Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Ancient Greek Letter WritingA Cultural History (600 BC- 150 BC)$

Paola Ceccarelli

Print publication date: 2013

Print ISBN-13: 9780199675593

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: January 2014

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199675593.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2016. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: null; date: 04 December 2016

(p.365) Appendix 3 Official Letters Sent by Greek Poleis or Koina and Inscribed on Stone, in Chronological Order

(p.365) Appendix 3 Official Letters Sent by Greek Poleis or Koina and Inscribed on Stone, in Chronological Order

Source:
Ancient Greek Letter Writing
Publisher:
Oxford University Press

(p.365) Appendix 3

Official Letters Sent by Greek Poleis or Koina and Inscribed on Stone, in Chronological Order

The list stops at the beginning of our era. Note that covering letters have normal (non-highlighted) numbers; letters transmitting information or a request are numbered in italics; letters that in and of themselves conveyed a decision are numbered in bold; the five Cretan ‘letter-decrees’ are grouped as nos. 70–4. I have underlined the numbers corresponding to those letters whose prescript or conclusion is fragmentary or lost, since this implies uncertainty as to the exact formal presentation of the document. Sender and place of inscription are in bold, as is the date. A list of seventy-one letters sent by Roman magistrates in the same period of time is given separately; I have not added references to mentions of letters in inscriptions. For both Greek and Roman letters, bibliographical references have been kept to a minimum.

  1. 1. Letter of the magistrates and city of Istron to the Coans concerning the asylia, inscribed in Cos, 242 BC.

Rigsby and Hallof 2001: 335–8, no. 2 (SEG 51, 1056) = IG xii 4,1 214, A ll. 1–13.

ll. 1–3: the kosmoi and the city of Istron greet the council (or, the magistrates? the text is restored; see below, no. 2) and the people of Cos; the greeting is followed by a narrative, with first person plural, ‘you have sent to us’ ([Ἰσ]τρων[ίων οἱ κόσμοι καὶ ἁ πόλις Κωΐων τᾶι βωλᾶι καὶ τῶι] | δάμωι χαίρειν· ἀπεστή[λατε παρ’ ἁμὲ θεωροὺς Χά]- | ριππον, Δίωνα, Πλάτωνα̣, [οἳ ἐπήγγειλαν‎…); the decision comes at ll. 6–7 in the forms typical of a decree: ἀγαθᾶι τύχαι·] | δεδόχθαι τᾶι πόλει τᾶ[ι Ἰστρωνίων δέχεσθαι‎ (and other infinitives); at ll. 11–12 the prescription to inscribe the decision in the prytaneum of Istron labels the document with psephisma (τὸ δὲ ψ[άφισμα τόδε ἀναγράψαι ἐν τῶι] | πρυτανείωι ννν‎, cf. no. 2 below); there are no final greetings (the text closes on the indemnity to be given to the theoroi, l. 13). Another letter (no. 2) is inscribed directly underneath.

  1. 2. Letter of the kosmoi and the city of Phaistos to the Coans concerning the asylia, inscribed in Cos, 242 BC. Inscribed under the preceding letter (and followed by a decree of Hierapytna).

Rigsby and Hallof 2001: 335–8, no. 2 (SEG 51, 1056) = IG xii 4,1 214, A: ll. 14–18, B: ll. 19–24.

ll. 14–16: the kosmoi and the city of Phaistos greet the magistrates (or the council? The text is restored; see above, no. 1) and the city of Cos; the greeting is followed by the motivation, introduced with ἐπεί (Φαιστίων οἱ κόσμοι καὶ [ἁ πόλις Κωΐων τοῖς ἄρχουσι] | καὶ τᾶι πόλει χαίρειν · ἐπ̣[εὶ Κῶιοι ἀποστείλαντες θεω]- | [ροὺ]ς τάν τε ἀσυλ[ίαν‎…) The decision comes on the back of the stele, B ll. 2–3, with invocation of good fortune, followed by infinitives (ἀγαθᾶι τύχαι· ἦ̣[μεν‎]…). At ll. 4–5, in the context of the decision to inscribe the document (in Phaistos, in the Pythion), the text is defined psephisma (τὸ δὲ ψάφισμα | [τόδε ἀναγράψαι ἐν τῷ ἱερῶι τω Ἀπόλ]λωνος τῶ Πυθίω‎·). There is no final greeting, the text closes on the indemnity for the theoroi. On B l. 7 begins a decree of the Hierapytnians, on the same topic, expressed in the traditional format: [ἔδοξεν Ἱεραπυτνίων τοῖς κόσμ]ο̣ις καὶ τῷ δ̣ά̣μωι· ἐπε̣[ι]- | [δὴ Κῶιοι φίλοι ὄντες τῶ δάμ]ω τῶ Ἱεραπυτνίω〈ν〉‎…, B ll. 7–8.

(p.366)

  1. 3. Letter of the Thessalonikeis to the Delians, followed by decree, inscribed in Delos, c.230 BC.

IG xi 4, 1053 = IG x 2, 1, 1028 (cf. Rhodes with Lewis 1997: 191).

ll. 1–19: Delian decree for the Macedonian Admetus; ll. 20–45: another Delian decree for Admetus, adding the exhortation to send an envoy to the Thessalonikeis to have the honours registered there as well (respectively IG xi 4 664 and 665); ll. 46–54 letter, beginning with: ἡ πόλις Θεσσαλονικέων Δηλίων τῆι βουλῆι καὶ | τῶι δήμωι χαίρειν‎; genitive absolutes describe the arrival of the envoy and the accomplishment of his duties, then an aorist and a perfect mark the acceptance and the sending of a copy of the decree to the Delians, so that they may know that their requests have been accepted (προσεδεξάμεθα καὶ (…) πεπόμφαμεν ὑμῖν τὸ ἀντίγραφον ὅπως εἰδῆτε‎); this is directly followed, at ll. 55–77, by the decree of the Thessalonikeis (no concluding formula for the letter).

  1. 4 . Letter (beginning fragmentary; but at l. 12 εὐτυχεῖτε‎) transmitting a decision of Lappa (Crete) to Tenos, inscribed inTenos, second half of the third century BC.

IG xii, 5, 868A (IC 2 xvi 2 = Rigsby 1996, no. 59; cf. Rhodes with Lewis 1997: 308).

At l. 5 Rigsby proposes to restore a δεδόχθαι, to signify the decision taken; his restorations imply a line-length considerably longer than that supposed by Hiller. That the letter conveyed a decision is clear, but it is impossible to say how exactly the decision was expressed.

  1. 5. Letter of the kosmoi and city of Knossos to the Coans concerning the doctor Hermias son of Emmenidas, inscribed in Cos, 221–219 BC.

IC 1 viii 7, Syll.3 528, Samama 2003: 127 (with date 219–217 BC); IG xii 4,1 247 (Rhodes with Lewis 1997: 300).

Κνωσίων οἱ κόσμοι καὶ ἁ πόλις Κώιων τᾶι βωλᾶι καὶ τῶι δ- | άμωι χαίρειν. ἐπειδὴ πρεσβευσάντων Γορτυνίων‎ . . . The first twenty lines survive, but the text breaks off when still recounting the motivation.

  1. 6. Letter of Gortyna to the Coans concerning the same doctor, inscribed in Cos, 218 BC.

IC 4 168 = Laurenzi 1941, no. 3; Samama 2003: 126 (with date 219–217); IG xii 4, 1 248 (Rhodes and Lewis 1997: 302).

Γορτυνίων οἱ κόσμοι καὶ ἁ πόλις Κώιων τᾶι βωλᾶι κα[ὶ τ]- | ῶι δάμωι χαίρειν· ἐπειδή‎…(a long motivation clause follows). At ll. 20–1 comes the decision, with βωλόμενοι αὐτῷ εὐ- | [χαρι]στῆν, ἔδoξέ τε ἁμῖν ἐπαινέσαι‎; the Coans are also praised at ll. 22–3 for having sent Hermias … The end is lost.

  1. 7. Letter of Argos to Magnesia on the Maeander, inscribed in Magnesia, 208 BC.

I. Magnesia 40 (Rigsby 1996, no. 90; cf. Rhodes with Lewis 1997: 69).

Beginning partly lost. [ - - - Μαγνή]τ̣ων τᾶι βουλ̣[ᾶι] | [καὶ τῶι δάμωι χαίρειν· οἱ παρ᾿ ὑ]μ̣ῶν πρεσβευταὶ καὶ | θεαροὶ παραγενόμενοι Φ]ιλίσκος Πυθαγόρου, Κόνων | [Διονυσίου, Λάμπετο]ς Πυθαγόρου τό τε ψάφισμα | 5 [ἀπέδωκαν τῶι δά]μ̣ωι καὶ αὐτοὶ διελέγεν ἀκολού- | [θως τοῖς ἐν τῶι] ψαφίσματι κατακεχωρισμένοις πε- | [ρὶ τοῦ ἀγῶνο]ς [τ]ῶν Λευκοφρυηνῶν· ὑπογεγράφαμες οὖν | ὑ㈺μ̣ῖ㈻͂ν㈺ τὸ ἀντίγραφον τοῦ ψαφίσματος τοῦ δοχθέντος | τῶι δάμωι. ἔρρωσθε‎. The letter, addressed to the boule and demos of Magnesia on the Maeander, concerns the acceptance of the Leucophryena and honours for the Magnesian theoroi; it is followed (ll. 10–19) by a decree: πρεσβευτᾶν παραγενομένων παρὰ τοῦ δάμου τῶμ | Μαγνήτων τῶν πρὸς τῶι Μαιάνδρωι Φιλίσκ̣ου τοῦ | Πυθαγόρου, Κόνωνος τοῦ Διονυσίου, Λαμπέτου τοῦ | Πυθαγόρου καὶ ἀποδόντων τὸ ψάφισμα καὶ διαλεγέν- | τῶν ἀκολούθως τοῖς γεγραμμένοις ἔδοξε τῶι δά- | 15 μωι συντελεῖν τὰν θυσίαν κοινᾶι μετὰ τῶν Ἀ (p.367) χαιῶν, | ἃν συντελεῖ ὁ δῆμος ὁ τῶν Μαγνήτων τῶμ̣ πρὸς τῶι Μαι- | άνδρωι τᾶι Ἀρτέμιδι τᾶι Λευκοφρυηνᾶι, δοθῆμεν δὲ | παρὰ τῶν ταμιᾶν καὶ ἐνεκέχειρα τοῖς ἐπαγγέλλονσι | ὅσον καὶ τοῖς τὰ Νέμεα ἐπαγγέλλοσσι δίδοται‎. Interestingly, the (unusually concise) decree has no prescript: it may have been left out by the Magnesians, but it is then odd that they chose to inscribe the covering letter. A dating formula was possibly at the beginning of the letter, so that the covering letter was incorporated in the dossier.

  1. 8. Letter of Knossos to Magnesia on the Maeander (beginning lost), accompanying a honorific decree by the Cnossians awarding proxenia and related honours to two citizens of Magnesia (ll. 9–19), inscribed in Magnesia, 208? BC.

I. Magnesia 67; IC 1 viii 10 (Rhodes with Lewis 1997: 300, with date third–second century BC).

[ - - κρ]ίνοντεν ἀξίονς [ - - ] | [……c.19……τῶ]ν παρ’ ἁμὶν τιμίων | [……c.22……․․] ἁμὶν διασαφησα[ν]- | [τ - - ]ων· ὑπογεγ[ρ]άφαμεν δὲ τῶ ψαφίσμα- | 5 [τος τὸ ἀ]ντίγροφον· εὖ οὖν ποιήσετε ἀναγράψαν- | [τες ἐς τ]ὰν στωιὰν καὶ ὑμέν· ἀνεγράψαμεν | γὰ[ρ κ]αὶ ἁμὲν ἐν στάλαι λιθίναι καὶ ἐθήκαμεν | ἐν τῶι ἱαρῶι τῶ Ἀπέλλωνος τῶ Δελφιδίω· | ἔ[ρρω]σθε‎.| The decree began at l. 9 (ἐπὶ τᾶς Ἀρχήιας κοσμιόντων τῶν σὺν Ζω‎- | 10 άρχωι ἔδοξεν Κνωσί[ω]ν [τ]οῖς κόσ[μοις] καὶ | τᾶι πόλι· Θιογείτονα Σίμω, Ἰοφ[ῶντα Ἰο‎]- | φῶντος Μάγνητας ἀπὸ Μαιάνδρω π̣[ρο]ξ̣ένους | ἦμεν καὶ εὐεργέτανς‎), and went on until l. 21, where the stone breaks off, so that the details of the request for inscription cannot be known.

  1. 9–10. Letter of the magistrates and synhedroi of the Aitolians to the boule and demos of Xanthos (ll. 79–88), and letter of the Kytenians to the boule and demos of Xanthos (ll. 88–110). Before the letters, decree of Xanthos (ll. 1–72), taken as an answer to the requests (and mentioning the letters with the requests at ll. 10, 12–13, 67–9), and decree of the Aitolians (ll. 73–9). Inscribed in Xanthos, 206/205 BC.

SEG 38, 1476, C and D (cf. Rhodes with Lewis 1997: 141, 153, 441).

Letter of the Aitolians, ll. 79–88: Ἀγέλαος, Πανταλέ- | ων, Μόλοσσος καὶ οἱ σύνεδροι τῶν Αἰτωλῶν Ξανθίων τᾶι βου- | λᾶι καὶ τῶι δάμωι χαίρειν. Λ[α]μπρίας, Αἴνετος, Φηγεύς, οἱ ἀπο- | δεδωκότες ὑμῖν τὰν ἐπιστολάν, ἐντὶ μὲν Δωριεῖς.…καλῶς οὖν ποιήσετε…ἔρρωσθε, and letter of the Kytenians, ll. 88–91: Δωριέων τῶν ἀπὸ | Ματροπόλιος οἱ πόλιν Κυτένιον οἰκέοντες Ξανθίων τᾶι βου- | λᾶι καὶ τῶι δάμωι χαίρειν· ἀπεστάλκαμες ποθ᾿ ὑμὲ πρέσ- | βεις…; ll. 99–102: ἀξιάζομες οὖν ὑμὲ | μνασθέντας τᾶς συγγενείας τᾶς ὑπαρχούσας ἁμῖν | ποθ’ ὑμὲ μὴ περιιδεῖν τὰμ μεγίσταν τᾶν ἐν τᾶι Ματροπόλ[ι πό]- | λιν Κυτένιον ἐξαλειφθεῖσαν, ἀλλὰ βοαθοῆσαι…; ll. 108–10: γινώσκετε δὲ οὐ μόνον ἁμῖν εὐχαριστῆς ἐόντες ἀλλὰ καὶ | [το]ῖς Αἰτωλοῖς καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις Δωριέοις πᾶσι καὶ μάλιστα βασιλεῖ | Π̣τ̣ο̣λεμαίωι διὰ τὸ συγγενῆ ἁμῶν εἶμεν κατὰ τοὺς βασιλεῖς‎. There is no closing greeting formula.

  1. 11. Letter of Sybrita (Crete) to the Teians, inscribed in Teos,201 BC.

IC 2 xxvi 1 (Rigsby 1996, no. 141; cf. Rhodes with Lewis 1997: 307, with date 204–202 BC).

Συβριτίων ἁ πόλις καὶ οἱ κόσμοι Τηίων τᾶι βωλᾶι καὶ τῶι | δάμωι χαίρειν‎ (they go on to mention first Perdiccas, the envoy of Philip V, and then the Tean ambassadors; the central part is very fragmentary, and at l. 21 the decisions taken are referred to with παρὰ τὸ γραφὲν δόγμα‎); the text closes with εὐτυχεῖτε‎ (l. 27).

  1. 12. Letter of Polyrrhenia to the Teians for asylia, inscribed in Teos, 201 BC.

IC 2 xxiii 3 (Rigsby 1996, no. 137; cf. Rhodes with Lewis 1997: 307, with date 204–202 BC).

Πολυρρηνίων | Πολυρρηνίων οἱ κόσμοι καὶ ἁ πόλις Τηίων τῶι δάμωι | καὶ τᾶι βωλᾶι χαίρειν‎· Then, a sentence with verb in first person plural; decision: δεδό- | χθαι Πολυρρηνίων τοῖς κόσμοις καὶ τᾶι πόλει· ἀποκρίνεσ- | θαι‎ (ll. 7–9); conclusion: ἔρρωσθε‎ (l. 13).

(p.368)

  1. 13. Letter of Kydonia to the Teians, inscribed in Teos, 201 BC.

IC 2 x 2 (Rigsby 1996, no. 139; cf. Rhodes with Lewis 1997: 301, with date 204–202 BC).

Κυδωνιατᾶν. | Κυδωνιατᾶν ἁ πόλις καὶ οἱ ἄρχοντες Τηίων τᾶι βωλ[ᾶι] | καὶ τῶι δάμωι χαίρειν. ἐπειδὴ [Τήι]οι φίλοι καὶ συγγενεῖς | ὑπάρχοντες διὰ προγόνων‎…(motivation clause)…ἀποκρίνασθαι διότι‎ (l. 16)…(decision)…ἔρρωσθε‎ (l. 27).

  1. 14. Letter (? beginning missing; at the end, l. 11, ἔρρωσθε‎) of Hierapytna to the Teians, inscribed in Teos, 201 BC.

IC 3 iii 2 (Rigsby 1996, no. 144).

  1. 15. Letter of the Thebans to Polyrrhenia, inscribed in Polyrrhenia, end third–beginning second century BC.

IC 2 xxiii 1 (cf. Rhodes with Lewis 1997: 119, 307).

Θηβαίων | [οἱ] Θηβαίων πολέμαρχοι καὶ οἱ σύνεδροι Π[ολυ]- | [ρη]νίων τοῖς κόσμοις κ[α]ὶ τῇ πόλει χαίρ[ειν·] | [τοῦ] παρ᾿ ἡμῖν ψηφίσματος τοῖς ἀποστα[λεῖ]- | [σι π]αρ᾿ ὑμῶν ὑπογεγράφαμεν ὑμῖν τὸ 〈ἀντίγραφον·〉‎…The beginning of the Theban decree follows.

  1. 16. Letter of Axos in Crete to the Aetolians, inscribed in Delphi, 200–170 BC, with the corresponding decree of the Aetolians.

IC 2 v 19 = Syll. 3 622, B (Rhodes with Lewis 1997: 153, 300).

Ϝαξίων οἱ κόσμοι καὶ ἁ πόλις Αἰτολῶ[ν συνέδροις] καὶ τῶι στρα- | ταγῶι καὶ τῶι ἱππάρχαι χαίρειν. γινώσκετε‎…(information concerning Epikles, followed by request)…ll. 10–13: καλῶς ὦν ποιησεῖτε φροντίδ- | δοντες ὅπαι‎…There is no concluding formula. This is neither a covering letter, nor a letter-decree: the Axians are informing the Aetolians of the situation of their citizen Epikles, requesting that if someone tries to harm him and his family he may be prevented, on the common and on the private level (koina and idia), and that the agreement of common citizenship may remain forever (ἁ δὲ κοινοπολι[τείας] ἀιδία ὑπάρχῃ ἀν[αγραφά‎]).

  1. 17. Letter of an unknown city (Cnidus?) to Bargylia, probably from Bargylia, beginning second century BC.

I. Iasos 606 (Rigsby 1996, no. 174; cf. Rhodes with Lewis 1997: 327, 329).

[ - - ἄρχον]τες Βαργυλιατῶν τᾶι πόλι [χαίρειν·] | [ - - ἀπ]εστάλκαμες ποθ᾿ ὑμέ το‎[ - -] |…(the following text, fragmentary, concerns ambassadors, asylia, an agon, thearodokoi, and inscription on stone)…l. 17 ἔρρωσθε‎. After the letter on the stone is a decree, either by Bargylia or by another city, ll. 18–29; but as Rigsby 1996: 355 points out, the letter is not an accompanying cover for the decree that follows it.

  1. 18–19. Group of four documents, of which two are letters, inscribed in Magnesia, 194/193 BC.

I. Magnesia 91 = IG ix2 1 187, 13ff. (Syll.3 598; McCabe Magnesia 119 and 120; Rhodes with Lewis 1997: 153).

  1. (a) Honorific decree of the Amphictions for Sosikles son of Diokles.

  2. (b) Letter of the Delphians, accompanying and explaining the preceding decree (ll. 1–2: [οἱ ἄρχοντες Δ]ελφῶν καὶ ἁ πόλις Μαγνήτων τᾶι [βουλᾶι καὶ τῶι δάμωι] | [χαίρειν· γ]ινώσκετε‎), cf. ll. 7–8: [καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐ]- | [κρίναμες] ὑμῖν γράψαι περὶ αὐτοῦ. ἔ[ρρωσθε‎].

  3. (c) Honorific decree of the Aetolians for Sosikles and Aristodamos sons of Diokles of Magnesia.

  4. (p.369) (d) Letter of the strategos of the Aetolians Dikaiarchos to the boule and demos of Magnesia on the Maeander, probably again praising Diokles (Παρὰ τοῦ στρατηγοῦ τῶν Αἰτ[ωλῶν]. | Δικα]ίαρχος Μαγν[ή]των τᾶι βουλᾶι καὶ τῶι δάμωι χαίρειν‎· […), closing with a restored [ἔρρω]- | [σθε‎].

  5. 20. Letter of the archons, synhedroi, and koinon of the Epeirotai to the Rhodian commander of the League of the Nesiotai in Tenos (?), followed by decree, inscribed in Tenos, c. 200 (192?) BC.

SEG 37, 709; SEG 40, 690 (cf. Rhodes with Lewis 1997: 183).

Ἀπειρωτᾶν οἱ ἄρχοντες καὶ οἱ σύνεδροι καὶ τὸ κοινὸν Ο‎…Ν…ΙΣ̣ΑΡΧ- | [.]ωι χαίρειν· Χάροψ ὁ ἀποσταλεὶς ἀρχιθέωρος‎ (followed by four lines, after which the text, concerning the Dodonean Naia, becomes illegible). It is impossible to tell whether there was a final salutation. At ll. 9–10 the decree resulting from Charops’ embassy was mentioned ([ὑπογεγρά]- | [φα]μες δὲ ὑμῖν καὶ τὸ ψήφισμα ὃ ἐ[ψηφίσαντο‎?]; it is thus clear that this was (mainly) a covering letter. The decree (basically lost) followed after a vacat, from l. 14 onwards.

  1. 21. Letter of Chyretiai in Perrhaebia to Oloosson, also part of the koinon of the Perrhaebii (ll. 1–11), followed by a honorific decree of Chyretiai (ll. 11–43), 190 BC.

Archaiologike Ephemeris, 1917, p. 10 n. 304 (cf. Rhodes with Lewis 1997: 166).

[Χυρετιέων] ο[ἱ τ]αγο[ὶ κ]α[ὶ ἡ π]όλις Ὀλοσσο[νί]- | [ων τοῖς ταγ]οῖς κα[ὶ] τῇ πόλει χα[ίρ]ειν· ἀπεστ[άλ]- | [καμε]ν π[ρ]ὸς ὑμᾶς πρεσ[β]ευ[τά]ς…(names)…| 5 τοὺς ἀποδώσοντ[α]ς ὑ[μῖ]ν, ἃς [τὸ ψ]ήφισ[μα ἔ]- | [χει τ]ιμ[ὰ]ς Ἐπίνῳ Σ[ω]π[άτ]ρου…ἔρρωσθε‎.

  1. 22. Letter of Amphissa to Skarphaea (in Opuntian Locris), inscribed in Amphissa, 200–150 BC, followed by a decree.

IG ix 12 3, 750 (cf. Rhodes with Lewis 1997: 146 and 148).

After three fragmentary lines (the end of another document) we read:vac ἀγαθᾶι τύχαι vac | 5 Ἀμφισσέ]ων [οἱ ἄρ]χοντες καὶ ἁ πόλις Σκαρφέων τοῖς ἀρχόντ[οις] | [καὶ τᾶι βουλᾶι] καὶ τᾶι πόλει χαίρειν· τῶν δεδομένων τιμίων ὑπὸ | [τᾶς] πό[λι]ο[ς] ἁμῶν Μηνοφάντωι Ἀρτεμιδώρου Μακεδόνι 🖚ρκανίῳ | [τὸ ἀ]ντίγραφον ἐξαπεστάλκαμεν ποτὶ τὰν ὑμετέραν πόλιν, | [καθάπερ] καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ Μηνόφαντος ἁμὲ παρεκάλεσε. Then, the text moves to a decree, the only marker being a dating formula, and the term nomographon to indicate the decision: μηνὸς Ἀμ[ῶ]- | 10 [νο]ς [἖]κτᾳ ἐπ’ εἰκάδι. νομογράφων· ἐπειδὴ Μηνόφαντος Ἀρτεμιδ[ώ]- | [ρου] Μακεδὼν 🖚ρκάνιος ἰατρὸς μεταπεμφθεὶς ὑπὸ τᾶς πόλιο[ς]…The resolution formula appears at l. 24: δεδόχθαι τῷ δάμῳ· ἐπαινέσαι τε αὐτὸν‎ . . . Then, there are instructions for sending copies of the text to Skarphea and Opous, and from ll. 29 to 33 a short summary of the honours awarded to Menophantos. There is no concluding formula.

  1. 23. Letter of the prytanis and the demos of Byllis (Illyria) to Sparta, inscribed in Sparta, beginning second century BC.

IG v i 28 (cf. Rhodes with Lewis 1997: 81 and 185).

Βυλλιόνων ὁ πρύτα- | [νις κ(αὶ) ὁ δ]ῆ̣μο̣[ς] Λα̣κεδα̣[ι]- | μ[ονίω]ν̣ δήμ̣ω̣ι χα̣ίρ̣ειν· [ἀπ]- | [εστάλκ]α̣με[ν] τιμ̣ίων τῶ̣[ν] | π[αρ᾿ ἡμῶν ἀντίγραφον‎]…The rest is lost.

  1. 24. Letter of the kosmoi and the polis of Allaria in Crete to the boule and the demos of Paros, together with a Parian decree, inscribed in Allaria, beginning second century BC.

IC 2 i 2 B (cf. Rhodes with Lewis 1997: 299).

The story begins with messengers from Paros bringing a decree to Allaria (A); the letter follows: Ἀλλαριωτᾶν οἱ κόσμοι καὶ ἁ πόλις Παρίων τᾶι βουλᾶι | καὶ τῶι δάμωι χαίρεμ. π (p.370) αραγενομένων τῶν πρεσβευ- | τᾶν ποτ’ ἀμέ‎, with a narrative in genitive absolutes that ends in the resolution formula: ἀγαθᾶι τύχαι δεδόχθαι Ἀλλαριωτᾶν | τοῖς κόσμοις καὶ τᾶι πόλει‎ (ll. 9–10); this is followed by decisions in the infinitive (which include inscribing the text in the two cities, if there is agreement, 19–25: ἐὰν 〈δὲ〉 | συνδοκεῖ ταῦτα τῶι δάμωι τῶι Παρίων, ἀναγρα- | ψάντων αἱ πόλεις ἀμφότεραι ἐς στάλαν λιθίναν | καὶ ἀνθέντων Πάριοι μὲν ἐς τὸ ἱερὸν τᾶς Δάματρος, | Ἀλλαριῶται δὲ ἐς τὸ ἱερὸν τῶ {ι} Ἀπόλλωνος. ταῦ- | τα δὲ εἶναι ἐφ’ ὑγιείαι καὶ σωτηρίαι τᾶν πόλεων | ἀμφοτερᾶν‎.) The letter closes at ll. 25–6: ἐὰν δέ τι φαίνηται ὑμεῖν προσθεῖναι | ἢ ἀφέλαι, εὐχαριστῶμες. Ἔρρωσθε‎.

  1. 25. Letter of the Metropolitai to the magistrates and the polis of Hypata (ll. 1–8), followed by a honorific decree for a doctor, inscribed in Hypata, 182–181 (IG ix) or 160–159 (Corrigenda) or 179–146 BC. (Wilhelm).

IG ix 2, 11; Wilhelm 1909: 146, 132; Samama 2003: 77 (differently Rhodes with Lewis 1997: 178, who do not follow Wilhelm’s restoration and consider this a letter from an unknown city).

[Μ]α̣τ̣ρ̣ο̣π̣ο̣[λιτῶν οἱ τ]αγοὶ καὶ ἡ π[ό]λις | [Ὑπαταίων το]ῖ[ς ἄ]ρχου[σι] καὶ τ[ῆ]ι πό- | λε[ι χαίρει]ν. τ[ῶ]ν δεδομένων τι- | μίων ὑπὸ τῆς πόλεως ἡμῶν | 5 Γλαύκωι Εὐδώρου τῶι ὑμετέ- | [ρω]ι πολείτηι ἀπεστάλκαμεν | ἡμε[ῖς τὸ] ἀντίγραφον, ἵνα εἰ- | δῆ[τε‎]. There are no closing greetings; the decree follows directly on the stone.

  1. 26. Letter of Aptera in Crete to the Teians, inscribed in Teos, 170 BC(?).

IC 2 iii 2 (Rigsby 1996, no. 154; cf. Rhodes with Lewis 1997: 299)

Long letter (58 lines), referring to a previous decree (δόγμα‎, l. 14 and 54), of which the letter is an ἀνανέωσις‎, a renewal (ll. 54–5). Ἀπτεραίων | Ἀπτεραίων οἱ κόσμοι καὶ ἁ πόλις Τη- | ίων τᾶι βωλᾶι καὶ τῶι δᾶμωι χαίρειν‎·…25 διὸ καὶ δεδόχθαι τῶι δάμωι | ἀποκρίνασθαι…ἔρρωσθε‎ (l. 58). The earlier text is Rigsby 1996, no. 145 = IC 2 iii 1, dated to 201 BC; fragmentary both at the beginning and at the end, this text, known only from an eighteenth-century bad copy, is in part written in the first person plural (in l. 2: [ἀσπαζ]όμεθα καὶ [ἐ]παινῶμεν‎; l. 4: [἖νε]κεν ὧν καὶ παρ’ ἁ[μῶν‎; l. 6: πειρ[άξ]ομεν‎); the text we have ends with ἐψήφιστ[αι ἐπὶ κόσμων τῶν μετὰ] | Βορθίω, μηνὸς Δ[ι]κτ[υ]νναίω‎ [ - - ], ll. 12–13. This might have been a letter too.

  1. 27. Letter of the Athenian strategoi to the epimeletes of Delos Charmides, followed by a senatus consultum, inscribed in Delos, post 164 BC.

I. Délos iv, 1510.

οἱ στρατηγοὶ Χαρμίδει ἐπιμελη- | τεῖ Δήλου χαίρειν· γενομένων | πλειόνων λόγων ἐν τεῖ βουλεῖ | περὶ (…), ἔδοξεν (…)‎ · 10 γράψαι δὲ καὶ πρός σε‎ (…) · 11–14 ὑποτε-| τάχαμεν δέ σοι καὶ τοῦ ἐνε-| χθέντος ὑπ᾿ αὐτοῦ δόγματος | τὸ ἀντίγραφον‎. (Followed by the senatus consultum.)

  1. 28. Letter of the grammatophylax of Sparta to Amphissa, followed by a decree of the polis, inscribed in Amphissa, mid-second century BC.

Rousset 2002a: 83–90 (SEG 52, 541).

ἀγαθᾶι τύχαι | Λακεδαιμονίων γραμματοφύλ〈α〉ξ Πόλλις Ἐπιστράτου | ὁ ἐπὶ Ὀβρίμου Ἀμφισσέων ἄρχουσι καὶ τᾶι πόλει χαίρειν· | τῶν ὄντων παρ᾿ ἁμὲ γραμμάτων ἐν τῶι δαμοσίωι ὑπο- | 5 γέγραφα ὑμῖν τὸ ἀντίγραφον. v νομογράφων Δαμοκρά- | της̣ Λα̣φρίου· vv Δημήτριον Μονίμου Ἀμφισσῆ πρόξενον | εἶμεν καὶ εὐεργέταν τᾶς πόλεος αὐτὸν καὶ ἐκγόνους· | ὑπάρχειν δὲ αὐτῶι καὶ γᾶς καὶ οἰκίας ἔνκτησιν καὶ ἀτέλεια[̣ν] | αὐτῶι καὶ ἐκγόνοις καὶ ἀσφάλειαν καὶ ἀσυλίαν καὶ τὰ λοι- | 10 πὰ τίμια ὅσα καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις προξένοις καὶ εὐεργέταις τᾶς | πόλεος ὑπάρχει· ἔδοξε‎.

(p.371)

  1. 29. Letter of archons and polis of Eretria to the boule and demos of Cos, accompanying a honorific decree for Coan judges, inscribed in Cos, mid-second century BC.

IG xii 4, 1 169; Crowther 1999: 293 (SEG 49, 1116).

[Ἀρίστου?] τ̣οῦ Ἀρίστου Φιλόφρονος τοῦ Τιμά̣ρ̣χο̣υ | [τοῦ Δαμ]ο̣κλεῦς Παρμενίσκου τοῦ Τιμίδα | three crowns | [Ἐρετριέω]ν οἱ ἄρχοντες καὶ ἡ πόλις Κώιων τῆι | [βουλῆι καὶ] τῶι δήμωι χαίρειν· τῶν ἐψηφισμέ- | 5 [νων ὑφ᾿ ἡμ]ῶν τιμῶν τῶι τε δήμωι ὑμῶν καὶ | [τοῖς ἀποσ]ταλεῖσι δικασταῖς ἀπεστάλκα- | [μεν ὑμῖν ἀν]τίγραφον σφραγισάμενοι τῆι δημο- | [σίαι σφραγῖ]δι ἵνα παρακολουθῆτε. ἔρρωσθε. (ll. 1–8). The motivation clause of the decree follows immediately after a vacat (ll. 9–10: [ἐπειδὴ πεμ]ψάντων ἡμῶν ψήφισμα καὶ δικασ- | [ταγωγοὺς κ]αὶ πρεσβευτάς‎…), without any dating formula or other introduction.

  1. 30. Very fragmentary letter of the Kerkyreis to the Ambrakiotai, inscribed in Kerkyra, mid-second century BC (B, ll. 1–16), followed by the description of the boundaries of the Ambrakiotai (ll. 17–24) and of the Athamanes (25–33), and preceded, on the left side of the same stone, by a letter of P. Cornelius Blasio to the Kerkyreis with annexed senatus consultum (A, ll. 1–20, then break). The dossier concerned a territorial dispute between the Ambrakiotai and Atamanes.

IG ix 12 4, 796B; SEG 47, 604; 49, 591bis.

κρίμα τὸ γ[ενόμενον περὶ χώρας Ἀθαμᾶσι καὶ Ἀμβρακιώταις·] | Κορκυραίων ο[ἱ ἄρχοντες - - Ἀμβρακιωτᾶν τοῖς ἄρχουσι - - χαί]- | ρειν· Σάτυρος Ἀνδρ[ο]μά[χου?, - - ἀποσταλέντες] | παρ᾿ ὑμῶν ἀπέδωκαν ἁμῖν καὶ τὸ παρ᾿ ὑμῶν ψάφισμα‎.…At l. 17 Hallof proposes to recognize the beginning of the boundary description, and to restore a greeting formula before it: - - ] | νώσκετε ὅτι κατὰ τοὺς ΠΑΡΑ[ - - - ἔρρωσθε‎.] | 17 Ἀμβρακιωτᾶν περιάγησις‎ [ - - ].

  1. 31. Letter(?) of the Pharians to the Parians.

SEG 23, 489 (cf. Rhodes with Lewis 1997: 185 and 262).

Only the final part of the document is extant, without a concluding formula: ll. 1–2 [ὁ δεῖνα τοῦ δεῖνος, ὁ δεῖνα] Ζηλία ἀπεστάλη- | [σαν μετὰ γραμματέως - - ]ου τοῦ Σκιουρίου‎, but its position makes it likely that it is indeed a covering letter. It is followed by a decree of the Pharians (ll. 3–21), one of the Parians (ll. 22–40 and B, ll. 1–22) and by an oracle of the god, all inscribed in Pharos, mid-second century BC.

  1. 32. Letter of the archons of Elatea to the Delphians, accompanying a manumission, Delphi, c.150–130 BC.

Fouilles de Delphes III 2: 120.

Ἐ[λατέων οἱ ἄρχ]οντες Δελ[φῶ]ν [το]ῖς ἀρχό[ντ]οις κ[αὶ] | τᾶι πόλει χαίρειν. Γινώσκετε τὰν ποτεσφραγισμμ[έ]- | ναν τῶι ἐπιστολίωι ἀπελευθερίαν, ἀναγεγραμμένα[ν] | ἐν τῶι παρ’ ἁμὲ ἱερῶι τ〈ῶ〉ι ἐν Ἀσκλαπιείωι. ὑμεῖς οὖν εὖ ποι[ή]- | σετε, φροντίξαντες ὅπως καὶ παρ᾿ ὑμὲ ἀναγραφῇ ἁ αὐ- | τὰ ἀπελευθέρωσις ἐν τῶι ἱερῶι τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος | τοῦ Πυθίου‎. The manumission (ll. 8–26) and the names of the witnesses (ll. 26–8) followed .

  1. 33–35. Three letters, two from Sicyon, one from Kerynia, in a group of eleven as yet unpublished documents, from Argos, post 146 BC.

Rhodes with Lewis 1997: 69–70, 76, and 97.

The dossier comprises an Argive decree, followed by three letters of a consul (L. Mummius) to the Argives; then, a letter of the synhedroi of Sicyon to the Argives (Σικυονίων σύνεδροι…Ἀργείων τοῖς ἄρχουσι χαίρειν‎), followed by a letter of L. Mummius to the Sicyonians and by a letter of the grammateus of the synhedrion of the Sicyonians to the Argive damiorgoi (Σικυονίων γραμματεὺς συνέδρων (…) Ἀργείων δαμιοργοῖς χ[αί]ρειν‎); then, a letter of Kerynia in Achaia to Sicyon (Καρυνέων δαμιοργοὶ οἱ τὸ δεύτερον ἔτος (…) Σ (p.372) ικυονίων [τοῖς ἄρ]χουσι καὶ συνέδροις χαίρειν‎), one of Q. Fabius Maximus to Dyme, and at the end the decisions taken.

  1. 36. Letter of the archons and polis of Delphi to the Athenians acknowledging reception of a psephisma and honouring the Athenian demos (ll. 1–17), inscribed in Delphi, shortly after the mid-second century BC.

Fouilles de Delphes III 2: 94 (cf. Rhodes with Lewis 1997: 131).

[οἱ ἄ]ρχοντες Δελφῶν καὶ ἁ πόλις Ἀθη[να]ίων τᾶι βο[υλᾶι καὶ τῶι] δάμωι χαίρειν‎. This is followed by the content and then the resolution: οἱ παρ᾽ ὑμ[ῶ]ν παραγενόμενοι ποθ᾽ ἁμὲ πρεσβευταί (…) ἀπέδωκαν (…), διελέγησαν (…), ἐποιήσαντο (…) · ἐπαινεῖμεν (…) · δεδόχθαι οὖν‎ (…). There is no concluding formula.

  1. 37–38. Letters of the Gortynioi (ll. 115–21) and of the Hierapytnioi (ll. 125–30), quoted in the context of the inscription preserving the decision of the judges of Magnesia on the Maeander (ll. 1–11) in the dispute opposing Hierapytna and Itanos. (The two parties, after an intervention of Ptolemy in favour of the Itanioi, asked the Romans, who suggested Magnesia as an arbiter.) The dossier is known through two copies, one very fragmentary from Magnesia, the other one from Itanos in Crete; it was inscribed in 112/111 BC, but the two letters are earlier (c.145 BC?).

IC 3 iv 9 (cf. the copy in Kern I. Magnesia 105).

l. 107: ἔγνωμ]εν γὰρ τὴν τοῦ βασιλέως Πτολεμαίου προστασίαν καὶ [κεκυρωμέν]ην παρὰ τοῦ κοιν[οῦ τῶν Κρηταιέων] | [παρ᾿ ὧ]ν ἔλαβον εὐδόκησιν καθότι τὸ παρατεθὲν ἡμῖν διάγραμ[μα περι]εῖχεν, Ἰταν[ί]ο[ις Γορτύνιοι ἀπο]- | [στεί]λαντες (ἐ)πιστολὴν διεσάφησαν ὅτι ἐπὶ τὴν νῆσον αὐτῶν τὴν [καλου]μ[έ]νην Λεύκ[ην Πραίσιοι μέλλουσιν | (…) 111 [Γο]ρτυνίων δὲ συνπαρόντων ἐπὶ τῆς κρίσεως Ἱεραπυτ[ν]ίοις, [παρετίθεν]το ἡμῖν Ἰτά[νιοι ἀποστα]- | [λεῖσαν] πρὸς ἑαυ[τ]οὺς πρότερον ὑπὸ Γορτυνίων ἐπιστολήν, δι᾿ ἡ̑[ς] ἔ[κδη]λ[ο]ν ἅ[πασιν ἐγίνετο ὅτι | [ἐπιμελῶς] προνοούμενοι Γορτύνιοι τοῦ κατὰ Ἰτανίους συμφέροντος ἐ[μήν]υον αὐτο[ῖς περὶ Πρα]ισ[ίων ὅτι] | [περὶ τὴ]ν νῆσον αὐτῶν τὴν Λεύκην γίνονται ὡς κυριεύσοντες. [….] τε ἡ ἐπιστολ[ὴ καὶ ἀνεγράφη, γε]- | 115 [νομένης] ὑπ᾿ οὐδενὸς ἀ̓ντιλογίας, ἐκρίναμεν δὲ καὶ αὐτῆς ἀ[ντίγραφον] καταχωρίσαι [τὸ ὑπογεγραμμένον·] | (Here the letter begins, ll. 116–21) [Γ]ο̣ρτυνίων οἱ κόρμοι καὶ ἁ πόλις Ἰτανίων τοῖς κόρμοις καὶ [τ]ᾶι πόλ[ι] χαίρεν· πεπεισμ[ένοι ὑπ’ ἀνδρός τινος] | [ὃς δεδ]ήλωκεν ὅτι οἱ Πραίσιοι οἰκονομόνται περὶ τᾶς Λεύκας ὡς [ἐπιστ]ρατίας γενομ[ένας, κρατῆσαι αὐ]- | [τᾶς, τάδε] ἐκρίναμεν ὑμῖν ἐπιμελίως ἀποστεῖλαι· ὑμὲν ἂ̣ν̣ καλῶς ποή[σαιτε τ․]ς ἐν τῷ χωρίῳ [- - - - ] | [․․]επ[․․]σην θέμ〈ε〉νοι παρορῶντέ〈ς τε〉 εἰ χρείαν ἔχετε ἐν τὸ χωρίο[ν] ἐ[πιταδείω]ν· γεγράφ[αμεν οὖν ὑμῖν, οὐκ ὄν]- | 120 των τούτων φίλων τῷ τε βασιλεῖ καὶ αὐτοῖς ὑμῖν, [δι]ὰ [πα]ντὸς ἐ[πιμε]λούμενοι κ[α]ὶ βω[λόμενοι ἀεὶ - - ] | [․]ε[․]αι τῷ τε βασιλεῖ καὶ τοῖς τῶ βασιλέως φίλοις‎. (The allusion to Ptolemy Philometor dates the letter to before 145, year of the king’s death; the Gortynioi had been favourable to the Itanioi, even though in 112 they sided with the Hierapytnioi). The stone continues with the second letter (ll. 125–30), sent by the Hierapytnioi: . . . 125 αὐτοὶ Ἰτανίοις τὴν ὑπογεγραμμένην ἐπιστολὴν· Ἱεραπυτνίων οἱ [κόσμοι κ]αὶ ἁ πόλις Ἰταν[ίων τοῖς] | [κόσ]μοις καὶ τᾶι πόλει χαίρεν· βέλτιον ὑπελάβομεν γράψαι ὑμῖν ὅπως εἰ διὰ [τὸ σ]υμβεβηκὸς - - | 129 […] ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ἁμές, εἴ τί κα συμβαίνῃ τινὶ ὑμῶν τοιοῦτο ἐν τᾷ ἁμ[ᾷ μηθενὶ] ἐπιτρέψομεν. [ἔρρωσθ]ε‎.

  1. 39. Letter of the prytaneis and of the ‘chosen for the phylake’ of Miletos to the Eleans (ll. 29–40), in the context of a long document (seventy lines on two columns) concerning the arbitration between Sparta and the Messenians, inscribed in Olympia on the base dedicated by the Messenians, c.138 BC.

I.v. Olympia 52, ll. 29–40 = Syll. 3 683 (cf. Rhodes with Lewis 1997: 94 and 375).

(p.373) Μιλησίων οἱ πρυτάνεις καὶ οἱ ἡιρημένοι ἐπὶ τῆι φυλακῆι | Ἠλείων τοῖς ἄρχουσι καὶ τοῖς συνέδροις χαίρειν· παρα- | γενομένωμ πρὸς ἡμᾶς πρεσβευτῶν παρὰ Μεσσηνίων | Μηνοδώρου τοῦ Διονυσίου, Φιλοίτου τοῦ Κρατίου, καὶ | παρακαλούντων δοῦναι αὐτοῖς ἀντίγραφον πρὸς ὑ- | μᾶς τῆς γεγενημένης κρίσεως Μεσσηνίοις τε καὶ | Λακεδαιμονίοις κατὰ τὸ δόγμα τῆς συγκλήτου, καὶ τῆς τε | βουλῆς καὶ τοῦ δήμου συγχωρησάντων τὰ προδεδηλ[ω]μέ- | να καὶ ἐπιταξάντων ἡμῖν δοῦναι αὐτοῖς τὴγ κρίσιν, ὑπο- | [τ]άξαντες αὐτὴν τῇ ἐπιστολῇ ἐδώκαμεν τοῖς πρεσβευ- | [τ]αῖς, ὅπως διακομίσωσιν αὐτὴμ πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐσφραγισμέ- | [νην] τῇ [δημ]οσίᾳ σφραγῖδι‎. Cf. also ll. 11–12, where it is stated that the decision and the letters have been brought to Olympia by ambassadors of the Messenians, who asked that the documents be inscribed.

  1. 40–41. Letter of the strategos and the grammateus of the synhedrion of the Magnetes to the demiourgoi and the demos of Kleitor (the closing formula is lost, but was probably present), followed by a letter of the strategoi and nomophylakes of Demetrias to the damiourgoi and demos of Kleitor. The entire dossier was inscribed in Kleitor, probably c.130 BC.

Peloponnesos, IG v 2, 367 = IPArk 19 (cf. Rhodes with Lewis 1997: 167 and 169, with reference to SEG 11, 1113 and date to c.160–150)

[Ζωίλ]ος στ[ρ]α̣[τη]γ[ὸ]ς Μαγν[ήτ]ων κα̣ὶ Μει[δ]ί[ας] γραμ[μ]α[τ]εὺς συνεδρίου Κλειτορίων [το]ῖς δ[ημιοργοῖς καὶ τῶι δήμωι χαίρειν. Δω]- | [ρόθεο]ν‎ (…four lines of text…) [ἀπ]εστάλκα[μεν δ]ὲ ὑμῖ[ν] καὶ τοῦ ψηφί[σματ]ος τ[ὸ ἀντίγραφον τὸ ὑπογεγραμμένον. ἔρρωσθε‎] (ll. 1–6); it accompanied a decree of the Magnetes, ll. 7–23 (at l. 20 of the decree it was specified that Zoilos and Meidias should write to the cities of Kleitor, Patrae, and Demetrias); the letter of the strategoi and nomophylakes of Demetrias to Kleitor followed, at ll. 24–9 (Δη[μητριέω]ν οἱ [στ]ρατηγοὶ καὶ οἱ νομοφύλ[ακες] Κλειτορ]ίων τοῖς δ[ημιορ]γοῖς κ̣[αὶ τῶι δήμωι χαίρειν. τὸν παρ’ ὑμῶν] | 25 [ἀ]〈π〉οστ[αλέν]τα δ̣ικαστὴν γινώσκετε‎ (…the text continue with praise of the judge and request of inscribing the honours voted for him on stone…) ἀπεστ[άλκαμεν] δὲ ὑμ[ῖν καὶ τοῦ ψηφίσματος τὸ ἀντίγραφον τὸ ὑπογεγραμμένον. ἔρρωσθε‎]), accompanying a decree of Demetrias, ll. 30–49 (here too at l. 46 it is specified that strategoi and nomophylakes will have to write to Kleitor and Patrae). Both the decrees of the Magnetes and of Demetrias allude to a letter sent previously (and not inscribed) with which they had asked for judges.

  1. 42. Letter of the koinon of the Amphictions to the Athenians concerning the Dionysiac technitai (ll. 40–51), 134 or 130 BC, preceded by a decree of the Amphictions of 278 BC (ll. 2–39), and followed by a new decree of the Amphictions (ll. 52–94) of 130 BC. Inscribed in Athens, 134 or 130 BC, in the theatre of Dionysos. The letter is, however, missing from the copy of the same decree inscribed in Delphi, and was probably also missing from the other copy inscribed in Athens, in the temenos of the Dionysiac technitai.

IG ii2 1132, ll. 40–51 = Le Guen 2001: TE 7 = CID 4 115. Note the archival docket ‘from the metroon’: see Thomas 1989: 77 and n. 20; Sickinger 1994: 289–92.

ἐκ τοῦ μητρώιου· ἐπὶ Δημοστράτου [ἄρχοντος μηνὸς Βοη]- | δρομιῶνος· τὸ κοινὸν τῶν Ἀμφικτιό[νων Ἀθηναίων τεῖ] | βουλεῖ καὶ τῶι δήμωι χαίρειν· πρεσβευ[σάντων πρὸς ἡ]- | μᾶς‎. . . 50–51 ὑπογεγράφαμεν ὑμῖν τοῦ γ[εγενημένου] | ὑφ᾿ ἡμῶν δόγματος τὸ ἀντίγραφον‎.

  1. 43. Letter of Tyre to Delphi, inscribed in Delphi, 125 BC.; probably brought there by ambassadors who came at the time when Tyre became independent to ask for recognition of asylia from the Delphians for their city (or possibly better, following Rigsby 1996: 483–4, to inform the Delphians of some event).

Pomtow, Klio 1918, 26, no. 49; SEG 2, 330; Curty 1995, no. 12; cf. Rigsby 1996: 483–4.

(p.374) ll. 1–4: Θεός. Τύχ[ην ἀγαθήν]. | Τύρου τῆς ἱερᾶς καὶ ἀσύλου ἡ β̣[ουλὴ καὶ ὁ δῆμος Δελφῶν τῆι] | βουλῆι καὶ τῶι δήμωι τοῖς συγγεν[έσιν χαίρειν· (…) ἐπειδὴ ἐ]- | βουλόμεθα‎ (…). The text becomes more and more fragmentary, and after the twelfth line is altogether lost; at l. 10 we find an aorist, ἐποιήσαμεν‎, but that does not necessarily mean that we have already reached the decisions.

  1. 44. Letter of the grammateus of a Macedonian or Achaean polis (Phenea?) to Sparta, Sparta, 123 or 121 BC.

IG v i 30 (cf. Rhodes with Lewis 1997: 81 and 90, with the restoration [Φε]νεατᾶν, and open date).

[Φε]νεατᾶν | [ὁ δεῖνα γρα]μματεὺς συνέ- | [δρων - - - ]ς ὁ τὸ π̣έμπτον καὶ εἰ- | [κοστὸν ἔτος Λα]κεδαιμονίων ἐφόροις | [καὶ τᾶι πόλει χα]ίρειν· τῶν ὄντων παρ’[ ἐ]- | [μοὶ κειμένων ἐν] τῶι ἀρχείωι ἐν βυβλίωι | [ψηφισμάτων γέ]γραφα ὑμῖν τὸ ἀντί- | [γραφον· ἐπεὶ - - ]κράτης Στεφά[νου] | [ - - - - εὖ ποιῶ]ν διατε[ λεῖ - -‎]

  1. 45. Letter (very fragmentary) of the koinon of the Amphictions to the Athenians concerning the technitai, following a slightly earlier decree of the Athenians, inscribed in Athens, on the acropolis, in 117–116 or 112 BC.

IG ii2 1134, ll. 77–103 = Le Guen 2001, TE 12, E = CID 4, 120.

l. 77: [τὸ κοινὸν τῶν Ἀμφικτιόνων Ἀθηναίων τῆι βουλῆι καὶ τῶι] δήμωι χαίρειν . . . ; with this letter, the Delphians confirm an earlier decision (ll. 96–8: ἐκρίναμε[ν τὰ κεχρημα]-| τισμένα ἐν τῆι μεθοπ[ωρινῆι πυλαίαι ἐπ]ὶ ἄρχοντος ἐν Δελφοῖς Ε[ὐκλείδου] | κύρια εἶναι καὶ βέβαια‎); there is no closing formula.

  1. 46. Letter of the koinon of the Amphictions inserted in an Athenian decree (?), from the agora in Athens, 117/116 BC.

SEG 26, 117 (S. V. Tracy, Hesperia 45 (1976), 287–8 n. 3).

We have only ll. 1–5 (very fragmentary): ‘under the archonship of Menoitos, tribe Antiochis, [?] son of Attalos Berenikides was secretary’, 3ff.: τετράδι ἱσταμένου τετάρτηι | [τῆς πρυτανείας· βουλὴ ἐν βουλευτ]ηρίωι· τῶν προέδρων επεψήφι- | [ζεν - - c.14 - - καὶ συμπρό]εδροι vac. 3–4 τὸ κοιν[ὸν τῶν Ἀμφι]- | [κτιόνων Ἀθηναίων τῆι βουλῆι καὶ] τῶι δήμωι χαίρ̣ειν‎. [vac. c.4 - c.5 - ]

  1. 47. Letter (very fragmentary) of the grammateus of the synhedrion Xenon to the strategoi (ll. 17–21), preceded by a letter of a Roman magistrate(?) to the Karystians or Euboians, and followed by a hypomnema, from Karystos, second century BC.

IG xii 9, 5.

l. 2: [ - - ]ς ἐν τῆι ἐπισ[τ]ολεῖ[ - - ] ll. 14–15: [ - - ]τὸ ὑπόμνημα τὸ πε[ρὶ τούτων - - ] | [ - - κατα]μ̣ε̣ρ̣ί̣σ̣ατε εἰς τὰ παρ᾿ ὑμε[ῖν δημόσια γράμματα]‎…ll. 17–19: [ - - ]Ξέ[ν]ων γραμματεὺς συνεδ[ρίου - - ] | [ - - στρατη]γ[οῖ]ς χαίρε[ιν]. τῶν ὄντων π[αρ - - ] | [ἡμῖν - - ὑμ]εῖν [τὸ ἀ]ντίγραφον [πεπόμφαμεν‎]…

  1. 48. Letter of an unknown city to Demetrias (ll. 13–19), followed by a decree (of which there are scant remains at l. 20) for judges sent by Demetrias; the whole was prefaced by a decree from Demetrias (ll. 1–12) in which it was decided to have the honours inscribed (so Wilhelm 1909). Demetrias, II BC.

Wilhelm, Hermes 40 (1909), 53–4 (revision of IG ix 2, 1106, where the text was interpreted as a decree of the Magnetes followed by a letter of the Magnetes to Demetria; thus Rhodes with Lewis 1997: 169).

(p.375) ll. 13ff. [ - - - - ]ας Δάμων - - - | [ - Δημη]τριέων τοῖς [στρατηγοῖς καὶ] νο[μο|φύλαξιν καὶ τῶι δήμωι χαίρειν. τ]ῶν τιμ[ῶ͂ν τῶν δεδομένω]ν [π]α- | [ρὰ - - Ζώιλωι Ἐπιτέλεο]ς Ἀρτεμιδώρωι‎…

  1. 49. Letter of the ephors and the city of Sparta to the tagoi and demos of Larisa, Larisa, second century BC.

IG ix 2, 518.

[Λ]α̣κεδαιμονίων ἔφο[ρ]οι κα̣[ὶ ἁ] π̣όλι[ς] | [Λ]α̣ρισ̣σ̣[α]ίων τοῖς ταγοῖς κ̣[αὶ] τῶι δ[ά]- | [μωι χαίρεν. ἀ]〈π〉εστάλκα〈μ〉εν π[ὸ]θ̣’ ὑμὲ | [πρέσβεις Ἀρισ]τόν̣ικον Εὐαμερίο[υ]‎ | 5 [ - - - ]ΙΟΣΛΡ̣[ - ]Δ[ - - - ] | [ - - - ]Ο̣ΙΚΙΙ[ - ]ΙΟΥΑΙ[ - ] | [ - - - ]ΩΝΤΙΓΩΜ̣Λ[ - - - ] The mention of envoys from Sparta being sent makes it likely that this is a covering letter.

  1. 50. Letter of an unknown city to Sparta (very fragmentary), Sparta, second century BC.

IG v i, 8 (cf. Rhodes with Lewis 1997: 81).

[ - - ων οἱ σ]τ̣ραταγοὶ καὶ ἁ πόλις Λακεδαι- | [μονίων ἐφόροις κ]αὶ τᾶι πόλει χαίρειν· πόθοδον | [ποιησαμένων π]οτί τε τὰν βουλ[ὰν καὶ τὰ]ν ἐ̣κκλη- | [σίαν ἁμῶν - - το]ῦ Λέοντος, Αἰσχρίωνος [τοῦ] Αἴσχρω- | [νος τῶν ὑμετέρων] πολιτᾶν‎…Unclear whether this is a letter conveying a decision or simply a request.

  1. 51–52. Decision of the Amphictions (ll. 1–12) and letter of Hypata to the Amphictions concerning the designation of the hieromnamon of the Pythian years for Euboea (ll. 13–25), followed by an abstract of the earlier decisions (ll. 1–9, with at l. 5 the mention of a second letter sent by the Amphictions to the people of Hypata to ask them whether they consider that they should revise their decision), and by a new letter of Hypata to the Amphictions (ll. 9–28), inscribed in Delphi, 110 BC?

CID 4 121 and 122 = Fouilles de Delphes III 1: 578, resp. col. II, 14ff. and col. I, 9ff.

A prominent heading (ἐ[πιστολὴ 🖚παταί]ω̣ν̣‎, l. 13) and a standard epistolary opening are followed by the motivation clause (🖚παταίω[ν] οἱ ἄρχοντ[ες τῶι κοινῶι τῶν Ἀμφικτιόνων χαίρειν· ἐπειδὴ‎ (…), l. 14); the rest is very fragmentary. The second letter is quoted within the second record, without a separate heading (πάλιν ἐνί[κ]ησαν Χαλκιδεῖς καθότ[ι] καὶ ἡ γραφεῖσα ὑπὸ [τῶν 🖚πα]-| [ταίων ἀρχόντων περιέχει πρὸ]ς τοὺς Ἀμφικτίονας ἐπιστολή· [🖚παταί]ω[ν] ο[ἱ ἄρχοντε]ς‎ |10 [καὶ ἁ πόλις τῷ κοινῷ τῶν] Ἀμφικτιόνων χαίρειν· ἐκομισάμεθά τε ἐπιστολὰ[ν] ἐν 㭚 [διεσα]-| [φήσατε τὰ γεγονότα καὶ παρεκαλέσ]ατε‎ (…), ll. 9–12). Here too, the central part and end of the letter are lost.

53. Letter of someone to the magistrates and the people of Kyparissos, Kyparissos, second–first century BC.

Messenia, SEG 11, 1025; Sherk 1969, no. 46 (see list of letters by Roman magistrates, R25 bis).

[ἀγαθῆι] τύχηι. | [ὁ δεῖνα - - - τῶν Κ]υπαρισσέων ἄρχουσι καὶ τῇ | [πόλει] χαίρειν. | [ - - - - ἀ]πολελέχθαι ὑπ’ ἐμοῦ τὴν | [ - - - ]ων ἐποιησάμην τῶν | [ - - - - ]ου βαλανείου τοῦ‎…Because of the first person reference, it is unlikely to be a letter from a city; but the text is very uncertain.

  1. 54. Letter of the Delphians to the Athenians, inscribed in Athens, 106–105 BC.

IG ii2 1136, with addenda p. 672 = Syll. 3 711K.

Only the two last lines of the letter are preserved (Dittenberger restores three other lines before), accompanying a honorific decree for the priestess of Athena Chrysis (ll. 2–32). ll. 1–2: […c.7…Ἀθ]ηναίωι τῶ[ι προ]ξένωι τ[ὸ ἀντίγραφον] | [ὅπω]ς εἰδῆτε· vv ἔρρωσθε. v ἐπειδὴ κτλ‎.

  1. 55. Letter of an unknown polis (Athens has been suggested) to the Delphians, inscribed in Delphi, end second century BC.

Fouilles de Delphes III 4: 33; SEG 3, 381.

(p.376) Five small fragments of a document that went on for some 30 lines; it might be an Attic document sent to Delphi, over which someone might have added, in local dialect, [τύχ]αν [ἀγαθάν] | [ἐπὶ - - - ἄρχοντος, ἐ]πὶ τῆ[ς - - - πρυτανείας - - - ] | [̣ - - - , Δελφῶν τῆι πό]λει χα[ίρειν - - -] | [ - - παραγενομένων πρεσβ]ευτῶν‎ [ll. 1–4 ].

  1. 56. In the dossier concerning a dispute between Thronion and Skarphaea, inscribed in Delphi, end second–beginning first century BC, letter with which the judges (Athenians? this part is in Attic dialect) transmit their decision and the entire dossier to the Amphictions.

CID 4 123–5 = Fouilles de Delphes III 4: 38, 3 = Klio XVI, no. 130, col. II; cf. Ager 1996, no. 167–I.

(ll. 17ff.: [κριτὰς ἀκηκόατε ὅτι ἐγέ]νοντο σύμφωνοι πρὸς ἀλλήλους, καὶ νενικηκότα[ς] | [τοὺς Θρονιέας κ]αὶ ε[ἰλ]ηφότας ψήφους πεντήκοντα ἐννέα, τοὺς δὲ Σκ[αρ]- | [φέας εἰληφότ]ας ψήφους [δ]ύο. [Γ]εγράφαμεν οὖν ὑμῖν, ἵνα εἰδῆτε· ὑπογ[έ]- | [γραπται δὲ] ὑμῖν καὶ τὸ ἀντίγραφον τῆς ἀντιγραφῆς τῆς ἀποδοθείση[ς] | [ἡμῖν ὑπὸ τῶ]ν ἐξαποσταλέντων πρεσβευτῶν παρὰ τῆς πόλεως τῆς Θρο- | [νιέων, ὁμο]ίως δὲ καὶ τῆς δοθείσης ἀντιγραφῆς ὑπὸ τῶν ἐξαποσταλέντω[ν] | [πρεσβευτ]ῶν παρὰ τῆς πόλεως τῶν Σκαρφέων‎). The dossier contains Thronion’s version of events, in the form of a kind of letter written in the first person, with epistolary deictics, and even an apostrophe to the other polis, but lacking introductory and final formulas (ll. 7–16: ἀμφιλλέγει ἁ πόλις τῶν Θρονιέων | περὶ τὰς ἱερομναμοσύνας ποτὶ τὰν πόλιν τῶν Σκαρφέων· “ἐπιβάλλει μοι τᾶς τῶ[ν] | [Ἐπικν]αμιδίων Λοκρῶν ἀμφικτιονείας τὸ τρίτον μέρος, καθάπερ καὶ τὰ πρόβατα ἐ[ν] | [τὰς θυ]σίας καὶ τὰ ἄλλα τὰ νομιζόμενα πρότερον ἐν τοὺς Ἀμφικτίονας συ[μ]- | [βέβλ]ημαι, καὶ καθ᾿ ὃ κέκριμαι πρότερον περὶ τούτων ἐν Ἀμφίσσαι κατὰ τὸ[ν] | [ἀμ]φικτιονικὸν νόμον· καὶ δεῖ κρατεῖν ἐμὲ καὶ κυριεύειν τοῦ ἐμὶν ἐπιβά[λ]- | [λ]οντος μέρος, καὶ τὸν ἱερομνάμονα καθίστασθαι παρ᾿ ἐμὲ καὶ πέμπε- | σθαι ὑπ᾿ ἐμοῦ, ἐπεί κα ἐμὶν καθήκῃ ἁ ἱερομναμοσύνα. Τὺ δέ, πόλι Σκαρφέ- | ων, ἀντιποιεῖσαι κακοπραγμόνως κατασοφιζομένα, καὶ ἐξιδιάζεσθα[ι θέ]- | λεις ἀδίκως τὸ ἐμὶν ἐπιβάλλον μέρος τᾶς ἱερομναμοσύνας”‎). The dossier continues with Skarphaea’s version, written in an indirect, impersonal and traditional style (ll. 17–22).

  1. 57. Letter of the strategoi of Lampsakos to the magistrates of Thasos (ll. 2–8), inscribed in the agora of Thasos, first third of the first century BC.

I. Lampsakos, no. 7 (cf. Rhodes with Lewis 1997: 412).

Λαμψακηνῶν | Λαμψακηνῶν στρατηγοὶ Θασίων ἄρχουσι | χαίρειν· εἰ ἔρωσθε (sic), τὸ δέον ἂν εἴη, καὶ ἡμεῖς | δ᾿ ὑγιαίνομεν. τῶν γεγονότων | φιλανθρώπων παρ᾿ ἡμῖν τῶι πολίτῃ ὑμῶν | Διονυσοδώρωι Πεμπίδου | ἐξαπεστάλκαμεν τὰ ἀντίγραφα | ὑποτάξαντες ὑπὸ τὴν ἐπιστολήν‎. The letter rather surprisingly presents a formula valetudinis, but lacks a final greetings; it is followed by two proxeny decrees for a Thasian (ll. 9–46).

  1. 58. Letter(?) of the Rhodians to the Thasians (ll. 1–20), followed by an annex decree of the Rhodians for Dionysodoros of Thasos (ll. 21–7), from the agora of Thasos, first third of the first century BC.

Dunant-Pouilloux 1958, 172 (cf. Rhodes with Lewis 1997: 267, with a date around 60 BC).

The beginning of the letter (as also the end of the decree) is lost. There is no closing epistolary formula. It is possible to classify the text as a letter because of ll. 16–19 (ὑπογεγράφα[μεν] | [δὲ κ]αὶ τοῦ ψαφίσματος, καθ᾿ ὃ δέδω̣[καν ἁ βου]- | [λὰ καὶ] ὁ δᾶμος τὰν προξενίαν, τὸ ἀ[ντίγραφον] | [ἵνα‎…)

  1. 59 . Letter of a city or of a Roman proconsul to Sparta, from Sparta, first century BC.

IG v i, 9: litterae vel urbis cuiusdam vel proconsulis Romani.

[ - - - Λακεδαιμο]νίων ἐφόροις καὶ | [τᾶι πόλει χαίρειν· - - ]ωι ὑμῶν καὶ τῶι | [ - - - τ]ῶι γραμματεῖ αὐ|[τῶν - - - - προσ]τάξαντες αὐ[τ]-‎…The rest is lost.

(p.377)

  1. 60. Letter of strategoi and boule of an unknown city to the boule and demos of Tegea, Tegea, first century BC.

IG v 2, 21 (cf. Rhodes with Lewis 1997: 91, Crowther 1999: 299–300) = IPArk 6.

The beginning is partly preserved, but after l. 3 the text is lost ( - - ]έων στρατηγοὶ καὶ ἡ [βουλὴ Τεγεατῶν τῆι βουλῆι καὶ] | [τῷ δήμωι χ]αίρειν. Τῶν ἐψ[ηφισμένων τιμῶν τοῖς παρ᾿ ὑμῶν ] | [ἀποσταλεῖ]σι δικαστ̣[αῖς ἀπεστάλκαμεν ὑμῖν τὸ ἀντίγραφον,] | [ἵνα εἰδῆτε‎ - - - ).

  1. 61. Letter of the Delphians to the Dionysiac technitai of Athens, inscribed on the wall of the treasury of the Athenians in Delphi, 98/97 BC, followed by a decree of the Delphians (ll. 3–61: it closes with the instruction to send a copy of the decree to the boule and demos of the Athenians, and to the synodos of the Dionysiac artists in Athens as well).

Fouilles de Delphes III 2:48 = Le Guen 2001, TE 14.

ll. 1–2: Δελφῶν οἱ ἄρχοντες καὶ ἁ πόλις τοῖς περὶ τὸν Διόνυσον τεχνίταις χαίρειν· [τᾶς] δοθείσας ὑφ᾿ ἁμῶν | ἀποκρίσιος ὑπογεγράφαμεν ὑμῖν τὸ ἀντίγραφον, ὅπ[ως εἰδῆτε]. ἔρρωσθε‎.

  1. 62–63. Letter of the Gephyraioi to Delphi (preceded by a dating formula), and answer of the Delphians to the Gephyraioi, from the agora of Athens, 37–36 BC. An oracle of Apollo, now lost, closed the dosssier.

IG ii2 1096; SEG 30, 85, 6; (cf. Follet, Topoi 8 (1998), 260 n. 67).

Θεο[ί] | Ἀγαθῇ τύχῃ. Ἐπὶ Θεοπείθου ἄ[ρχοντος, τοῦ δὲ γέ]- | νους τοῦ Γεφυραίων Φιλων[ίδου ἄρχοντος (Follet prefers a patronymic) Παι]- | [α]νιέως Σκιροφοριῶνος [ - - - - - ] | 5 [ ἐπιστολὴ παρὰ τοῦ γένους πρὸς Δελφοὺς ] | [Γεφυραίων τὸ γένος Δελφῶν τῆι πόλει χαίρειν. v φι]- | [λίας ἀπ]ε㈺σ̣τά[λκαμεν παλαιᾶς εἰς ἀνανέωσιν Θεόφιλον] | Διοδώρου Ἁλαιέα [καὶ Παμμένην Ζήνωνος Μαραθώνιον] | - (ll. 9–14, request of the Gephyraioi, without final greeting) - | 15 ἐπιστολὴ παρὰ Δελφῶ[ν πρ]ὸς τὸ γένος [ - - - ] | Δελφῶν οἱ ἄρχοντες καὶ 〈ἁ〉 π[ό]λ̣ις τῶι γένει τῶι Γ[εφυραίων] | χαίρειν v Γινώσκετε τοὺς [ἀπ]εσταλ〈μ〉ένους ὑφ’ ὑ[μῶν ἐπὶ] | τὰν μαντείαν καὶ 〈ἐ〉περώτασ[ιν ὑ]πὲρ τοῦ Βουζύγου κ[α]ὶ ἱ[ερέως] | [Δ]ι㈼ὸ㈻ς㈻ ἐμ Παλλαδίωι Διοτ[ίμου] τοῦ Διοδώρου Ἁλαιέως [Θε]- | όφιλ]ον Διοδώρου Ἁ[λαιέα καὶ] Παμμένην Ζήνωνος Μα[ρα]- | 20 [θώνιον ἀπ]ο̣δ̣ε̣[δωκότας ἁμ]εῖν τὰ παρ᾿ ὑμῶν πεμφθέντ[α] | [γράμματα περὶ τᾶς μαντεί]ας ([ψηφίσματα καὶ τὰς ἐπιστολ]ὰς Follet) καὶ ἀνανενεωμένους τὰν̣ | [ὑπάρχουσαν ποτί τε τὰν] πόλιν ἁμῶν καὶ τὸν θεὸν οἰ- | [κειότατα τῶν Γεφυραίων] (Follet prefers Wilhelm’s οἰκειότατα καὶ φιλίαν) καὶ κεκαλλιερηκότας καὶ | 25 [ἐπερωτακότας τὸ ἖δος? ἅ]γιον. (Follet: ἐπερωτακότας τὸ μαντ]εῖον) τὰν οὖν ἐπειρώτασιν | [καὶ τὸν χρησμὸν τοῦ θεοῦ ἀπ]εστάλμεθα π[ο]θ᾿ ὑμὲ | [σφραγισάμενοι τᾶι δαμοσίαι σφρα]γεῖδι.‎

64–68: Dossier inscribed in Delphi, 30–25 BC, on the monument of Diodoros, with letters and city decrees.

64. Letter of Sparta to the Delphians, 30–25 BC.

Fouilles de Delphes III 1:487b = IG v i 1566 (with restoration at ll. 3–4: τοῦ γεγο[νότος ὑφ’ ἁμῶν δόγματος] | [Διοδώρωι] Δωροθέου τῶι ὑμετέρ[ωι πολίται ἀποστέλλο]-); δόγματος‎ also in Rhodes with Lewis 1997: 81, with a date to c.29 BC.

[ἐπὶ] ἄρχοντος Πολεμάρ[χου]. | [Λ]ακεδαιμονίων ἔφοροι καὶ ἁ πόλι[ς Δελφῶν τοῖς ἄρχουσι] | [καὶ τᾶι πό]λει χαίρειν· τοῦ γεγον[ότος ὑφ’ ἁμῶν ψαφίσματος] | [Διοδώρω]ι Δωροθέου τῶι ὑμετέρω[ι πολίται ἀπεστάλκα]- | [μ]εν ὑμῖν τὸ ἀντίγραφον· ἐπεὶ Διό[δωρος Δωροθέου Δελφὸς]‎…Followed by a decree, missing its end.

  1. 65. Letter of the strategos and synhedroi of the koinon of the Thessalians to Delphi.

(p.378) Fouilles de Delphes III 1: 488.

Extremely fragmentary; Bourguet restores ἐπὶ ἄρχοντος [Πολεμάρχου.] | Ἀλέξιππος στρ[ατηγὸς τοῦ κοινοῦ τοῦ ἐν Θεσσαλ]ίαι καὶ οἱ | σύνεδροι Δ[ελφῶν τοῖς ἄρχουσι καὶ τῆι βουλῆι χ]αίρειν‎.

  1. 66. Letter of an unidentified polis to the Delphians (text very similar to the following one).

Fouilles de Delphes III 1: 489.

  1. 67. Letter of the doriarcheon of the koinon of the Dorieis of the metropolis Charigenes to the archons and polis of Delphi, accompanying the annex decree.

Fouilles de Delphes III 1: 490 (IG v i 1566, cf. Rhodes with Lewis 1997: 141).

ἐπὶ [ἄρχοντος Πολεμάρχου] | Χαριγένης ὁ Δορια[ρχέων τοῦ κοινοῦ τῶν Δωριέων τῶν] | ἐγ Ματροπόλεως Δ[ε]λ[φ]ῶ[ν τοῖς ἄρχουσι καὶ τᾶι] | πόλει χαίρει. Τῶν δεδομένων [τιμίων ὑπὸ τοῦ κοι] | νοῦ τῶν Δωριέων Διοδώρωι Δωρο[θέου τῶι ὑμετέρωι] | πολίται ἀπεστάλκαμ[ε] ὑμῖν ἀ[ντίγραφον τὸ ὑπογε]- | γραμμένον‎·. The decree follows.

  1. 68. Letter of an unidentified polis (possibly letter and decree from Hyampolis) to the Delphians.

Fouilles de Delphes III 1: 495.

  1. 69. Letter of an unidentified polis or king/emperor/consul to Sparta, very fragmentary, Sparta, date? The stone might actually contains remains of a sequence of two letters: a cover letter by a secretary, transmitting an official letter addressed to the Lacedaemonians.

IG v i, 10 (ll. 1–3 restored by Wilamowitz, with the annotation ‘Scriba alius doricae civitatis, rogatus a Lacedaemoniis, exemplum mittit decreti in tabulis suis adservatis’); but note SEG 47, 355: ‘Letter from a Hellenistic or Roman ruler?’

[ - - - - - απ]- | έ̣[στ]αλμαι [ - - ] | τῶι ἐπ᾿ ἐμοῦ [ - - αντί]- | γραφον̣ ρ‎[ - - ] | Λακεδαιμ[ονίων ἐφόροις καὶ] | τᾶι πό[λει χαίρειν· - - ].

Texts Halfway Between a Letter and a Decree

  1. 70. Decree—but with closing epistolary greeting—of Axos, inscribed in Teos, 201 BC.

IC 2 v 17 = Rigsby 1996, no. 140 (called ‘decreto-epistola’ in Ghinatti 2004: 125).

Ϝαξίων. | ἔδοξεν Ϝαξίων τοῖς κόσμοις καὶ τᾶι πόλει ψαφιξαμένοις | κατὰ τὸν νόμον· ἐπειδὴ‎ ( . . . ) | 13. δεδόχθαι Ϝαυαξίων τοῖς κόσμοις καὶ τᾶι πόλει ἐπαινέσαι μὲν ( . . . ) ἀποκρίνασθαι δὲ ὅτι‎ ( . . . ) 24. ἔρρωσθε‎.

  1. 71. Decree—but with closing epistolary greeting—of the Arcadians, inscribed in Teos, 201 BC.

IC 1 v 52 = Rigsby 1996, no. 150.

Ἀρκάδων. ἔδοξεν Ἀρκάδων τοῖς κόσμοις καὶ τᾶι πόλει· ἐπειδὴ κτλ‎ (…) 20–1 ἀποκρίνασθαι τοῖς πρειγευταῖς ὅτι ἁ πόλις‎ (…) 29–32 τάν | τε καθιέρωσιν τῶι Διονύσωι τᾶς τε πόλιος | καὶ τᾶς χώρας ὑμέων (…) δίδομεν‎ 45 ἔρρωσθε‎.

  1. 72. Decree—but with closing epistolary greeting—of the Arcadians, inscribed in Teos, 170 BC? Renewal of asylia.

IC 1 v 53 = Rigsby 1996, no. 159.

’Αρκάδων. ἔδοξεν Ἀρκάδων τοῖς κόσμοις καὶ τᾶι πόλει· ἐπειδὴ (…) 17 τὸ πρότερον δοθὲν ὑμῖν δόγμα‎ (…) 18 δεδόχθαι ἀποκρίνασθαι‎ (…) 50 ἔρρωσθε‎.

(p.379)

  1. 73. Decree—but with closing epistolary greeting—of Hyrtacina, inscribed in Teos, 170 BC? Renewal of asylia.

IC 2 xv 2 = Rigsby 1996, no. 160.

A fragmentary beginning is followed by a series of infinitives (ἀναγράψαι, ἐπαινέσαι); there are no pronouns of first and second person; conclusion with ἔρρωσθε.

  1. 74. Decree—but with closing epistolary greeting—of Priansos, inscribed in Teos, 170 BC?

IC 1 xxiv 1, cf. Rigsby 1996: 289.

Πριανσίων. | ἔδοξε Πριανσίων τοῖς κόσμοις καὶ τᾶι πόλει. ἐπειδὴ Ἡρόδοτος Μ〈η〉νοδότου καὶ Μενεκλῆς Διονυ-| σίω ἐξαποσταλέντες πρεγγευταὶ πορτὶ ἁμὲ πα-| 5 ρὰ Τηίων οὐ μόνον ἀνεστρά[́φεν] 〈πρ〉επ〈ό〉ντω〈ς〉 ἐν τᾶι | πόλει καὶ [διέλεγ]εν περὶ τᾶς [ ……. ]το[ . . ]ας ἀλλὰ | καὶ ἐπεδείξατο Μενεκλῆς μετὰ κιθάρας τά τε Τι- | μοθέου καὶ Πολυίδου καὶ τῶν ἁμῶν παλαιῶν ποιη- | τᾶν καλῶς καὶ πρεπόντως, εἰσ〈ή〉νεγκε δὲ κύκλον | 10 ἱστορημέναν ὑπὲρ Κρῆτας κα[ὶ τ]ῶν ἐν [Κρή]ται γε- | γονότων θεῶν τε καὶ ἡρώων, [ποι]ησάμενο[ς τ]ὰν | συναγωγὰν ἐκ πολλῶν ποιητᾶ[ν] καὶ ἱστοριαγρά|φων· διὸ δεδόχθαι τᾶι πόλει ἐπαινέσαι Τηίος ὅτι | πλεῖστον λόγον ποιῶνται περὶ παιδείας, ἐπαι-| 15 νέσαι δὲ καὶ Ἡρόδοτον καὶ Μενεκλῆν ὅτι καλὰν | καὶ πρέπονσαν πεποίηνται τὰν παρεπιδημίαν | ἐν τᾶι πόλει ἁμῶν· διασαφῆσαί τε ταῦτα καὶ Τηί-| οις ὅ〈π〉ως ἐπιγινώσκοντι. ἔρρωσθε‎.

Official Letters Of Roman Magistrates Inscribed In Stone

R1. Letter of T. Quinctius Flamininus to the Chyretians, from Chyretiae in Thessaly, 197–194 BC.

Sherk 1969, no. 33; Rhodes with Lewis 1997: 166. Cf. Hofmann forthcoming.

R2. Letter of M. Valerius Messala, the demarchoi and the synkletos (heading: ῾Ρωμαίων) to the Teians, from the temple of Dionysos in Teos, 193 BC.

Sherk 1969, no. 34. Cf. SEG 30, 1377; Hofmann forthcoming.

R3. Letter of M. Acilius Glabrio to the Delphians, from Delphi, early in 190 BC.

Sherk 1969, no. 37, Rousset 2002b, no. 41.

R4. Letter of the consul L. Cornelius Scipio and his brother to Heraclea on the Latmos, 189 BC.

Sherk 1969, no. 35; Robert 1978: 501; SEG 37, 860; Ma 1999, no. 45. Cf. Hofmann forthcoming.

R5. Letter of L. Cornelius Scipio and his brother to the Colophonians, Colophon, 190–189 BC.

Sherk 1969, no. 36; Ma 1999, no. 46.

R6–R7. Letters of the praetor Spurius Postumus to the Delphians and to the Amphictions, from Delphi (same stone), 189 BC.

Sherk 1969, no. 1 A and B; Fouilles de Delphes III 34: 353; Rousset 2002b, no. 42; and for the second letter CID 4 104; cf. Ferrary 2009: 130.

R8. Letter of C. Livius Salinator to the Delphians, from Delphi, 188 BC.

Sherk 1969, no. 38 = Syll.3 611 (Bagnall-Derow 2004, no. 41).

R9. Letter of a Licinius to the Amphictions, from Delphi, 186 BC?

Sherk 1969, no. 39; CID 4 105.

(p.380) R10. Letter of a Roman magistrate or legate on King Perseus to the Amphictions or the Delphians, from Delphi, 171–170 BC.

Sherk 1969, no. 40 = Syll.³ 613 B (cf. SEG 31, 542; 45, 481).

R11. Very fragmentary letter of the Kerkyreis to the Ambrakiotai, inscribed in Kerkyra, mid-second century BC, preceded by a letter of P. Cornelius Blasio to the Kerkyreis with attached senatus consultum.

IG ix 12 796B; Sherk 1969, no. 4; SEG 47, 604.

R12. Letter of M. Aemilius to the Mylasaeans, from Magnesia, accompanying a senatus consultum on the dispute between the Magnesians and the Prieneans, mid-second century BC.

Sherk 1969, no. 7; Ager 1996, no. 120.

R13–R16. Three letters of the consul L. Mummius to the Argives, and one from him to the Sicyonians, all inscribed in Argos, post 146 BC.

Rhodes with Lewis 1997: 69–70, 76, and 97.

R17: A letter (unpublished) of Q. Fabius Maximus to Dyme in Achaia, from Argos, part of a dossier including the preceding letters, 144 BC.

Rhodes with Lewis 1997: 97.

R18. Letter of Q. Fabius Maximus to the Dymaeans, from Dyme.

Rhodes with Lewis 1997: 97, Kallet-Marx 1995: 129–53, date 144 BC? (Sherk 1969, no. 43, 115 BC?)

R19–R20. Two letters of Roman magistrates to the associations of Dionysiac artists, very fragmentary, from Thebes, second half of the second century BC.

Sherk 1969, no. 44, IG vii 2413 and 2414; Le Guen 2001, nos. 34 and 51.

R21. Letter of a Roman magistrate to the Amphictions (very fragmentary), from Delphi, c.120–115 or 117–116 BC.

Sherk 1969, no. 42; CID 4 119 A (cf. Ferrary in Rousset 2002b).

R22. Letter of L. Calpurnius Piso to the Itanians, from Itanos in Crete, accompanying a senatus consultum on the dispute between Itanos and Hierapytna, 112 BC.

Sherk 1969, no. 14; Ager 1996, no. 158 (cf. SEG 2, 511).

R23. Letter (fragmentary) of the grammateus of the synhedrion Xenon to the strategoi (ll. 17–21), preceded by a letter of a Roman magistrate (?) to the Carystians or Euboians, and followed by a hypomnema, from Carystos, second century BC.

IG xii 9, 5.

R24. Letter of P. Sextilius to the Triccaeans, from Tricca in Thessaly, accompanying a senatus consultum, second century BC?

Sherk 1969, no. 8.

R25. Letter of someone (a Roman magistrate?) to the Triccaeans, from Tricca in Thessaly, concerning an arbitration, second century BC.

Sherk 1969, no. 45 (IG ix 2, 301).

R25bis. Letter of someone (a Roman magistrate?) to the magistrates and the people of Kyparissos, Kyparissos, second–first century BC.

Messenia, SEG 11, 1025; Sherk 1969, no. 46. Cf. Greek list above, no. 53.

R26–R27. Two letters of Q. Mucius Scaevola, respectively to the Sardianoi and to the Ephesians, concerning (and accompanying) the treaty between Sardis and Ephesus, from Pergamum, 98–97 or 94–93 BC.

Sherk 1969, no. 47; SEG 38, 1267; Ager 1996, no. 170.

(p.381) R28. Letter of C. Cassius to the Nysaeans concerning Chairemon (followed by two letters of Mithridates to his satrap Leonippos), from Akça (Nysa) in Caria, 88 BC. (A strange letter, obviously translated from Latin; no final formula.)

Sherk 1969, no. 49 (Syll.3 741).

R29–R30. Letters of Sulla and of the quaestor propraetore Lucullus confirming inviolability to the temple of Isis and Sarapis at Mopsuestia, from Mopsuestia, probably shortly after 85 BC and in 86 BC respectively.

SEG 44, 1227; Rigsby 1996, no. 217; cf. SEG 56, 1801.

R31. Letter of the proconsul Q. Oppius to the Plaraseis and Aphrodisieis, 85 BC (but inscribed in a dossier dated to the second century AD).

Reynolds 1982, no. 3 (InsAph 8.2).

R31 bis. Letter of an unidentified city or of a proconsul to Sparta, from Sparta, first century BC.

IG v i, 9: litterae vel urbis cuiusdam vel proconsulis Romani (cf. Greek list above, no. 59).

R32–R33. Letters of L. Cornelius Sulla to the Coans concerning the Dionysiac artists, and to the Dionysiac artists (followed by a decree of the Senate now lost), from Cos, respectively c. 84 and 81 BC.

Sherk 1969, no. 49; le Guen 2001, no. 56.

R34–R35. Two letters of Sulla to the Stratoniceans, followed by a senatus consultum, from the temple of Hekate at Lagina in Caria, 81 BC.

Sherk 1969, no. 18; I. Stratonikeia 505.

R36. Letter of L. Cornelius Sulla to the Thasians, accompanying a senatus consultum, from Thasos, 80 BC.

Sherk 1969, no. 20; SEG 18, 349.

R37–R38. Two letters of Cn. Cornelius Dolabella to the Thasians, discussing the above-mentioned senatus consultum and referring to other letters sent to the Peparethians and Skiathians, from Thasos; same stone as R48 below, 80 BC.

Sherk 1969, no. 21.

R39. Letter of the consuls M. Terentius Varro Lucullus and C. Cassius Longinus to the Oropians, with summary of documents and senatus consultum, from Oropos, 73 BC.

Sherk 1969 no. 23; Epigr. tou Oropou 308, IG vii 413.

R40. Letter of a Roman magistrate (the governor of Asia) to the Mytilenaeans (very fragmentary), from Mytilene, post 55 BC.

Sherk 1969, no. 51.

R41. Letter of a Roman magistrate to the Milesians, the Ephesians, the Trallianoi, the Alabandeis, the Mylaseis, the Smyrnaioi, the Pergamenoi, the Sardianoi, and the Adramyttenoi, from Miletos and Priene (two copies), 51–50 BC.

Sherk 1969, no. 52; SEG 50, 1178; cf. Ferrary 2009: 135–8.

R42. Letter (very fragmentary) of a Roman magistrate to Ilion, from Ilion, first century BC.

Sherk 1969, no. 53; I. Ilion 77.

R43–R44–R45. Three letters of C. Iulius Caesar to the Mytilenaeans, from Mytilene, 48 to 45 BC. (Part of a dossier including also two senatus consulta passed in 25 BC, and a treaty).

Sherk 1969, no. 26.

R46. Letter of C. Iulius Caesar to the Pergamenoi, from Smyrna (part of a dossier which must have been engraved in many cities), accompanying a decision, post 48 BC (Pharsalos).

Sherk 1969, no. 54; Rigsby 1996, no. 180.

(p.382) R47. Letter of P. Servilius Isauricus to the Pergamenoi, concerning the asylia of the Asklepieion, from Pergamon, 46–44 BC.

Sherk 1969, no. 55; Rigsby 1996, no. 181.

R48. Letter of L. Sestius Quirinalis to the Thasians, from Thasos (part of a dossier inscribed on the same stone as nos. R37 and R38 above), 44–42 BC.

Sherk 1969, no. 56.

R49. Covering letter of M. Antonius (entirely erased after Actium) accompanying

a δελτογράφημα‎ of Caesar granting the right of asylum to the temple of Artemis in Sardis, Sardis, 44/43 BC.

SEG 39, 1290; Rigsby 1996, no. 214

R50. Letter of M. Antonius to the koinon Asiae, from Tralles (but probably inscribed in Smyrna), 42–41 or 33–32 BC.

Sherk 1969, no. 57.

R51. Letter of Octavian to Plarasa/Aphrodisias, from Aphrodisias, 39–38 BC.

Reynolds 1982, no. 6 (Sherk 1969, no. 28A; InsAph 8. 25).

R52R53R54. Letters of Octavian to the inhabitants of Rhosos concerning Seleukos, from Rhosos in Syria, the first one (probably 42 BC) accompanying a decree, the two others (31–30 BC) independent.

Sherk 1969, no. 58; SEG 54, 1625.

R55. Letter of a Roman magistrate (fragmentary) to the Mylaseis, from Mylasa, post 39 BC.

Sherk 1969, no. 59; I. Mylasa 601.

R56. Letter of Octavian to Stephanos, from Aphrodisias, 39–38 BC.

Reynolds 1982, no. 10 (InsAph 8. 29).

R57. Letter ofStephanos to Plarasa / Aphrodisias, 39-38 BC.

Reynolds 1982, no. 11 (InsAph 8. 30).

R58. Letter of Octavian to Ephesus, from Aphrodisias, 39-38 BC.

Reynolds 1982 no. 12 (InsAph 8. 31).

R59. Letter of Octavian to the Mylaseis, from Mylasa, 31 BC.

Sherk 1969, no. 60; I. Mylasa 602.

R60–R61–R62: group of letters, most of them very fragmentary and of uncertain date, from Ephesos. Note (a) SEG 43, 768: extremely fragmentary letter (it might actually be the beginning of the letter SEG 43, 757), addressed to the gerousia of Ephesos, dated by the letter-shape to the second half of the first century BC; (b) SEG 43, 757: second century AD copy of a letter of Caesar or Octavian, extremely fragmentary; (c) SEG 43, 758: second century AD copy of letter of Octavian addressed to the council and the people of Ephesos, 29 BC. Three other letters, of which almost nothing remains, and whose date is uncertain, were part of this archive (SEG 43, 769–71), as well as a further eight letters, of imperial date.

R63. Letter (in Latin and with fragmentary Greek translation) of a Vinicius, preceded by a iussum of Augustus and Agrippa, to the Cumaeans, from Kyme in Asia, 27 BC.

Sherk 1969, no. 61.

R64. Letter of M. Agrippa to the Argive gerousia (the stone has also an inscription in honour of Alexander of Sicyon), from Argos, 17–16 BC.

Sherk 1969, no. 63.

(p.383) R65. Letter of Augustus (very fragmentary; traces of another letter as well?) to the Eresians, from Eresos, post 15 BC.

Sherk 1969, no. 64.

R66. Letter of C. Norbanus Flaccus to Aizanoi, confirming earlier decisions mentioned in a letter of Augustus, Aizanoi, between 19 and 10 BC.

MAMA IX 13; Wörrle, Chiron 41 (2011), 357–76.

R67. Letter of P. Fabius Maximus to the koinon of the Greeks of Asia (preserved in Greek and Latin, both versions very fragmentary), followed by two decrees of the koinon, from Apameia, Priene, Eumeneia, Dorylaion, and Maeonia, c. 9 BC.

Sherk 1969, no. 65, Rhodes with Lewis 1997: 396.

R68. Letter of P. Cornelius Scipio to the Thyatirenoi (possibly followed by a local decree), from Thyatira, 10–6 BC.

Sherk 1969, no. 66.

R69. Letter of Augustus to the Cnidians (followed by a letter of Hadrian to the Astypalaeans) concerning a murder affair, from Astypalaea, second half of 6 BC.

Sherk 1969, no. 67.

R70. Letter of Augustus to the Sardianoi, answering a decree of the city (all part of a dossier of twelve documents related to a citizen of Sardis called Menogenes), from Sardis, 5 BC.

Sherk 1969, no. 68.

R71. Letter of Cn. Cornelius Lentulus to the Nysaeans, inscribed in the context of the restoration of all the sacred writings by the strategos of Nysa Artemidoros and part of a huge dossier, from Nysa, 1 BC.

Sherk 1969, no. 69.