Victors in the Prytaneion Decree(IG 12 77) Morrissey, Edmond J Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Jan 1, 1978; 19, 2; Periodicals Archive Online pg. 121 Victors in the Prytaneion Decree (IG 12 77) Edmond J. Morrissey THE MUCH-STUDIED Athenian decree regulating access to the rare privilege of lifetime board in the Prytaneion, IG 12 77, contains two problematic sections dealing with the benefits afforded victors in the Pan hellenic festivals, lines 11-19.1 The following text, kindly provided by M. Jameson, includes a number of readings slightly different from those of previous editions. Several letters once considered certain are now dotted; the iota formerly read as the last preserved letter in line 16 must now be restored. Conversely, a dotted nu has now been read as the first preserved letter of line 15 whereas formerly it had been restored; and the second preserved letter in line 18 is now read as iota rather than nu. A number of relatively secure restorations have been incorporated, including several attrac­ tive suggestions for lines 15, 16 and 18 fairly recently proposed by w. E. Thompson.2 The decree has been dated to the late 430's B.C.3 STOICH.45 11 Ka[t ho7T6c]- 12 [OL .... ~~ ... .'OAvp.7TLan] E ilv()o'i E II,LC()P.O'i E ljEp.E[aL . . ~.] 13 [ ..... ~~ ..... . lvaL au'T ]9'iCL 'T~V cl'TEnV I.v 7TpV'TavE[to]- 14 [L ....... ~~ ........ 7T ]pck 'TiL CL'TECEt Ka'TeX 'TeX [I.v 'T ]i[ L c]- 15 ['TEAiL yeypap.p,Eva 'TiL I.]!, rOL 7TpV'TavEtr;n. hO[7T ]6C9[L 8E hap]- 16 [JLa'TL 'TEAetOL E ht7T7TOL K]EAE'TL VEVL[K]EKaCL 'Q[A]vp.'{T[Lan E il]- 17 [v()o'i E hLC()P.O'i E NEp.EaL E] VLKECOCL 'T6 AOL7T6[v], Ivq.L [ .. ~ .. ] 18 [ .. ~ . . cl'TECLV Ka'TeX 'TeX I.v 'T]iL c'TEAi[L] YEypap,[JL]Evq. ~[ .. ?.] 19 [ .......... ~~ .......... ]. 7TEpt 'T6 C'Tpq.r[ . ... ~~ ..... ] 1 R. Schoeil, Hermes 6 (1872) 14-54; H. T. Wade-Gery, BSA 33 (1932/33) 123-27; M. Ost­ wald, AJP 72 (1951) 24-46; W. E. Thompson, AJP 92 (1971) 226-37. I Thompson, op.cit. (supra n.l) 226. a The dating rests on letter-forms. W. E. Thompson, Proceedings of the African Classical Association 13 (1975) 1-8, has recently adduced additional arguments in favor of the tradi­ tional date. 121 122 VICTORS IN THE PRYTANEION DECREE Ever since Schoell, the seventeen letter-spaces subsequent to JY€f1,€[ aL] in lines 12-13 have uniformly been restored with the phrase [nk ylvlLvLKoe ayovae], presumably on the ground that a reference to specific sorts of events at the festivals, corresponding to those in the second section, lines 15-16, was required to give the proper force and meaning to the clause. There are, however, four major shortcomings to this approach. First, Schoell's phrase can be restored only after the names of the festivals, whereas the events specified in lines 15-16 pre­ cede, as is logical, the list offestivals. Secondly, the phrase can be made to fit only in the accusative, but the framer of the decree employed the dative for the events in lines 15-16. Thirdly, it becomes extremely difficult to find a suitable restoration for the missing verb at the be­ ginning of line 12 once Schoell's phrase has been accepted. Most editors adopted [V€VLK€KaCL] on the model of line 16, but this has the unfortunate effect of depriving future victors of board. Realizing that, Thompson cleverly proposed [<1v VLK€eoCL] instead on the ground that this verb must be subjunctive rather than future in line 17. Yet this approach is not without its difficulties. The restoration of the three missing festivals in lines 16-17, long considered certain, becomes impossible if space must be found for [<1v] before the verb. The sub­ junctive, unaccompanied by the perfect, seems moreover vague and inadequate in regard to the rights of past victors in line 12. Finally, and most serious, Schoell's restoration has the effect of excluding from board all victors, past and future, in the various musi­ cal competitions. These events hardly fall under the gymnastic or hippic categories, yet there is no space in the decree for a third section in which board might have been granted to musicians. Discrimination against musical victors does not seem likely to have been practiced at Athens, especially in the period of this decree. Thucydides 3.104.4 states that musical contests were included in the Delia, reinstituted by Athens in 426/5 B.C. Plutarch, Per. 13.8-12, attributes to Perikles the introduction of contests for musicians at the Panathenaia and also the building of the Odeion to house such activities. In this climate, Panhellenic victories in music ought to have been welcome. The exclusion of musicians from board would be especially odd if, as Wade-Gery suggested, Perikles was the proposer of our decree.4 What is needed in lines 12-13 is a substitute for Schoell's [Toe 'Wade-Gery, op.cit. (supra n.1) 123. EDMOND J. MORRISSEY 123 yv!-'Vtdc &:yovac] that will provide board to all victors, past and future, in gymnastic and musical competition, and at the same time be harmonious with the style and contents of lines 15-18. The solution is in fact quite simple. The seventeen-letter phrase [€] VtKECOCt 7"0 Aom6[v] which stands at the end of the list of festivals in line 17 should be restored in the same relative position in lines 12-13; the verb [VEVtKEKaCt] should be restored at the beginning of line 12. With these restorations, the clauses in both sections of the decree are identical. Board is guaranteed to all victors, past and future, in lines 11-15; the same grant is repeated specifically for the benefit of hippic victors in lines 15-19. Despite Thompson's arguments to the contrary, the verb VtK€COCt must be future, so the problem presented by a particle in line 17 does not arise. The list of four festivals can thus be restored identically in both sections. Although these restorations are all but unavoidable, they serve to make the separate section dealing with hippic victors seemingly redundant and unnecessary. Thompson is surely right to restore the privilege conferred in line 18 as sitesis and not, as earlier scholars con­ jectured, some other sort of honor.a Other unrelated honors would not have been germane to this decree. Yet Thompson cannot be cor­ rect in thinking that hippic victors were being given board for the first time. This grant, like that in lines 11-15, is justified on the authority of an earlier decree which has already been inscribed and erected. The location is missing, but it may well have been the same document as that cited in line 15. Thompson's argument that line 18 should be restored without the article before [ct7"Ectv], as would befit a new grant of the privilege, is thus unconvincing. In order to include the article, the phrase beginning with lVCf.t in line 17 must be restored on the model of line 13; both clauses are therefore asyndetic. A possible motive for the emphasis given to the rights of hippic victors may have been the existence of a dispute concerning their eligibility or suitableness for the privilege of board under previous legislation. Lines 15-18 would then be in the nature of a ruling or clarification of the law rather than a wholly new statute. Echoes of discontent regarding equestrian victories occur in literature of the period. Thucydides 6.15.3 mentions extravagant spending on such competitions as a factor in Alkibiades' unpopularity. Plato, Apol. 36D, II Thompson, op.cit. (supra n.1) 227. 124 VICTORS IN THE PRYT ANEION DECREE has Sokrates say that he has a fairer claim to sitesis than someone who gained it through hippic victories at the Olympia. By contrast, Isokrates 16.34 rates equestrian victories above those gained in gym­ nastics on the significant ground that a poor person, one low-born or from a small city, could not have succeeded in the former. Equestrian contests had two further peculiarities. First, the horse-owners who benefited from the victories, with rare exceptions, neither participated personally nor drove their own teams.6 Secondly, they were free to increase the odds of their success by entering several teams in the same race.7 Horse-breeding and racing were the special preserve of the landed aristocracy, who could often put victories to political advan­ tage.8 Under these conditions, democratic opposition towards the granting of sitesis to hippic victors could well have become serious enough to warrant an explicit restatement of their rights in our decree. Another matter for study is the proper restoration for the missing first half of line 14. The context seems to require a reference to "other honors" appertaining to sitesis. Of the various attempts to supply a suitable phrase, Thompson's [Ka1. Tac a'\'\ac SOP€LCxc] seems best. Perhaps to avoid further redundancy, the proviso was not repeated in the otherwise parallel section concerning hippic victors. Whether the additional perquisites applied to all who received board, or merely to the victors, is unclear, but the former prospect seems more likely. The privilege most often awarded in connection with that of perma­ nent board in later honorific decrees was proedria at all athletic festi­ vals conducted by the city.9 In each instance, the formula is the same 1 ' \ "',. ~ A' ~ A ~ ',\ ,\ E vat . . . Ct'T'Y}ctv . .. Kat 1TpOEoptaV EV 1Tact TOtC al'Wct TOtC T7JC 1TO EWC, K'T • Sitesis, as the greater honor, is regularly bestowed before proedria, but sitesis seems not to have been given without proedria until Roman times.10 Precedence at festivals would have been an honor especially suitable for former victors. • IG V 123. 7 Thuc. 6.16 states that Alkibiades once entered seven teams at the Olympia and gained first, second and founh place. 8 J. K. Davies, Athenian Propertied Families (Oxford 1971) xxv-xxvi, employs the practice of competitive hippotrophia as evidence for membership in the liturgical class; the Philaidai and Alkmeonidai gained considerable political advantage from their many hippic victories. • IG II14S0b, 646, 657, 672, 682,1223; S. Dow, HSCP 74 (1963) 82-86. 10 IG III 1990. EDMOND J. MORRISSEY 125 With the restorations just suggested, the portion of the decree con­ cerned with victors would stand as follows: 11 Ka[~ h07TOC]- 12 [m VEVtK'KaCt 'OAv/-t7T{act] € JIveOt € 1yce/-,Ot € l:'E/-d[at € VtK]- 13 [{con TO Aomov, {vext exUT ]9Z" TEl' dnew lv 7TPVTexVE[{O]- 14 [t Kat Tac aAAac DopHac 7T ]poc Tet CtTECH KaTa Ta [EV T ]e[t c]- 15 [TEAit yeypafL/-dva Tit €]p rOt 7TpVTave{{Jt. hO[7T]6q>[t DE hap]- 16 [J-LaTt TEAE{Ot € h{7T7TOt K]'AETt VEVt[K]'Kact 'Q[A]v/-''F'[{act € JI]- 17 [veoL € htCefLot € NefL'at €] VtK'COCt TO Ao t7TO [V ], lvq.t [auToL]- 18 [ct TEl' C£TECtV KaTa TO: €V T ]Et cTEAE[t] YEypafL[J-L]'Vq. ¥[ .. ~ .. ] 19 [ .......... ~~ .......... ]~ 7TEP~ TO CTpq.r[ . ... ~~ ..... ] RANDOLPH, MASSACHUSETIS February, 1978