Abbreviations, in addition to those current in the Annual:

AU = A. Wilhelm, ‘Attische Urkunden’ v (SB. Ak. Wien ccxx (1942) 5).

ML = Meiggs, and Lewis, , Greek Historical Inscriptions (Oxford 1969)Google Scholar.

PA = Kirchner, J., Prosopographia Attica (Berlin 1901)Google Scholar.

Tod = Tod, M. N., Greek Historical Inscriptions, vol. ii (Oxford 1948)Google Scholar.

Acknowledgements. I should like to thank Mrs. D. Delmouzou-Peppas, the Director of the Epigraphical Museum in Athens, and Professor Leslie Shear Jr., the Director of the Agora Excavations, for allowing me the facilities for a first-hand study of the inscriptions examined in this article. I am also grateful to Dr. D. M. Lewis and Mr. P. M. Fraser for reading a draft of this article and making a number of helpful suggestions. They are of course in no way responsible for any errors that remain.

¹ Honours such as the proxeny and privileges such as , etc. no doubt involved further activity. But there was nothing further that was required for the validity of such grants over and above the original favourable vote of the Assembly. In the case of citizenship there was always the need for enrolment into the relevant bodies and, more significantly, (from quite early in the fourth century B.C.) the statutory need for the award to undergo a further examination which might invalidate it. Later yet another statutory check was instituted (the judicial δοκιμασία). A few other honours occasionally acquired further steps. Thus, for instance, in the third century B.C. the previously single element formula for the grant of ἔγκτησις became (in some periods at any rate) a double element formula with the addition of the requirement of a δοκιμασία. Cf. Pečirka, J., The Formula for the Grant of Enktesis in Attic Inscriptions (Prague 1966)Google Scholar. In the case of the proxeny the formula used differs from the citizenship formula in that it embraces essentially one element. The two basic variations of this formula are well known: (a) . The exact wording of the two formulae is open to variation (as it is in the case of citizenship grants too, cf. p. 146) but this single element strictly constitutes the total formula for the record of the grant of the proxeny.

² AM xxxix (1914) 282 ff.Google Scholar

³ By amendment (IG ii². 448 (SEG xxi. 297Google Scholar; 317; xxii. 95; xxiii, 59; 61)); correction (IG ii². 575); insertion (IG ii². 336 (SEG xv. 97Google Scholar; xxi. 273; 278)).

⁴ This is almost certainly the case with IG ii². 710 ( + Addendum). This decree records the statement of the grant, the enrolment with restriction, and the δοκιμασία, but lacks the clause requiring a second vote in the Assembly. It is the only preserved instance after the first appearance of the clause requiring the second vote where it can certainly be stated that this clause is lacking. This clause is not preserved in a number of other decrees (e.g. IG ii². 395; 405 + SEG xxi. 275Google Scholar; IG ii². 438; 712; 805) but in all of these cases it could either have been added in an amendment (cf. IG ii². 448) or correction (cf. IG ii². 575), or else it would have followed later in the decree (cf. IG ii². 109 (SEG xvi. 47Google Scholar); 646; 652 (SEG xxiii. 65Google Scholar); Hesperia x (1941) no. 70Google Scholar). The defective appearance of IG ii². 207 (SEG xv. 92Google Scholar; xxi. 261) is possibly due to other reasons; cf. BSA lxvi (1971) 297 ffGoogle Scholar.

⁵ Some other points have been dealt with in BSA lxvi (1971) 297 ff.Google Scholar, and a full collection and revision of the texts of all of the Attic decrees of this kind is in preparation. A full list of the decrees on which this study is based is given in the Appendix (pp. 156–8).

⁶ The first appearance of this requirement in the epigraphic record comes in IG ii². 103 (SEG xvi. 46Google Scholar) = Tod 133 (369/8 B.C.). It is a regular element thereafter until the change in the citizenship formula in the late third century B.C. (cf. n. 62 below). The last dated example without the clause is IG ii². 25 + SEG xv. 86Google Scholar which belongs in the period 388–375 B.C (c. 376 B.C. according to Pritchett, , Hesperia x (1941) 262 f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar, following Dinsmoor, , AJA xxxvi (1932) 157 ffGoogle Scholar. Pouilloux, , Recherches sur l'histoire et les culles de Thasos i. 203Google Scholar, dates it between 388 and 375 B.C.).

⁷ The first appearance is in an insertion between the second and third decrees in IG ii². 336. Cf. p. 133 below.

⁸ On this change of formula cf. n. 62.

⁹ AM xxxix (1914) 290 fGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰ Leucosia (1963) 36 f. The text given here does not differ from that given in his earlier work Evagoras I von Salamis (Stuttgart 1935) 47 ff.Google Scholar, despite the serious (and justified) criticisms made by the editors of SEG x. 127Google Scholar.

¹¹ Cf. p. 142.

¹² None of the dated decrees of this kind prior to IG ii². 405 + SEG xxi. 275Google Scholar (334/3 B.C.) has the restriction. The decrees in point are: IG i². 110 SEG x. 125Google Scholar) = ML 85 (410/9 B.C.); IG ii². 17 cf. SEG xv. 84Google Scholar, xvi. 42; BSA lxv (1970) 151 ff. (394/3 B.C.); 19 cf. Wilhelm, , AU v no. 44Google Scholar (394/3 B.C.); 25 + SEG xv. 86Google Scholar (inter 388–375 B.C.); 103 = Tod 133 cf. SEG xvi. 46Google Scholar (369/8 B.C.); 109 cf. SEG xvi. 47Google Scholar (363/2 B.C.); 207 (probably, cf. BSA lxvi (1971) 297 ff.Google Scholar, middle of the fourth century B.C.); Hesperia xiii (1944)Google Scholar no. 3 (357/6 B.C); IG ii². 237 = Tod 178 cf. SEG xvii. 24Google Scholar; xxi. 266; xxiv. 95(338/76.0.); 336(1) cf. SEG xv. 97Google Scholar, xxi. 273 and 278; Wilhelm, , AU v. 103 fGoogle Scholar. (334/3 B.C.), with the restriction interposed between decrees II and III (cf. Dow, , Hesperia xxxii (1963) 341 f.Google Scholar; cf. also. BSA lxvi (1971) 297 ffGoogle Scholar. nn. 56 and 69). IG ii². 121 + 185 (+ Addendum) do not belong together (cf. BSA lxvi (1971) 323 ff.Google Scholar), so 185 loses its date.

¹³ Cf. n. 57 below.

¹⁴ The existence of this restriction is attested by Apollodorus in the oration Against Neaera ([Dem.] lix. 92).

¹⁵ IG ii². 405 + SEG xxi. 275Google Scholar is firmly dated to the ninth prytany of 334/3 B.C. The date of IG ii². 222 is not certainly established. It is dated to c. 344/3 B.C. by Kirchner in the Corpus. But Johnson, , CP (1914) 424Google Scholar, dates it after 331 B.C. on the basis of the appearance of the restriction on enrolment.

Since it is now clear that the first appearance of the restriction can be dated earlier in the 330s than Johnson had supposed it is perhaps reasonable to allow that the decree could be dated as far back as the middle of the 330s. But, as will be argued below, the appearance of the restriction on enrolment should suggest that the decree postdate the insertion in IG ii². 336.

¹⁶ Cf. Johnson, , CP (1914) 425Google Scholar; AJA xviii (1914) 173 ff.Google Scholar; Dow, , HSCP lxvii (1963) 87 ffGoogle Scholar.

¹⁷ The text of IG ii². 282 is extremely hard to verify because the surface of the stone is so badly worn. The faintly-preserved traces of letters in the first two lines do, however, suggest that the second vote may have been qualified as . The decree could well belong to the period before the restriction on enrolment was introduced, anyway. Could it have been an early instance of the appearance of the clause requiring the second vote? In such circumstances the qualification would certainly be intelligible.

IG ii². 538, the date of which is uncertain, can be restored either so as to have a reference to a δοκιμασία after the mention of the second vote (so Kirchner, ad. loc., Johnson, , CP (1914) 428)Google Scholar or else so as to have the second vote qualified as (so Wilhelm, op. cit. 269 f.). The decree does not have any restriction on enrolment, which suggests that it might belong earlier in the fourth century than is usually considered. In these circumstances the odds are very much in favour of the second vote having been qualified. Apart from one odd case during the period of the ἀναγραφεύς (IG ii². 398(b) cf. BSA lxvi (1971) 322Google Scholar) the δοκιμασία does not seem to have been a condition of the grant until the end of the fourth century.

¹⁸ Cf. Johnson, , AJA xviii (1914) 165 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar. who suggests that something less than full citizen rights was in question in this instance. The point is difficult to establish with certainty largely because the word used to describe the enrolment () is a case of .

¹⁹ The phrase was becoming quite common in a variety of cases towards the end of the fourth century B.C. too. Thus the phrase seems to have been employed in grants of ἔγκτησις by 325/4 B.C. (IG ii². 360) and possibly even earlier than this. But usage in this case seems not to have been very systematic, as Pecirka has shown (op. cit.). Was this lack of regularity due to the facts that no new law had been introduced, and that the phrase was simply being used to emphasize that the grant was to be in accordance with the law(s)?

The phrase also began to be utilized regularly to qualify the grant of crowns from 304/3 B.C.20

²⁰ Schweigert, , Hesperia ix (1940) 339 ffGoogle Scholar.

²¹ The only exceptions are IG ii². 394 (321/0–319/ 8 B.C.) and 553 (c. 307 B.C.). Both could be slips, but on the latter cf. n. 18. The other apparent exception (IG ii². 472 + 169 (with Addendum, joined and restored by Wilhelm, , AM xxxix (1914) 285 ff.Google Scholar)) is probably not a citizenship grant at all. The join seems to be correct but the readings towards the bottom of the lower fragment, where the reference to the grant is allegedly made, are most uncertain. The argument is not much aided by the number of oddities that the decree must be assumed to have exhibited if it is to be interpreted as a citizenship decree. Cf. n. 66.

²² Cf. BSA lxvi (1971) 305 ffGoogle Scholar. nn. 56 and 69.

²³ The fact that this is a confirmation of an award does not affect the issue. The conditions currently in force were the ones that mattered in these cases.

²⁴ Dow, , Hesperia xxxii (1963) 341 ff.Google Scholar, approved by Meritt, , Hesperia xxxii (1963) 434Google Scholar.

²⁵ Johnson, (CP (1914) 424Google Scholar; AJA xviii (1914) 165 ff.Google Scholar, followed by Billheimer, , Naturalization in Athenian Law and Practice (Diss. Gettysburg Pennsylvania 1922)Google Scholar, dated the enactment to the period 334–331 B.C. But he wrote before the new date had been proposed for IG ii². 405 (by Schweigert, , Hesperia ix (1940) 339 ff.Google Scholar), and on the assumption that Kirchner's date (of post (318/17 B.C.) was correct for IG ii². 336 (III) (cf. Dow, , Hesperia xxxii (1963) 341 ff.Google Scholar). Diller (Rac Mixture among the Greeks, ch. iv) puts the restriction much earlier (in 344/3 B.C.), and he associates it with the decree of Demophilus. But this view involves the assumptions (1) that IG ii². 222 can be securely dated to 344/3 B.C., which is not at all clear (cf. n. 15); (2) that IG ii². 237 (338/7 B.C.). which does not have the restriction, can be ignored; (3) that the decree of Demophilus was concerned with naturalization, which at the very least is not certain (cf. BSA lxvi (1971) 329Google Scholar).

²⁶ For the reading cf. n. 56, for the date cf. n. 22.

²⁷ Or possibly in 321/0 B.C. if SEG xxi. 353Google Scholar ( = IG ii². 378 + EM 12764) may be dated to that year as Dow, suggests (HSCP lxvii (1963) 44 f.Google Scholar; Hesperia xxxii (1963) 342 ff.Google Scholar). But cf. Meritt, , Hesperia xxxii (1963) (429Google Scholar cf. Hesperia vii (1938) 99Google Scholar), who dates this decree to 294/3 B.C.

²⁸ But the occurrence of the specific form of the phrase in IG ii². 718 + 804 (BSA lxvi (1971) 330)Google Scholar, which seems to belong to the middle of the third century B.C. (Dow, , HSCP lxvii (1963) 88Google Scholar), should serve as a warning against an over rigid interpretation of this suggestion. The point is rather that, given a specific and a more general or abbreviated form of reference for the restriction, it is reasonable to expect that the specific form will occur more frequently in the instances nearest to the time of the passing of the legislation.

²⁹ Wilhelm, , AM xxxix (1914) 282 ff.Google Scholar, for instance, uses this argument with reference to the clauses requiring the Ψῆφος and the δοκιμασία in the latter part of the fourth century.

³⁰ Loc. cit. n. 29,

³¹ BSA lxvi (1971) 305 ffGoogle Scholar.

³² e.g. IG ii². 448.

³³ e.g. IG ii². 336.

³⁴ e.g. IG ii². 575.

³⁵ Op. cit. n. 1, 142 ff.

³⁶ [Dem.] lix. 92. The decree for the Plataeans which is cited by Apollodorus (104) does have this restriction, but there are some doubts about the authenticity of this document. In any case this was a block grant (the provisions of which seem to have differed from those of individual grants) and it is possible that the reference was exceptional.

³⁷ Cf. BSA lxvi (1971) 325 ffGoogle Scholar. for some comments on the δοκιμασία as a requirement in the later fourth century.

³⁸ Quoted by Wilhelm, loc. cit. 283 f.

³⁹ Logically, of course, one would expect this clause to be recorded last since it could only take place after the other steps in the procedure had been successfully completed. Cf. P. 140.

⁴⁰ Cf. n. 6.

⁴¹ There is only one certain instance where the clause is not, and could not be, recorded from this point on right down to the total change in formula late in the third century B.C. (n. 62). This is IG ii². 710 (dated to the period 295/4–276/5 B.C.). The omission here could be a slip–all of the other elements are recorded (cf. n. 4).

⁴² This view is accepted (e.g.) by Billheimer, op. cit. ch. ii; Diller, op. cit. ch. iv.

⁴³ Cf. BSA lxv (1970) 169 n. 97Google Scholar.

⁴⁴ It was probably normal in this kind of (block) grant. Cf. IG ii². 10 + 2403 (SEG xii. 84Google Scholar; xxi. 218; xxiv. 75) = Tod 100.

⁴⁵ cf. Grégoire, and Goosens, , CRAI (1940) 224 ff.Google Scholar (411 B.C.), Beloch, , Griechische Geschichte ii ² (1) 452Google Scholar (407–405 B.C.), Meyer, , Geschichte des Altertums iv. 715 (410 B.C.)Google Scholar.

⁴⁶ Cf. n. 12 for a list of relevant decrees.

⁴⁷ This slight illogicality in the record was to be rectified in the major transformation in procedure that took place late in the third century. Cf. n. 62.

⁴⁸ This supersedes the comments in BSA lxv (1970) 172 fGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁹ None of the dated examples prior to IG ii². 103 specifically include the ἔκγονοι of the recipient in the grant. The ἔκγονοι are not mentioned at all in IG i². 110; 113 (probably); IG ii². 19 (though they were associated with him in the main decree in respect of proxenia, euergesia, and epimeleia); 25 + SEG xv. 86Google Scholar. In IG ii². 17 the ἔκγονοι are mentioned almost as an afterthought at the end of the decree.

The sole exception to this rule in the period after IG ii². 103 is Hesperia xiii (1944)Google Scholar no. 3 (357/6 B.C.)—perhaps just a slip in one of the earlier examples after the change (?). IG ii². 553 does not mention ἔκγονοι either, but if it is correct to assume with Johnson, , AJA xviii (1914) 165ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar, that this decree gave ‘festival privileges’ only, this is quite intelligible. SEG xxi. 359Google Scholar (early third century B.C.) has been restored without a mention of the recipient's ἔκγονοι, but it could as easily be restored to include them. On the significance of the extension of the grant to the ἔκγονοι cf. n. 75.

⁵⁰ i.e. the decree for the Plataeans ([Dem.] lix. 104).

⁵¹ For the date cf. n. 24.

⁵² IG ii². 643 + Hesperia ix (1940)Google Scholar no. 13.

⁵³ At any rate IG ii². 646 (prytany 9, 295/4 B.C.) is unrestricted. IG ii². 648, unfortunately, is not preserved at the relevant point. Both of these decrees contain provision for a δοκιμασία, and perhaps significantly both have this δοκιμασία qualified as . Since it would appear from IG ii². 643 + Hesperia ix (1940)Google Scholar no. 13 (298/7 B.C.) that the δοκιμασία was not a requirement in the preceding period it may be that the δοκιμασία was a new condition imposed in 295/4 B.C. This would make the qualification of it as κατά τὸν νόμον apposite. Perhaps the δοκιμασία replaced the restriction on enrolment at this juncture.

⁵⁴ Cf. n. 19.

⁵⁵ So Dow, , HSCP lxvii (1963) 87Google Scholar. Johnson, , AJA xviii (1914) 174Google Scholar, (followed by Billheimer, op. cit. n. 25) only mentions this as a possibility. Diller, op. cit. n. 25, does not deal with the problem at all.

⁵⁶ The readin . was suggested by Wilhelm, , AM xxxix (1914) 267Google Scholar, and it was adopted in the Addendum to the Corpus. An examination of the stone reveals that the readings can be improved slightly (as above).

⁵⁷ The phratry is listed as the last element of the three with great regularity from IG ii². 25 + SEG xv. 86Google Scholar (c. 389–376 B.C.) onwards. Before this the order had been variable; thereafter it is fixed. The only exception from this point on until the change of formula in the late third century B.C. is Hesperia ix (1940)Google Scholar no. 48 (287–278 B.C.), and in this case the he enrolment is unrestricted. There are no instances where the restriction is applied where the phratry does not come last in the list. This bears out the clear indication of the in-sertion in IG ii². 336(b) that the phratry was the body to which the restriction applied.

It may be noted that in the decree for Evagoras the phratry clearly does not figure as the final element in the list. So if the restrictive clause is added to this decree it cannot refer to the phratry, or certainly not to the phratry alone. Thus, if the restriction is restored in this decree, it is very hard to see what it is supposed to mean. Certainly it cannot mean the same as it does in the insertion in IG ii². 336(b).

⁵⁸ Johnson, , AJA xviii (1914) 174Google Scholar. Cf. Wilhelm, , Wiener Studien (1907) 1Google Scholar.

⁵⁹ Op. cit. 72–4.

⁶⁰ In the only decree that certainly dates from this period (IG ii². 643 + Hesperia ix (1940) no. 13Google Scholar) the text is not preserved at the relevant point. There is no particular reason for thinking that the restriction was lifted in this period, and the fact that it does not appear in decrees of 295/4 B.C., while a δοκιμασία does, may suggest that it was maintained until 295/4 B.C. and then replaced by the δοκιμασία (cf. n. 53).

The only certain example of a decree lacking an enrolment restriction from the inception of the restriction clause until 295/4 B.C. is IG ii². 394 (321/0–319/18 B.C.). This lacks the restriction but, rather oddly, has the clause requiring the second vote qualified as κατά τὸν νόμον. It has been suggested above that it would hardly strain credulity to allow that the restriction could have been omitted by error in one case. But was the κατά τὸν νόμον clause simply attached to the wrong element? Or did the drafter perhaps feel that so long as the whole lot was qualified this would cover the restriction on enrolment too?

⁶¹ These statements refer only to the formula used in grants for individuals. Block grants are rather different and in some cases the word πολιτεία seems to have been employed to record such a grant, as (e.g.) in IG ii². 10 + 2403 (SEG xii. 84Google Scholar; xxi. 218; xxiv. 75; Tod 100) and 566 (cf. I Priene no. 5), but not in IG ii². 1 (SEG x. 143Google Scholar; xii. 42; ML 94) nor in the decree for the Plataeans, if Apollodorus may be trusted ([Dem.] lix. 104).

⁶² The exact date of the change cannot be established. The last example to have the form and which can be dated approximately is IG ii². 808 ( = SIG 476). This decree is in honour of (emending the Corpus reading), and if it is accepted that this man is to be identified with the officer of Demetrius II mentioned by Plutarch (Aratus 34), then the decree should presumably be dated to the period 239–229 B.C. (so Kirchner (ad loc.) and Dittenberger (on SIG 476) following Wilhelm, , Gött. gel. A. (1903) 788Google Scholar). The first decree which may be approximately dated and which has the new formula is almost certainly IG ii²x. 851. Unfortunately the date of this is disputed. Kirchner follows Ferguson (Klio viii (1908) 339Google Scholar) and dates it ante a. 224/3 B.C. because of the absence of the Ptolemaea from the festivals at which the proclamation was to be made. But Wilhelm, (AM xxxix (1914) 299 f.Google Scholar) argues that the decree should be assigned to the middle of the second century B.C. when the Ptolemaea disappear from decrees for a while. He none the less dates the change of formula to the end of the third century B.C. on the grounds that IG ii². 850 and 856 are earlier than 200 B.C. (op. cit. 302). But IG ii². 850 falls in the archonship of Dionysius which has been dated (tentatively) to 197/6 B.C. by Meritt (The Athenian Year 199, cf. 235) and IG ii². 856 is of uncertain date. The first decree with the new formula that is firmly dated is IG ii². 893 (SEG xvi. 84Google Scholar; xxi. 434), viz. archonship of Symmachus, 188/7 B.C.

One point may aid a decision. Once the change of formula had been completed the record of the grant contains the following elements: (1) (2) the thesmothetae are to see to the δοκιμασία and the second vote; (3) the recipient is to get himself enrolled into a tribe, deme, and phratry. In other words the decrees record the grant in the logical manner (i.e. providing for the necessary prior steps before mentioning the enrolment). This form is apparently standard in this period and it occurs with great regularity. However, in a very small number of decrees this order is not observed and the enrolment clause still (illogically) follows after the statement clause (i.e. in IG ii². 851; probably 854 (where the early part of the formula is not preserved, but where the enrolment does not come at the end of the formula, as it would if the usual formula were being employed); possibly SEG xvi. 73Google Scholar, but this seems to be defective and does not contain any instructions to the thesmothetae; SEG xxi. 417Google Scholar, a very tiny fragment). It seems a reasonable suggestion that these decrees should be dated earlier rather than later, since it is more likely that the formula would show some variation then—and the standardization of the other examples provides added weight to this point. If this is granted, then IG ii². 851 may be assigned to the period favoured by Ferguson (i.e. ante a. 224/3 B.C.). For if the mention of the Ptolemaea is regular from 224/3 B.C. until the middle of the second century, and if IG ii². 851 does not mention them and for other reasons (i.e. formulaic reasons) seems to belong to a point before the 180s B.C. (cf. IG ii². 893 (SEG xvi. 84Google Scholar; xxi. 434); 889 (SEG xxi. 443Google Scholar; xxiii. 68)), then it seems necessary to place it prior to 224/3 B.C.

This allows the date of the change of the formula to be assigned to the period inter 239/229-arcte 224/3 B.C. Greater precision is not possible in the present state of our information.

⁶³ Cf. n. 4 above.

⁶⁴ Cf. IG i². 110 = ML 85 (410/9 B.C.) where there is no mention of a deme, and IG ii². 17 (394/3 B.C.) where the phratry is not recorded. Cf. BSA lxv (1970) 154 ff.Google Scholar

A full list of the citizenship decrees which form the basis of the following analysis is provided in the Appendix. One further example of a citizenship grant is known to the author (a fragment from the recent Agora excavations) but he has not been able to see this.

⁶⁵ Very occasionally, and only in early instances, the enrolment clause does not follow the statement clause absolutely directly. This is so in IG ii². 19 where the motivation clause intervenes. Cf. IG ii². 25 + SEG xv. 86Google Scholar.

⁶⁶ Three apparent exceptions call for comment: (1) IG ii². 207(a) (SEG xv. 92Google Scholar; xxi. 261). This decree, most improbably, appears to lack an enrolment clause altogether. For discussion and possible solutions cf. BSA lxvi (1971) 297 ffGoogle Scholar. (2) IG ii². 472 + 169 ( + Addendum, cf. Wilhelm, , AM xxxix (1914) 288 ff.Google Scholar). The joining of these two pieces seems to be correct (the chequer measurements and the letter heights are almost identical on both fragments). But the text is far from clear at the bottom of the lower fragment (IG ii². 169) where the citizenship grant is allegedly made. This calls for separate treatment, but it is perhaps sufficient to notice here that the decree can only be viewed as a grant on the assumptions (a) that the decree omitted to state that the recipient was to be made an Athenian, (b) that the word φρατρία was (quite exceptionally for an Attic decree) spelt as (porrpia, (c) that the text had ἐσγράψασθαί but εἰς φυλήν etc., (d) that the enrolment clause was of quite an exceptional nature for a decree belonging to 306/5 B.C., and (e) that the mason mis-spelt the word δῆμον. Such a sum of oddities is surely too great to allow the resultant restoration. (3) Hesperia xl (1971) 178 f. no. 26Google Scholar (F.M 13407). This is restored as a citizenship grant by Stroud (ad Ice), but there are no particular grounds for this assumption. Pace Stroud, the reference to the εἰσφοραί in lines 8–9 is not at all common in Attic citizenship grants; indeed, as far as I have been able to ascertain, this combination is without parallel. The εἰσφοραί are generally mentioned in grants of isoteleia and sometimes enktesis. The usual context of their appearance is the statement that the recipients are , and the occurrence of this statement is fairly limited: (a) on three occasions this statement accompanies a temporary grant of residence in Athens to exiles (IG ii². 218 (SEG xxiv. 94Google Scholar), 346/5 B.C.; 237 (SEG xvii. 24Google Scholar; xxi. 266; xxiv. 95), 338/7 B.C.; 545 (SEG xxiv. 106Google Scholar), 321/0 B.C. (?)). In the last two cases the decree also specifies exemption from the metoikion and adds (certainly in 237, and quite possibly in 545) the right of enktesis in respect of a house, (b) On three or four occasions it accompanies a grant of isoteleia (IG ii². 287 (SEG xxiv. 115Google Scholar), middle of the fourth century; 505 (SEG xix. 61Google Scholar; xxiv. 113), 302/1 B.C.; 660 (SEG xxiv. 115Google Scholar), fourth century B.C. 5516 (restored), end of the fourth century B.C.). In 287, 505, and 554 the grant of enktesis is also made. Isoteleia does not figure very often as a privilege in Athenian decrees, and in other examples of it the statement about εἰσφοραί certainly does not always appear. It does not figure (e.g.) in IG ii². 109 (SEG xvi. 47Google Scholar), 363/2 B.C., or in IG ii².276 (SEG xxiv. 90Google Scholar), middle of the fourth century B.C.; but in IG ii². 554 (SEG xxiv. 111Google Scholar), 307–304 B.C., the stone breaks before the end and the statement could have followed, (c) On two occasions it accompanies a grant of enktesis (IG ii². 351 + 624 (SEG xxi. 283Google Scholar; xxiv. 99), 330/29 B.C.; IG ii². 360 (+ Addendum p. 660) 325/4 B.C.).

There would hardly be any need for this statement in the gran t of citizenship anyway, since it merely specified what, as Athenians, the recipients would be liable to.

⁶⁷ The number of fifth-century grants is increased somewhat by the literary sources, e.g. Sadocus (Thuc. ii. 29. 5 cf. Aristoph., Ach. 145Google Scholar; PA 12564), Apollodorus the Megarian (Lysias xiii. 72 cf. vii. 4), Ariston, Cydon, Anaxicrates, Lycurgus, an d Anaxilaus of Byzantium (Xen., Hell. ii. 2. 1Google Scholar combined with i. 3. 18), Carystion (Schol. Aristoph., Vesp. 283Google Scholar; PA 8259a), Meletus (Schol. Pl. Apol. 18b; PA 9829), Meno (Dem. xxiii. 199, cf. Thuc. ii. 21. 3), Perdiccas of Macedo n (Dem. xxiii. 200), Polygnotus (Harpocration and Suidas s.v. Πολύγνωτος), quite possibly Nicomachu s (Suidas s.v.Νικόμαχος; PA 10932), possibly Diocles (Suidas s.v. Διοκλῆς; PA 3985), and possibly Metagene s (Suidas s.v. Μεταγένης); PA 10087). To these may be added Archedemus of Thera (cf. IG i². 784–8; PA 2328), and Eponphes of Melos (IG xii. 3. 1187, cf. Thuc. v. 116; PA 5019). A few others may be deduce d from decrees recording later confirmations of the original grant, e.g. Tharyps, the grandfather of Arybbas the Molossian (IG ii². 226 + Addendum = SIG 228, Tod 173 (with notes), cf. Thuc. ii. 80. 6 referring to him as a child in 429/8 B.C., Plut., Pyrrhus i. 4Google Scholar; Justin xvii. 3. 10 f.), perhaps also Phormio, the grandfather of Phormio and Carphinas (IG ii². 237 = Tod 178, cf. PA 14961). It is notable that of this fairly small numbe r (some 21 in all, including the grants to Evagoras (IG i². 113) and to Thrasybulus (IG i². 110), out of a total of over 250 known recipients) all but four or so come from the period of the Peloponnesian War, and of these a large number obtained the citizenship as a result of pro-Athenian activities (usually treachery) in tha t struggle.

It would of course be unwise to base any conclusions about frequency on such an analysis over-readily since the record is obviously imperfect, but it can hardly be entirely a coincidence that the volume of known grants in the fourth centur y (especially from the 360s on) is so much greater than that in the fifth century. In any event, in the 350s, both Demosthenes (xxiii. 199 ff.) and Isocrates (viii. 49 f.) are on record as bewailing the proliferation of the award in the fourth century, and this at least confirms that the honour was at first rather rare, and that it was only in the fourth century that it came to be bestowed with any degree of frequency.

⁶⁸ Cf. BSA lxv (1970) 171Google Scholar.

⁶⁹ Cf. ML 85, with notes,

⁷⁰ As is suggested in BSA lxv (1970) 171Google Scholar. It should be added, however, that the grounds for accepting this fragmen t as part of a citizenship grant are not altogether convincing.

⁷¹ The only exception (on which cf. n. 57) occurs in the 280s or 270s B.C., an d apparently at a time when the restriction on phratr y enrolment had lately been lifted. With the enrolmen t restriction in force the phratry had naturally remaine d the last element.

⁷² In the latter the form ἐξεῖναι occurs three times (IG ii². 511; 570 (possibly); 654). One tiny variant occurs in IG ii². 707 where the text must be taken to read . The only clear case where a different term is used after the 330s B.C. is in IG ii². 553. In this case the odd phras is used. But since this is not a normal grant the use of the odd term is in all likelihood a consequence of this. Cf. Johnson, , AJA xviii (1914) 165 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar, also n. 49. IG ii². 350 apparently had no word for the enrolment.

⁷³ IGii². 251 apparently has the form . This is a rather fragmentary part of a decree (three tiny pieces) and not at all clearly dated. It could belong quite early in the fourth century. For IG ii². 472 + 169 ( + Addendum) cf. n. 66.

⁷⁴ The phrase continues to be used with equal consistency after the change of formula in the late third century B.C. The single occasion on which a variation is known to have occurred is IG ii². 851 (where the phrase is found).

⁷⁵ The situation appears to be similar in the case of proxeny decrees. In the fifth century the ἔκγονοι are not mentioned in the earliest instances of any honorific decrees, indeed they are very rarely mentioned at all before the last few years of the fifth century B.C. (in IG i². 59 (SEG x. 70Google Scholar) of 427/6 B.C. a blanket reference is made in the form , and in IG i². 143 (SEG x. 52Google Scholar; xii. 24) of c. 430 B.C. there is a reference to in a clause concerning the grant of . In proxeny decrees they are mentioned in IG i². 154 (SEG x. 98Google Scholar; xii. 30) of c. 420 B.C., and IG i². 118 (SEG x. 134Google Scholar) of 408/7 B.C. The inclusion of the ἔκγονοι thereafter is sporadic in the early years of the fourth century (IG ii². 13, 399/8 B.C.; 19 (+ Wilhelm, AU v. 44), 394/3 B.C.; 86 (SEG xxiv. 76Google Scholar), very early fourth century; 51 (SEG iii. 75Google Scholar; Lewis, , BSA xlix (1954) 33Google Scholar, dating it to c. 390 B.C.), and virtually regular from the middle of the 380s onwards (with a few odd exceptions, e.g. IG ii². 184 (SEG xxiv. 92Google Scholar); 269; 290—all from the third quarter of the fourth century). This might suggest that the situation in respect of ἔκγονοι in honorific decrees was clarified quite generally in the first part of the fourth century. But if so the extension of an honour to the descendants of the recipient was not always normal in all kinds of honour. In the case of enktesis, for instance, the extension is not especially common and it is not found with any degree of regularity (cf. Pečírka, op. cit. 150ff.). The situation in citizenship grants seems to be more systematic, and it may be so in proxeny grants too, but it would be unwise to generalize. In proxeny decrees the grant was quite frequently extended to the παῖδες of the recipient in the fifth century, but not apparently thereafter. In grants of citizenship the extension to the children is very rare (occurring very probably in IG i². 113 (for Evagoras) and certainly in IG ii². 103 (for Dionysius of Syracuse); almost certainly not in IG ii². 251, pace Kirchner). In the two clear cases the recipients were distinguished rulers, so it may be that the inclusion of the children is to make the grant the more impressive; or perhaps, as the sons may have been of age, it may have been to ensure that the whole royal family was involved. Without a special extension, of course, the status of the recipient's children would be parlous to say the least. For, unless their mother was an Athenian, they would not fall into the category of . Hence, in strict terms, they would not be citizens. In these circumstances the extension of the grant to the ἔκγονοι of the recipient in the early fourth century is a point of considerable significance. For by this means the family and descendants of the honorand obtained by the terms of the grant what they would not have acquired when the grant applied only to the original recipient. For the enfranchisement did not apply to the recipient's wife, and unless he married an Athenian his sons and ἔκγονοι would not qualify for the citizenship. The extension of the grant to the recipient's ἔκγονοι not only obviated this difficulty but changed the nature of the grant. An alternative, never adopted in Athens, would have been to have given the citizenship to the honorand's wife too. (For examples of grants to women elsewhere cf. SEG xv. 384Google Scholar (xviii. 264; xix. 425; xxiii. 470) from Dodona, 370–368 B.C.).

The extension of the grant also gave the descendants the possibility of utilizing the grant even if the original recipient had not done so. At any rate this seems to be the explanation of a number of decrees that exist recording confirmations or re-affirmations of grants to the descendants of earlier recipients, who had presumably declined to take up the award. In such cases the descendants had to obtain a favourable decree before they could exercise their inherited right. Cf. (e.g.) IG ii². 237 (SEG xvii. 24Google Scholar; xxi. 266; xxiv. 95) of 338/7 B.C., where Phormio and Carphinas take up a grant made to their grandfather; IG ii². 336 (I) (SEG xv. 97Google Scholar; xxi. 273; 278) of 334/3 B.C.; IG ii². 716+Addendum p. 666+ IG ii². 1226 (cf. Wilhelm, , AAWW lxxxiii (1946) 126 f.Google Scholar) from the early third century B.C.—a rather tricky case where a descendant of Evagoras I of Salamis gets the original grant to Evagoras and his children confirmed to cover him too (to be discussed elsewhere). In IG ii². 448 (II) of 318/17B.C. there is a slightly different case, where Euphron obtains confirmation of the citizenship granted to him, but not taken up by him, in 323/2 B.C. Cf. IG ii². 391. Outside Athens the inheritance of the right may not always have been a mere formality even when the original grant had specifically mentioned the descendants. Cf. (e.g.) Tituli Calymnii ( = Segre, M., Ann. xxii–xxiii (1944–1945) no. 21Google Scholar ( = BMI 238; SGDI 3555) dated c. 280 B.C. In this case the father himself had requested that his son and descendant be given the citizenship, and the decree records the favourable verdict. This occurred despite the fact that the original award had almost certainly given citizenship to Agoranax . Possibly, as Segre suggests (ad loc.), the reason was that the son was illegitimate or adopted; hence this might be a slightly exceptional case (although the person in question will still have been an ἔκγονος of Agoranax).

⁷⁶ Cf. n. 49. They are not mentioned in Hesperia xiii (1944) no. 3Google Scholar (357/6 B.C.) but they do figure in IG ii². 103 (369/8 B.C.) and 109 (363/2 B.C.). Thereafter their appearance is regular until the change in formula late in the third century B.C. They do not figure in the new formula.

There are two apparent exceptions: (1) IG ii². 251. This is a somewhat puzzling fragment (and will be fully dealt with elsewhere), but it can be restored to bring in the ἔκγονοι. In any event it could belong quite early in the fourth century. (2) IG ii². 553. This has already been noted as a special case (nn. 49 and 72). The omission is entirely natural in the circumstances.

⁷⁷ The variations are few. In Hesperia ix (1940) no. 48Google Scholar (inter 287–278 B.C.) the phrase alone follows the statement, and in SEG xvi. 59Google Scholar (ex. s. iv B.C.) the statement and the reference to the ἔκγονοι are linked by καί. SEG xxi. 359Google Scholar (early third century B.C.) does not mention the ἔκγονοι at all as restored by Meritt, , Hesperia xxx (1961) 212 fGoogle Scholar., but a reference could easily be fitted in along the normal lines. IG ii². 336, a confirmation of a grant, has been restored in a somewhat anomalous way in the Corpus: . This not only makes the formula unique but it also seems to be rather illogical, especially with the enrolment clause following the statement immediately and having the same subject. The formula is not absolutely unprecedented if one includes non-Attic evidence (as IG xii (5) 541 (SEG xiv. 543Google Scholar) from Carthaea reveals) but the clause could be restored more regularly as follows: (emending the readings of the Corpus and restoring the more usual . The latter, which was suggested by Johnson, , CP (1914) 425Google Scholar, suits the analysis of this clause given above). In IG ii². 570 the restoration (similar to that of IG ii². 336 in the Corpus) can also be regularized.

In IG ii². 237 the record of the ἔκγονοι is made in a different manner altogether. But this is not a grant but a reaffirmation of a grant. In such cases, where the original recipient presumably had not taken up his grant, the granting formula is often quite different from that used in a simple grant in that it refers to the abstract πολιτεία or the δωρεά accorded to the ancestor of the person in question (cf. IG ii². 226; 391; 448; 716+Addendum p. 666+IG ii². 1226; but 336 for a confirmation on the lines of a grant). In these cases the ἔκγονοι usually still appear in the grant in direct association with the recipient, but they do so naturally in the dative case (e.g. IG ii². 226 ; 448 (II) .

⁷⁸ For comparison the formula for the grant of enktesis may be taken. This is a short formula anyway. It is basically unchanged almost from the outset (late fifth century B.C.) and one form of wording becomes predominant. Cf. Pečirka, op. cit. passim.

⁷⁹ The difference of wording is to be taken in the order in which the terms are expressed, and in the omission and addition of parts of the whole clause, not in the various designations of the prytaneis.

The readings of IG ii². 109 have been slightly improved here. In the case of IG ii². 103 the stone is so badly worn that it is virtually impossible to discern any of the letters at all.

⁸⁰ The appearance of these words is most irregular. Cf. BSA lxvi (1971) 309 nn. 78 and 79Google Scholar. It cannot be upheld (as e.g. by Kirchner, , on IG ii ². 577Google Scholar, following Dittmar, , De Atheniensium more exteros coronis publice ornandi quaestiones epigraphicae (Leipzig 1890) 182)Google Scholar that this phrase does not occur after the end of the fourth century B.C. Cf. IG ii². 643 + Hesperia ix (1940) no. 13Google Scholar (298/7 B.C.) where its occurrence is virtually certain.

⁸¹ Exceptions to this general formula are: IG ii². 385(4) (SEG xxi. 341Google Scholar); 448; 496+507 (Wilhelm, , AM xxxix (1914) 274ff.Google Scholar); 553; 575; 643 + Hesperia ix (1940) no. 13; 707Google Scholar; SEG xxi. 353Google Scholar (= IG ii². 378+EM 12764); Hesperia ix (1940) no. 48Google Scholar. Cf. BSA lxvi (1971) 308Google Scholar for further details.

⁸² Some of the variations observable in this case may be due to the fact that this requirement was probably only applicable intermittently at first.

⁸³ IGi².110; ii². 19; 25+SEG xv. 86Google Scholar; 103; 109; 207 (BSA lxvi (1971) 297 ff.Google Scholar); 222; 385(4); 392; 405+SEG xxi. 275Google Scholar; 558; 707; 336 (confirmation); SEG xxi. 310Google Scholar. The large body of these examples is from the fifth or early fourth century B.C. The formula is certainly much more common with after the second third of the fourth century B.C.

⁸⁴ IG ii². 405+SEG xxi. 275Google Scholar; 392; 558; SEG xxi. 310Google Scholar; (?) SEG xxi. 359Google Scholar.

⁸⁵ IG ii². 222; (?) SEG xxi, 359Google Scholar.

⁸⁶ IG ii². 448 (323/2 B.C.); Hesperia xiii (1944)Google Scholar no. 5 (just before 321 B.C. Cf. Meritt, ad loc). The other two examples are both from the early fourth century B.C., viz. IG ii². 19 (394/3 B.C.); 25+SEG xv. 86Google Scholar (late eighties or early seventies)

⁸⁷ IG ii². 393; 438; 538; 541; 712; 717; 721; SEG xxi. 359Google Scholar; Hesperia ix (1940) no. 48Google Scholar. In all of these cases the text could as easily be restored in the form . In view of the great frequency of this form in the attested examples these cases should perhaps be emended to this form.

⁸⁸ This is quite clear from a study of the dated examples of this type of decree. Cf. n. 89.

⁸⁹ It should be emphasized here that these points are made with specific reference to the grant of citizenship, and that they do not necessarily (or even probably) apply in the case of other honours. In the case of the proxeny for instance it is clear that it is not possible to assign the two types of formula that occur (cf. n. 1) to distinct and neatly bounded periods (as has been done (e.g.) by Lambrechts, A., Tekst en uitzicht van de Atheense proxeniedecreten tot 323 v. C. (Brussels 1958) 61 ff.Google Scholar; cf. 142 f.).

⁹⁰ This latter is the only other form of expression attested for Attic decrees. Elsewhere this form could be expressed in a number of different ways, and there were also other types of expression. Cf, nn. 91 and 92.

⁹¹ The wording is not always of the exact form , etc. are all found. A large set of decrees also records the honour more or less descriptively in the past tense with (or ) or . For the present purposes no distinction is made between these forms of expression. The general type of formula is found in decrees from, for example: Andrus (IG xii. Suppl. (12) 245), Bargylia (SIG 426), Chaleium (IG ix. i² (3) 740 = FD iii. 145), Cnidus (SEG xii. 419Google Scholar, middle of the fourth century B.C.; earlier the form is attested cf. SEG xii. 418)Google Scholar, Delus (e.g. IG xi. 4. 510, 525, etc.), Delphi (e.g. SIG 254; 255; 267; etc.), Dodona (SEG xv. 348)Google Scholar, Elateia (IG ix. i. 104+SEG iii. 416)Google Scholar, Ephesus (SIG 352; 353; 354, etc.), Epidaurus (IG iv. 1418 = SIG 358), Epirus (SEG xxiii. 471Google Scholar; xxiv. 448), Histiaea (IG xi. 4. 1055 cf. IG xii. 9 p. 169), Lamia (SEG xvi. 373Google Scholar; IG ix. 2. 62), Locris (SEG ii. 352Google Scholar), Messene (SEG xi. 974)Google Scholar, Olbia (SIG 219 = IOSPE i². 20; Inscriptions Olbiae ( = , Leningrad 1968) nos. 5Google Scholar; 7, etc.), Oropus (SEG xv. 264)Google Scholar, Priene (I Priene 2; 6; etc.), Samus (SIG 312; SEG i. 350–2, etc.)Google Scholar, Stratus (IG ix. i (4) 443 ff.), Tenus (IG xii. 5. 798; 799; 802, etc.), Thessaly (various places; e.g. IG ix. 2 (1)1 (Heraclea), (2) 11 (Hypata), (7) 512 (Larisa), etc.), Troas (SEG xiii. 520Google Scholar; but cf. n. 93 below), Troezen (IG iv. 748), etc. Unfortunately, very few examples exist from the first half of the fourth century B.C. or earlier, and in the majority of places the record only begins well after this.

⁹² This is an intermediate form of a rather less abstract nature than the form . It is found on the mainland at (e.g.) Argos (DGE 90) and Megara (IG vii. 1), but it is more common in the isles of the Aegean and certain nearby areas. It occurs, for instance, in Aspendus (SEG xvii. 639)Google Scholar, Byzantium (SIG 645), Calymnus (regularly in a large number of decrees. Cf. Segre, , Ann. vi–vii (1944-1945)Google ScholarTituli Calymnii nos. 16; 20–1; 27, etc. The form appears sporadically (nos. 8–10, etc.)), Carthaea (Ceus) (IG xii. 5. 541, cf. SEG xiv. 543)Google Scholar, Cnidus (SEG xii. 418)Google Scholar, Cos (e.g. Tit. Cal. 73–4), various places in Crete (e.g. Itanus, SEG ii. 512Google Scholar; Gortyn, IC (iv) 210 ff.), Eretria (IG xii. 9. 198), Erythrae (SIG 168 = Tod 155, but cf. SIG 126 = Tod 106 and n. 93).

⁹³ Examples have been discovered from Elis (DGE 415 cf. SEG xi. 1186Google Scholar—bronze tablet of the fifth century B.C.), Erythrae (SIG 126 = Tod 106, 394 B.C.), Troas (SIG 355, end of the fourth century B.C.), Thisoa (Arcadia) (IG v. 2. 510, second century B.C.), Cyme (SGDI 312 = Michel 512, Roman period). In the case of Erythrae it is very interesting to notice that in 394 B.C. in the decree for Conon the clause had the form . By the middle of the 350s, in the decree for Mausolus, the form has become . Cf. Szanto, E., Das griechische Bürgerrecht (Freiburg 1892) 10 ffGoogle Scholar. Clearly this form (which would be more natural in fifth-century and early fourth-century examples) died out early in most places, if it was used at all widely—and the state of the evidence is not really such as to allow the conclusion that it was widespread. A salutary reminder not to assume that the less abstract forms are necessarily older is provided by the preserved instances from Calymnus. In these, according to Segre's system, the use of appears to predominate in the early decrees and the form becomes more or less regular later. The wholly personal reference, however, is much more likely to be early.

⁹⁴ Hence in Athens it is always accompanied by the instructions to effect the practical steps that will make it a reality. In addition it is only found in the company of such honours as are compatible with its full implementation. Thus it never figures directly in conjunction with the grant of or , though it can of course be granted to persons who already have the status of proxenus or to persons who have already received the right of enktesis. (This is clearly the explanation of the two cases that have sometimes been thought to run counter to this rule, viz. Hyp. fr. 77, and Dein. In Dem. i. 45)Google Scholar. In the case of proxenoi these will strictly have lost that status on the receipt of citizenship. In some circumstances, however, the Athenians came very near to granting both. For example, in IG ii². 19 (Wilhelm, , AU v. 44Google Scholar) the main decree makes the honorand a proxenus. The decree is followed by a rider in the usual form which accords the honorand the citizenship. But how can the force of be retained when the rider grants a further privilege which is strictly incompatible with that granted in the main decree? Presumably the proxeny is taken to be superseded by the new grant (but the decree does not make this point clear). Again, Athenian decrees occasionally do seem to give a person a privilege which in strict terms he need not be granted, as it is already included in the other honour. For instance, in IG ii². 109 (rider) Astycrates is granted both citizenship and ateleia.

A good example of the normal progression of honours in Attic decrees is afforded in the three decrees preserved honouring Evenor of Acarnania (IG ii². 373 cf. SEG xxi. 301Google Scholar; xxiv. 105, containing the first two decrees, and IG ii². 374). In the first decree Evenor is made . In the second (on the odd form of which cf. Dittmar, op. cit. 68 ff.) he is granted the right of enktesis (cf. Pečírka, op. cit. 72, for the problems in this grant). Finally in the third decree Evenor is made an Athenian citizen. Once the last decree had been implemented Evenor lost the status of proxenus (though he could no doubt utilize the title).

Outside Athens, however, even the personalized form of expression for the grant did not necessarily preclude the possibility of the recipient getting such strictly non-complementary honours as the proxeny. Cf. SEG xi. 1186Google Scholar ( = DGE 415), Elis; SIG 126 ( = Tod 106), Erythrae. In the last case, however, the gift was specifically qualified as [ἦν] βούληται. Probably, in earlier decrees at least, all grants of citizenship that figure in combination with the proxeny were strictly ‘provisional’, in the sense that, if the recipient wanted to utilize the πολιτεία (as opposed to merely retaining it as a title among a number of others), then he had to forgo in strict terms the actual status of proxenus. As the true meaning of the proxeny disappeared, the anomaly (of granting proxeny and citizenship together) no doubt disappeared too. By the middle of the second century B.C. in Chalcedon (for instance) there was a law providing for all proxenoi to be given the citizenship as well (Michel 540). The (il)logical conclusion is exemplified by a decree from Calymnus (Tit. Cal. 61) where some dicasts from Iasus are given the proxeny because they already possess the citizenship .

⁹⁵ I have made no special study of proxeny decrees, but the occurrence of the abstract form προξενία (and εὐεργεσία) does not appear to be at all common in Athens. There are a few sporadic instances though, e.g. IG i². 72 (SEG x. 88Google Scholar) 423 B.C., IG i². 116 (SEG x. 132Google Scholar, a confirmation in which both forms appear), and SEG xii. 41Google Scholar, in a rider after a personalized reference had been made in the main decree. As in the case of the citizenship decrees, however, the abstract form προξενία frequently occurs in the title or heading of the decree if it has one.

⁹⁶ Examples of the combination of proxenia and politeia occur as early as the fourth century B.C. at least (and occasionally even earlier, cf. SEG xi. 1186Google Scholar = DGE 415). In Samus a decree giving citizenship of 321/0 B.C. (SIG 312) gives politeia alone; thereafter a long string of Samian decrees regularly grants it with the proxeny. At Erythrae, in the decree for Conon, the optional nature of the citizenship grant makes the combination of honours there less anomalots. Presumably the conditional qualification should be understood in the later decree for Mausolus too.

Instances of the combination of the politeia and the proxeny may be found (e.g.) at: Andrus (IG xii. Suppl. 12. 245, fourth century B.C.), Bargylia (SIG 426, c. 270–261 B.C.), Delus (e.g. IG xi. 4. 510, 525, etc., third century B.C.), Delphi (FD passim), Epirus (SEG xxiii. 471Google Scholar, before 330 B.C.), Lamia (SEG xvi. 375Google Scholar, early third century B.C.), Olbia (Inscriptiones Olbiae nos. 5–7, 9, 14–15, 21, 24, 27–8, 45 (SEG iii. 584)Google Scholar, fourth century B.C. onwards), Chersonesus Taurica (IOSPE i². 340, 349, 356; iv. 66. In decrees from this region an extraordinary hybrid form eventually emerged. Cf. IOSPE i². 357–9, 364–5, 377, 380, 697), Oropus (SEG xv. 264Google Scholar, late fourth century B.C.), Priene (I Priene 2, 334 B.C.Google Scholar; 6, 330/29 B.C.; 12, soon after 330 B.C.), Samus (e.g. SEG i. 350–2Google Scholar, 354, etc., late fourth century B.C.), Stratus (e.g. IG ix. (1) 4.443, etc.), Tenus (IG xii. 5. 798, 799, etc., third century B.C.), etc. From the later third century B.C. onwards the examples are very common and have a very wide currency. Cf. further Szanto, op. cit. 14 ff., Francotte, , ‘De la condition des étrangers dans les cites grecques’ (Mélanges du droit public grec, Liège–Paris 1910) 167 ff.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ i.e. in the sense that it required further action on the part of the recipient if it was to be utilized in the full sense. In SIG 126 = Tod 106 (Erythrae 394 B.C.) this conditional nature of the award is actually made clear in the record of the grant. Cf. n. 94. If the grant of citizenship was not utilized, then the concomitant honours provided most of the privileges that would have been acquired. Cf. Francotte, loc. cit. 167 ff.

⁹⁸ The nearest equivalent to this is perhaps in the decree for Aeschron and company (IG ii². 845 cf. SEG xvi. 71 (208/7 B.C.)Google Scholar, Meritt, , Hesperia xxvi (1957) 66Google Scholar) where provision is made for them to set the machinery in motion if they want to be enrolled as citizens. This is rather different from being given the citizenship if they care to have it.

For the extension of grants to the ἔκγονοι of recipients cf. n. 75.

⁹⁹ A cursory examination of non-Attic decrees reveals that (1) decrees cast in the form found at Athens do not necessarily provide for further points of procedure such as enrolment (e.g. SEG xi. 1186Google Scholar = DGE 415, Elis, and SIG 126 = Tod 106, Erythrae, do not); (2) both decrees of the form and decrees of the form δεδόσθαι frequently do provide for the further steps that are necessary for the citizenship to be utilized. Thus in the case of the form provisions for enrolment are found (e.g.) in decrees from Aspendus (SEG xvii. 639Google Scholar, 301/298 B.C.), Calymnus (regularly when this form is used), Cos (e.g. Tit. Cal. 73, 74, third century B.C.), Carthaea (IG xii. 5. 541, cf. SEG xiv. 543Google Scholar, third century B.C.), Troas (SIG 355, c. 300 B.C.), etc., but not, for instance, in Erythrae (SIG 168 = Tod 155, middle of the fourth century B.C.), Megara (IG vii. 1, end of the fourth century B.C.), Aegosthena (e.g. IG vii. 219), etc. In some places practice seems unsystematic, e.g. Argos, where DGE 90 (third century B.C.) does have the provision, but SEG xvi. 255Google Scholar (A.D. 170) does not. But the latter is a much later example, and in any event it is notable that in the former the recipient gets the citizenship alone whereas in the latter it is combined with the proxeny. In the case of decrees in the form there is a similar situation. Further provisions accompany such grants in (e.g.) Delus (sometimes, e.g. IG xi. 4. 547, third century B.C.), Ephesus (SIG 353, 302/1 B.C.), Priene (I Priene 6, after 330 B.C.), Samus (e.g. SEG i. 350–2Google Scholar, etc., late fourth century B.C.), Tenus (e.g. IG xii. 5. 798–9, 802, 804, etc.), Troezen (IG iv. 748, 369 B.C.), etc., but not, for instance, in Acraephia (IG vii. Addendum 4130–1), Bargylia (e.g. SIG 426, I Priene 47), Cnidus (SEG xii. 419Google Scholar, middle of the fourth century B.C.), Elateia (IG ix. 1. 104+SEG iii. 416Google Scholar, second century B.C.), Lamia (IG ix. 2. 62, 218/17 B.C.), Messene (SEG xi. 974Google Scholar, first century B.C.), Oropus (SEG xv. 264Google Scholar, late fourth century B.C.), etc. In most, if not all, cases where the form ἔδωκαν is used the grant is not accompanied by any provision for enrolment: e.g. Epirus (SEG xxiv. 448)Google Scholar, Lamia (SEG xvi. 373Google Scholar), Locris (SEG ii. 352Google Scholar), Olbia (Inscriptiones Olbiae 5–7, etc.), cf. Szanto, op. cit. 54 ff.

Occasionally examples are found where the grant is qualified as (e.g. Histiaea, IG xi. 4. 1055; cf. IG xii. 9. p. 169). This is clearly a reference to the law currently in force, laying down the provisions and rules for naturalization. For examples of such legislation cf. DGE 253 ( = Michel 1003) from Cos, Michel 540 (cf. Francotte, op. cit. 181) from Chalcedon. Elsewhere the decrees sometimes do not grant the πολιτεία but instruct that the necessary procedures be put into effect (at the requisite time), e.g. at Iasus (I Priene 53, 54), and, where the recipients have already been granted proxenia and this is an additional honour, at Parium (I Priene 63), and at Lesbus (IG xii. Suppl. 2. 137 = SGDI 215) where the procedures are to be put in motion for both the citizenship and the proxeny.

Clearly there was very considerable variation from place to place and from time to time, not only regarding the formulae for the grant, but also in respect of the terms on which it could be offered. As regards the granting of the citizenship in conjunction with the proxeny, many places did not make this strictly anomalous award (e.g. Athens, Megara, where the grant of citizenship was in any case rare, Calymnus (normally), etc.). Elsewhere the combination was widespread. In many such cases, however, the citizenship may have been regarded as a ‘conditional’ award, in the sense that it needed further action if it was to be implemented (as it did at Erythrae). In this respect it is perhaps relevant that a large number of places do not include provision for enrolment if the proxeny figures in the grant too (e.g. Delphi, Erythrae, Lamia, Olbia, etc.), and that a large number do not include the proxeny when provisions for enrolment are recorded (e.g. Aspendus, Calymnus, Carthaea, Ephesus, etc.). In some places, however, the combination is found with the enrolment provisions too (e.g. Priene (sometimes), Magnesia, Samus (though one earlier example has only the politeia), Tenus (regularly), etc.). A full reappraisal of all the evidence here is required.

¹⁰⁰ Cf. BSA lxv (1970) 169Google Scholar.

¹⁰¹ Op. cit. 89. It is interesting to note that the word πολιτεία does occur quite often in the headings of citizenship decrees, but not in the texts. Cf. (e.g.) IG i². 113 (probably); SEG xxi. 310Google Scholar; IG ii². 386 + EM 12564 cf. Addendum p. 660 (SEG xxi. 311Google Scholar); etc. In other words it was acceptable as a descriptive term, but not employed when the actual procedure was being enjoined in specific terms. The situation in proxeny decrees is perhaps similar. Cf. n. 95.

¹⁰² Op. cit. ch. 3 ff.

¹⁰³ Cf. (e.g.) Hesperia x (1941) no. 70Google Scholar; IG ii². 646; 652; etc.

¹⁰⁴ Two further fragments of IG ii². 20, as yet unpublished, seem to confirm that this decree was not concerned with the grant of citizenship to Evagoras. I am grateful to Dr. D. M. Lewis for this information.

¹⁰⁵ Three small points deserve mention: (1) The contents of IG ii². 716 ( + IG ii². 1226), which will be discussed more fully elsewhere, confirm that the original grant to Evagoras included his children too. (2) The sigma of was attested by the older editors. The stone is now broken away at this point. (3) Fcr the singular εὐεργέτεν after the phrase cf. IG i². 71 = SEG x. 73Google Scholar; SEG x. 111Google Scholar.