HANSEN, MOGENS HERMAN, When Did the Athenian "Ecclesia" Meet? , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 23:4 (1982:Winter) p.331 When Did the Athenian Ecclesia Meet? Mogens Herman Hansen A RISTOTLE STATES BRIEFLY that the prytaneis summon the eccle­ sia four times in a prytany (A th. Pol. 43.3), and he goes on to describe in some detail the obligatory items on the agenda of all four meetings.1 Neither Aristotle nor any other source speaks explicitly about the distribution of the four meetings within the pry­ tany. It is apparent from the law on epicheirotonia ton nomon that the first ecclesia in a year was regularly held on Hekatombaion 11 = prytany I 11.2 Another law prescribes a meeting of the ecclesia to be held in the precinct of Dionysus after the Greater Dionysia and the Pandia.3 In the 320's one ecclesia in Boedromion was held in the theatre and devoted to a review of the epheboi (Ath.Pol. 42.4). Apart from these three sessions we have no evidence of any fixed meeting days. The electional assembly was held in prytany VII-X when the omens were favourable (Ath.Pol. 44.4). In every prytany one of the four meetings was an ecclesia kyria (Ath.Pol. 43.4-5). Aristotle de­ scribes the agenda of the ecclesia kyria before the agenda of the other three meetings, probably because the ecclesia kyria was the most important meeting. He implies nothing about the sequence of the four sessions. So to answer the question, when did the Athenian ecc/esia meet, we must turn from the literary sources to the epigraphical evidence. From ca 370 the Athenians began to record in the preambles of their 1 The following will be cited by author's name: M. H. HANSEN, "How Often Did the Ecclesia Meet?" GRBS 18 (977) 43-70, and "·EKKi.."fjCTLa ~VyKi.."fjTO~ in Hellenistic Athens," GRBS 20 (1979) 149-56; W. A. McDONALD, The Political Meeting Places of the Greeks (Baltimore 1943); B. D. MERITT, The Athenian Year (Berkeley/Los Angeles 1961); J. D. MIKALSON, The Sacred and Civil Calendar of the Athenian Year (Princeton 1975); M. J. OSBORNE, Naturalization in Athens (Brussels 1981); W. K. PRITCHETT, Ancient Athenian Calendars on Stone (Berkeley/Los Angeles 1963); W. K. PRITCHETT and O. NEUGEBAUER, The Calendars of Athens (Cambridge [Mass.] 1947). It is of no consequence for my argument whether or not the A th. Pol. is by Aristotle and I take no position on the question. 2 The i.mXf:.tPOTovia TWV VOf..WW took place at the ecclesia held on pryt. I 11 (Oem. 24.20, 26, 27). If some laws were voted down, nomothesia had to be discussed again at the last of the three ecclesiai (of the prytany): T,ryV TEi..Evmiav TWV TP';;W i.KKi.."fjCTtWv (24.21), ~v TpiT"fjv cmE8Et~av EKKA"fjCTLaV (24.25). So the Athenians, in 353/2, held only 3 ecclesiai in a prytany: cf Addendum, infra 349. 3 Oem. 21.8-9. Cf McDonald 47-51 and Hansen (1977) 57-58. 331 HANSEN, MOGENS HERMAN, When Did the Athenian "Ecclesia" Meet? , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 23:4 (1982:Winter) p.331 332 WHEN DID THE ATHENIAN ECCLESIA MEET? decrees the day of the prytany on which an ecclesia was held (the first attested example is IG IJ2 105 of 36817). From the 340's the day of the month was recorded as well (first seen in IG 112 229 of 341/0).4 After ca 340 most decrees are dated in accordance with both the conciliar and the festival calendar. If we focus on the period of ten phylai (36817-30817), we have no less than 104 dated decrees in­ scribed on stone. This evidence has been thoroughly studied by epigraphists in order to reconstruct the Athenian calendars, especially the festival calendar, and the relationship between the calendars. The main purpose is often to find a plausible restoration of a mutilated decree. The epig­ raphists have paid little attention to the constitutional implications, apart from J. D. Mikalson who has a short but illuminating section (182-93) on meeting days of the ecclesia. Mikalson, however, con­ centrates on the festival calendar and investigates only the rela­ tionship between meeting days of the ecclesia and the days of the month.5 Accordingly, he omits all decrees that record only the day of the prytany. This method is probably valid for the period of twelve phylai, when months were more or less concurrent with prytanies, at least in ordinary years. In the period of ten phylai, however, it is not satisfactory to tabulate meetings of the ecclesia according to the fes­ tival calendar. The people were convened by the prytaneis and the boule in accordance with the conciliar calendar, four times every pry­ tany. So what matters is the day of the prytany, and not the day of the month. 4 The earliest preserved calendar equation is from an inscription of the Athenian clerouchy on Samos dated 346/5 (Meritt 72-73); it is a fair assumption, but only an assumption, that the clerouchs imitated Athenian practice. IG 112 404, usually dated ca 350 (see infra ad no. 65), is probably the earliest extant text recording both the day of the month and the day of the prytany. 5 Mikalson (185) refers to 26 attested meeting days of the ecc/esia during the period of the ten tribes. But he includes Oem. 24.26 recording a meeting of the nomothetai (and not of the ecc/esia) on Hek. 12, and a reference in IG IJ2 1673.9-10 to a decree of the people allegedly passed on Thar. 23: [Kant l/nl4x)U'JUX TOll S'7]#WV 0 XaptKAEiS"q<; Et7TEv, 9ap'Y'IAtWvo<; f.L"qvo<; oySO"qt 4>9iv[OV70<;1. But it is unparalleled to record the date in a reference to a decree, and there may well be a stop after Et7TEV (" ... according to the decree of the people proposed and carried by Chariclides. On the 23rd of Thar­ gelion ... ")' So we are left with 24 attested meeting days, viz. Hek. 11 (Oem. 24.26, IG 112 365), Met. 9 (IG IF 338), Met. 24 (Oem. 50.4), Boed. 11 (IG IJ2 380), Pyan. 16 (IG VII 4254), Maim. 11 (Hesperia 9 [1940) 345-48), Maim. 30 (Hesperia 30 [19611 289-92), Gam. 11 (IG 112 450), Gam. 30 (Hesperia 4 (1935) 35-37), Elaph. 8 (Aeschin. 3.66-67), Elaph. 12 (Hesperia 7 (1938) 476-79), Elaph. 14 (Thuc. 4.118), Elaph. 18 (Aeschin. 2.61), Elaph. 19 (Aeschin. 2.61, IG IJ2 345), Elaph. 25 (Aeschin. 2.90,3.73), Elaph. 30 (IG 112 336b, 354), Thar. 11 (IG IJ2 351, VII 4252-53), Thar. 14 (IG 112 352), Thar. 29 (Aeschin. 3.27), Skir. 10 (IG IJ2 349), Skir. 16 (Dem. 19.58), Skir. 18 (SEG XXI 272), Skir. 27 (Oem. 19.60), Skir. 30 (IG IJ2 415). HANSEN, MOGENS HERMAN, When Did the Athenian "Ecclesia" Meet? , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 23:4 (1982:Winter) p.331 MOGENS HERMAN HANSEN 333 Admittedly, the people did not meet on festival days, and Mikalson has admirably demonstrated that the ecclesia was convened neither on annual nor on monthly festival days except in an emergency.6 Now in all twelve months, days 1-4 and 6-8 were festival days. Consequently it is very common to find an ecclesia on the 29th or 30th of the preceding month or shortly after the long period of fes­ tival days, preferably on the 11 th day of the month, as pointed out by Mikalson (185). This is, in my opinion, the reason that the first eccle­ sia in the year was held on Hekatombaion 11 and not earlier. Apart from this effect of the festival calendar on the sessions of the ecclesia, there is probably no connection between the festival calendar and the meeting days of the ecc/esia. We must turn to the conciliar year and ask whether the information we have about meetings held on certain days of the prytany can shed some light on the problem of when the Athenian ecc/esia met. From the period 36817-30817 we have 104 decrees of the people recording the day of the prytany on which the decree was passed. Occasionally two or more decrees derive from the same session,7 and so we have evidence of only 95 dated meetings of the ecclesia. Dur­ ing this span of 61 years the Athenians must have held some 2250 ecclesiai. Thus, our sources cover only about 4% of the meetings. This is sufficient for our purpose, however, if we have reason to assume that the preserved decrees are evenly distributed among the four ecc/esiai held in a prytany. Aristotle's description of the agenda of the meetings reveals that certain issues were reserved for certain meetings: at the ecc/esia kyria the Athenians voted on impeachments of officials, defence, and domestic policy. Two other meetings were 6 For the period of ten phylai Mikalson accepts only four ecc/esiai held on festival days, viz. Hek. 12 (Oem. 24.26), Elaph. 8 (Aeschin. 3.66-67), Elaph. 12 (Hesperia 7 [1938] 476-79), and Elaph. 14 (Thuc. 4.118). Of these the first can be dismissed as a meeting of the nomothetai (see supra n.5). On the other hand, Mikalson rejects IG IJ2 359, a decree of 326/5 restored by Meritt to give the equation [Elaphebolion] 8 = prytany [VII] 30. Mikalson correctly notes that ['EAaopt.Wvo~). But Oy80'1)L i[cTTaJ-LEvov] is an inescapable restoration, and the 8th of a month was a festival day in all twelve months. Thus IG 112 359 must have been passed on a festival day, no matter how the month is restored, and Meritt's restoration gives a perfect equation. Hence, still, four known ecc/esiai held on festival days. 7 In the following cases we have two or more decrees passed at the same session: 34312 pryt. X 4 (IG IF 224, 225), 337/6 pryt. VI 5 (IG IJ2 239, Hesperia 9 [1940] 325-27), 337/6 pryt. X 35 (IG 112 242, 276, and 243 with no date explicitly recorded), 33211 pryt. II 32 (IG IJ2 344, 368.5-6), 33211 pryt. VIII 7 (IG 112 345, 346, 347, Hes­ peria 8 [1939] 26-27), 33211 pryt. IX 23 (IG VII 4252, 4253), 32312 pryt. V 2112 (IG 112 343?, 448.3-4), 320119 pryt. V 36 (IG 11 2 381,382). HANSEN, MOGENS HERMAN, When Did the Athenian "Ecclesia" Meet? , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 23:4 (1982:Winter) p.331 334 WHEN DID THE ATHENIAN ECCLESIA MEET? set off for decrees concerning cult, foreign policy, and domestic policy, while supplications were brought at the fourth meeting. In this light we may examine the contents of our 104 decrees: 63 are honor­ ary decrees, 10 concern foreign policy, and only 2 domestic policy. In 29 cases the content is unknown since only the preamble survives. Thus there is an overwhelming preponderance of honorary decrees. But it can be shown that honorary decrees were passed indiscrim­ inately at all four sessions in a prytany. First, we have numerous examples of honorary decrees passed at the ecclesia kyria.8 Second, we know that honorary decrees might be passed during one of the sessions set off for cult, foreign policy, and domestic policy.9 Finally, supplications might of course result in honours bestowed on the supplicant.lo Hence the excess of honorary decrees probably has no effect on the distribution of our dated decrees over the prytany. The more serious problem is that many decrees are mutilated and the prytany date is either partially or entirely lost. As a guide for my investigation I adopt the principle stated by Mikalson (10): "I have accepted only those restorations which are demonstrably correct." Because my scope is different from Mikalson's, however, I can use many of the fragmentary decrees he rejects. The month and day ac­ cording to the festival calendar is of no importance here except when an equation with the prytany date has to be calculated. The number of the prytany, moreover, is of secondary importance if only the day of the prytany is preserved. Finally, if e.g. only [---] Kat 8EKcl['T]Et 'Ti1[s----] can be seen on the stone (IG IJ2 546.4), the exact day cannot be restored, but we know at least that this session of the ec­ clesia must have taken place not earlier than the 13th and not later than the 19th of the prytany. Accordingly, some decrees can be dated exactly, others within the periods 1-9, 10-19, 20-29, or 30-39~ and only 25 decrees must be ignored either because the date is too frag­ mentary to be confidently restored or because a comparison with the date according to the festival calendar shows that the scribe made an error.ll B IG IJ2 336a, 356, 367, 448a, VII 4252, 4253, Hesperia 9 (I940) 345-48. 9 IG 112 224 is an honorary decree passed at the same ecc/esia as an alliance (225). Furthermore, an honorary decree for the Bosporan princes was passed at the ecc/esia held on Elaph. 18 347/6 (IG IJ2 212.53-57), which was the first of the two meetings for the conclusion of peace with Philip of Macedon, cf Hansen (I977) 5l. 10 In some honorary decrees we find the formula 1TEpi 6JV <> 8ava EootEV EVVOJ.W, iKETEVEtV EV TIlt f30VA:r,t (IG IJ2 218.7-9), which indicates that the decree in question was passed at the ecc/esia set off for supplications. 11 An inexplicable error of the scribe has to be assumed in IG II2 351, 373, and 388. HANSEN, MOGENS HERMAN, When Did the Athenian "Ecclesia" Meet? , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 23:4 (1982:Winter) p.331 MOGENS HERMAN HANSEN 335 On this understanding, Table 1 presents decrees of the period 36817-30817 dated by the day (marked on the right) or by the quar­ ter (left) of the prytany. 1 20 2 21 xx 3 x 22 x 4 x 23 xx xxx x 5 xx xx 24 x 6 x 25 7 x 26 xxxx 8 xx 27 9 28 29 xxx 10 xx 30 xx 11 xxxx 31 x 12 xx 32 xxx 13 33 x xxxxxxx 14 xxxxxx 34 xxx 15 35 xxx 16 xx 36 xxx 17 x 37 xx 18 38 19 39 x Table 1 Table 1 confirms the accepted opinion that the ecclesia had no fixed meeting days. The people could be summoned by the prytaneis on al­ most any day of a prytany, provided that it was not a festival day. There is, however, one important reservation to be made: according to the lexicographers, an ordinary meeting of the ecclesia had to be summoned at four days' notice. Obviously, the people might be con­ vened at shorter notice, in an emergency even overnight~ but such meetings would be €KKA."f}O'iat mJ'YKA."f}TOt.12 Furthermore, there is reason to think that the prytaneis had to preside over the meetings they had summoned and could not leave the presidency to the sub­ sequent board of prytaneis; combining the four days' notice with the 12 See Hansen (1977) 46-47; (1979) 151ff (to the four examples there quoted of the formula EKKA.T/rria ulrYKA.T/To<; in the preambles of Hellenistic decrees, let me add I. Delos 1507.39, EKKAT/uia a-V'YKAT/TO~ E[V T]Wt 8HXrpwd. HANSEN, MOGENS HERMAN, When Did the Athenian "Ecclesia" Meet? , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 23:4 (1982:Winter) p.331 336 WHEN DID THE ATHENIAN ECCLESIA MEET? rule that the presidency could not be passed on to one's successors, the inference is that an ecc/esia held on one of the first four days of the prytany must have been an EKKA:ryUta o-V')'KA'Y1TO~.13 No meetings are attested on the first and the second day of a prytany, but we have one decree passed on the third14 and two passed on the fourth (IG IJ2 224.4, 225.2). Accepting the two rules stated above we must infer that these two meetings were EKKA'Y1UtaL o-V"KA'Y1TOL. In addition to meetings held on one of the first four days of a prytany, those held on festival days must also have been EKKA'Y1UtaL o-V"KA'Y1TOL. Mikalson has convincingly demonstrated that ecclesiai were ordinarily held neither on annual nor on monthly festival days. As a corollary to his observation I suggest that the very few attested meetings falling on festival days were all EKKA'Y1UtaL o-V"KA'Y1TOL. In the fourth century down to 307, we have only three examples (c! supra n.6): (a) a meeting held on Elaph. 8 (Kronia and Proagon) 347/6 (Aeschin. 3.66-67), (b) one on Elaph. 12 (Greater Dionysia) 319/8 (Hesperia 7 [I938] 476-79), (c) another on [Elaph.1 8 of 326/5 (IG IJ2 359). (a) The ecclesia held on Elaph. 8 347/6 was the notorious meeting when the first embassy sent to Philip of Macedon reported back to the people. It was not summoned by the prytaneis on their own in­ itiative, but, in the boule, Demosthenes had proposed and carried a decree ordering the prytaneis to summon an ecclesia on Elaph. 8. The meeting was undoubtedly an EKKA'Y1Uta o-V,),KA"f/TOC;, summoned in an extraordinary way and at shorter notice than prescribed by law for ordinary meetings (c! Hansen [I977] 56-57). (b) Similarly, in the preamble of the decree passed on Elaph. 12 319/8 we find the unusual formula EKKA'Y1Uta KaT£x I/Jr,CPLUf.,La f3ovA11c;. It indicates a special summons and corroborates the view that an ec­ clesia held on a festival day was an EKKA'Y1Uta o-V"KA'Y1TOC;. (c) The third example (IG IJ2 359) has been doubted by Mikalson, but for no good reason. No matter how the month is restored, there can be no doubt that this decree was passed on the 8th of the month, a festival day in every month. So even if we reject the perfect equa­ tion [Elaph.1 8 = pryt. [VII] 30, we must still admit that this ecclesia was held on a festival day and thus was probably an EKKA"f/Uta o-V,,­ KA'Y1TOC;. From this an interesting consequence follows: later in the preamble the ecclesia is expressly described as an EKKA"f/Uta KV[pta] , and so we have now fourth-century evidence for an EKKA'Y1Uta KVPta 13 Cf Hansen (1979) 153-54. 14 IG 112 130.5; cf also IG IJ2 172, on which see infra ad no. 9. HANSEN, MOGENS HERMAN, When Did the Athenian "Ecclesia" Meet? , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 23:4 (1982:Winter) p.331 MOGENS HERMAN HANSEN 337 (rlrYKAYJTo~. In an earlier article I believe to have demonstrated the existence of such meetings for the Hellenistic period. I5 I would there­ fore extend my observation to the fourth century and adduce IG 112 359 in support of my view that an EKKA-f'/Uia mJ'YKATJTO~ was not an extra meeting but one of the four required meetings summoned in a special way, either at short notice or warranted by a decree of the council or people rather than by the prytaneis on their own initiative. Table 1 not only demonstrates that there were no fixed meeting days; it shows as well that most ecclesiai were held late in the pry­ tany. Half the decrees were passed in the last third of the prytany, and no less than 36% in the 30th to 39th days, although this period constitutes only 20% of the total days of a year. I6 How is this uneven distribution of ecclesiai over the prytany to be explained? In an ear­ lier article I argued that from the 350's on the prytaneis had to sum­ mon four ecclesiai in a prytany, no more and no less. One conse­ quence of this rigid system would be that the prytaneis had to save one or two ecclesiai until the last days of the prytany so that, in an emergency, they could always summon the people at short notice or hold two meetings on consecutive days without exceeding the num­ ber of ecc/esiai at their disposal.l7 On the other hand, since they had to summon four ecclesiai, meetings could only be postponed and not omitted. And the result must have been several ecclesiai regularly held in the last part of the prytany. Accordingly, the high number of ecc/esiai attested from the 29th on to some degree supports my the­ ory of exactly four ecclesiai in a prytany. But there may of course be other explanations: it is for example very human to postpone obliga­ tions, and the concentration of ecclesiai towards the end of the pry­ tany may be due simply to a habitual laziness on the part of the prytaneis. The general rule that ecclesiai tend to be held late in the prytany applies especially to the EKKATJeria KVpia. From ca 335 onwards it was often (but not always) stated in the preamble that the meeting was either an EKKAYJuia or an EKKAYJuia KVpia. The latter occurs in seven decrees; it has been confidently restored in seven more.I8 Other re- 15 Cj Hansen (1979) 151, 155. 16 In an ordinary year of 354 days, days 30-36 of a prytany constitute 18% (4x 7 + 6x6 = 64) of the year; in an intercalary year (384 days) the fraction is 24% (4x 10 + 6x9 = 94). By and large, every third year was intercalary, and so on average prytanies I-X 30-36/9 constituted 20% of all days. 17 Hansen (1977) 45, 51-52,69-70. 18 Attested in IG IJ2 336a.4-5, 356.7-8, 359.7, 378.5, 381.8, VII 4252.6-7=4253. 6-7. Convincingly restored in IG IJ2 340.6-7, 352.9-10, 362.6, 363.5, 367.6-7, 448.4, Hesperia 9 (1940) 345.7-8. HANSEN, MOGENS HERMAN, When Did the Athenian "Ecclesia" Meet? , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 23:4 (1982:Winter) p.331 338 WHEN DID THE ATHENIAN ECCLESIA MEET? stored instances are tentative and therefore to be omitted. l9 Dis­ tributing the known EKKA:ryulat. ,ropun over the four periods defined above, we find in 1-9 none, in 10-19 one, in 20-29 seven, in 30-39 four. In one case the day of the prytany cannot be convincingly re­ stored.20 So ca 60% of the dated EKKA:ryulat. ,ropuxt. fell in prytanies I-X 20-29, constituting ca 28% of all the days of the year. As far as the evidence goes, the EKKA:ryula KVpla was never the first assembly in a prytany. Occasionally it was held as the last, and regularly it was convened in the third quarter of the prytany as the second or third session. DECREES RECORDING THE DAY OF THE PRYTANY I list here the epigraphical evidence on which Table 1 is based, together with discussion of restorations where this seems necessary. For convenience the inventory is organized according to publications; for new fragments or new restorations I refer principally to SEG and only occasionally to other publications; starred entries are discussed in the comments infra. IG IJ2 1. 105.3-4* 2. 109.5 3. 116.7-8 4. 117.4-5* 5. 118.1-2* 6. 123.4-5 7. 127.5 8. 130.5 9. 172.1* 10. 205.5-6 11. 219.5-6* 12. 220.1-2* 13. 220.26-27* Day of Prytany 32, 34, 35, or 37 30 12 ? ? 8 11 3 3, 4, or 5 26 16 or 21 16 or 21 10 References + IG IJ2 523, SEG XIV 46 SEG XXII 88, XXIV 85 SEG XIV 51 Hesperia 8 (1939) 172-73 19 In fG IJ2 368.23 EKKAT/CTia KVpia is totally restored. Alternative restorations: Meritt 107-08, [TIj]" 7T[pVTaVt:ia,,· nov 7Tpoe8pwv E7Tt:I/I7}~t:v.1w[---] (name of proedros); I suggest [TIj]~ 7T[pVTaVeia~ v EKKAT/CTia EV nvt (Jecl-rPwt' T]W[V 7Tpoe8pwv] (for a vacat before and not after EKKArWia c! e.g. IG 112 778, 799). In fG 112 452 EKKA'1j[CTia KVpia] was restored by Koehler (also Meritt 96). In Hesperia 4 (935) 35 the unparalleled formula EKKAT/CTia KVpia EV aWvVCTOV was restored by Oliver. In Hesperia 13 (1944) 234-35 Meritt restored EKKAT/CTi[a KVpial, whereas in 1963 both he and Dow restored only EKKAT/CTia (c! infra ad no. 96). In fG IJ2 727.2-3 the length of line was in fact determined by the phrase EKKA'1jCTia KVpia, to which there are several alternatives: EKKAT/CTia EV aWVVCTOV, EKKAT/CTia EV nvt (JeaTpWt, EKKAT/CTia ElL TIEtpatet. 20 On fG 112 363.5 see infra ad no. 50. HANSEN, MOGENS HERMAN, When Did the Athenian "Ecclesia" Meet? , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 23:4 (1982:Winter) p.331 MOGENS HERMAN HANSEN 339 14. 224.4 4 15. 225.2* 4 16. 228.3-4 29 Osborne D 15 17. 229.4-5 37 + Addenda, Pritchett and Neugebauer 43, Meritt 73 18. 231.4 11 19. 233.2 8 20. 237.3-4* 6 SEG XVII 24, XXI 266, XXIV 95, Osborne D 16 21. 239.7-8* 5 SEG XXI 267 22. 242.4-5* 35 Pritchett and Neugebauer 43, Meritt 77 23. 276.1* 35 Hesperia 9 (1940) 342 24. 328.5-6* 17 or 28 SEG XXI 268 25. 330.3 17 Pritchett and Neugebauer 44, Meritt 79 26. 330.48-49 37 Pritchett and Neugebauer 43, Meritt 79 27. 331.4* 34, 35, or 36 SEG XXI 270 28. 332.5 ? Pritchett and Neugebauer 44-45 29. 336.2-3 21 SEG XXI 273, Osborne D 23 30. 336b.5-6 26 SEG XXI 278, Osborne D 23 31. 338.4-5 39 SEG XXV 484 32. 339.6-8 15-19 SEG XVI 54, XXI 277, XXVI 75 33. 340.6 12 Pritchett and Neugebauer 46, Meritt 84 34. 344.7-8* 32 SEG XXI 279 35. 345.6 7 36. 346.9-10 7 Pritchett and Neugebauer 49, Meritt 86-87 37. 347.6* 7 38. 348.2* 3-7 SEG XXI 282, XXIII 54 39. 349.6-7 16 Pritchett and Neugebauer 49, Meritt 91 40. 350.4-5* 13 or 16 SEG XXI 320, XXII 98, XXVI 85, Osborne D 39 41. 351.6-7* ? (19?) + IG IJ2 624, SEG XXI 283, XXIV 99 42. 352.7-8 32 Pritchett and Neugebauer 50, Meritt 92-93 43. 353.6-7* 11 Pritchett and Neugebauer 50, Meritt 94-95 HANSEN, MOGENS HERMAN, When Did the Athenian "Ecclesia" Meet? , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 23:4 (1982:Winter) p.331 340 WHEN DID THE ATHENIAN ECCLESIA MEET? 44. 354.6 ? SEG XVIII 14, XXI 285, XXIII 56 45. 356.6-7 26 SEG XXI 286, XXIII 57 46. 357.5* 1-10 SEG XXI 287 47. 359.6-7* 30 Pritchett and Neugebauer 54, Meritt 6-8 48. 360.3-4 34 SEG XIII 40, Meritt 102 49. 362.5-6 29 SEG XXI 291 50. 363.4-5* ? SEG XII 89, XXI 281, XXIII 53, XXV 66 51. 365.4 11 SEG XXI 294 52. 366.4-5 16 53. 367.5-6 36 SEG XXI 295, XXVI 81 54. 368.5-6* 32 SEG XII 88, XXI 280 55. 368.22-23* ? SEG XXI 296 56. 372.5* 6, 8, or 9 SEG XXI 300 57. 373.19* 23? SEG XXI 301 58. 375.5-6* 35 or 37 SEG XXI 302 59. 378.4-5 24 SEG XXI 353,Osborne D 70 60. 380.5-6 31 Pritchett and Neugebauer 61, Meritt 113 61. 381.6-8 36 Pritchett and Neugebauer 61, Meritt 118 62. 382.7-8* 36 63. 383b.7 10 SEG XXI 305 64. 388.5-6* ? SEG XXI 313 65. 404.1-2* 30+ SEG XIX 50, XXI 254 66. 408.2-3 13-19 67. 415.7-8 34 68. 420.3* ? SEG XXI 322, XXII 93 69. 421.1-2 ? 70. 422.1 ? 71. 448.3-4* 21 or 22 SEG XXI 297, XXIII 59, XXVI 82, Osborne D 38 72. 448.37-38* 35 SEG XXI 317, XXII 95, XXIII 61 73. 449.2-3* 6 or 38 SEG XVI 56, XXI 325 74. 450a.4-5 26 Pritchett and Neugebauer 66, Meritt 128-29 75. 451.2-3* ? 76. 452.4-5* ? SEG XIV 56, XXI 284, XXIII 55, XXIV 100, XXV 68 77. 453.4-5* 19 or 29 Pritchett and Neugebauer 66, Meritt 129 78. 535 15 or 16 SEG XXI 318, XXII 96 HANSEN, MOGENS HERMAN, When Did the Athenian "Ecclesia" Meet? , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 23:4 (1982:Winter) p.331 MOGENS HERMAN HANSEN 341 79. 545.2* 80. 546.4 81. 547.2-3* 82. 727.1-2* Hesperia 83. 3 (1934) 3-4* 84. 4 (1935) 35-37* 85. 5 (1936) 413-14* 86. 7 (1938) 291-92 87. 7 (938) 292-94 88. 7 (1938) 476-79 89. 8 (1939) 12-17 90. 8 (1939) 26-27* 91. 8 (1939) 31-32 92. 9 (1940) 325-27* 93. 9 (1940) 345-48 94. 10 (1941) 49-50 95. 10 (1941) 268-70 96. 13 (1944) 234-35* 97. 26 (1957) 207-08 98. 26 (1957) 231-33 99. 30 (1961) 289-92 100. 40 (1971) 183-86 IG VII 101. 4252.5-6 102. 4253.5-6* 103. 4254.6-7 SEG XXI 104. 272.7-8 COMMENTS ? 13-19 ? ? ? ? 13-19 32 22 34 29 7 13 or 16 5 21 30+ 35 ? 20-29 36 5 30+ 23 23 33 23 SEG XXI 304 SEG XXI 292 SEG XXI 324 SEG XXI 288, XXIII 58, XXV 69 SEG XXI 319, XXII 97 Pritchett and Neugebauer 49, Meritt 86 SEG XVI 52 Pritchett and Neugebauer 42, Meritt 77 SEG XXI 312 Pritchett and Neugebauer 49, Meritt 87 Pritchett and Neugebauer 65, Meritt 126 Pritchett and Neugebauer 42, Meritt 76 SEG XXI 310, Osborne D 29 Pritchett and Neugebauer 57, Meritt 105 SEG XXI 316 SEG XXI 306 SEG XVII 27 SEG XVII 19 SEG XXI 303 Meritt 80 1: Kirchner printed [Eypa~]~'TEVE, [SEV'TEpaL Kat 'TPWKOCT'T'ijL 'T7j~ 1TpV]­ TaJlEia[~]' Koehler's alternative was [TETap'T7JL K'TA.]; but if we adopt the much more common form Eypa~~'TEVEJI, we must restore 1TE~1TT7JL or e!3SOf.£7JL. Hence four possible dates. HANSEN, MOGENS HERMAN, When Did the Athenian "Ecclesia" Meet? , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 23:4 (1982:Winter) p.331 342 WHEN DID THE ATHENIAN ECCLESIA MEET? 4: hET£lpT7JL Kat] 8E[KaT7Jd is due to Wilhelm. But only two letters are visible and the surrounding formulae almost entirely restored, and the res­ toration presupposes 29 letters to the line although the text is otherwise 28. 5: E[KT]EL [TI}~ 7TPVTaVEia~' TOlV 7Tp] OE [8pw]V is arbitrary. As an alternative I suggest e.g. [0 8ELva] dE [pJL] Edo~ i:ypaJL~TEVE' TOlV 7Tp] OE [8pw] v; ej IG 112 128, 209, 218, etc. 9: The stone, apparently now lost (ej M. B. Walbank, Athenian Proxenies of the Fifth Century B.C. [Toronto/Sarasota 1978] no. 81, 411), was published by Koehler from Lolling's copy. The crucial letter for determining the day of the prytany is the first of line 1: IT, hpLh[7Jd Koehler, [TpliT7]L Kirchner. Given the broken letter we cannot preclude P (TETapT7Jf,) or II (7TEJL7TT'TJf,). There can be no doubt that this decree was passed on one of the first days of the prytany, but any of these three seems possible. 11: In place of Kirchner's faulty E~ Ow[v E'YpaJL~TEvEV' EOO~EV TOlL 81}JLWd T[OlV] 7Tp[OE8pwv KTA.1, Schweigert (Hesperia) suggested E~ oro[v E'YpaJL~­ TEVE' EKT7Jf, Kat 8EKaT7Jd T[7J~] 7Tp[VTavEia~' TOlV 7TPOE8pwv1. As an equal possibility I suggest J,LiaL Kat EiKOUT7JL. 12: Only 16 and 21 are possible restorations, each filling 15 spaces: [E'YpaJL­ ~T]Ev[E---15---T1j~ 7Tp]VTaVEi[a~]. The usual form E'YpaJL~TEVEV would give 14 spaces (so Kirchner), but none of the 39 days of the prytany fills 14 spaces. 13: [E'YpaJL~T]EvEV' 8[EKaT7Jf, TI}~ 7TpvTavEia~' TOl]V 7TpOE8[pwv] is Koeh­ ler's plausible restoration. Before ea 340, the day of the prytany is the only formula that can be inserted between E'YpaJL~TEVEv and TOlV 7TPOE8pwv. 15: Passed at the same meeting as IG 112 224. 20: In light of Osborne's examination of the stone, the restoration to be preferred is E>ap'Y11A[tWVO~ 8EVTEp]t;t[f, ~(JLVOVTO~, EK'T'r1h [TI}]~ [7T]pvTavEia~. 21: Accepting Schweigert's assumption that Hesperia 9 (1940) 325-27 and IG 112 239 were passed at the same meeting, we have pryt. VI and the day is 5. The year must have been ordinary, for the following year was certainly intercalary (IG 112 330.48) and the two other decrees of 337/6 (IG lIZ 242 and Hesperia 7 [1938] 292-94) can be plausibly restored only if we adopt an ordinary year. Thus, the month must be (the first part of) Gamelion; 7TEJL7T­ T7]f" e{380Wf/f" or 8EKaT'Y/f, LUTaJ,LEVOV are the three possible restorations to fill the 16 spaces. The perfect equation Gam. 7 = pryt. VI 5 was suggested by Schweigert, but doubted by Mikalson 190, the seventh of a month being always a festival day. As an alternative I suggest 7TEJL7TT'Y/f, LuTaJ,LEvov. The equation Gam. 5 = pryt. VI 5 can be obtained if we assume either that two of the 36-day prytanies were moved from pryt. I-IV to pryt. V-X; or that one prytany was moved and that the first six months were distributed e.g. 30, 30, 29, 30, 29, 30; or that one or two days were inserted in the civil calendar. 22: Boeckh's [E]VEL [K]at vE[aL, 7TEJL7TT'Y/f, Kat TPLaKOUTI}f, T1j~] 7TPVTaVEL­ [a~] is a plausible restoration. Epigraphically, e{380JL7Jt Kat TPLaKOUTI}f, fits the lacuna; but, first, the calendar equation is inexplicable, and second, we would HANSEN, MOGENS HERMAN, When Did the Athenian "Ecclesia" Meet? , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 23:4 (1982:Winter) p.331 MOGENS HERMAN HANSEN 343 have two intercalary years in succession (ef IG 112 330.48), which is most unlikely and in this case almost impossible (ef ad no. 21). 23: According to Schweigert's restoration (Hesperia), this decree was passed at the same meeting as IG 112 242. 24: Passed in 336/5, which was undoubtedly an intercalary year (IG IF 330. 48). Assuming an irregular distribution of the 39-day prytanies, Koehler re­ stored [J'17H T..;)" 'A[Kap,avTLSo" TETJpT"'I" 7TpvT]avEta" ~ [t---19---e].ypaw ~.ulT[EVEV· MaLf.UlKT'Y/P"wVO~ TET]paSL 8ivoVTO~, EKT]Et Kat &K£lT[E/, TIi~ 1TpvTavEia~l, and suggests the equation Anth. 23 = pryt. VII 16, assuming the omission of the 22nd in a hollow month and, consequently, an irregular distribution of months. If again we assume that the day omitted in a hollow month was invariably the 29th and that the months were regularly distributed, beginning with a hollow Heka­ tombaion, Meritt's restoration of the text gives the perfect equation Anth. 24 = pryt. VII 16. Osborne suggests ['Av6EuT]11PtWvo~ i[vchE/, uTTa~vov, oy­ M] E/, Kat BEKaT[E/, TIi~ 1TpvTavEia~l, which gives an impossible equation. 41: E[v8]EKah]11t @ap'Y'l1AtWVO~, EVa'T7j[t K]ai B[e1Ka'T7jt TTj~ 1TpvTavEia~. But the year is intercalary (IG IJ2 352) and the calendar equation Thar. 11 = pryt. IX 19 is wrong by ten days. The scribe probably made an error either (a) in the day of the month (Thar. 1 = pryt. IX 19) or (b) in the day of the prytany (Thar. 11 = pryt. IX 29). Meritt (92-93) prefers (a), but the first of a month is invariably a festival day (Mikalson 151) and so the error is rather (as suggested by Pritchett and Neugebauer 50) in the prytany date. In any case, the inscription must be rejected as a reliable source. 43: The restoration I1vavo"'[tWVO~ EV11t Kat vEah, EvSEKa['T7jt T.ry~ 1TpVTav­ E/,1ak] has been doubted by Mikalson (191) because Pyanopsion 30 was a festival day. But the prytany date cannot be questioned. 46: The number of the prytany has to be restored and the name of the month is omitted~ various restorations and equations have been proposed. What concerns us here is the day of the prytany, EV11t K[aL VEal, . ..... TIi~ 1TpvTav]Eia~. Six spaces give us a choice between 1TPW'T7jt, TpiT11t, oyB011t, and ivaT1]t. If we assume a slight violation of the stoichedon order, we can extend the possibilities to cover 1TEf.,L1TT111" E/3BOf.,L11 1" and BEKaT1]t. The only inference to be made is that the meeting was held early in the prytany. 47: Cf supra 336-37. 50: In Hesperia 10 (1941) 48 Meritt proposed to restore only the month and the day of the prytany, but not the day of the month: ['A] vq~ [UT11PtWvO~' EKT1]t Kat SEKO:T1]t TIi]~ 1TpV[TaVEia~]. Pritchett and Neugebauer (55) changed the reading to [IIva]vg["'tWVo~]. For the recording, however, of the month alone without indication of the day, we have (in the lO-phylai period) only two (restored) parallels: Hesperia 3 (1934) 3-4 and 7 (1938) 291-92. (IG II2 365.4 is a case apart, if we omit a superfluous repetition of EvSEKaTEd Later Meritt (Year 88-89) suggested ['A] v8eluT1]ptWVO~ EVSEKO:T11t, TpiT1] I, TTj]~ 1TpvlTavEia~l, giving the equation Anth. 11 = pryt. VII 3. If we accept Meritt's restoration of the month, the day was rather the 12th, since the 11th was a festival day (Mikalson 190). In 'A]v8E[u'T7jptWVO~, however, all the three letters reported by Meritt have been questioned by Pritchett, Mitsos, and Stroud: cf Pritchett 284-85 and Phoenix 23 (1969) 168-69. In conclu­ sion, this preamble cannot be confidently restored. 54: IG IJ2 368 was probably passed at the same meeting as 344, cf M. B. Walbank in ZPE 48 (1982) 266. HANSEN, MOGENS HERMAN, When Did the Athenian "Ecclesia" Meet? , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 23:4 (1982:Winter) p.331 MOGENS HERMAN HANSEN 345 55: This preamble has been restored by Koehler to give Pos. 12 = pryt. V 18 (ord.), by Pritchett and Neugebauer (57) to give Pos. 29 = pryt. V 21 (interc.), and by Meritt (107-08) to give Pos. 2+ 1 = pryt. V 8 (ord.). All three restorations present difficulties. Koehler must restore an unprecedented form of the day of the month 03EvTEpaL bTi SEKa for &USEKaT7Jd. Pritchett and Neugebauer must assume two EKKA:Y}UiaL ,ropun on consecutive days (el IG 112 44S.1-4); and according to Meritt's restoration, the ecclesia was held on an intercalated day, Pos. 2 being a festival day (el Mikalson 90-91). The preamble must be discarded as too fragmentary to be confidently restored. For the EKKA"f]Uia KVpia restored in line 23 ef supra n.19. 56: In Hesperia 8 (1939) 174 Schweigert restored ['EAacln1/3<>AuVvo<; EVaT'T/L bTi] SEKa, [EKT7JL Tij<; 11'PVTaVEia<;' EKKA] 'T/uia, giving the equation Elaph. 19 = pryt. VIII 6 (ord.). This was accepted by Pritchett and Neugebauer (59-60), but Meritt (110-11) preferred an intercalary year and restored ['EAacln1/3<>AuVvo<; TPLTEt E11'i] SEKa, [OySO"f]L Tij<; 11'pvTavEa<;]. If we accept an intercalary year, EVaT7JL (Kirchner) is a possible alternative to OySO'T/L. But a restoration based on an ordinary year is preferable for three reasons. First, according to Meritt's restoration, we must admit an eeclesia held on a festival day, which was exceptional (Mikalson 129). Second, in line 6 [EKKA]'T/Uia [EV dwvvuovl is plausibly restored. This formula almost invariably describes the eeclesia held in the precinct of Dionysos after the Dionysia (McDonald 48-49). So Elaph. 19 (or 18) is to be preferred to 13. Third, Meritt's restora­ tion depends on the less common form 11'pVTaVEa<; (for which see Pritchett and Neugebauer 38 n.ll). No matter whether the year was ordinary or inter­ calary, the eeclesia must have been early in the prytany, since the day occupied only 5-6 spaces. 57: The recorded date is 9apY'T/AtWvO<; SWTEpm ium[,uE] vov, TpiTEt Kat ElKOUTEL TT1<; 11'PVTeXVEia<;. On any combination of the festival and conciliar calendars there is no convincing equation, and all scholars assume a mason's error, which cannot however be confidently corrected. 58: The equation given by the stone is Thar. 30 = pryt. X 30+. All schol­ ars plausibly assume that the mason erroneously inscribed 9apY'T/AuVvO<; in­ stead of LKtpOf/>optWVo<;: the number of the prytany, the day of the month, and half that of the prytany ([K]ai TptaKOUTijL) are preserved, and the ob­ vious way tQ correct the error is to change the name of the month. Pritchett and Neugebauer (60) restore the day of the prytany to give 35 and assume an ordinary year; Meritt (111) restores 37 and takes the year to be inter­ calary. 59: Pace Osborne D 70, I still prefer, following Wilhelm and Dow (el SEG XXI 353) to assign this decree to the year of Archippos instead of Olympiodoros (294/3). In line 3 AewvTl,oo<; 11'Ef.L7TT'T/<; fill the ea 16 spaces, el SEG XXI 303. In 4, in the ea 17 spaces left for the day of the month I re­ store SEKaT7JL 11'poTEpaiaL (el IG 112 1673.77), giving the equation Pos. 20 = pryt. V 24. In SEG XXI 303 (unquestionably dated 32110) we have the equation Maim. 29/30 = pryt. V 5. We should accordingly expect Pos. 19 = pryt. V 34; but the equation Maim. 29/30 = pryt. V 5 is two days removed HANSEN, MOGENS HERMAN, When Did the Athenian "Ecclesia" Meet? , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 23:4 (1982:Winter) p.331 346 WHEN DID THE ATHENIAN ECCLESIA MEET? from the perfect equation Maim. 29/30 = pryt. V 3, and I have little diffi­ culty in assuming a further irregularity of one day in the following month, making up for the former irregularities and thus approaching the perfect equation Pos. 20 = pryt. V 23. 62: 1G IJ2 382 was passed at the same meeting as 381. 64: Passed in 319/8, which was beyond doubt an ordinary year. 'EAac/Yr1- /3oAtWVO [~---15---] KaL ElKOUTEf, r11 k 1TpVTavela~]: no satisfactory equation can be restored. Pritchett and Neugebauer (a) and Meritt (b) restore [&0- 8EK(hEt, oySO'71f, (a) or EV£l-ref, (b)] Kat elKOUTEf" and assume an error in the inscribing of the month, so that the true equation is (Moun.) 12 = pryt. VIII 28 (a) or 29 (b). They may be right, but we may also assume an error in the prytany date (eiKOUTEf, for 8eKaT'J1t) and restore ·EAac/Yr1/30At.Wvo[~ EV'71f, KaL VEal., EKT~ KaL (8eKaT'J1f,) r11[~ 1TpVTavela~l, to yield the equation Elaph. 29 = pryt. VIII 16. For a similar violation of the stoichedon order cj. 1G 112 149.11, 20. So the decree is not a reliable source for the date of the ecclesia. 65: stoich. 51, [---14---]wvo~ E[v]aT['71f,---30---T11~ 1TpvTa]vEia~ (Kirchner). After EVclT'J1t we might restore either bTL 8EKa, inTa,uvov, cp(JiVOVTO~, or J.tET' EiKaoo~, leaving 23, 21, 21, or 20 spaces for the day of the prytany. bTL SEKa can be excluded since no day of the prytany has more than 21 letters. inTa,uvov and cp8ivovTo~ are compatible with the restora­ tions 8evTEpat/TETapT'J1f, KaL TPWKOO"r11f,. J.tET' elKaoo~ goes with the restora­ tions 1TEIJ-1TT'J1UE/3&JIJ-'71f, Kat TPWKOO"r11f,. The inscription is assigned by letter forms to ca 350, and so J.tET' ElKaoo~ is possible but not the best choice, for this dating formula is first attested in 334/3 (Hesperia 9 [1940] 339-40). Consequently we have at least four possible equations: Boed. 9 = pryt. II 32 (ord.), Maim. 22 = pryt. IV 32 (ord.), Moun. 9 = pryt. VIII 34 (interc.), Gam. 22 = pryt. VI 35 (interc.). In any case, the day of the prytany must fall in the period 30-39. 68: stoichedon, with only the right side preserved. Meritt assumed 47 let­ ters to the line, restoring ['EKaTOIJ-f3atWVO~ E!]paU"Tov apxovT[O~ E7Tt Tij~ . ..... i8o~ 7TpW]TT/~ 7TpV'TaVEL- [a~· ·EKa'TOf.Lf3auVvo~, Ev8EKaTT/]l. 'T.ry~ 7TpV'Ta[vEUx~· EKKAT/U"Ux· TWV 7TpOE8pwv E7T]El/nld{Ev (so Reusch). This restoration is plausible, especially when com­ pared with IG 112 365.3-4, but there are other possibilities. This prescript may for example record only the number of the prytany, the day of the pry­ tany, the type of meeting, and the proedroi, ef e.g. Hesperia 40 (1971) 183- 86 (and supra ad no. 73). If we assume 32 letters to the line we may restore [E7Tt @Eo]paU"'Tov apxovT[O~ f.7Tt Tij~ AEWVTi8o~ 'Tp[hT/~ 7TpVTaVEi[a~, TETap­ TT/l. Kat TptaKOU"'T.ryh 'T.ry~ 7TpVTa[vEa~· EKKAT/U"Ux KTA.J. The tribe, the number of the prytany, the day of the prytany are only restored exempli gratia. The only anomaly is 7TpVTaVEa~ in line 3, for which cf. Pritchett and Neugebauer 38 n.11. The fragment cannot be confidently restored. 76: For more than a century the question has been whether or not plat ~[at 'TptaKoU"'Tid can be seen on the stone (Hne 4). The answer seems to be a non liquet, and the decree must be dismissed as an inconclusive source. 77: Passed in pryt. VI, so the month must be Gam.! Anth. if an ordinary year, Pos. II/Gam. if intercalary. ] 8EKa in line 4 shows that the day of the month was 13-19. Now Anth. 13-19 fall in pryt. VII, and Pos. II 13-19 in HANSEN, MOGENS HERMAN, When Did the Athenian "Ecclesia" Meet? , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 23:4 (1982:Winter) p.331 348 WHEN DID THE ATHENIAN ECCLESIA MEET? pryt. V-VI 2. Therefore Gamelion remains as the only possible restoration. The day of the prytany is EV[---J: prima Jacie the 9th, 11th, 19th, 29th, or 39th. There are now two possible equations: in an ordinary year Gam. 13 = pryt. VI 11, in an intercalary Gam. 16-17 = pryt. VI 29. The restoration EV­ [8EKaT7]L rYl~ 7TpVTaVELaJ~ in 4 gives an impossibly short line of 27 letters. On the other hand, the perfect equation Gam. 17 = pryt. VI 29 GntercJ can be restored if we assume that the inscription is stoich. 35. In line 3 the pry­ tany will be either ·EpEX.8"f/ioo~, KEKp07Ti8o~, or ·AVTWxi8o~. The day of the month can be restored [e/380,u"f/L E7TIJ 8EKa. In line 4 the restoration is Ev[a­ T7]L Kat ELKOUrYlL rYl~ 7TpVTaVELak The one difficulty is that the name of the proedros (in 5-6) cannot be convincingly restored-or [TEAJEUt7T7TO~ can be retained only by assuming a vacat after EKKA"f/ULa, for which however we have only restored parallels (IG IJ2 455, 662, 679, 684, 697, Hesperia 40 [1971J 183-86). Assuming 34 letters to the line, Koehler, followed by Meritt 129, restored the equation Gam. 19 = pryt. VI 19 (ordJ, whereas Pritchett and Neugebauer (66) suggested Gam. 18 = pryt. VI 29 (interc.). The in­ scription is too fragmentary to be convincingly restored. 79: Restoring in 1-2 the usual form Eypa,u,uaTEvEv, we have 15 spaces be­ fore [rYlJ~ 7TpvTavEia[~J, in which we can fit the 16th or the 21st. But Eypa,u­ ,uaTEVE is possible, thus extending the choices to the 13th, 18th, 19th, and 26th. 81: This preamble is too fragmentary to provide reliable information. It has been restored by Pritchett and Meritt to give Thar. 29 = pryt. X 5, which is perfectly possible, but not the only possible restoration. Let me suggest an alternative: [E' 'H'Y"f/uWV apx.ovTo~, E7TL rYl~ 'AJPtWvO~ Ev8EKeXTEL., EKhEt KTA. We have evidence of three other dated meetings of the eeclesia in this year (332/1): on Boed. 9 = pryt. II 32 (IG IJ2 368), on Elaph. 19 = pryt. VIII 7 (IG IJ2 345-47, Hesperia 8 [1939] 26-27), and on Thar. 11 = pryt. IX 23 (IG VII 4252-53). By adopting (a) or (b), we have perfect equations, if we assume that the prytanies were regularly dis­ tributed (4x36 + 6x35) and that one day was inserted in the civil calendar after Boed. 9 (el Pritchett 340-42). 90: Passed at the same meeting of the eeclesia as IG IJ2 345-47. 92: Passed at the same meeting as IG IJ2 239. 96: First restored by Meritt at stoieh. 37 to yield Gam. 10 = pryt. VI 24. This was accepted by Pritchett and Neugebauer 62, but it presupposes a sus­ picious vaeat at the end of line 4 in the middle of the prytany date, and the perfect equation is Gam. 10 = pryt. VI 22 or 23. Later (YeaT 119-20) Meritt preferred stoieh. 38 and assumed a vaeat in lines 1-3 and 5-7, 4 being re­ stored to give the equation Moun. 8 = pryt. VIII 34. This restoration, how­ ever, is also open to criticism. In an intercalary year the perfect equation is Moun. 9 = pryt. VIII 34. More important, the use of vaeat is to say the least unconvincing (el Pritchett 376-77), and Moun. 8 was a festival day (Mikal­ son 140-41, 191). These objections can be met if we restore EVeXTTlt instead of oySOTlt and assume stoich. 37, but with two letters inscribed in one space at the end of 4. The problem is now to explain IG 112 336b as restored by Meritt (119). In Hesperia 32 (1963) 431 Meritt reverted to his original equa­ tion Gam. 10 = pryt. VI 24, now adopting stoieh. 36 and assuming two letters in one space at the end of 4. S. Dow, HSCP 67 (1963) 67-75, re­ stored 35 letters per line and the equation Gam. 6 = pryt. VI 24, which how­ ever is a festival day and so not likely to be correct. I suspend judgement. 102: Passed at the same meeting as IG VII 4252. ADDENDUM: Since this article went to press, the question of the number of eeclesiai in a prytany has been reopened. In a forthcoming article Fordyce Mitchel and I argue, on the basis of Oem. 24.21 and 25, that the Athenians in the 350's held three eeclesiai in a prytany and that the 'Aristotelian' sys- HANSEN, MOGENS HERMAN, When Did the Athenian "Ecclesia" Meet? , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 23:4 (1982:Winter) p.331 350 WHEN DID THE ATHENIAN ECCLESIA MEET? tern of four was introduced between 353/2 and 347/6. A consequence is that, in describing the period of four in a prytany, I must exclude from my inven­ tory the decrees of the period 368-347 (nos. 1-10, 89, 98). Accordingly, there are 60 dated decrees of the period 347-307, and the distribution over the four periods is: days 1-9: 9; 10-19: 16; 20-29: 13; 30-39: 22. The per­ centages are: 15.0, 26.66, 21.66, and 36.66. The inferences to be made are the same. I gather, finally, that Cynthia Schwenk, in a paper read at the Vancouver APA meeting in 1979, proposed an interpretation of IG IJ2 359 very similar to my own (supra 336) .21 THE UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN AND THE INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED STUDY July, 1982 21 The proofs of this article have been read against the squeezes in the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton. I would like to thank the Institute for appointing me a visiting member for spring 1983, the Commission for Educational Exchange between Denmark and the United States for appointing me a Fulbright scholar for the same period, and the Danish Research Council for the Humanities for supporting me with a grant-in-aid. Finally, I would like to thank Fordyce Mitchel for reading and comment­ ing on this article; apart from other helpful suggestions, he has saved me from an error concerning the ephebeia.