Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

The Hiereus of the Soteres: Plut. Dem. 10.4, 46.2
Dreyer, Boris
Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Spring 1998; 39, 1; ProQuest
pg. 23

The Hiereus of the Soteres: 
Plut. Dem. 10.4, 46.2 

Boris Dreyer 

I
N THE SPRING OF 294 B.C. Demetrios Poliorketes, the son of 
Antigonos Monophthalmos, set about the reconquest of 
Athens. He began by subduing the Piraeus and the strong­

holds of Attica and subjecting the city to a long siege. As soon 
as he entered the asty he interfered with the inner workings of 
the state in order to strengthen his position. His adherent 
Olympiodoros was appointed eponymous archon, a position in 
which he remained for two years, in contravention of the 
constitution. Like him several other magistrates installed by 
Demetrios (so probably the basileus)l were nevertheless popular. 
For the summer of 294 and for the following three years ana­
grapheis are on record-in a similar position as in the years 321 
to 318. Presumably not immediately upon entering the city, but 
only after his opponents on the Greek mainland had submitted, 
Demetrios occupied the hill of the Museion and brought back 
the oligarchs.2 

One piece of evidence for the regime of Demetrios Poliorketes 

1 Philippides of Paiania: W. B. Dinsmoor, The Archons of Athens in the Hel­
lenistic Age (Cambridge [Mass.] 1931: hereafter DINSMOOR) 7-8. 

2Plut. Dem. 34; Paus. 1.25.8; for this date and interpretation of t e sources 
against the position of Habicht, see GGA 250 (1998) 216-222; B. Dreyer, 
Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des spiitklassischen Athen (Stuttgart 1999) 
135-142. The year 292/1 (in which these activities probably took place) 
marks a turning point in the supremacy of Demetrios at Athens. The ana­
grapheis also ceased to function as eponymoi. 

Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 39 (1998) 23-38 
© 2000 GRBS 

23 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

24 THE HIEREUS OF THE SOTERES 

in Athens tends to be left out of consideration or should not-in 
the opinion of the majority of scholars3-be used for its char­
acterization. In chapter 46.2 of the Life of Demetrios Plutarch 
recounts how Athens rebelled against Demetrios in 287 B.C.; 

among the measures to re-establish the former constitution the 
following action is recorded: 

Kat 'tOV 'tE ~iqltAOV, o~ ~V iEpd)~ 'trov L(J)'t~p(J)V aya'Y£ypa~~EYO~, 
h 'troy bt(J)vu~(J)V aVEtAOY apxov't(l~ aipEtcr8m 1tUAlV, rocr1tEP ~V 
1tU'tplOV, 'Vl1q>lcrU~EVOl .. . 

These priests of the Soteres (Saviour-gods) began to function as 
eponymoi in 307, if we can trust Plutarch (lOA): 

~OVOl oE cr(J)'tftpa~ aVEypmvav 8£OU~, Kat 'tOY E1tWY1l~OV Kat 
1tU'tplOV apxoV'ta Ka'ta1taucraV'tE~ iEpEa cr(J)'t~p(J)V EXElPO'tOV01lY 
Ka8 ' ~Kacr'tov EVta1l'tOV' Kat 'tOu'tOV E1tt 'trov \jIT\q>lcr~U't(J)V Kat 
cru~l3oAai(J)v 1tpoE'Ypaq>ov. 

Kirchhoff supposed that Plutarch misunderstood his source by 
mixing up the priests of the Saviour-gods with the statues of the 
two tribes of Athens named after Demetrios and Antigonos.4 

We can follow Kirchhoff in supposing that Plutarch's 
account is not in every respect correct. The priests of the 
Saviour-gods did not replace the archons as eponymoi from 
307/6 to 288/7. Kirchhoff collected the relevant inscriptions 
(none of which belongs to the second period of Antigonid 

3 A. Kirchhoff, "1st in Athen jemals nach Priestern der Sotere datirt 
worden?" Hermes 2 (1867) 161-173 (hereafter KIRCHHOFF); K. Scott, "The 
Deification of Demetrios Poliorcetes," AlP 49 (1928) 137-166; Elena Cap­
pellano, II fattore politico negli onori divini a Demetrio l'oliorcete (Turin 1957), 
esp. 12. 

4Kirchhoff 168. In accordance with this conclusion the cult of the Saviour­
gods would be wrongly equated with the cult of the tTibe-eponyms (for the 
separation see Chr. Habicht, Gottmenschentum und griechische Stadte 2 

[Munich 1970]44-45). However, it would not be plausible to suppose that the 
source or even Plutarch himself was unable to distinguish between the cult of 
the Saviour-gods and the heroes of the tribes of the Antigonids. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

BORIS DREYER 25 

control after 294).5 The lack of evidence for the service of the 
priests of the Saviour-gods as eponymoi in this period is not to 
be attributed to a late erasure of their names, after the event, as 
Kirchhoff saw (166-167). But by stressing the erasure on some 
of the stones Kirchhoff opened himself to criticism. 

The erasure was made in 201 B.c.;6 up to this time the tribes 
of the Antigonids and their eponymoi existed without rupture. 
The persistence of the cult of the tribes (and the statues as 
objects of the cult) is confirmed as long as the tribes existed. 
The statues of the tribe-heroes of the Antigonid tribes therefore 
presumably remained in their place from 307 until 201.7 The 
military and political circumstances of the city in 287 in par­
ticular did not allow an action of this kind, because only the 
asty was liberated, whereas the Piraeus and the fortifications of 
Attica remained occupied by Macedonian forces. Thus the 
statues of the tribe-heroes were not overthrown or removed 
when Athens dissociated itself from Demetrios in 287.8 Plutarch 
could not have found the non-event in his well-informed con­
temporary source. 

But also the further errors that Kirchhoff attributes to Plu­
tarch are not credible. In this case Plutarch would not only have 
confounded the eponymous priests of the Saviour-gods with the 
statues of the eponymous heroes of the tribes, which later on 
were not replaced as eponymoi but were overthrown as statues. 

5 Evidence for this period would exist if we date the beginning of the regime 
in 295 with Habicht: against that, GGA 250 (1998) 216-219. The argument in 
this paper would corroborate the later date of 294; cf. P. J. Rhodes with D. M. 
Lewis, The Decrees of the Greek States (Oxford 1997) 46-47. 

6Liv. 31.44.2-9, 41.23.1; Polyb. 16.25.9 (tribe for Attalos); Liv. 31.15.5-7, 
cf. 31.44.2-9 (tribe for Attalos, cancellation of the honours for the An­
tigonids). 

7Pausanias (10.10.2) even sawall the tribe-heroes consecrated in Delphi in 
their original places in spite of the numerous occasions on which Athens or 
Aitolia opposed the Antigonids in the third century B.C. 

8Evidence for existence of the tribes shortly after 287: IG IF 653.1 (archon 
Diotimos: 285/4). A repartition of the demos into ten tribes in 287 was ad­
visable neither from a political nor from an economic point of view. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

26 THE HIEREUS OF THE SOTERES 

At the same time Plutarch would have stated positively but 
nevertheless wrongly that the priest of the Saviour-gods as 
eponymos in place of the normal eponymous archon (Kirchhoff 
168-169) headed all private and public documents.9 

This distortion would be unique in the Life of Demetrios. 
Exaggerations deriving from a source (especially comedy) are 
possible1o and uncertainties in the tradition are explicitly 
mentioned (27.2), but Plutarch never presented in this Life an 
account which is to be wholly rejected or even one which should 
be rejected as unproved. Plutarch did sometimes fail in dating 
events, and it is the merit of Habicht to have demonstrated this 
by examining the honours conferred on the AntigonidsY 

Plutarch mentioned the change in the eponymous status of 
the priests of the Saviour-gods in the context of the honours 
that were dated to the year 307/6.12 Kirchhoff thought that 
Plutarch was wrong about that change, because he believed that 
Plutarch's dates were correct. Surprisingly Kirchhoff did not 
doubt the chronology of Plutarch, although he criticized him in 
every other respect in this context. But Kirchhoff could not 
know that there was in fact a change in the prescripts of 
documents between 307 and 287: not one whereby the priests of 
the Saviour-gods were promoted to the status of eponymous 

9 Through his source(s) Plutarch had access to contemporary documents, for 
example Oem. 34 and perhaps 13. 

lOScott (supra n.3) 149 on the "replacing" of the Dionysia by the Demetria 
(in Plutarch), a statement which in his view is based on comedy. In reality the 
Demetria were only "associated" with the Dionysia, see Dinsmoor 8, at line 
42 (= IG Il2 649); Duris FGrHist 76 F 14; the supplemented ceremony surely 
only existed after 294: see Habicht (supra n .4) 51-54, who is right to oppose 
Ferguson's thesis connecting the cult of the Saviour-gods with the cult of 
Dionysos before 294, Hesperia 17 (1948) 128. 

11 Habicht (supra nA) 44-57, especially concerning all the honours which 
Plutarch related for the year 307 (Oem. 10-13). Habicht supplied the corrected 
dates partly here, partly in Untersuchungen zur poiitischen Geschichte Athens 
im 3. Jahrhundert v.Chr. (Munich 1979) 34-44 (307 or 304 or 294). 

121004. At 10.5 he begins to recount the honours which do not belong with 
certainty to the year 307: see Habicht (supra no4) 48-49 concerning the 
honours for Demetrios as Kataibates (304). 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

BORIS DREYER 27 

magistrates, but one whereby the anagrapheis were elevated to 
co-eponymous magistrates. Since Dinsmoor's pioneering anal­
ysis of the Attic archon-list it has become clear13 that there was 
a second period of co-eponymous anagrapheis early in the third 
century B.C., in addition to the period following the Phocion 
regime from 321/0 to 319/8.14 

The thesis to be argued here, which connects the two 
passages of Plutarch15 with the epigraphical evidence for the 
anagrapheis and which assumes that Plutarch in principle 
understood his source, has to cope with the following problems: 
(1) the problem of the time-limits in Plutarch; (2) the problem 

l3The Archons of Athens in the Hellenistic Age (Cambridge [Mass.] 1931) 
17, 30; corrections in The Athenian Archon List in the Light of Recent Dis­
coveries (New York 1939) 20. Since then also: W. K. Pritchett and B. Meritt, 
The Chronology of Hellenistic Athens (Cambridge [Mass.] 1940) xvi; Meritt, 
Hesperia 13 (1944) 235; Pritchett and O. Neugebauer, The Calendars of Athens 
(Cambridge [Mass.] 1947) 61-64; Dinsmoor, Hesperia 23 (1954) 312-313; 
Meritt, The Athenian Year (Berkeley 1961) 231-232; Meritt, Hesperia 30 
(1961) 289-292; S. Dow, HSCP 67 (1963) 44-54 and his synopsis at 42 
(hereafter Dow). 

l4First period: 321/0: SEG XXI 303 = Agora XVI 97; SEG 304 = IG n2 546; 
320/319: IG 380, 381, 382; SEG 306 = Agora XVI 100; IG 383b (add . 660) = 
SEG 305; Hesperia 11 (1942) 174-175 no. 25; IG 383, 384 (= SEG 309); 319/8: 
SEG 310 = Moretti, ISE 13 = Osborne, Naturalization D 29 = Agora XVI 101); 
IG 386 (add. 660) =SEG 311; SEG 312 = Moretti, ISE 14 = Agora XVI 102; IG 
388 (cf SEG 313); IG 387 (add. 660) = SEG 314 = Osborne, Nat . D 35; IG 390 
(Meritt, Athenian Year 123; cf. SEG 315); SEG 316 = Agora XVI 103. Second 
period: 294/3: IG 378 = SEG 353 = Osborne, Nat. D 70; 293/2: IG 389 = SEG 
354; IG 649 = Dinsmoor 7; Hesperia 7 (1938) 97-100 no. 17 = Agora XVI 167 
(all three decrees on the same day); 292/1: IG 385 = SEG 355). See also epi­
graphical commentaries in S. V. Tracy, Athenian Democracy in Transition 
(Berkeley 1995). On the "strong" and "weak" anagrapheis and the estimate of 
the weak position of the anagrapheis in the second phase of the Phocion regime, 
inferred from their position in the prescript (before or behind the eponymous 
archon; in genitive or nominative case; before or behind the secretary; extent of 
citation), see A. Henry, Prescripts of Athenian Decrees (Mnemosyne Suppl. 49 
[1977]) 50-57, esp. synopsis at 52-53; cf. M. Errington, Hermes 105 (1977) 
488--491 (who combines the weakening of the anagrapheis with the weakening 
of the regime after the decree of Polyperchon). On the anagrapheis: Dinsmoor 7 
ff.; Dow 37-54; Meritt, Hesperia 32 (1963) 425-439; H .-J . Gehrke, Phokion. 
Studien zur Erfassung einer historischen Gestalt (Munich 1974) 93- 97. 

lSIt may not be by chance that Plutarch in both passages used the verb 
avaypuqlEt v. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

28 THE HIEREUS OF THE SOTERES 

that the offices are designated differently by Plutarch and in the 
inscriptions; (3) the problem of the description Plutarch gives of 
the change in the eponymos-status; (4) the problem of integrating 
the last "eponymous hiereus" Diphilos (Plut. Dem. 46.1). 

(1) It has already been stated that Plutarch has wrongly 
dated several honours in the year 307. A chronological error by 
Plutarch would hardly occasion surprise. But Plutarch also 
dated the undoing of this change in the eponymos-status to the 
year 287, that is to say when Athens defected from Demetrios. 
The evidence for the anagrapheis certainly ends sooner, even if 
the order of the archons after Philippos (292/1) is uncertain,16 
because the regular secretary (Theotimos of Trikorynthos XI) is 
attested in the year of Charinos (291/0?). 

There are two possibilities: (a) Plutarch misunderstood his 
source, which reported all the honours-the change in the epon­
ymos-status included-under the year 307, and referred to the 
previous state of affairs when narrating Athens' defection from 
Demetrios in 287, so that Plutarch connected the restoration of 
the previous state of affairs with the defection. (b) Plutarch 
deliberately attached the restoration of the normal state to the 
defection in 288/7 in order to dramatize the fall of Demetrios 
from the honoured god to the maniacal drunkard, when the king 
also lost Macedonia and much of his mainland possessions in 
consequence of his arrogant character and ambitious plans. 

(2) Plutarch unmistakably mentioned a hiereus of the Soteres 
who was given eponymos-statusP In the inscriptions of the 

16See literature and discussion above. Charinos 291/0?; Telokles 
290/89?; Aristonymos 289/8?; Kimon and Xenophon are certain in their 
relative order in IG n2 682; for the date of the last two archons see M. J. 
Osborne, "The Archonship of Nikias Hysteros and the Secretary Cycles in the 
Third Century B.C.," ZPE 58 (1985) 275-295; Rhodes (supra n.5) 46-47. J. D. 
Morgan informs me that he will date Aristion (normally attributed to the 230s 
B.C.) to the year of Aristonymos; therefore Aristonymos will have to give way 
(and to be moved to 277/6). 

17By making the hiereis of the Soteres eponymous, Demetrios achieved the 
same aim as by establishing the priests of the founder-cult in Sicyon and 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

BORIS DREYER 29 

years 294/3 to 292/1 (archons Olympiodoros lIII and Philip­
pos) the anagrapheis are surely to be regarded as co-eponymoi. 
Kirchhoff (162) at the outset of his analysis offered two 
different explanations of the eponymity of the hiereus: firstly, a 
fusing of the older (i.e. traditional) eponymous archon and the 
newer eponymous priest,I8 secondly, their independent exist­
ence as separate eponymoi. The evidence discovered since 1867 
has confirmed the second possibility. The position of the 
eponymous archon seems to have been left untouched and the 
possibility that the three anagrapheis after 294 were fused with 
contemporary eponymous archons can be rejected. Provided 
that Plutarch may be understood as referring to the second 
period of the anagrapheis, the equation of the eponymous priests 
of the Saviour-gods (who for Plutarch head all documents) and 
of the eponymous anagrapheis found in inscriptions is only 
plausible in a situation of co-eponymity (i.e. co-existence). 

Here we can discern the purpose of such a measure: by 
amalgamating the hiereis and the anagrapheis and raising them to 
co-eponymous magistrates with the archons the city was able to 
honour Demetrios Poliorketes and the king was able to confirm 
his rule in the city at the same time. As with the other restrictive 
regimes between 322 and 229, the highest goal was to stabilize 
the regime without a definite and coherent constitutional con­
cept (apart from the rule of Demetrios of Phaleron). 

Perhaps we can go further: if the account of Plutarch is 
accurate, then the priest of the Saviour-gods gained in addition 
to his "traditional" duty (the cult of the Saviour-gods) new 

Demetrias (Habicht [supra n.4] 74-75), who likewise were eponymous: all 
citizens were, so to speak, confronted with the ruler and had to discharge their 
obligations in relation to him each day. 

lBThe possibility of replacement has to be considered, as Plutarch 
presumably understood. This possibility is attested immediately after the 
"Mithridatic adventure," see Habicht, Athen. Die Geschichte del" Stadt in 
hellenistischer Zeit (Munich 1995) 315 = Athens from Alexander to Antony 
(Cambridge [Mass.] 1997) 316-317. The evidence does not favor replacement 
in 294. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

30 THE HIEREUS OF THE SOTERES 

duties, indicated by the word anagrapheus. The increase in 
powers may have come about in this way: the hiereus of the 
Soteres, since he was annually elected, began to exercise the 
further and more important functions of co-eponymous ana­
grapheus. So he may have been responsible for official and 
private contracts. It would be less plausible to suppose the 
reverse development, because of the wording of Plutarch and 
because in this case the holder of a state-office would ad­
minister the cult of the ruler, which would reverse the real 
conditions of power. Thus the Athenians were aware of the 
origin (which Plutarch elucidated for his readers), without 
having explicitly formulated it. 19 Moreover, Demetrios gained 
the possibility of controlling the constitutional machinery and 
the decision-making process (as already through Olympiodoros 
in personal respects). 

No analogy exists for this supposition, but the role of the 
anagrapheis of 321/18 and 294/1 was unique in the constitu­
tional history of Athens. The oligarchic anagrapheis of the year 
411, to whom reference is made in the Aristotelian Athenaion 
Politeia,2° mayor may not actually have borne this title. It is not 
yet clear whether they coincide with one of the other oligarchic 
100-man groups, i.e. the hundred katalogeis (Ath.Pol. 29.5) and 
the "nucleus" of the 400, who appear only in Thukydides 
(8.67.3).21 

19For a degree of considerateness for the Attic democracy, which may be 
Demetrios' attitude after 294 B.C., see Oem. 34 (Demetrios installing popular 
magistrates). Ergon (1993) 7 probably also is to be dated in this context: the 
Athenian Adeimantos was installed as strategos for two years by Demetriosi 
the alternative would be to date Ergon (1993) 7 shortly after 304. 

2030.1: Kupwfltv'twv 8E 'tou'twv ElAOV'tO mprov o.{l'trov Ot 1tEV'to.KICJ;(lAlOl 'tou<; 
uvo.'Ypa'l'ov'to.<; 'tlJV 1toAt'tdo.v EKo.'tOV iiv8po.<;; 32.1: Ot JlEV otiv EKo.'tOV Ot U1tO 
'trov 1tEV'to.KtCJ;(lAlWV o.tpEfltv'tE<; 'to.U'tllV uvt'YPo.'I'o.v 'tlJV 1tOA1'tdo.v. 

21 P. Rhodes, Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia (Oxford 
1981, 19942) 384-389, 50, 406; in favour of the identity of the nucleus of the 
400 and the katalogeis: Wilamowitz, Aristoteles und Athen II (Berlin 1893) 
357; in favour of the identity of all the three groups: Ed. Meyer, Forschungen 
zur allen Geschichte II (Halle 1899) 428, 433; G. Busolt, Griechische Ge-



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

BORIS DREYER 31 

The nature of the "democratic" anagrapheis of the fifth cen­
tury is even more difficult to describe.22 They were established 
one year thereafter (i.e. 410) with the title avaypa<pEt~ 'trov 

VOIlWV.23 This secretarial office cannot be compared in any 
respect with the co-eponymous anagrapheus: the latter acted in 
isolation and as an individual, not in a collegial capacity. He 
participated actively in the decision-making process and ap­
peared not only when merely collecting and copying skills were 
required. The function of the anagrapheus after 322 was entirely 
new in competence and inner structure. 

About the responsibilities of the anagrapheis of the dem­
ocratic periods 399-322, 307/4, and after 301 B.C. nothing 

schichte III.2 (Gotha 1904) 1481 n.1, 1486; Rhodes, however, argues (385) in 
favour of the separation of the three groups, but concedes an individual and 
therefore partial identity. Concerning the time of activity of the anagrapheis see 
Rhodes 386 and 406 (right after the Colonos meeting), against the opinion that 
the anagrapheis were active before the Colonos meeting, and that their pro­
posals were ratified at that meeting. 

22Evidence: Lys. 30.2-5, 17,21, and other passages; Andoc. 1.83-85 (decree 
of Teisamenos); IG P 104, 105,236-241; Rhodes, JHS 111 (1991.) 87-100, 
against N. Robertson, JHS 110 (1990) 43-75, on the instructions, competence, 
and operation of the anagrapheis after 410: from Lysias' speech against 
Nicomachos it can be concluded that the initial phase of the work of the 
anagrapheis lasted from 410 to 404 (limited instructions) and the second phase 
from 403 to 399; in the beginning they were empowered to collect only the laws 
of Solon, then all the existing laws of the community; in the first period they 
were active not for four months, but for six years, and in the second period not 
for four weeks, but for four years. Against M. H. Hansen (The Athenian 
Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes [Oxford 1991] 162; "Diokles' Law 
(24,42) and the Revision of the Athenian Corpus of Laws in the Archonship of 
Eukleides," CIMed 41 [1990] 68-69) Rhodes states that the clerical work of 
the anagrapheis from the years 410 to 404 and the tasks of the first group of 
nomothetai in 403/2 were not identical, as is to be seen from the decree of 
Teisamenos, Andoc. 1.83: the first group of nomothetai had to revise the corpus 
of laws and to propose (in the context of the events up to the amnesty) new 
laws, which the second group of nomothetai-the first appointed out of the 
boule, the second out of the demes-had to ratify. 

23 Lys. 30.2-3 (cf. 25): aliaypaq>Eu~ (a) tooll IIOIlWII, (b) tooll oalwlI Kat tooll 
lEpooII; see Rhodes, The Athenian Boule (Oxford 1972) 195-196; Comm.Ath.Pol. 
441-442; Hansen, Athenian Democracy 163; Robertson (supra n.22); Rhodes 
(supra n.22); J. Bleicken, Die athenische Demokratie 4 (Paderborn 1995) 218. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

32 THE HIEREUS OF THE SOTERES 

substantial is known.24 In the bouleutic list of 335/4 Agora XV 
43.229 an anagrapheus is to be found among eight officials­
underneath the secretary. A different bouleutic stele (Agora XV 
53.13 of 324/3) shows the anagrapheus underneath the demos­
secretary as in Agora XV 43. In one place in Agora XV 58 
(305/4) a[ - - ]<pEU~ (1. 84) can be read, in the another av't[ 

(80). In the first instance avnypaqlEU~, who each month had to 
report on the income of the state (Aeschin. 3.25), was restored 
and in the second avaypaqlEu~, in reverse order compared with 
Agora XV 43.229-231.25 The honour conferred in IG n2 415 is 
not dated with certainty, but may belong to the years around 
330, i.e. in the democratic period (Dow 39-40). At 12-13 one of 
the tasks of an anagrapheus is described avaypaqlT] 'tmv 
ypal.qHX'twV (the rest of his activities remain nebulous, line 16):26 

The fourth-century anagrapheus (before 322) therefore seems 
to be a magistrate, who probably ranked below the secretary. 
Even though much remains uncertain, one thing is clear: the 

24For the evidence of the democratic period after 399 see Dow 39: IG IF 
1700.215 = Agora XV 43.229; Prytaneis no. 1; Hesperia 10 (1941) 42 = Agora 
XV 53.13; Hesperia 37 (1968) 1-24 = Agora XV 62.23]; Ie 415,487; Rhodes, 
Comm.Ath.Pol. 111-112, 387, 441-442; Rhodes, Boule 128; see also IG 1685 
B5.6 = S. Aleshire, Asklepios at Athens (Amsterdam 1991) 13-34 (beginning of 
III s.c.; Aleshire's date is year 300/299, see below). 

25For the avttyputpEU<; see H. Leppin, "Die Verwaltung offentlicher Gelder 
im Athen des 4. Jahrhunderts," in W. Eder, ed., Die athenische Demokratie im 4. 
Jahrhundert v. Chr. Vollendung oder Verfall einer Verfassungsform? (Stuttgart 
1995) 559-560; G. Busolt and H. Swoboda, eriechische Staatskunde II 
(Munich 1926) 1042-1043; Rhodes, Boule 138-140, 238-239; U. Bultringhini, 
"Gli antigrapheis ateniesi e illoro significato nel II sec. a.c.," QUCC 36 (1981) 
85-105; R. Develin, Athenian Officials 684-321 B.C. (Cambridge 1989) 11. 

26 In Ie I12 487 (304/3) the post of the person honoured is not certain. In Ie 
1685.B5.6 (beginning of III s.c.) Aleshire (supra n.24: new edition; dated to the 
year of Hegemachos 300/299), supplemented in Aleshire line 111; anagrapheus 
in B5.6 = Aleshire lines 10 and 31. Aleshire translates avuyputpEu/avu­
ypUtpEU<; with "plan(s}" (24-26, lines 31 and 106). Line 31: a]vuyputp[E]U ov 
iiv [- - - Aleshire: "according to the p]lan which [*the architect] may [provide" 
(completed from Ie 1666.A.34). L. 106: av]uyputpl:U<; , 1cu[l ... Aleshire: 
"p]lans. An[d"; cf Ie 1666.A.34 (and other passages) with commentary. Again 
Aleshire p.30 "concept," if it is the correct supplement; see for the secondary 
meaning of anagrapheus LSJ S.v. III "plan, pattern, design"; see also J. J. 
Coulton, AlA 80 (1976) 302-304. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

BORIS DREYER 33 

anagrapheus of 321/18 and 294/1 B.C., in his entirely new and 
certainly more extensive competence, differs from all the 
anagrapheis attested up to that time. As a result one must 
distinguish the anagrapheus before 322 from the anagrapheus of 
321/18 and 294/1 and refrain from filling the gaps in our 
knowledge of one period with the evidence from the other. 

Moreover, even if we can connect the "new" anagrapheus of 
the period 294/1 with Plutarch's statement, so that the now 
more important priest of the Saviour-gods acted in the position 
of a co-eponymous anagrapheus, we have to confess that an 
identical explication for the anagrapheis of 321/18 cannot, in 
spite of their parallel position, be offered on the basis of the 
existing sources. On the one hand we have no evidence for a 
ruler-cult in Athens after 323,27 because its establishment seems 
to be quite impossible in view of Antipatros' attitude, which 
was most important after the defeat of Athens in 322.28 On the 
other hand there is no sign of another magistrate who might 
have been transmogrified into a new co-eponymous anagrapheus 

27Because of the proposal to establish an Alexander-cult Demades was 
fined 100 talents (Athenaios 10 talents) and therefore became an atimos (Ael. 
VH 5.12; Ath. 251B); rehabilitation in 322 after the defeat in autumn: Pluto 
Phoc. 26; Diod. 18.18.1; see also Habicht, Athen (supra n.18) 77 n .3; J. M. 
Williams, "Demades' Last Years," AncW 19 (1989) 23 n.23. Pytheas, later a 
member of the government of Phocion, resisted the deification of Alexander in 
Athens: Pluto Mor. 804B and 187E, cf Gehrke (supra n .14) 100 n .69. Demos­
thenes at first was vehemently against a deification during the investigation 
(six months, Dinarch. 1.45) because of his role in the Harpalos affair, then he 
changed camps and recommended the deification (Dinarch. 1.94; Hyperid. 1.31). 
In the funeral speech of Hyperides in 323/2 the actually existing cult-honours 
were addressed more clearly than elsewhere (6.21): <pa.VEPOV 0' E~ chv ava.YKa.­
~6~Eea. Ka.t vuv £1;( . eucr(a.~ ~f:V aVepOl1tOt~ y[ tyvo ]~EVa.~ E!popav, &.yUA~[ a.ta. 
OE] Ka.t I3ro~ou~ Ka.t va.ou~ tOl[~ ~EV] eEOl~ a~EA.W~, tOl~ of: avepoo[1tot~] 
E1tt~EA.W~ cruvtEA.OU~EVa., Ka.t tOU~ (tou)trov OiKEta.~ rocr1tEP iiproa.~ n~av 
i,~a~ UVa.YKa.~O~EVOU~. 

28 Antipatros is believed to have advocated the opinions of Philip II and 
therefore the traditional presentation of the Macedonian kingdom. According­
ly he was deeply rooted in the Macedonian tradition (note also Cassandros' 
activities, which followed those of his father, R. M. Errington, Geschichte 
Makedoniens [Munich 1986] 127f£. = A History of Macedonia [Berkeley /Los 
Angeles 1990] 130f£'). 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

34 THE HIEREUS OF THE SOTERES 

as presumably happened in 294. Accordingly we cannot posit 
restrictions, in addition the ones known, for the time after 322 
as we did for 294 (the promotion of the hiereus of the Soteres to 
a co-eponymous anagrapheus).29 

It may be possible however that in 322 the reduction of the 
citizen-roll, which required a concentration in offices and tasks 
beyond that found in the extant evidence (lG IF 380 = SylP 
313), had an effect on the anagrapheus in his new position, so 
that he could become a model for the period 294/1. 

It cannot be denied that the anagrapheus of 321/18 and 
294/1 (compared with the history of the office to that point) 
occupied a unique position, partly because he appears as a 
single official in contradistinction to the anagrapheis of 411 and 
410/4. In addition, he gained with his eponymity a position of 
eminence far beyond the degree normal in the democracy in the 
years after 399. The duties of his office themselves lay at the 
centre of daily administration.3o 

(3) It remains to be discussed how Plutarch described the 
change in the eponymos-status. At Oem. 10.4 Plutarch has 
regularly been interpreted as stating that the Athenians "ceased 
to install the traditional eponymous archon and began to elect 
the priest of the Saviour-gods instead." I think two explana­
tions can be offered in the light of our thesis: one possibility 
would be that Plutarch misunderstood his source (probably 

29The honours and the wreaths for Antipatros in 322 surely cannot be 
compared with those for the Antigonids, Diod. 18.18.8 (in general on all 
regimes established by Antipatros, that is to say also on the regime in Athens). 

30 See Williams (supra n.27) 26-27. It would not be correct to judge the tasks 
of the co-eponymous anagrapheus as merely representative; the new position 
rather is supposed to have been connected with extraordinary duties. So the 
hated but important magistrate could not be removed immediately when the 
Phocion regime was cancelled in March 318: the anagrapheus of 319/8 held 
his office until the "regular" end of his term. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

BORIS DREYER 35 

Philochoros)31 and thought that the Athenians stopped in­
stalling the traditional eponymous archon. 

But perhaps it is possible to save Plutarch's reference to 
archons and priests as eponymoi, if my conclusiom, have a 
purchase on the truth. In that case the Athenians in the year 294 

"having stopped the traditional designation of the year by the 
archon [only], elected the priest of the Saviour-gods annually 
and [also] wrote him at the head of the public edicts and 
private contracts."32 

Likewise we have to conclude that at the end of this period 
of installing two eponymous magistrates, which we have to date 
in the present state of the evidence to the year of Philippos 
(29211), the Athenians "removed also Diphilos, who had been 
appointed priest of the Saviour-gods, from the ranks of the 
eponymous magistrates and they voted in the ekklesia to install 
archons in the traditional manner again."33 

Therefore we can criticize Plutarch for not being clear and 
definite in his formulation34-but probably not for having 
falsified or misunderstood his source-and for being indifferent 

31Against P. Pedech, Trois historiens meconnus. Theopompe, Duris, 
Phylarque (Paris 1989) 330f£., esp. 348-349, who pleads for Duris. I think 
Plutarch's source is very well informed about Athenian conditions in the 
passages cited and Plutarch would search for the best source possible: as in 
the patriotic passage of Pausanias 1.25-26 (history of Athens from 323 to the 
270s), I suspect the source is the Atthis of Philochoros. But this question need 
not be discussed in this context. 

32 Bernadotte Perrin's (Loeb) translation allows a broader interpretation: 
"They put a stop to the ancient custom of designating the year with the name of 
the annual archon, and elected every year a priest of the Saviour-Gods, whose 
name they prefixed to their public edicts and private contracts." 

33 Oem. 46.2; cf also trans!' of Perrin: "They voted to elect archons, as had 
been their custom of old, and took away from Diphilos, who had been 
appointed priest of the Saviour-gods, the privilege of giving his name to the 
current year." The ekklesia would have agreed with Demetrios in my view, if in 
fact he did not initiate the vote. 

34See also Plutarch's statement that the Demetria replaced the Dionysia. In 
fact the Demetria were only associated with the Dionysia: see above and 
Habicht (supra n.4) 52-53: IG 112 649 = Dinsmoor 7-8. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

36 THE HIEREUS OF THE SOTERES 

to chronology. Both criticisms may also be conditioned by Plu­
tarch's source and justified by Plutarch's aims as a biographer. 

(4) There remains Diphilos,35 the appointed priest of the 
Saviour-gods, and the last one holding the position of an epon­
ymous anagrapheus. The last attested eponymous anagrapheus is 
dated to the year of Philipp os (292/1). 

IG II2 385.a36 is the only Athenian decision which can be 
dated to this year.37 The original join with IG II2 385.b, which 
was proposed by Wilhelm because of the similarity in script, 
has been disproved,38 and the dating of fragment a to the year 
of Apollodoros (319/8) rejected.39 Dow discussed the pos­
sibility of inserting the fragment in the years of Olympiodoros or 
Philippos4o and decided rightly for the more probable dating, 
Philippos. Concerning the name of the anagrapheus he read e 
and for the deme like Meritt f]~ q~?,? Meri.tt however still in 
1977 did not mention 8.41 

Assuming that Meritt was right to disregard Dow's reading, 
and provided that the anagrapheus was eponymous for the last 
time in the year of Philipp os and that the identification of the 
tribe is correct, the completion of lines 2 and 3 can be as follows 
(ca 35 stoich.): 

35Athenians with this personal name were relatively numerous, see 
Kirchner, P A 4462-4488, and J. Sundwall, Nachtriige zur Prosopographe 
Attica (Helsinki 1910) 66. Our Diphilos PA 4470, LGPN II s.v. no. 21. 

360ne further fragment by M. B. Walbank, Hesperia 58 (1989) 94 no. 22. 

37 In any case in one of the periods of the eponymous anagrapheis because of 
the magistrate preserved in line l. 

38Dinsmoor 24-25; Meritt, Hesperia 30 (1961) 290, cf Athenian Year 232; 
see also SEG XXI 341 and 355; especially Dow, below. 

39Dow 52-53, and 78-92 for IG 385.b; see also Henry (supra n.14) 53-54, 
especially for the formula in IG 385.a. 

4oDow 52. [Aristo]nikos in line 1 is the probable object of both decrees (IG 
385.a and b), although they now have to be separated chronologically. 

41Historia 26 (1977) 172; see also Osborne, ZPE 58 (1985) 282-287, esp. 
table on 282, but with no further discussion df the anagrapheus of Philippos. 
Suggestions (of Wilhelm, Leonardos, Kirchner, and earlier) in Dinsmoor 24-
25; Dow 42. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

BORIS DREYER 37 

[£1tl <I>t"Ai1t1totl apxov'to~ <i]vaypacp£<oS of: [~t<pi]-

[ '1 ~ ca 13 '],1: 0" [ ca9 ]42 /\,Otl 'tOtl. . . . . . . ...... f:: '? totl .... . ... . 

If it is permissible to sum up on the basis of these provisional 
reflections, we can state that the institution of the eponymous 
anagrapheus of the years 294 to 291-with the loyal personnel of 
the ruler-cult-is to be interpreted as a precaution of the ruler. 
Similar actions may be presumed for each regime after 322: 
these actions were without any constitutional ambition, neither 
by the ruler nor by an Attic "regent" (except Demetrios of 
Phaleron). The anagrapheus of 294/1 therefore was one element 
among the safety measures of which the citizens were conscious 
in the daily administration and work. Another was the garrison, 
which presumably was not to be found in the central part of the 
city before 292. 

Therefore the turning point of 292/1 was rather abrupt. It 
was marked by refusing to show reverence to the master of the 
city and adopting instead a regime based strictly on the garrison 
stationed in the Museion (see date in n.2). These elements of the 
regime before and after this turning point Antigonos Gonatas 
copied from the very outset of his rule over Athens (260-255). 
But he refused to elevate the hiereus of the Soteres to an epon­
ymous status with the function of an anagrapheus; this measure 
presumably seemed to have failed in 291. 

It remains open, how far the anagrapheis of 321/18 influ­
enced the character and structure of the office after 294,43 

421f the first omicron of the demotic lies directly underneath the gamma of 
the anagrapheus in the upper line (Dow 52), then there is after the deme in line 
3 space for 9 letters. On the reconstruction in IG (commentary: Wilhelm) there 
exists only a space of ca 3 letters: f,]~ OlOU [f,n]l. [·t11~ . . . ]. 

43It is probable that the anagrapheis of the period 321 / 18 were elected at 
least before the decree of Polyperchon, because persons attested elsewhere 
also held this office: Archedikos (320/19): Habicht, Hesp eria 62 (1993) 
253-256 (also Athen 251-255); Thrasykles (321/0): Habicht, Sludien zur 
Geschichte Athens in hellenistischer Zeit (Gottingen 1982) 205. But we have to 
refrain from jumping to conclusions on the basis of analogy. In fact the position 
of the anagrapheis in the prescripts demonstrates the following differences 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

38 THE HIEREUS OF THE SOTERES 

although it seems possible that the magistrates concerned had 
similar tasks. In any case it is permissible to accept what Plu­
tarch (Oem. 10.4) says about the installation of the eponymous 
position, as a cheirotonia of the hiereus (that is to say, appoint­
ment by election, not by lot). Presumably the archons, who were 
at least equal in rank, were also (formally) elected,44 after the 
attested appointment in 294 (Oem. 34), as was the case in 317 
(Diod. 18.74). This kind of appointment is also attested in the 
period after 260, when the king installed the magistrate and the 
people were reduced to ratifying his choice.45 

October, 1999 Althistorisches Seminar 
Georg-August-Universitat 
37073 G6ttingen, Germany 
bdreyer@gwdg.de 

between the first and the second period of this office: (a) The anagrapheus of 
the second period after 294 stands as far as is known always in the second 
position, with patronymic and deme, behind the eponymous archon, while the 
anagrapheis of the period 321/18 stood in a flexible position: in nominative or 
genitive case before or after the eponymous archon, regularly with patronymic 
and deme (Henry [supra n.14] 54-55); Henry (57) and Errington, Hermes 105 
(1977) 490, state that the anagrapheus was weakened in consequence of the 
decree of Polyperchon; Henry concludes that the position of the anagrapheus 
after 294 was not as strong as in 321; (b) in the second period the secretary is 
missing (Henry 55 n .19); (c) in the second period the eponymous archon 
(Olympiodoros) was given extraordinary powers; (d) in the second period the 
anagrapheis were removed by the king Demetrios, while in the first period a 
power from outside took the initiative and the anagrapheus of 319/8 remained 
in office until the end of the Attic year, although the regime was already 
abolished in March. 

44 An election with at least a formal character is possible in the case of the 
popular Olympiodoros. 

45For advice and corrections I am grateful to Prof. P. J. Rhodes, Prof. G. A. 
Lehmann, and Dr F. X. Ryan.