The Choregic Dedication of Leagros MERFTT, BENJAMIN D Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Spring 1967; 8, 1; ProQuest pg. 45

The Choregic Dedication of Leagros 
Benjamin D . Meritt 

THE DATE of the choregic dedication of Leagrosl depends on the 
letter-forms employed in making the inscription and on the 
years of activity that may be assigned to Leagros the choregos 

and to Pantakles the dithyrambic poet. Let us consider Pantakles 
first. He is known from Antiphon's speech nep'i. TOU xopevTou (§ 11) 
to have been didaskalos in a choregic contest in 420/19 B.C.2 He was 
ridiculed by the comic poet Eupolis about 424/3 B.C. and again by 
Aristophanes in 406/5 B.C. 3 The latter reference is taken by some4 to 
show that Pantakles was "alive and flourishing" as late as 405 B.C. 

This is not necessarily so. Eupolis and Aristophanes presumably had 
reference to the same incident. For Eupolis Pantakles was o'Kcu6s, for 
Aristophanes he was uKa,6TaTos. It may be thought that 1TPCPTJV in 
Aristophanes argues a recent event; it need be only relatively recent 
and may indeed mean simply cc a while ago." Since the dialogue 
between Aischylos and Dionysos in which the word was used took 
place in the Nether World it may be that in 406/5 Pantakles was 
dead. To the objection of Dionysos that Homer failed to benefit 
Pantakles by his instruction, Aischylos replied that he did, however, 
benefit many other brave men, in particular Lamachos. We know 
that Lamachos lost his life in Sicily in 414 B.C. The gaucherie of which 
Pantakles was guilty must have been a standing joke, but by 406/5 
Aristophanes could no longer be cryptic about it, assuming that his 
audience would all understand; he had to explain exactly and in 
detail what it was that Pantakles did wrong, for the benefit, we may 
suppose, of those who did not know or did not remember. 

So the literary evidence gives us Pantakles primarily in the late 

1 Hesperia 8 (1939) 48-50, no. 15. 
2 Hesperia 8 (1939) 50; H. B. Mattingly, CQ 16 (1966) 173 with n.2. 
3 Th. Kock CAF I (Leipzig 1880) 338 (Eupolis, fr.296: IIavraKAfjs aKatOs); Ar. Ran. 1036-8: 

Ka~ p.TJv ou IIavraKA€a y€ I Eoloa~€v op.ws 'TOV aKatO'Ta'Tov' 7TP0TJv yow, .qVlK' ~7T€P.7T€v, I 'TO Kpavos 
TTPW'TOV TTfip,STjUap.fivos 'TOV AOrpOV i}p.fiM' E7TLO~aHv. The scholiast on Aristophanes explains: 
otafJ&M€t 'TOV IIavraKA€a ws ap.a8fj EV 'TCp o1TAl,Ea8m, and adds the reference to Eupolis: 
p.EJ-LVTJ'TaL oe 'TOQ'TOV Ka~ EmroAts EV Xpva0 yEVH. 

'E.g., Mattingly (supra n.2) 173. 

45 



46 THE CHOREGIC DEDICA nON OF LEAGROS 

20's of the fifth century: no earlier and not necessarily later. The 
epigraphical evidence includes an inscription now in the British 
school of Archaeology in Athens (IG J2 771), which is published in 
the Corpus as follows: 

[KE"Kp07TtS' s. AlYE"ts EvLKa - -J 
- ca. 8 - os iJopoOlo (AAaLE"v[s ExoplYE"L] 
IIaJI'TaKAES ESLSa[ UK€]. 

As recorded in CIG 1037, nothing is shown as preserved after the 
initial alpha of tAAaL€V[S] in line 2 and after the name IIaJI'TaKAES in 
line 3. In IG I 337, a kind of facsimile is published which purports 
to show in line 2 all of the demotic tAAaL€V[S] except the final sigma. 
But the alignment ofletters is incorrect. The writing of this inscription 
is strictly stoichedon, the first sigma in line 2 coming over the pi in 
Pantakles, with the letters continuing regularly across the face of the 
stone. The last letter in line 2 falls over the second delta in ESLSa[ GKE" ] 
and beyond this epsilon, no letter is preserved. Rangabe had the correct 
reading though not the correct disposition.5 

The stone is now available for study.6 It shows that the traditional 
first line must be deleted, for the top of the stone is preserved above 
line 2. Line 2, therefore, becomes line 1, and line 3 becomes line 2. 
It is, in fact, the final line of the two-line inscription, which must be 
restored to read: 

IG J2 771 

[xopE"Y0JI'T ]os iJopoOlo fAAaLI[ os' AlYE"tS' EvLKa'] 
IIavTaKAES ESiSa[uK€J. 

There are 35 letters in line 1 and 17 letters in line 2. Line 2 is centered 
exactly below line 1 with 9 letter-spaces uninscribed before it and 
9 letter-spaces uninscribed after it. The symmetry of the inscription 
means that the deme Halai belonged to the phyle Aigeis rather than 
to Kekropis, and I have restored the name Aigeis in line 1. Dorotheos 
was the choregos rather than the father of some unknown choregic 
son. 

lt is idle to speculate about who this Dorotheos was. But the letter­
ing of the text may well belong to the 20's. In this I agree with the 
judgement of Mattingly. The lambdas have a sharp angle at the base 

6 A. Rizo Rangabe, Antiquitts helleniques I (Athens 1842) no. 55. 
6 I am indebted to C. W. J. Eliot for a report from Athens upon it. 



BENJAMIN D. MERITT 47 

and a fairly long right stroke, something like the lambdas in the first 
few lines of IG 12 25 (424/3). But the letter really reveals very little. 
I would agree with Mattingly that the nu is quite .like that of D8 
of 426/5 B.C.,7 but since its shape is also older (higher right-hand stroke) 
than the nu of IG 12 295 of 433/2 B.C. it could be dated, in my opinion, 
anywhere during the years from 433 to 420, both top and bottom 
dates being approximate. The sigma of IG 12 771 has all four strokes of 
the same length (0.015 m.) and is less thin than the sigma of D8, which 
usually extends both above and below the line and in which the two 
inner strokes are shorter than the top and bottom strokes (0.006 m. 
and 0.008 m. respectively). 

One must note here also the probable existence of another inscrip­
tion which named Pantakles as StSaUKaAos when the phyle Antiochis 
was victor in the competition. The evidence lies in the lemma s.v. 
'AT~V1J in Stephanos of Byzantion as interpreted by A. Meineke 
(edition of 1849), who suggests ['AvTLox~s JvQKa' IIavTaKAfjs [JcS{cSauKEv] 
(cf SEG X, 323). But this is of no help toward the dating of Pantakles. 

In publishing the new text from the Agora in 1939 I identified the 
Leagros who was choregos with the brother-in-law of Kallias (PA 
9029) and made him Ha relatively young man" about 440 B.C. This 
Leagros was the son of Glaukon, and Glaukon was born, presumably, 
between 500 and 490 B.C. Vases with the inscription rAavKov KaAos, 
sometimes also with the added patronymic AEaypo, have been dated 
between 490 and 470.8 He then, in turn, could have been the father of 
his son Leagros about 465 B.C., and Leagros would have been old 
enough in 440 B.C. to be choregos for the dithyrambic contest won by 
the phyle Akamantis of which the dedication in Hesperia preserves 
the record. The "relatively young man" at that time may have been 
about 25 years old.9 

A good many dates are known in the life of Glaukon when he was 
general, a colleague of Perikles (441/0, 439/8, 435/4, 433/2).10 The date 

7 CQ 16 (1966) 175 n.4. 
8 Mary H. Swindler, Ancient Painting (New Haven 1919) 177, dates them between 490 

and 475. E. Langlotz, Zur Zeitbestimmung der strengrotfigurigen Vasenmalerei und der gleich­
zeitigen Plastik (Leipzig 1910) 117, gives the dares ca. 480-470. Miss G. M. A. Richrer, Attic 
Red-Figured Vases (New Haven 1946) 93, claims rhar "Glaukon ... may well have been a 
fair boy in 470; and this date fits the father Leagros whom we met as a fair boy in 510-500." 
If we add for Glaukon 15 or 15 years from the median date shown by Langlotz, the date 
of his birth will be between 500 and 490 B.C. 

9 See Mattingly, CQ 16 (1966) 173 n.5. 
10 See Douglas MacDowell, Andokides, On the Mysteries (Oxford 1961) 146. 



48 THE CHOREGIC DEDICATION OF LEAGROS 

of his death is not known, but it may be assumed that his career was 
roughly contemporaneous with that of Perikles (paullo post a. 500 a.­
a. 429 a.). His son Leagros belongs a generation later (ca. a. 465 a.-ca.a. 
395 a.). Leagros' sister was the first wife of Kallias of Alopeke, grand­
son of the treaty-maker of 449 and 446 B.C. and son of Hipponikos, 
whose divorced wife married Perikles and bore him two sons, 
Xanthippos and Paralos. The sons of Perikles were old enough to be 
married and have children about the mid 30'S;11 hence born not long 
after 460,12 and both younger than their half-brother Kallias, who was 
the son of Hipponikos by their mother's first marriage. The date of 
Kallias' birth must have been about 460 B.C.13 There is no evidence, 
so far as I can discover, in the speech of Andokides On the Mysteries to 
justify the assumption that Leagros was <Cat most five years older than 
himself and in any event junior to Kallias."14 His obligation to look 
after the orphaned daughters of the deceased Epilykos was binding 
on him because of the relationship he bore them, along with Ando­
kides, and has nothing to do with his age, whether young or old. 

It has been suggested that the attacks on Leagros in the late 90's 
of the fourth century by the comic poet plato (fr.64) do not "suggest a 
man of over seventy."15 This is what plato wrote: 

., f..... ~ 

OVX opus OTt 
• \ A' 1"1\ 1 " 1\ 1 o P.EV Eaypos,.l l\aVKWVOS wv P.Eyat\OV YEVOVS, 

&f1€'\·Tf:.poK6KKV~ -lj,\t()LOS 7r€pdpxeraL, 
_, ." '" ULKVOV 7r€7rOVOS EVVOVXLOV KVf}p.as €XWV; 

I would urge that these lines do suggest a man of over seventy, a 
man, surely, in extreme old age. As Th. Kock remarks,I6 "ULKV6S 

€VVOVXtas opponitur u7r€pp.artc[', seminum inanis pleno." An impotent 
old man, far past his prime, is clearly indicated. And a date for Lea­
gros' birth about 465 B.C. is again confirmed. Neither because of the 
poet Pantakles nor because of the choregos Leagros is there any 

11 See Meritt, Wade-Gery, McGregor, Athenian Tribute Lists II (Cambridge [Mass.] 1949) 
74, D19lines 13-14; III (1950) 328. For the marriage of Xanthippos, see Plu. Pericles 36.2-6. 
The children presumably did not survive, since nothing further is known of them. 

12 Kirchner, PA 11811, gives the marriage of their mother to Perikles as about 453 B.C. 

13 This is earlier by ten years than the date suggested by MacDowell (supra n.10) 10, and 
five years earlier than that suggested by Mattingly (supra n.2) 173. 

11 Mattingly, op.cit. 173. 
15 Mattingly, ibidem. 
16 CAP I, p.618 (Plato fr.64). 



BENJAMIN D. MERITT 49 

reason to date the dedication in Hesperia later than the date to which 
it was assigned in 1939 on the basis of its letter-forms alone. We do 
not have to date the victory of Leagros (and Akamantis) about 425 
B.C. 17 

There remains the evidence of the script of the monument itself. 
The nu not only has sloping side-strokes; it is also old-fashioned in 
that the right lateral stroke is shorter than the left, and in that it 
meets the diagonal about half way up the height of the line. IS This is 
a form of nu which occurs in the Athenian regulations for Erythrai 
of 451/0 (not always, but sometimes), as may be seen in the photo­
graph of IG 12 11, published in ATL II (1949) pI. III, and in the Athenian 
Tribute Quota Lists rather generally down to about 446 B.C. (with 
variations, of course), where a year by year development in letter­
forms may be observed.19 The rho with tailindicates the same early date. 

Mattingly claims that the decree for the founding of the Athenian 
colony at Brea20 shares crucial letter-forms with the choregic dedica­
tion. The rho with tail and the nu (sometimes) are much alike. 
Omikron is without the central dot in the decree, and the other letters 
which the two texts have in common are non-committal. But \vhat­
ever similarity exists merely indicates that both texts, on the basis of 
their letter-forms, belong in the 440's. There is no excuse for bringing 
either the decree or the dedication down to 426/5 B.C. 21 

Other evidences for the late date of the colony to Brea are illusory. 
The text of Thucydides 1.61.4 should not be emended to read ES 
Bp€av rather than ES B€potav. Beroia is a known Macedonian city, 
on the land route from Pydna to Strepsa, along which it affords the 
lowest easy crossing of the Haliakmon river. It is irksome to find the 
old guesses repeated. Charles Edson's study of Strepsa (Thuc. 1.61.4) 
leaves no doubt of the correct readings and of the correct interpreta­
tion of Athenian military movements as described by them in 

17 This was the terminus ante quem non set by Mattingly, op.cit. 175, which I here dispute. 
18 See the photograph in Hesperia 8 (1939) 49. The strokes measure 0.017 m., 0.Ql5 m., 

and 0.012 m., respectively. This is quite different from the nu with sloping side-strokes 
in the Attic decree of 425/4 published in Hesperia 14 (1945) 115-9 (photograph on p.1l7) 
with which Mattingly compares it ceQ 16 [1966] 176). Moreover, the comparandum in this 
case is in Ionic, not in Attic, script. 

19 The photographs in ATL I (1939) should be consulted. The tailed rho occurs in the 
beautifully cut final accounting of the gold and ivory statue of Athena Parthenos (438/7 
B.C.); see the drawing by W. B. Dinsmoor, ArchEph 1937, pI. facing p.508. 

20 IG 12 45. See the photographs of squeezes in Hesperia 14 (1945) 87, 88. 
21 This is the date for the decree now advocated by Mattingly, CQ 16 (1966) 179. 
4-G.R.B.S. 



50 THE CHOREGIC DEDICATION OF LEAGROS 

432 B.C. 22 Brea, epigraphically, geographically and historically, has 
nothing to do with Beroia; it was doubtless the Athenian colony in 
Bisaltia mentioned by Plutarch, and its effect on the tribute of neigh­
bouring cities has been reflected in the tribute lists. This evidence is 
neglected by those who move the city elsewhere and date it twenty 
years later than 446.23 The known generalship of Demokleides in 
439/824 is entirely compatible with his having moved the decree for 
Brea and having been its founder in 447/6.25 Why it should be "doubt­
ful whether Demokleides was general as early as 446 B.C."26 remains 
to be explained, or why this is thought unlikely while it is "conceiv­
able that he returned to the board as late as 426/5 B.C."27 

The attempt to get so much into the 20's leads Mattingly to a 
reappraisal (not his first) of the Tribute Quota Lists between 430 and 
425 B.C. and to the re-dating of other documents within this span of 
years. The attempt to rearrange the quota lists must be counted a 
failure, for reasons which should now be set forth. 

By dating List 26 in 427/6 he can have the special rubric of cities that 
paid only the (hTapx~ include Methone, to whom the privilege, in 
his opinion and on his dating, had just been granted by the so-called 
first Methone decree (D3).28 Since he has List 25 follow List 26, the 
restoration of the same rubric there in col. II, lines 31-5, is presum­
ably sound, with List 25 in 426/5. But if this arrangement is adopted 
one must abandon the very convincing argument that no €7TLcpopa 
was expected after the assessment of 430 and the equally convincing 
argument, based on the record of "last year's E7TLcpopa," that List 25 
belongs in 430/29 and List 26 in 429/8. 29 

22 CP 50 (1955) 169-90, especially 183-4. 
23 Cf ATL ill (1950) 39 n.24, 50 n.43, 60-1, 285 n.47, 286 n.49, 287-8, 289, 299, 306. 
24 ATL II (1949) 73, D18 line 42. 
25IG 12 45, lines 8, 34-5. 
26 Mattingly, op.cit. 172. 
27 Mattingly, ibidem. 
28 CQ 16 (1966) 183. The year 427/6 was finally hit upon by Mattingly for D3 and for List 

26. It is confusing to find that he also dates the regulations for Methone and Poteidaia 
embodied in D3 in 426/5 (op.cit. 179 with n.3): "Early in 426/5 B.C. Athens drew up defence 
regulations, which embodied special protection for Poteidaia and Methone." His epi­
graphical references for these regulations are to ATL II, D3 lines 18ff and to D4lines 41ff 
and 47ff. The decree of D4, as is well known, was passed in the first prytany of 426/5 when 
Megakleides was secretary (ef IG P 324 line 5). Since D3 was earlier than D4, it must fall, 
of course, at least as early as 427/6. It is confusing also that he refers to the three Thracian 
payers of a7TapX11 in List 25 (op.cit. 180 n.2) when he eVidently means a reference to List 26. 

29 Cf ATL 1 (1939) 196,452; III (1950) 70. The regular tribute ofPygela was collected in 
430/29 (List 25, col. I line 45) as was also Jm4>opa which had been due the previous year 



BENJAMIN D. MERITT 51 

Moreover, the Athenians also granted to Aphytis some of the same 
privileges which they had previously granted to Methone.30 At the 
end of the decree which made the grant (see n.30), just as for Methone 
at the end of D3, is the record of the privilege of paying the quota 
only from the tribute (D21 lines 17-8): E8o~€~ [TWt 8~/LWt] ~~o8t86v[at 
'AcpV7'a{os &7Tapx1Jv Tfjt Odv, 1" o]paX/Lasv• There can be no reasonable 
doubt of the validity of the record or of the restored portion of the 
record. The significance of this provision must be recognized. The 
tribute of Aphytis had been three talents a year from 454/3 to 447/6, 
one talent a year from 446/5 to 439/8, and thereafter three talents a 
year again.31 Since the assessment of 428/7 was at a higher rate, assur­
edly, than that of 430/29, it is to be presumed that the tribute levied 
on Aphytis amounted to five talents, for the quota of which one 
numeral-space sufficed at the beginning of line 18.32 Aphytis appealed 
for relief, and was granted, like Methone, the privilege of paying the 
quota only. But Mattingly dates D21 in 426/5.33 Since he also dates 
List 25 in the same year he must show Aphytis there in the rubric of 
cities that paid the a7Tapx~ only. This rubric is not preserved in List 25, 
though it is reasonably restored in col. II after the normal Thracian 
panel in what would otherwise be an exceptionally long and unex­
plained uninscribed area on the stone before the beginning of the 
Island panel. But Aphytis cannot be restored in this special rubric, 
for the name appears elsewhere in the regular Thracian panel above 
(col. II line 10) showing a normal pre-428 total tribute of three talents: 
a reductio ad absurdum argument against the suggested rearrangement 
of the quota lists between 430 and 425 B.C. If Mattingly's further 
assumption is to be allowed, that D21 might even belong as late as 
425/4, one has the anomaly of the grant of special privilege in the 
year of the great assessment of 425/4 (A9) when there were no rubrics 

(List 25, coL I line 46). Since no current t7Tt.popa was collected one must assume that it was 
not expected. The formal collection of E-TrL<f>opa. was abandoned with the assessment of 430. 
Current t7Tt.popa, as such, appears neither in List 25 nor in List 26. But List 25 is the first 
list after the reassessment and takes into account one payment of ~m.popa. in arrears from 
the assessment period when the collection of ~7Tt.popa. was normaL 

30 ATL II (1949) 75, 021 lines 5-8. 
31 Cf ATL I (1939) 242. 
32 The alternative is to believe that a special concession was already in the making for 

Aphytis, and that the figure at the beginning of line 18 was H (reminiscent of the years 
from 446/5 to 439/8) rather than 1". 

33 CQ 16 (1966) 179 with n.3: "021 must surely be dated in 426/5 (after 04) or the next 
year." 



52 THE CHOREGIC DEDIC A nON OF THE LEAGROS 

of special privilege, and where Aphytis occurs in the regular Thracian 
panel in normal assessment with its neighbours.34 

The decree foreseen early in 426/5 (04 lines 51-6), and for the debate 
on which a schedule was laid down for the second prytany of the year 
-the decree, indeed, which was to regulate in general the affairs of 
tribute in the cities of the empire-has been largely preserved in 
08. 35 In fact, it is now known that D8 consisted of two decrees passed 
on successive days and both on motion of Kleonymos, as was also 04. 
But there was no new regulation for Methane, nor can such be 
assumed on the basis of 021 lines 5-8.36 The regulations governing 
Methane cited in 021 were of some standing, not new, and they were 
quoted as the example on which the new covenant with Aphytis in 
428/7 was to be modeled. They give no terminus post quem for 021, 
which, as we have just seen, cannot on any count be dated in 426/5. 
Mattingly and I are in agreement that List 27 of the quota lists 
belongs in 428/7. 

With the basic fabric so frail, it is perhaps not needful to make a 
frontal attack on the superstructure or to investigate further the 
applicability of the testimonia which Mattingly gathers around his 
story of Athens in the Archidamian War: the Miletos decree (011), 
the Coinage decree (014), the decree of Kleinias (07) and the Brea 
decree (IG 12 45). We perhaps have much yet to learn about epi­
graphical criteria, but the three-bar sigma and the tailed rho are hard 
to dislodge from mid-century, and better arguments than those 
recently put forward must be advanced before rewriting the history 
of the second half of the century, reshuffling the quota lists and dating 
down documents which belong a generation earlier. 

INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED STUDY 

October, 1966 

34 ATL II (1949) 43, A9 col. III line 168. 
35 Cf ATL 1(1939) 213. The text ofDS is published in ATL II (1949) 52-3, with a (orrection 

in IV (1953) ix-x, and with corrections and the addition of a new fragment in AJP 88 (1967) 
29-32. 

36 As by Mattingly, CQ (1966) 179 n.3.