by Kirchner.
31 Loc. cit. In fact Rangabé appears to have read the letter as labda.
32 AE 1862, no. 73.
33 This is in fact clear from Meritt's photograph (loc. cit. pl. 8).
34 SEG xvi. 42 (per ep.).
35 Koehler has part of a horizontal top stroke joining the upright in his facsimile (IG ii. v. 35c). It may well be that the chip is a recent one. The mark certainly looks fresh.
36 Cf. l. 35. If correctly restored 22 f. would provide a cross reference.
37 Cf. IG ii2. 6 = Tod 98 (c. 403 B.C.). This is a decree of the Boule which directs the secretary of the Boule to set up a new stele recording the grant of προξενία to the five sons of Apemantus. The original stele had been destroyed by the Thirty Tyrants. Cf. also IG ii2. 43 = Tod 123, 34–5 (377 B.C.). In this instance it is enjoined that the Boule is empowered to destroy any decrees of an unfavourable nature that are still in existence in Athens concerning the members of the second Athenian Confederacy.
38 See p. 164 below.
39 IG ii2. 24. 16. Cf. Pouilloux, op. cit. 196 ff., Wilhelm, , AU v. 107.Google Scholar
40 I am grateful to Mr. D. M. Lewis for the suggestion that the rasura and the short line are due to an error on the part of the mason.
41 Cf. Kirchner, IG ii/iii (ed. minor) iv (1), s.v. “καλέσαι ἐπὶ δεἵπνον”. No exceptions (apart from IG ii2. 17) are given.
42 The fact that the καί was apparently included in the original (erroneous) inscription of these lines perhaps supports this. The only alternative seems to be that he tried to tack the omitted phrase on to the end but, having done so, changed his mind and recut it in the more normal position. This seems wildly improbable.
43 Cf. p. 155.
44 Cf. p. 158.
45 This assumes that ἦρχεν, not ἦρχε was written. It is quite possible of course—perhaps even likely in view of the omission of a final nu elsewhere on this inscription—that ἦρχε was written. If so the line will have had only thirty-seven letters, as l. 8. The reason for the shortness of the line would presumably be that the mason preferred to start the new word in the next line (cf. ll. 26–7). However, since the mason does not seem to have been such as to have troubled about niceties of this kind (cf. ll. 6–7 and 7–8), it seems preferable to print ἦρχεν and keep the more common line length. Cf. pp. 155 f.
46 Op. cit. 88.
47 In the text it seemed reasonable to allow three lines for the prescript, though (depending on the form) it could be accommodated in two lines.
48 It is, of course, true that προειπεῖν can, and frequently does, mean simply ‘to proclaim’, and that with this meaning it will go perfectly reasonably with τὰ σημεῖα. But this interpretation makes Sthorys’ action even less impressive than it is already, and surely it would not be necessary to seek out a seer for this.
For the usage of τὰ σημεῖα, cf. Antiphon v. 81.
49 Cf. IG i2. 108 (= ML 89), 51 (καὶ τὰ ἄλλα).
50 Though no examples of these phrases could be found in inscriptions.
51 The texts are taken from the Oxford Classical Text which accepts Herwerden's emendation of the manuscripts' εἰσιτήρια in both passages. Cf. n. 64.
52 e.g. Dio Cassius xlv. 17 (and he too uses the verb θύειν).
53 Cf. also (e.g.) IG ii2. 689 (restored); 975 (restored); 1011; 1039; 1042; 1043.
54 The verb ἱεροποιεἵν is rather more technical than θύειν, and strictly means ‘to act as ἱεροποιός’ i.e. actually to do the sacrificing.
55 It is perhaps not irrelevant that the analogous words 
and 
are also generally found with θύειν (or 
).
56 An additional argument is that the verb 
which is not at all a common word, does not mean ‘to sacrifice’ but rather ‘to pay off a sacrifice in full’. Cf. Xen. An. iii. 2. 12. But what is needed in this decree is a verb that will describe the action of Sthorys in performing 
The verb for this is clearly θύειν.
57 Cf. Lysias xix. 28 (giving the date). For discussion cf. Wilhelm, op.cit. 91; Pouilloux, op. cit. 196.
58 The terminus ante quem is of course provided by the Boule's amendment.
59 Cf. Leonardos, , AE (1917) Παράρτημα, 66.Google Scholar
60 Cf. Pouilloux, loc. cit.
61 Nor can it be irrelevant that Lysias (xix. 28) refers to it in just such terms.
62 Cf. pp. 168 ff. Certainly Sthorys' services seem a little minor for such a reward, unless some truly portentous battle such as Cnidus is in point.
63 Or alternatively, if the arguments for the closeness in time of the two decrees are accepted, the decree could well belong to the prytany of the tribe Aigeis. It is not as yet known at what time of the year 394/3 Aigeis was in prytany; yet the sixth prytany can be eliminated, as Pandionis is known from IG ii2. 18 to have held this prytany. Cf. n. 89.
It also seems likely that Acamantis can be excluded from the possible prytanizing tribes for the second decree. The alliance between Athens and Eretria (IG ii2. 16 = Tod 103), in which the prytanizing tribe is reasonably restored as Acamantis, should belong as early as possible in the year 394/3 (i.e. first prytany). Acamantis and Pandionis are the only possible candidates for the prytanizing tribe in this decree, and of these Pandionis is known to have held the sixth prytany. This seems to demand Acamantis as the prytanizing tribe since, if the alliance is to precede Cnidus, the prytany should be the first of the year. Cf. Tod, ibid.
64 Cf. LS 9. The word occurs in two distinct forms too apparently. In all of the literary sources it appears in the manuscripts in the shorter form εἰσιτήρια. In inscriptions it is always spelt 
(or 
).
65 Cf. (e.g.) Thuc. v. 54 f., Xen. HG iii. 3, iii. 4. 7, iv. 7. 2, v. 4. 47, vi. 4. 19. The word 
(sc. ἱερά) is also analogous. Cf. Plato, , Symp. 173 A.Google Scholar
66 So Dem. xix. 190, xxi. 14; Antiphon vi. 45 (specifically mentioning 
and 
). Cf. Ulpian, 
In later decrees the two deities are referred to as 
and 
Cf. IG ii2. 689 and 690 (both dating from the 260s B.C.) which are both in honour of the priest of 
67 In IG ii2. 1315 (c. 211/10), which is a decree of the Orgeones, the term is used of the opening sacrifices made by the priestess of the Great Mother. In IG ii2. 975 (post med. saec. ii) there is a mention of the 
of the priest of Aesculapius. In later ephebic decrees the term is used of the preliminary sacrifices undertaken by the κοσμητής. Cf. (e.g.) IG ii2. 1011 (106/5).
68 For a recent study of this period cf. Seager, R., JHS lxxxvii (1967) 95–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar, (with further references).
69 Hell. Ox. vi. 1 (Bartoletti).
70 The expedition of Demaenetus is to be dated after the Rhodian revolution. Cf. Seager, op. cit. 95.
71 This latter is clearly stated by the Oxyrhynchus Historian (vi. 1. Bartoletti), and accepted e.g. by Seager (loc. cit.). But cf. Croix, Ste (CQ N.S. xiii (1963) 110–19)CrossRefGoogle Scholar who argues against the whole idea of the Boule transacting secret business (specifically with regard to the alleged exchange of Pydna for Amphipolis in 358). Possibly the situation here was that Demaenetus informed the Boule of his plans and this body did not explicitly express disapproval, but perhaps even made encouraging noises, while not, of course, actually committing itself to anything. If something of this kind did not occur, then it is very difficult to see why Demaenetus should have been impelled to make such a claim. Even a false claim must have some basis of fact, if it is not to be merely ridiculous—and the Oxyrhynchus Historian does not suggest that the claim was ridiculous.
72 For a full analysis cf. Seager op. cit.
73 Cf. Xen. HG iii. 5. 16. who records Thrasybulus' only reservation as the fact that the Piraeus was 
For the actual alliance cf. IG ii2. 14 = Tod 101. Cf. Bengtson, , Die Staatsverträge des Altertums ii, no. 223.Google Scholar
74 Lysias xvi. 13.
75 Pausanias iii. 5. 4.
76 IG ii2. 1656 (= Tod 107A).
77 Cf. Sealey, , Historia v (1956) 183Google Scholar, based on the fact that the work on the walls was begun before Cnidus (Tod 107A) and on Thrasybulus' concern about the unfortified state of the Piraeus in the middle of 395 (Xen. HG iii. 5. 16).
78 Cf. IG ii2. 690. Demosthenes' words (xxi. 114), taken strictly, suggest that he himself performed the ceremonies, but it is doubtless unnecessary (and inadvisable) to give them their full force in such a passage.
79 Cf. ll. 10 and 37 f., and Pouilloux, op. cit. 196.
80 Cf. ll. 31 f.
81 The constant presence of seers with the generals for the purpose of interpreting the sacrifices made before any action is, of course, well known. Cf. (e.g.) Thuc. vii. 50. 4. (the notorious instance of Nicias' refusal to move because of the pronouncements of the seers); Xen. HG ii. 4. 18; Plut. Cim. 18; IG i2. 929 (= ML 33). 128 f. (a μάντις in the casualty list of the Erechtheid tribe of 460 or 459 B.C.). The seer is generally referred to in such passages simply as ὁ μάντις (or occasionally it is 
) and it seems probable that there was an official position (or positions) as seer (or seers) of the generals. Certainly there was later. Cf. IG ii2. 1708 (init. s. ii a.) where there is a reference to an official called 
Cf. also IG ii2. 2858 (fin. s. iii. a.) where Telephanes is mentioned as 
in a list of the generals' staff. Cf. Kahrstedt, , Untersuchungen zur Magistratur in Athen 308–9Google Scholar; on the importance of seers Nilsson, , Greek Popular Religion 121 ff.Google Scholar
82 On the date of the entry of the generals into office cf. Pritchett, , AJP lxi (1940) 469–74.Google Scholar
83 No specific word is used in the sources to describe the sacrifices prior to action. Perhaps there was no particular word. The only technical term regularly given is that covering the Spartan sacrifices at the border, i.e. 
Cf. n. 65 for examples.
84 Cf. n. 81; cf. Plut. Lysander 28. 5 for Lysander's seer (μάντις) who died with him at Haliartus.
85 Cf. Andrewes, A., JHS lxxiii (1953) 1–9.Google Scholar
86 Cf. Andrewes, loc. cit. 8 and n. 27.
87 It seems clear that Conon acquired a substantial number of Athenians on his campaign. Cf. Hell. Ox. vii. 1 (Bartoletti); Isocrates iv. 142, both mentioning the dispatch of supplies to Conon. Again, when Conon went to meet the King, he left the Athenians Hieronymus and Nicodemus in charge of the fleet, according to Diod. xiv. 81. 4. Probably the second name here should be Nicophemus. Cf. Hell. Ox. xv. 1 which records the leaving of Hieronymus and Nicophemus in charge at Rhodes when Conon sailed off to Caunus. Nicophemus is mentioned again (by Xen. HG iv. 8. 8) as the commander of the garrison which was later put on Cythera by Conon.
88 Cf. pp. 164 f. and n. 83.
89 If this is so, it may help to fix the date of the second decree more closely. Assuming that Sthorys stayed with Conon until he reached Athens and that he got his reward thereafter, the decree should belong in 393. According to Xenophon, (HG iv. 8. 7 ff.)Google Scholar, Conon set out for Melos in spring 393, and went on to the Peloponnese and Cythera. This suggests that if he reached Athens in the year 394/3 he must have done so quite late in that year. This in turn implies that the second decree must be put very late in 394/3, perhaps in the last prytany. Conversely, the decree suggests that Conon's arrival antedates the end of the year 394/3 by a fair amount.
90 Only a very few examples, nearly all from the late fifth century, are known. Cf. p. 169 and n. 94.
91 On the Peace (viii.)
92 viii. 49 f.
93 xxiii. 199 ff. The date of this oration is somewhat disputed. My own view is that it belongs to early 352 (before Philip's march south).
94 e.g. Dem. xx. 30 (Leucon and his children: cf. IG ii2. 212 = Tod 167); 84 (Clearchus and others); xxiii. 12 (Simon and Bianor); 89 (Charidemus); 126 (Pytho); 199 f. (Meno of Pharsalus (cf. Thuc. ii. 22. 3) and Perdiccas of Macedon—both from the fifth century); liii. 18; lix. 2 (Apollodorus and Pasion); lix. 104 (the Plataeans). From Thucydides (ii. 29. 5) Sadocus may be added to the fifth-century recipients. Cf. Aristoph. Ach. 145. A few others can be added from oblique references in inscriptions, e.g. Arybbas', father and grandfather (IG ii 2. 226 = Tod 173)Google Scholar; Phormio, (implied in IG ii 2. 237 = Tod 178).Google Scholar
95 Cf. Johnson, A. C., AJA xviii (1914) 165–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The change alluded to is the addition of the phrase 
(or a similar phrase) to the grant. The first dated example with this formula is IG ii2. 405 (334/3 B.C.). The last dated example without it is IG ii2. 336 (the first part, 334 B.C.). This seems to fix the date of the change fairly closely, though there are a few small difficulties (e.g. the date of IG ii.2 222, which has the formula but which is often dated prior to 334 B.C.). For the present purposes, however, the date of c. 334 B.C. may be accepted for the change.
96 The only significant literary contribution to this topic is [Dem.] lix. 89–93 (340 B.C.), and it is, of course, extremely difficult to decide how much (if any) of what is said in this passage is true of earlier times.
97 In 105 f. Demosthenes goes on to discuss certain points in this decree. The first is the provision that each Plataean should undergo a 
to see if he is indeed a Plataean. The second is that the recipients should be listed on a marble stele. As there is no mention of either of these points in the decree as preserved in 104, the implication is that that document is defective. A further point, which cannot be discussed here, is that the language used in what purport to be quotations in 105–6 is suspiciously reminiscent of later fourth-century usage in such decrees.
98 Both of these grants are also mentioned in Dem. xii. 10.
99 This is not a grant, but a confirmation of a hereditary honour. Cf. Tod 173 for discussion.
100 Cf. SEG xxi. 261. It is doubtful whether this decree includes a grant of citizenship or not. The formula that needs to be restored (ll. 5 ff.) must be defective to say the least. As the crucial fragment has long since been lost, it is perhaps safest to leave this stone out of the account. Bengtson, , Die Staatsverträge des Altertums iiGoogle Scholar, no. 324 declines to include the restoration that would give Orontes the citizenship.
101 Cf. Wilhelm, , Mélanges Nicole 597–602Google Scholar, and AU iv. 41 and 45; Wade-Gery, BSA xxxiii (1932–1933) 131.Google Scholar If correctly restored, this is the earliest example of a citizenship grant on stone.
102 Cf. Wilhelm, , AU vGoogle Scholar, no. xliv, 96 ff. for the restoration of the name.
103 Pritchett, , Hesperia x (1941) 262 f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar, no. 66, dates the decree c. 376 B.C. (following Dinsmoor, , AJA xxxvi (1932) 157–60).Google Scholar Pouilloux, op. cit. 203, dates it to 388–375 B.C. The present discussion does not require a decision.
104 Cf. Meritt, , Hesperia xiii (1944) 229 ff.Google Scholar The date is almost wholly restored.
105 This is not strictly a grant, since the two were merely establishing that the grant to their grandfather and his descendants, which apparently had not been taken up by him, was still applicable to them. See now Pečírka, , The Formula for the Grant of Enktesis in Attic Inscriptions 49 ff.Google Scholar
106 Cf. n. 68 for IG ii2. 222. In addition to the inscriptions listed here, there are a number of fragments to which no name can be assigned: viz. IG ii2. 121 + 185, 251, 282, 297, 301; SEG iii. 83.
107 Cf. n. 94.
108 Cf. n. 101.
109 Cf. Pouilloux, op. cit. 193 ff. for a full study.
110 Cf. Meritt, , Hesperia xiii (1944) 229 ff.Google Scholar
111 Dem. xxiii. 199 ff. (for what it is worth) would tend to support this.
112 What follows does not pretend to be a full study either of the procedure for naturalization in Athens or of the formulae used in such grants. I hope to present a full study of these topics shortly, and for the present purposes I have included only what seemed apposite to a study of IG ii2. 17.
113 AJA xviii (1914) 165 ff.
114 The restoration at this juncture can hardly be termed uncertain. Johnson of course enunciated his principles before the publication of fragments (g) and (h). Kirchner too wrote before the fragments were discovered and was able to restore the decree so that it would suit principle (1) if not, in strict terms, (2).
115 Cf. Tod 100, with notes.
116 
117 This may simply be due to the defective state of this document.
118 The text given here is that printed as IG i2. 160, which follows Wilhelm, 's suggested text (Mélanges Nicole 597–602).Google Scholar Hiller (in a note to IG i2. 160) suggests 
as an alternative in l. 9, and this is probably better. The museum number of this stone is EM 6812, not that printed in IG i2.
119 Photographs may be consulted in Wilhelm, , Mélanges Nicole, facing p. 597Google Scholar, and in Wade-Gery, , BSA xxxiii (1932–1933) 132.Google Scholar The facsimile in Wilhelm's discussion is at variance with the evidence of the stone (and indeed of the photograph that he prints). The fragmentary nu in the last line has the right vertical and the cross strokes preserved, and the mark that he reads under omikron is actually under sigma. However, there can be little doubt that the three letters are NTO (as read by Wilhelm). The fragmentary letter under the sigma is consonant with a rho, but the stone's surface is in a very bad condition here, and Wilhelm wisely does not make a reading. Part of a letter is also just visible under omikron, though it looks like the top stroke of a sigma; but again the stone's surface makes a reading very hazardous.
120 The top of the fragment preserves the final letters of a heading. Cf. Wade-Gery (loc. cit.), who draws attention to the fact that the letters of l. 1 are larger than the rest. There is also a space between this line and what follows.
121 Though hardly more so than IG i2. 113 as restored in the corpus.
122 IG ii2. 226 and 237 have been omitted from this survey as they are not grants, but merely confirmations of existing grants. IG ii.2 222 has also been omitted because it has the 
clause, and may well postdate 334 B.C.
123 Though it is fair to say that the nature and position of the earlier mistake rendered a correction considerably easier. If this were an omission through error, it would have been necessary to recut virtually the whole decree to rectify it.
124 This is, of course, a somewhat vexed question, but the available evidence suggests a situation where a distinction might be made rather similar to that made by the proconsul Appius Claudius concerning his Lex Curiata (or his lack of it), viz. ‘opus esse necesse non esse’. For the view taken here cf. Wade-Gery, , Essays 150 ff.Google Scholar (especially 151 n. 2); Ehrenberg, V., Solon to Socrates 89.Google ScholarContra, Hignett, , History of the Athenian Constitution 140.Google Scholar
125 With the single exception of IG i2. 160, if Wilhelm's restoration is retained.
126 Not that this is easy to understand. One would have thought it more logical to omit the tribe. Membership of a deme would automatically make one a member of a specific tribe, whereas membership of a tribe would not determine one's deme. In addition, enrolment as a citizen entailed enrolment into a deme register.
127 A possible solution to this might be that it was possible for all citizens to get themselves enrolled into a phratry if they wished. Such a provision might have formed part of the Periclean legislation on phratries, on which see Andrewes, A., JHS lxxxi (1961) 1 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar If so, this might suggest that the omission to mention the phratry in this grant of citizenship means merely that it was considered that admission could be satisfactorily obtained by other means.
128 Unfortunately this point cannot be proved. Apart from the epigraphic evidence the only other mention is in [Dem.] lix. 89–91 which is to be dated considerably later than the first references on stone and may simply reflect procedures current in the 340s. The decree about the Plataeans, which is alluded to in the same oration (104 ff.), does seem to have had some reference to a scrutiny, but this could have been exceptional in view of the peculiar (i.e. block) nature of this grant.
129 Though IG i2. 160 will surpass even this if Wilhelm's restoration are accepted.
130 A situation that might be aided by the comparative infrequency of such grants in the fifth and early fourth centuries.
131 That IG ii2. 19, which is of the very same year as IG ii2. 17, differs in formula from IG ii2. 17 is perhaps the most eloquent testimony in support of this view.
132 Cf. Billheimer, A., AJA xlii (1938) 456 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
