Marcaline J. Boyd
This paper presents a new reading of the chairman’s patronymic in the prescript of IG II² 105 and 523, an Athenian alliance with Dionysius of Syracuse of 368/7 B.C.E. Autopsy has shown that the current reading, Daippus, found in all modern editions (IG II² 105, SIG³ 163, Tod 136, Rhodes and Osborne 34) diverges from the actual letters on the stone. The inaccurate reading affects other restorations in the inscription, while the new reading restores a name and person whose existence was previously unknown. The correct reading also reinforces the importance of autopsy and of studying the earliest editions of epigraphical text.
Since the early twentieth century all editions record ΔΑΙΠΠΟ as the chairman’s patronymic in line 5 (IG II² 105, SIG³ 163, Tod 136, Rhodes and Osborne 34). The letters on the stone, however, clearly show: ΣΑΛΙΠΠΟ. Furthermore, the earliest editions of the decree (Pittakis 1837-42, 30; Rangabis 1855, 379; Kirchhoff 1857, 571-8; Koehler, IG II 52) confirm this reading. The correct patronymic then ought to read Ἁλιππο and Σ may be interpreted tentatively as the final letter in the chairman’s personal name. While not an unlikely candidate for a fourth-century Athenian’s name, Halippus is unattested in Attica (Osborne and Byrne 1994 2: 505) and appears elsewhere in a manumission document from second century B.C.E. Boeotia (IG VII 3367). By contrast, a Daippus from the deme of Marathon is known from fourth-century Athens (IG II² 1607) and for this reason was almost assuredly adopted by previous editors.
In modern editions the reading Daippus and his restored demotic [Μαραθ(ώνιος)] has informed the restoration of the tribe in prytany in line 1. Lewis (1954, 37-8) first noted a problem with the restored tribe of the prytany: Αἰαντίδος ἑβδόμης (IG II² 105, SIG³ 163, Hicks-Hill 112, Tod 136). Reforms in the 370s prohibited chairmen who were members of the same tribe in prytany from service (Rhodes 1985, 25-8): Daippus’ deme Marathon was from the tribe of Aiantis. Rhodes and Osborne’s (2003, 34) edition kept Daippus’ restored demotic [Μαραθ] and accordingly suggested two possible alternatives for the tribe of the prytany: Aigeis or Oeneis. Their new suggestion also helped to resolve a potential problem with the old restoration: Dionysius died early in 367 B.C.E. and the old restoration of the seventh prytany put the decree after the tyrant’s death. Rhodes and Osborne’s edition resolved this problem as well by putting the decree in an earlier prytany well in advance of Dionysius’ death.
The reading Daippus and its affect on other restorations reinforce the significance that reconstructions can have on interpretations of a text. The correct reading Halippus reopens other possibilities for the date and, since his demotic is unknown, there is no basis from which to restore the prytany. The name Halippus is a minor, but nevertheless welcome addition to known fourth-century Athenian names. More importantly, the substitution of Daippus in place of the correct reading undoubtedly stems from a predilection of understanding the past based on what is already known instead of acknowledging oftentimes gaping holes in our knowledge.