Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Sacred and Public Land in Ancient Athens$

Nikolaos Papazarkadas

Print publication date: 2011

Print ISBN-13: 9780199694006

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: January 2012

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199694006.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2017. 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: 25 February 2017

(p.299) Appendix VII Catalogue of Lessees and Guarantors of Polis-controlled Temene

(p.299) Appendix VII Catalogue of Lessees and Guarantors of Polis-controlled Temene

Sacred and Public Land in Ancient Athens

Papazarkadas Nikolaos

Oxford University Press

General remarks

In the most recent study devoted to the investigation of the financial facet of leases of ‘public land’ (sic), Shipton made the rather astonishing claim that the vast majority of entrepreneurs involved in land transactions—either directly, through renting, or by implication, by providing sureties—consisted of nonentities.1 Her deductions appear all the more important for two reasons: firstly, because they oppose the previously held opinion that the liturgical class was heavily involved in such operations,2 and, secondly, because they contrast with the pattern emanating from Shipton’s own analysis of mine leases whereby wealthy Athenians were indeed wholeheartedly devoted to mine exploitation. Shipton’s attempt at quantification certainly had great potential, and yet it largely failed due to certain flawed preconceptions. In her chapter ‘Lenders in the Horoi’, she demonstrated commendable caution by enlarging her ‘Index of Prominence’ to allow for the frequent absence of patronyms in the hypothecation horoi.3 But what is inherently problematic in the formulaic texts of the lending horoi is equally, albeit incidentally, an obstacle with regard to the series of leases of sacred lands. In other words, the condition of most of the relevant stelae is so fragmentary that quite often we lack the name, the patronym, the demotic (or residence in the case of metics), or some combination thereof, of the lessee/guarantor of a given transaction. Shipton, however, chose to treat individuals lacking full prosopographical attributes as if they were fully documented, with the self-evident—and deceptive—result that they were all awarded ‘nonentities stars’, that is F status in accordance with the author’s jargon. To take just one example at random: what possible information could we gain from the name of the lessee Ἡρακλείδης (no. 29), since it lacks other attributes? Conversely, only individuals such as Appendix VII Catalogue of Lessees and Guarantors of Polis-controlled Temeneενοκράτης Γνιφωνίδου Μαραθώνιο[ς] (no. 61), who is otherwise unattested, can be securely classified as nonentities. As if this was not enough, Shipton classified as upstarts (p.300) lessees and guarantors who did meet the very criteria posed by her that would have allowed them to avoid the doom of F-status. The result was one where statistical analysis distorted the actual picture and thus an excellent opportunity was lost.

Thus, given that our statistical sample is at best paltry, a quantitative analysis can only be useful if accompanied by a reassessment of the prosopographical data which will take account of various qualifying sociopolitical factors. A rudimentary prosopographical analysis of those involved in leases conferred by the central polis-authorities has already been attempted by Walbank. Working before the appearance of the Lexicon of Greek Personal Names and the Persons of Ancient Athens, he raised a series of prosopographical points, some of which can be easily dismissed as sheer speculation.4 I have not commented upon such observations, but the interested reader should consult Walbank’s articles. But some other of his remarks have a sound basis and should not have been passed over so lightly by Shipton. I have merely commented below upon some of the identifications brought forward by Walbank by adding some further suggestions and by rejecting those that seem feeble on the basis of our evidence. Also included in the following catalogue are the four lessees attested in the Eleusinian records I.Eleusis 177 (IG II2 1672). The prosopographical tabulation has been formed on the blueprint of Lambert’s similar catalogue of people attested in Rationes Centesimarum.5 I have endorsed the Index of Prominence introduced by Shipton with the following modifications: (i) in classes C and D I have included lessees/guarantors whose ascendants/descendants too were active in one or more areas of activity apart from land leasing; (ii) I have included neither in the database nor in the statistical analysis individuals whose names are too defective to allow even the most speculative restorations; (iii) letters followed by question marks designate attributions which are possible, but not certain. Thus the index of prominence is built on the following principles:

  • Class A: liturgists.

  • Class B: ascendants/descendants of liturgists.

  • Class C: personal or family involvement in several areas of activity apart from leasing.

  • Class D: personal or family involvement in one area of activity apart from leasing.

  • Class E: several personal or family activities in leasing only.

  • Class F: one activity in leasing only.


  • 1. Αἰσχίνη[ς….7…]νίδου Πειραιεύς. Agora XIX L9, ll. 79–80.

    LGPN II, Αἰσχίνης (68) = PAA 115012.

    Lessee of an orchard. [Αἰσχρωv]νίδου has been suggested as the patronym (Walbank 1983b, 190 with n. 63), but this is far from certain. Restorations which do not assume the existence of a vacant space at the end of line 79 include [Εὐτελιω]νίδου, [Ἀνθεμιω]νίδου, [Αἰσιμιω]νίδου, [Ἀριστιω]νίδου; none of them is attested for Piraeus. Probably a vacant space did exist after all, but the possible restorations are so numerous that the patronym is best left unrestored and the lessee unidentified.6 F.

  • 2. Αἰσχύλος Ἱππίσκου Παιονίδης. I.Eleusis 177, l. 376.

    LGPN II, Αἰσχύλος (36) = PAA 116205.

    Lessee of an Eleusinian landholding (cf. Kirchner in the commentary of IG II2 1672; Davies in APF, pp. 7–8), not an ἐπιμελητὴς τῶν μυστηρίων. Well-known trierarch and choregos, member of a prominent Athenian family treated in APF 450. A.

  • 3. […..9….]ς Ἀλεξίου ἐξ Ο[ἴ(ου)]. Agora XIX L6, ll. 148–9.

    Father: LGPN II, Ἀλεξίας (5) = PAA 120225.

    Lessee of a temenos belonging to Zeus Olympios. The patronym is very rare (6 entries in LGPN II), and this in conjunction with the demotic makes it almost certain that the elusive lessee was a member of a well-known trierarchic family treated in APF. In fact, one may even restore the etymologically akin [Ἀλέξανδρο]ς, since it fits the lacuna perfectly. If so, the lessee would be the Alexandros mentioned by Hypereides in his speech In Defence of Euxenippos 12, as a prosecutor (cf. Whitehead 2000, 193–5). At any rate, the lessee should be awarded B status.

  • 4. Ἀντίμ[α]χο[ς]. Agora XIX L6, l. 166.

    LGPN II, Ἀντίμαχος (16); (not in PAA?)

    Lessee of a property belonging to Artemis Brauronia. The name is too common to allow identification. F.

  • 5. Ἀπήμων Ἀδε[……15…….] ἰσοτ(ελὴς): ἐμ Πειραιεῖ ο[ἰκῶν]. Agora XIX L6, ll. 133–4.

    LGPN II, Ἀπήμων (8) = PAA 140585.

    Lessee of a property. A metic of isotelic status. The restoration of the patronym would be either Ἀδε[ιμάντου] or, less likely, Ἀδε[ίστου]. Otherwise unknown. F.

  • 6. [Ἀ]ρισταγόρας Ἀριστοδήμ[ου….7…] ἐν Κυδαθηναίωι οἰκῶν. Agora XIX L6, ll. 6–7.

    LGPN II, Ἀρισταγόρας (22) = PAA 163340.

    (p.302) Lessee of a house in Kydathenaion. Otherwise unknown. The only prominent foreign resident in Attica who could be chronologically connected is the famous actor and politician Aristodemos of Metapontion who often mediated for the Athenians in their negotiations with Philip (FRA 3711 = Stephanis 1988, no. 332). On this assumption our Aristagoras might have been Aristodemos’ son. F?

  • 7. Ἀρ̣[ίστιππος] Ἡγησίππου ἐκ Κερ̣(αμέων). Agora XIX L9, ll. 82–3.

    Father: LGPN II, Ἡγήσιππος (8) = PAA 166085.

    Lessee of a swamp near Mounichia. The patronym is not rare, but not very common either (21 entries in LGPN II). Thus, Ἡγήσιππος can almost certainly be identified with the homonymous individual of the same deme, whose son Hegemon is attested as the ex-owner of a liberated slave (IG II2 1567, ll. 15–16: Λῦσις : ἐμ Πει : οἰκ : ἀποφυγὼν | Ἡγήμονα Ἡγησίππου : ἐκ Κερ : φιά : στα : Η). Note that Piraeus as the residence of the manumitted slave certainly reflects the locality of his master’s activities, which in turn ties in well with the same family’s engagement in leasing in the area of Piraeus. Since Agora XIX L9 dates to c.338–326 and the Attic Manumissions seem to postdate 330 (Lewis 1959a, 236–7), there is no way of establishing their exact chronological interconnection, so it suffices to keep in mind the Piraean interests of this family. At all events, it is very likely that the family descended from Ἡγησίστρατος Ἡγησίλεω ἐκ Κερ(αμέων), who features in the diadikasia-document SEG XXXII 171 (cf. Walbank 1983b, 190). The family appears to belong to the upper echelons of Athenian society (APF, p. 210). Class B.

  • 8. Ἀριστίων Ἀρ[- - -]. Agora XIX L6, ll. 107–8.

    LGPN II, Ἀριστίων (15) = PAA 166420.

    Guarantor of a lease undertaken by Theodotos. Identification is unattainable. F.

  • 9. Ἀριστόδημος Ἀριστοκλέους Οἰ[ν]αῖ(ος). Agora XIX L6, ll. 120–1; L9, ll. 40–1, 45–6.

    LGPN II, Ἀριστόδημος (52) = PAA 169050.

    Renter of 3 properties, the first of which is in Mesokomai. He is the individual who features by far the most frequently in our documents, and the only one who almost certainly appears in two different sets of leases. His father was Superintendent of the Docks, an office which Ἀριστόδημος himself held at a later age (IG II2 1623, l. 5). D.

  • 10. Ἀριστοκλ[είδης] Λυσανίου Προβαλί(σιος). Agora XIX L9, ll. 52–3.

    LGPN II, Ἀριστοκλείδης (13) = PAA 169840.

    Lessee. His identification with the father of the councillors of c.330 Λυσανίας and Κλεομήδης (Agora XV 47, ll. 38–9) seems very possible (thus now Traill in PAA 169835). In general the renter’s family seems to have been active at various levels of the administration. On the basis of the patronym Wallbank 1983b, 188 plausibly suggested that the renter’s brother was Ἀντικράτης Λ (p.303) υσανίου Προβαλίσιος, thesmothetes in 329/8 (IG II2 2836) and hieropoios in the only attested dedication of the Marathonian Tetrapolis (IG II2 2933). It is noteworthy that in the latter inscription the archon of the religious association of the Tetrapolis was also called Λυσανίας. We know that the cultic centre of the Marathonian Tetrapolis was indeed a Dionysion (Parker 1996, 332–1; Lambert 2000a, 69 on the unpublished SEG XLVIII 129). Divine epithets with the prefix Λυσι- are often attributed to Apollo, who in the context of the Tetrapolis is very closely associated with Dionysus (Lambert 2000a, 53–4 on SEG L 168; Lambert 2000b, 72). I therefore suggest that the agglomeration of Λυσι- names attested for people connected directly or indirectly to the Marathonian Tetrapolis is reminiscent of the centrality of the cults of Apollo and Dionysos to this particular cultic group. C.

  • 11. [Ἀριστοκλῆς?] Ἀριστοκλέους Ἁμα̣(ξαντεύς). Agora XIX L9, l. 26.

    Father: LGPN II, Ἀριστοκλῆς (41) = PAA 170155.

    Guarantor. Hamaxanteia was a small-size deme (bouleutic quota 2), so the restoration of the name suggested by Walbank 1983b, 186 is very likely to be correct. In this view our guarantor was son of a Treasurer of the Sacred Monies in 398/7 and perhaps himself a trierarch (cf. APF, p. 55). B.

  • 12. Ἀριστομένης Εὐπο[- - -]. Agora XIX L9, l. 81.

    LGPN II, Ἀριστομένης (8) = PAA 173120.

    Guarantor for a lease of an orchard. The patronym has been tentatively restored as Εὐπό[λιδος], but Εὐπο[λέμου] is equally possible (cf. Walbank 1983b, 190). Unidentified. F.

  • 13. Ἀρρε̣[νείδης] Χαρικλέους Παιανι(εύς). Agora XIX L10 ll. 42–3.

    LGPN II, Ἀρρενείδης (4) = PAA 204050.

    Lessee of a swamp. General, trierarch, entrepreneur, and member of the long-lived propertied family treated in APF 2254. Note that in I.Eleusis 177, l. 258 he is contracted with the haulage of earth to the Eleusinian shrine. A.

  • 14. Ἀρ̣[χέδη]μος Ἀρχεδήμο[υ] Αὐρί(δης). Agora XIX L6, ll. 10–11.

    LGPN II, Ἀρχέδημος (18) = PAA 209065.

    Guarantor for the lease of a house in Kydathenaion. Member of a liturgical family (APF 2321). B.

  • 15. […]ιτο̣[ς] [Α]ὐτολ̣ύ̣κ̣ου Π[ -]. Agora XIX L6, l. 83.

    Father: LGPN II, Αὐτόλυκος (9) = PAA 239840.

    Guarantor. Unidentified. F.

  • 16. Αὐτομένης Ἀνδρο[μ]ένους Ε̣[]. Agora XIX L6, ll. 11–12.

    LGPN II, Αὐτομένης (7) = PAA 241060.

    Lessee of a house in Kydathenaion. Both name and patronym are fairly unusual, but identification is impossible. F.

  • 17. Γνίφω[ν]. Agora XIX L14, l. 4.

    LGPN II, Γνίφων (4) = PAA 279800.

    (p.304) Lessee of a temenos? As acknowledged by Walbank 1984, 365, the name could well be Γνιφω[νίδης]. Both names, though rare, are attested in the late fourth century (cf. no. 18). F.

  • 18. Γνίφων Προκλέο[υς]. Agora XIX L10, l. 44.

    LGPN II, Γνίφων (3) = PAA 279820.

    Guarantor for the lease of a swamp. Son of Προκλῆς Γνίφωνος (the demotic is uncertain; cf. Walbank 1983b, 199), whose name is inscribed under a relief of three cavalrymen (IG II2 12523). The inscription is not sepulchral, but either a dedication by Prokles or part of a decree passed in his honour, and it has reasonably been inferred that Prokles was either a phylarch or a hipparch and hence a member of the census class of hippeis (Lawton 1995, 157 no. B186 with the earlier bibliography). D.

  • 19. [….7…]α̣τος Δημέου Χολαρ(γεύς). Agora XIX L6, ll. 76–7.

    Father: LGPN II, Δημέας (27) = PAA 306913.

    Guarantor in a lease of a property. His father is possibly the same as Demeas whose sepulchral stele has been found in Piraeus (IG II2 7772, Δημέα[ς] | Δημοκλέου[ς] | Χολαργεύ[ς]). F.

  • 20. Διονυσόδωρ[ος]. Agora XIX L6, ll. 41–2.

    LGPN II, Διονυσόδωρος (3) = PAA 360500.

    Guarantor of the lease of a temenos at Thria. The name is too common to allow identification. F.

  • 21. [Διο]ν̣υσόδω[ρος]. Agora XIX L6, ll. 47–8.

    LGPN II, Διονυσόδωρος (4) = PAA 360505.

    Lessee. Unidentified. F.

  • 22. [- - - ] Διονυσοδώρ[ου]. Agora XIX L14, l. 5.

    LGPN II, Διονυσόδωρος (7) = PAA 360430.

    Patronym of a guarantor (?). Unidentified. F.

  • 23. ᾽Ἐργόφιλος Φίλω[νος….8….]υλῆσι οἰκ(ῶν). Agora XIX L6, ll. 75–6.

    LGPN II, ᾽Ἐργόφιλος (13) = PAA 401178.

    Metic, lessee of a house consecrated to Zeus Olympios. Place of residence could be either [Ἀγρ]υλῆσι or [Ἀγκ]υλῆσι. Note that both places are located around Ardettos, therefore close to the shrine of Zeus Olympios, whose house Ergophilos rents; it is likely that Ergophilos is looking for an abode. On the basis of the restoration [Ἀγρ]υλῆσι Walbank 1983a, 128 tentatively identified enfranchised descendants of our metic, such as LGPN II, Φίλων (59) and (60), but this is by no means certain. In fact, even the patronym could be restored differently, e.g. Φιλω[νίδου] (thus Traill in PAA 401178 on unspecified authority), Φιλω[τάδου], Φιλώ[του], etc. Amongst non-Athenian residents in Attica the name ᾽Ἐργόφιλος occurs only once, borne by a slave serving as an oarsman in the late fifth century (IG I3 1032, l. 450; cf. FRA 7601). In fact, the name with its obvious labour connotations might well (p.305) belong to a descendant of a liberated slave (for ᾽Ἐργόφιλος as a typical Sklavenwunschname, see Fragiadakis 1986, 47–50). F.

  • 24. Ἑστιαῖος Λυ[- - - ]. Agora XIX L14, l. 3.

    LGPN II, Ἑστιαῖος (3) = PAA 423530.

    Guarantor of a sacred estate (?). Unidentified. F.

  • 25. [- - -]μαχος Εὐθί[ου?]. Agora XIX L14, l. 17.

    Father: LGPN II, Εὐθίας (4) = PAA 431570.

    Lessee? If the patronym is rightly restored, then one is tempted to supplement [Φυρό]μαχος Εὐθί[ου Κολωνῆθεν] on the basis of the grave-inscription IG II2 6522, Εὐθίας | Φυρομάχου | Κολωνῆθεν. However, the patronym Εὐθί[ου] is not certain. Εὐθί[ππου] is also a possibility, in which case one should opt for [Εὐθύ]μαχος Εὐθί[ππου Appendix VII Catalogue of Lessees and Guarantors of Polis-controlled Temeneυπεταιών], proposer of the decree Agora XV 78 in 273/2. D?

  • 26. Εὐθίας Φαι[- - - ]. Agora XIX L9, ll. 24–5.

    LGPN II, Εὐθίας (3) = PAA 431575.

    Renter of a property. Unidentified. F.

  • 27. Εὐθυκράτης Δρακοντίδου Ἀφιδναῖος. I.Eleusis 177, l. 373.

    LGPN II, Εὐθυκράτης (16) = PAA 433150.

    Lessee of an Eleusinian μίσθωμαestate (not an ἐπιμελητὴς τῶν μυστηρίων as erroneously maintained by Develin 1989, 390; Lambert 1997a, 158; Traill in PAA 433150; cf. no. 2 above). Councillor in 337/6 (IG II2 242, and now in Themos 2000–3=SEG LI 77) and, again, in 328/7, when he was honoured along with two other individuals for his exceptional contribution to a dedication offered by a group of councillors to Amphiaraos. He was descendant of Drakontides, one of the infamous Thirty Tyrants (son or great-grandson, according to Lambert 1997a, 158, but he could have been a grandson as well), so almost certainly of ultra-conservative, oligarchical, and hence wealthy background. A descendant (perhaps his son; cf. PAA 433155), Drakontides, son of Euthykrates, was proxenos of the Boeotian koinon in the early second century (I.Oropos 188). Our lessee is now thought to be one of the purchasers attested in the Rationes Centesimarum (Lambert 1997a, 158) This will be a striking case of a prominent individual heavily involved in landed investments, leasing and purchasing alike. It is noteworthy that the combination of the names Εὐθυκράτης and Δρακοντίδης occurs also in the prominent genos of the Eteoboutadai. C.

  • 28. Εὔ̣μη[λος]? [….8….ο]υ̣ Εὐ̣ω(νυμεύς). Agora XIX L6, ll. 88–9.

    Not in LGPN II. PAA 439310.

    Lessee of a property. The other possible restorations for the name are Εὐ̣μή̣[δης], Εὐ̣μη̣[λιάδης], Εὐ̣μη̣[λίδης], and Εὐ̣μή̣[νιος] (all rare), but only Εὔ̣μη̣[λος] is attested in Euonymon so that the proposed supplement seems very likely. Εὔμηλος ᾽Ἐμπεδίωνος Εὐωνυμεύς, Secretary of the Boule in 234/3 (IG II2 788; cf. Tracy 2003a, 168), and his son, ᾽Ἐμπεδίων Εὐμήλου Ε (p.306) ὐωνυμεύς, proposer of IG II2 839, decree concerning the finances of the Hero-Doctor, would have been prominent descendants. Note also that Ἀντίδωρος Εὐμήλου Εὐωνυμεύς, another possible descendant, served as ephebe in c.235 BC (SEG LII 146), at a time when ephebic status was contingent on high socioeconomic status. D?

  • 29. Ἡρακλείδη[ς]. Agora XIX L14, l. 6.

    LGPN II, Ἡρακλείδης (11) = PAA 484795.

    Lessee. Unidentifiable. F.

  • 30. Θεόδοτος Ἀπολλοδώρου [Ο]ἰ̣ν̣αῖ(ος). Agora XIX L6, ll. 106–7.

    LGPN II, Θεόδοτος (70) = PAA 505525.

    Lessee of a temenos. Probably older brother of the ephebe Πυθόδωρος Ἀπολλοδώρου Οἰναῖος (Walbank 1983a, 130); if so, the family was at least not poor. F.

  • 31. Θεόδωρος Κίρων[ος Πρ]ασι(εύς). Agora XIX L6, ll. 13–14.

    LGPN II, Θεόδωρος (224) = PAA 507360.

    Guarantor for a lease of a house in Kydathenaion. Θεόδωρος Πρασιεύς, a possible distant ancestor, features as Secretary of the Boule in IG I3 31 (cf. Develin 1989, 110), at a time when the post was filled by election and was held by men of distinction (Arist. [Ath. Pol.] 54.3, with Rhodes 1993, 601–3; cf. Taylor 2007, 337–9). Onomastics makes it very likely that these individuals belonged to the well-known Prasian trierarchic family of Poseidippos, son of Kirrias (cf. Walbank 1983a, 125, and Appendix IV: The Θεοδώρειον of the Prasieis). If the identification is correct, this will be the only case whereby members of the same family were involved in land-leasing conducted at both the polis and the deme level. B.

  • 32. [- - -]γ̣είτων Θεοπόμπου Α[- - -] . Agora XIX L14, l. 9.

    Father: LGPN II, Θεόπομπος (26) = PAA 509640.

    Guarantor? The common second element of the name and the multitude of Athenian demes starting with an alpha make identification impossible. F.

  • 33. Ἱππεὺς Κηφισοδ[ώρου Κυδα(θηναιεύς)]. Agora XIX L6, ll. 144–5.

    LGPN II, Ἱππεύς (3) = PAA 537800.

    Guarantor for the lease of a swamp. Apart from the telling aristocratic connotations of his rare name, Hippeus was councillor in 336/5 (Agora XV 42, l. 155). His son was honoured with citizenship by the Ephesians in the late fourth century (SEG XXXIII 932, l. 11). The family was prominent and its stemma has been reconstructed by Habicht 1987, 84. C.

  • 34. [Ἱππόστρα]τος ᾽Ἐτεα[ρχίδου Παλλη(νεύς)]? Agora XIX L11, ll. 2–3.

    New identification: not in LGPN II, PAA 423980.

    Probably guarantor of a property. There are very few Attic names which would fit the sequence of letters preserved from the patronym (᾽Ἐτεα[γόρας], ᾽Ἐτέα[νδρος], ᾽Ἐτεα[ρχίδης], ᾽Ἐτέα[ρχος]; all extremely rare), but the only (p.307) satisfactory restoration is [Ἱππόστρα]τος ᾽Ἐτεα[ρχίδου]. He was proposer of the decree IG II2 228. D?

  • 35. Καλλιάδης Αἰ[- - -]. Agora XIX L14, l. 7.

    LGPN II, Καλλιάδης (12) = PAA 552990.

    Guarantor. The name is common (72 entries in LGPN II, and 2 further entries in the Addenda) and in the absence of any further attributes identification is impossible. F.

  • 36. Κ[α]λ̣λ̣ι̣κ̣ρ̣ά̣της Κ[α]λ̣λι[κρατίδου Στειρι(εύς)]. I.Eleusis 177, l. 373.

    LGPN II, Κ[α]λλικράτης (93) = PAA 556925.

    Lessee of an Eleusinian μίσθωμαestate (not an ἐπιμελητὴς τῶν μυστηρίων, as has been repeatedly maintained, e.g. by Develin 1989, 390; Aleshire 1991, 134 no. 4; Traill in PAA 556925; cf. nos. 2 and 27 above). His son Καλλικρατίδης (ΙΙ) Καλλικράτους (Ι) Στειριεύς served as ἐπιστάτης of Artemis Brauronia (IG II2 1524, l. 127), as ἀναγραφεύς c.330 (IG II2 415, l. 23; for this annual democratic office see Ferguson 1898, 40–1; Dow 1963, 39–40; Rhodes 1972, 138: the honorific inscription implies that this magistracy was more important than usually assumed), and was one of ten dedicators in IG II2 2825, no doubt state-officials, to judge from the tribal order in which their names were recorded. For other members of this prominent family whose activity continues well into the Roman period, see Aleshire 1991, 134–7 with table VI. C.

  • 37. Κελεύων Ναυσιστράτου Πειρα̣[ιεύς]. Agora XIX L9, ll. 76–7.

    LGPN II, Κελεύων (1) = PAA 566200.

    Guarantor for a lease of an orchard, almost certainly acting in the interest of his son Ν̣[αυσίvv]στρατος Κελεύοντος [Πειραιε(ύς)] (Walbank 1983b, 190). The name is a hapax in Attic prosopography. E.

  • 38. Κη̣[φισόδω]ρος Σμικύθου Κυδαθη(ναιεύς). Agora XIX L6, ll. 14-15.

    LGPN II, Κηφισόδωρος (85) = PAA 568535.

    Lessee of a house in Kydathenaion. Nephew of the guarantor Hippeus (no. 33), he belonged to an active Athenian family (cf. Habicht 1987) and in 325/4 held the office of the Treasurer of Dockyards (IG II2 1631, ll. 350 ff. with Develin 1989, 402). C.

  • 39. Κηφισοφῶν Κεφαλίωνος Ἀφιδνα(ῖος). Agora XIX L6, ll. 99–100.

    LGPN II, Κηφισοφῶν (22) = PAA 569180.

    Lessee of a house at Kollytos belonging to Artemis Agrotera. This is definitely the most high-profile individual of the whole series. He functioned as general, lawgiver, and, more importantly, ἐπὶ τὸ θεωρικόν in 343/2 (for full discussion see APF 8410). No scholar has noticed that his tenure of the most significant financial office in fourth-century Athens coincides with the inception of the series of leases under examination. Various interpretations are possible. It may be that Kephisophon wished to function as an inspirational model for his fellow-citizens, thus inciting them to activities that would boost the state-revenue. Or, to take a gloomy view, he might well be (p.308) accused of corruption, in that he took advantage of his position in order to pursue his own profit. What cannot be disputed is that Kephisophon is almost emblematic of a class of prominent Athenians engaging in various activities of public life. A.

  • 40. [….7…]ς Κλεαινέτου ᾽Ἐρχι(εύς). Agora XIX L6, ll. 96–7.

    Father: LGPN II, Κλεαίνετος (9) = PAA 574375.

    Guarantor for the lease of a landholding belonging to Artemis Agrotera. Otherwise unidentifiable, he might be the father of the lessee Λυσ[ίμ]α̣[χος?] [?Λυσ]ικλέους ᾽Ἐρχι(εύς) for whom he acted as a guarantor; they share the same deme affiliation and the restoration [Λυσικλῆ]ς (or, less likely, [Σωσικλῆ]ς) fits the space available perfectly. F.

  • 41. Κλεότιμ[ος] [Ἀτηνεύς]? Agora XIX L6, l. 128.

    LGPN II, Κλεότιμος (1) = PAA 577975.

    Lessee. This common-looking name is in fact so rare (only 3 entries in LGPN II) that identification of our lessee with the only other fourth-century Κλεότιμος, a member of a liturgical family, is almost certain. Incidentally, the alternative restoration, i.e. Κλεοτιμ[ίδης], does not affect my argument at all, since the only known Κλεοτιμίδης from Classical Athens was a member of the same upper-class family (similar conclusions reached by Davies in APF, p. 318). B.

  • 42. Κριτόδημος Α̣[- - - ]. Agora XIX L6, ll. 37–8.

    LGPN II, Κριτόδημος (3) = PAA 585515.

    Guarantor of the lease of a temenos in Thria. Unexpectedly, the name is fairly uncommon (16 attestations in LGPN II, of which only 6 fall within the fourth century). It is tempting to restore Κριτόδημος Ἀ̣[ριστομάχου Ἀλ(ωπεκῆθεν)], which would make the lessee a member of a liturgical family (cf. APF 1969), but the identification should remain provisional. B?

  • 43. Λάχη[ς……….]δου ῾Ραμνο(ύσιος). Agora XIX L6, ll. 17–18.

    LGPN II, Λάχης (44) = PAA 602370.

    Lessee of a house in Kydathenaion. He features in a catalogue generis incerti (IG II2 2400, l. 10), and is now attested as councillor of the cleruchic Boule of Samos (IG XII (6) 262, l. 297, with Hallof and Habicht 1995, 282; cf. I.Oropos, index s.v. Λάχης). C.

  • 44. Λεοντεὺς Ἀντικλείδου Κ[υδαντ(ίδης)?]. Agora XIX L6, ll. 15–16.

    LGPN II, Λεοντεύς (9) = PAA 603090.

    Guarantor for the lease of a house at Kydathenaion. In the fourth century the patronym is attested in four different demes whose names start with a kappa, namely Kephisia, Kettos, Kydantidai, and Kydathenaion. However, the not so common name Λεοντεύς (20 entries in LGPN, only 6 in the fourth century) appears only in Kydantidai (twice), and Traill in PAA, probably correctly, identifies Kydantidai as the deme of our guarantor. The latter was probably relative (cousin?) of Λεοντεὺς Ἀντιφάνους Κυδαντίδης, proposer of (p.309) the well-known double decree of the demes Kydantidai and Ionidai, and of Λεοντεὺς Μενεστράτου Κυδαντίδης, kolokrates of the tiny Attic deme honoured in the same document (SEG XXXIX 148). The family obviously dominated the micropolitics of their deme, but in view of our guarantor they also got involved in more central transactions. Note that Traill also believes that Λεοντε[ύς], proposer of the decree IG II2 1267, of the religious dining-club Δαιταλεῖς, is either our man or a close relative. D.

  • 45. Λυκέας Λυ̣[- - -] [῾Ραμνούσιος?]. Agora XIX L6, l. 20.

    LGPN II, Λυκέας (4) = PAA 610150.

    Lessee of a house (?) in Kydathenaion. The name Λυκέας is firmly attested only in Rhamnous (see LGPN II, Λυκέας; cf. Choremi, Papazarkadas, and Petropoulou 2000–3, 87), hence the proposed restoration for the demotic. If the identification is sound, then our lessee belonged to a prominent Rhamnousian family. D.

  • 46. […9….]η̣ς Λυσίου Ἁμαξ(αντεύς). Agora XIX L6, ll. 81–2.

    Father: LGPN II, Λυσίας (54) = PAA 613910.

    Lessee of a house belonging to Zeus Olympios. Unidentifiable. F.

  • 47. […10…] Λυσιδή[μου] Κεφαλ(ῆθεν). Agora XIX L6, ll. 67–8.

    Father: LGPN II, Λυσίδημος (6) = PAA 614330.

    Gurarantor for the lease of a temenos in Hermos. The patronym, though rare, does not allow any sound identification. The elusive guarantor may be related to other known individuals of the same deme with names containing the lexical element λυσι-, such as Λυσίθεος, Λυσικλῆς, Λυσικράτης, and so on. F.

  • 48. Λυσιθείδης Λυσιμ̣[άχου] Οἰναῖος. Agora XIX L9, ll. 54–5.

    LGPN II, Λυσιθείδης (11) = PAA 614420.

    Epigraphically, the restoration of the patronym is the only one tenable and has to be considered certain. The descendant [Λ]υσίμαχος Οἰναῖος must have been well-off, to judge from his contribution of 200 drachmas, the highest allowed ἐπίδοσις, to the stratiotic fund of 248/7 (SEG XXXII 118, with Oliver 2007, 200–4), and it may not be very precarious to envisage retrospective prosperity for the family. The onomastics of the family stress a persistence of the prefix Λυσι*. It may be of some importance, therefore, that a name of the same derivation occurs in the family of the renter, for whom our Λυσιθείδης acted as guarantor, even though the former came from another deme (see no. 10 above); perhaps inter-family ties should be considered. D.

  • 49. Λυσ[ίμ]α̣[χος?] [?Λυσ]ικλέους ᾽Ἐρχι(εύς). Agora XIX L6, ll. 94–5.

    LGPN II, Λυσίμαχος (55) = PAA 616395.

    Lessee of a landholding belonging to Artemis Agrotera. Despite the entry in LGPN II the restoration of the name is not certain; Λυσ[ιφ]ά̣[νης] and Λυσ[ιχ]ά̣[ρης] are also possible. Fortunately, all 3 restorations leave a (p.310) three-letter space for the missing beginning of the patronym. Of the 15 possible restorations for the father’s name, only 4 occur in Erchia, namely Ἀμφικλῆς, Ἀρχικλῆς, Λυσικλῆς, and Σωσικλῆς. But of those, Ἀμφικλῆς and Ἀρχικλῆς are only attested in the third century, and Σωσικλῆς in the first century AD, so that none of them provides any likely identification. Λυσικλῆς appears more tempting, especially in the light of its first composite which would be shared with the name of the lessee, on whatever restoration of the latter. Significantly, Λυσικλῆς of Erchia was the son of Isocrates’ adoptive son Aphareus (APF 9433). However, the generation successions do not work perfectly and, unless we accept some family link on the matrilineal side, our individual should probably be dissociated from the pedigree of Isocrates. F?

  • 50. Με̣[ι]δ[ί]ας [.]υδ[- - -]. Agora XIX L11, l. 7.

    LGPN II, Μειδίας (6) = PAA 637205.

    Guarantor. Unidentifiable. F.

  • 51. Μειδύλος Μειδυλίδου Ἀζηνιεύς. Agora XIX L6, ll. 103–4.

    LGPN II, Μειδύλος (2) = PAA 637480.

    Lessee of a temenos belonging to Zeus at Kynosarges. Otherwise unknown, but Μειδύλος, councillor in 281/0, is a certain descendant, given that the name is very rare (3 entries in LGPN II), and the deme small (bouleutic quota 2; see Traill 1975, 68). A less likely connection can be made with [Μειδω]ν̣[ί]δης Ἁ̣γν̣[ο]δ̣ήμου Ἀζηνιεύς, buyer of a landholding for 4000 drachmas in the Rationes Centesimarum (cf. Lambert 1997a, 167–8). D.

  • 52. Μοίριππος Μοιραγ[έ]νους [Κυδαθ]η(ναιεύς). Agora XIX L6, ll. 8-9.

    LGPN II, Μοίριππος (2) = PAA 658425.

    Guarantor for the lease of a house in Kydathenaion. The name is a hapax (see LGPN II Addenda, s.v.). Although assigned F-status by Shipton, on the basis of IG II2 1524 Moirippos was the son of the epistates of the Brauronion in 350/49 (Walbank 1983a, 125; unjustifiably, not endorsed in LGPN II). D.

  • 53. [Μο]σ̣χίων Εὐφαμίδο[υ]. Agora XIX L6, ll. 36–7.

    LGPN II, Μοσχίων (6) = PAA 659260.

    Lessee of a temenos at Thria. The patronym is a hapax in Attic prosopography, unless we allow for Εὐφαμίδας, which appears in a kalos-inscription on a black-figure alabastron (ABV, p. 666). Otherwise, Εὐφαμίδης is only known as that of an ‘operarius’ at Aigina (see IG IV2.2 1007, where Hallof considers the name Hellenistic precisely because of the Ionic termination), whereas Εὐφαμίδας, let alone Εὔφαμος, is known from other places of the non-Ionic world (see LGPN I, III.A, III.B, IV, s.vv. Εὐφαμίδας, Εὔφαμος). One wonders whether we have here an enfranchised Athenian of Doric origin, or even one of the very few foreign lessees. F.

  • 54. [ - - - ] [Μ]ύος Φαλ[(ηρεύς). Agora XIX L11, ll. 9–10.

    Father: LGPN II, Μῦς (3) = PAA 663440.

    (p.311) Lessee of a property in the area of Phaleron. The rare patronym has allowed identification of the lessee’s father with the homonymous contractor in IG II2 1673.6. D.

  • 55. Ναυ〈σ〉[ία]ς Νικοστράτο[υ Ἀτηνεύς?]. Agora XIX L6, l. 125.

    LGPN II, Ναυσίας (2) = PAA 701485.

    Lessee of a gyes (?). The name, if read correctly, is fairly unusual, with 13 entries in LGPN II. Strangely, the small Atene is the deme with the highest percentage of attestations (2 certain cases and 1 possible). One of these individuals was Νικόστρατος, son of Ναυσίας, a fact that leaves few if any doubts about the demotic of our individual. The Nikostratos in question was recognized as benefactor of Oropos and was honoured accordingly. His father Nausias was thesmothetes in 216/5. The epitaph of Nikostratos has been found in Phyle. Strangely, this family from the southernmost tip of Attica appears to have been active near the north border of their polis. Interestingly, the property rented by Nausias was probably located in the Marathonian Tetrapolis or thereabout.7 Last but not least, a Nausias from Atene held the prestigious office of Secretary of the Assembly and the Council in c.378/7 (Develin 1989, 229; cf. PAA nos. 701495, 701500). No doubt, the family was important. C.

  • 56. Ν̣[αυσίvv]στρατος Κελεύοντος [Πειραιε(ύς)]. Agora XIX L9, ll. 74–5.

    LGPN II, Ναυσίστρατος (21) = PAA 702440.

    Lessee of an orchard. His name is restored on the basis of the lessee’s patronym (see no. 37). Traill in PAA suggests identification of this individual with the homonymous contractor (ἐργώνης) known from the building-accounts of Epidauros (IG IV2.1 103). D.

  • 57. Νικόδη[μος] […5]κράτους Μυρρινούσι[ος]. Agora XIX L9, ll. 67–8.

    LGPN II, Νικόδημος (46) = PAA 714355.

    Guarantor for a lease of an orchard. There are numerous ways to restore the patronym and, since it seems that letter spaces were occasionally left uninscribed at the end of lines, it is tempting to supplement Νικόδη[μος] [Νικοv]|κράτους. But even on this reading, our man cannot be identified with [Νικό]δημος Νικοκρ[άτους], president of the epistatai in the decree IG II2 490, since the latter’s demotic consisted of 8 letters only. Walbank 1983b, 189, followed by Vivliodetis 2005 [2007], 214, has suggested identification of Nikodemos’ father with Φειδικράτης Δημοσθένους Μυρρινούσιος of the grave stele IG II2 6906, but one might also consider identification with Καλλικράτης of the epitaph IG II2 6895. F.

  • 58. Νικόστρατος Ν[- - - Ἀτη(νεύς)]. Agora XIX L6, l. 126.

    LGPN II, Νικόστρατος (16/17) = PAA 718000.

    (p.312) Guarantor, almost certainly stepping in for his own son. For the demotic and the family, see no. 55 above. It is tempting to restore the patronym as Ν[αυσίου], in which case the guarantor could have been the son of Nausias, Secretary of the Boule in c.378/7. C.

  • 59. Νικόφημος Φορ̣[……12……] [῾Ραμ]ν̣[ο(ύσιος)?]. Agora XIX L9, ll. 87–8.

    LGPN II, Νικόφημος (4) = PAA 719120.

    Lessee of a garden. In line 89 the dotted nu ought to belong to the demotic of the lessee. Since there is a tendency on the stone for word and syllable division across lines, this nu should actually be the fourth letter of the demotic. Two possibilities arise then: [Εὐω]ν̣[υ] or [῾Ραμ]ν̣[ο]. The name Νικόφημος, though rare, is attested in both demes, but, amongst the possible restorations for the patronym, Φορ̣[μίωνος] is the only one attested in any of the demes, namely in Rhamnous. Νικόφημος Φορ̣[μίωνοςvvvvvv] [῾Ραμ]ν̣[ο(ύσιος)] should therefore be considered as a very remote possibility, but no more. F.

  • 60. [- - -]ς Νίκωνος Ἀχαρ[ν(εύς)]. Agora XIX L6, ll. 113–14.

    Father: LGPN II, Νίκων (32) = PAA 720175.

    Guarantor for the lease of an unknown property. The patronym is common (170 entries in LGPN II), but it is worth noting that amongst Acharnians it is attested for a prytanis of 360/59 (Agora XV 17. 57) and for a deceased man (SEG XXI 839) who may be the same as the prytanis and perhaps a member of a liturgical family (see APF 9480). B?

  • 61. Appendix VII Catalogue of Lessees and Guarantors of Polis-controlled Temeneενοκράτης Γνιφωνίδου Μαραθώνιο[ς]. Agora XIX L9, ll. 47–8.

    LGPN II, Appendix VII Catalogue of Lessees and Guarantors of Polis-controlled Temeneενοκράτης (29) = PAA 732895.

    Guarantor. Unidentified. F.

  • 62. [- - -] ς Appendix VII Catalogue of Lessees and Guarantors of Polis-controlled Temeneενοκρίτο[υ] Ἀφ[ιδ(ναῖος)]. Agora XIX L6, l. 164.

    Father: LGPN II, Appendix VII Catalogue of Lessees and Guarantors of Polis-controlled Temeneενόκριτος (4) = PAA 733075.

    Guarantor. Neither the man nor the father can be identified, but their family can be traced down to the second century (IG II2 5769). What is more, a descendant was priest of Asklepios in the mid-third century (IG II2 1534 with Aleshire 1991, 164–5). F.

  • 63. Appendix VII Catalogue of Lessees and Guarantors of Polis-controlled Temeneεν[……16……] Προβ(αλίσιος). Agora XIX L6, ll. 116-17.

    Not in LGPN II.

    Lessee of a property. Walbank 1983a, 131 tentatively restored Appendix VII Catalogue of Lessees and Guarantors of Polis-controlled Temeneεν[οπείθης Appendix VII Catalogue of Lessees and Guarantors of Polis-controlled Temeneενοφῶντος] Προβ(αλίσιος), identifying him with Appendix VII Catalogue of Lessees and Guarantors of Polis-controlled Temeneενοπείθης, father of a councillor of 304/3, but the supplement is one letter too long. He is, however, almost certainly related to his guarantor [Appendix VII Catalogue of Lessees and Guarantors of Polis-controlled Temeneενοφῶν?] Appendix VII Catalogue of Lessees and Guarantors of Polis-controlled Temeneενοφῶντος Προβ(αλίσιος) (no. 64), but we had better concede that we cannot work out either the onomastics or the exact connection. F.

  • 64. [Appendix VII Catalogue of Lessees and Guarantors of Polis-controlled Temeneενοφῶν?] Appendix VII Catalogue of Lessees and Guarantors of Polis-controlled Temeneενοφῶντος Προβ(αλίσιος). Agora XIX L6, ll. 117–18, 121–2.

    (p.313) PAA 734405 (not in LGPN II); father: LGPN II, Appendix VII Catalogue of Lessees and Guarantors of Polis-controlled Temeneενοφῶν (43) = 734404.

    Guarantor of two leases. The restored name, though epigraphically tenable, is by no means certain. Since he comes from the same deme as the first lessee for whom he puts in security (no. 63 above), and since their names share the same first element, they are probably related (cf. Walbank 1983a, 131). F.

  • 65. Ὀλυμπιό[δωρος] Δι̣ογείτονος Ἀχ[αρνεύς]. Agora XIX L9, ll. 84–5.

    LGPN II, Ὀλυμπιόδωρος (23) = PAA 743030.

    Although printed with a question mark in Agora XIX L9, the restoration of the name is certain. The demotic can either be Ἀχ[αρνεύς] or Ἀχ[ερδούσιος], but taken independently the name and the patronym only occur in the deme of Acharnai, so that Ἀχ[αρνεύς] looks almost certain. In that case, Ὀλυμπιόδωρος would have been the son of the Treasurer of Athena, Diogeiton (IG II2 1388, l. 5; 1391, l. 8; 1392, l. 5), as already acknowledged—albeit hesitantly—by Walbank 1983b, 190–1. This Diogeiton was also Superintendent of the Dockyards in 377/6 (IG II2 1604, l. 2, with Develin 1989, 237). He was considered impartial enough to be appointed as common arbitrator in a lawsuit concerning the infamous Neaira ([Dem]. 59.45; 47). At any rate, given pseudo-Aristotle’s information that the Treasurers of Athena were chosen by sortition amongst members of the pentakosiomedimnoi even in the 320s (Arist. [Ath. Pol.] 8.1; 47.1, with Rhodes 1993, 550–1; cf. Davies 1981, 36–7), Olympiodoros certainly belonged to a well-off family (see now Taylor 2007, 334–5, who also accepts that Treasurers came from the ranks of the wealthy). B.

  • 66. Παυσίστρατος Λυσιμάχου Πειρ(αιεύς). Agora XIX L6, ll. 101–2.

    LGPN II, Παυσίστρατος (3) = PAA 770350.

    One of the two guarantors acting on behalf of the grand Kephisophon. The name is very rare, but this individual is otherwise unattested. Note, however, that his co-guarantor Philophron appears as a mine lessee, so that our Pausistratos may well be the homonymous lessee in Agora XIX P24. At any rate, by virtue of his patronym he is probably related to Λυσίμαχος who along with his brother was honoured by the citizen orgeones of Dexion in IG II2 1252. D.

  • 67. […5]βουλος Πεισικλέου[ς]. Agora XIX L9, ll. 65–6.

    Father = LGPN II, Πεισικλῆς (1) = PAA 771540.

    Lessee of a garden. The patronym is very rare (4 entries in LGPN II, one of whom is our individual), and in the fourth century it only occurs in the deme Anaphlystos. Unidentified. F.

  • 68. Πολέμ[ων Δι]οκλέους Φλυε(ύς). Agora XIX L6, ll. 9–10.

    LGPN II, Πολέμων (24) = PAA 776770.

    Lessee of a house in Kydathenaion. His father was a prominent opponent of Isaeus’ clients and, although Davies was reluctant to include him in the liturgical class (cf. APF 8443), he must have been well-off. A possible, albeit (p.314) remote, descendant Σώπατρος Πολέμωνος Φλυεύς, was a member of the Boule c.30 (SEG XXVIII 95), at a time when membership in the Council was more or less dependent upon social prominence. D.

  • 69. […10…]της Πολυκλέους [Προβαλίσιος?]. Agora XIX L9, ll. 42–3.

    Father: LGPN II, Πολυκλῆς (7) = PAA 779035.

    Guarantor of a lease. Only names ending in -κράτης give restorations long enough to fill the estimated lacuna before the preserved letters of the guarantor’s name, so that [….7…κρά]της Πολυκλέους seems a fair supplement. As for the long demotic, given that all the individuals named in ll. 40–55 appear to have come from the Marathonian Tetrapolis, it ought to have been Μαραθώνιος, Προβαλίσιος, or Τρικορύνθιος (Οἰναῖος is too short), of which only Προβαλίσιος meets the epigraphical requirement of 11 letters; in any case the name Πολυκλῆς is not attested at Trikorynthos at all, and is only attested for Marathon in the Roman Imperial period. A Πολυκλῆς Προβαλίσιος was councillor in 336/5 (Agora XV 42. 164), and a possible relative (son?), Πουλυτίων Πολυκλέους, was councillor the year after (Agora XV 43. 64–5). If my suggestion for the demotic of the elusive lessee is correct, the latter may be related to the councillor and/or his alleged son. D?

  • 70. Πυθόδωρος Φιλοκλέους ᾽Ἐπι(κηφίσιος). Agora XIX L6, ll. 78–81.

    LGPN II, Πυθόδωρος (51) = PAA 794550.

    Father of a lessee of a house belonging to Zeus Olympios, acting also as guarantor for his own son; almost certainly the same man as the homonymous proposer of the deme decree IG II2 1205. D.

  • 71. Σιλανὸς Σωσίππ[ου]. Agora XIX L6, ll. 108–9.

    LGPN II, Σιλανός (1) = PAA 819950.

    Guarantor of the lease of a temenos. Although the name is rare, the patronym is more common and in the absence of the demotic no identification can be made. F.

  • 72. Στέφαν[ος] [….7…]δου Παια(νιεύς). Agora XIX L6, ll. 139-40.

    LGPN II, Στέφανος (63) = PAA 834535.

    Guarantor acting on behalf of a metic lessee. Unidentifiable. F.

  • 73. Σ̣ώ̣ϊ̣το[ς] […6…]ενίδο[υ] Παιανιεύς. Agora XIX L6, ll. 91–2.

    LGPN II, Σώϊτος (1) = PAA 855070.

    Lessee of a landholding and a house belonging to Artemis Agrotera. As Traill in PAA duly notes, the only attested Attic name fitting the missing letters of the patronym is [Αὐτοσθ]ενίδο[υ], but this is an extremely rare name occurring only in the deme Xypete. F.

  • 74. Σωνδρίδης Σ̣[ωστρ]άτου ᾽Ἐροιά(δης). Agora XIX L9, ll. 58–9.

    LGPN II, Σωνδρίδης (2) = PAA 857565.

    Lessee of a gues. In all appearances, the father of Nausistrate, dedicatrix of IG II2 4026. The inscribed dedication, a marble base of large dimensions, was (p.315) obviously expensive and, though Kron 1996, 160–6 has justifiably advocated caution in automatic assignment of costly dedications by female offerands to upper-class families, the dedication in conjunction with the transaction in question probably shows that the family of Sondrides was affluent. D.

  • 75. Σωσίδημος Γλαύκω[νος]. Agora XIX L9, l. 72.

    LGPN II, Σωσίδημος (5) = PAA 861325.

    Guarantor for the lease of an orchard. Otherwise unidentified, he might be a relative of Γλαύκων Σωσικράτου Χολλείδης, attested as a member of an honouring committee in I.Rhamnous 19. However, on this assumption, the abbreviated demotic would have been Χολ, which would have provided scope for confusion with the deme Χολαργός. It has to be noted that whereas Γλαύκων is a fairly common name (51 entries in LGPN II), Σωσίδημος is only attested 10 times. Paradoxically, the three demes in which Σωσίδημος occurs (Acharnai, Alopeke, Xypete) have also produced instances of Γλαύκων. All things considered, identification appears impossible. F.

  • 76. [Τελεσίας] [Τελ]έστου Π̣ροβ(αλίσιος). Agora XIX L6, ll. 112–13.

    PAA 879305; father: LGPN II, Τελέστης (16) = PAA 879870.

    Lessee of a property. The combination of the rather uncommon patronym with the demotic makes the restoration of the name of the lessee certain. Syntrierarch treated in APF 13519. A.

  • 77. Τιμόθεος Τιμοκράτου̣[ς…5]. Agora XIX L9, l. 71.

    LGPN II, Τιμόθεος (7) = PAA 886045.

    Lessee of an orchard near Mounichia. Although both name and patronym are banal (110 and 130 entries in LGPN II, respectively), the combination does not occur in any deme. Unidentified. F.

  • 78. Τιμοκλῆς Τιμοκράτο[υς]. Agora XIX L6, ll. 143–4.

    LGPN II, Τιμοκλῆς (5) = PAA 887080.

    Lessee of a swamp. The names are so common that any effort to connect the patronym with those in the preceding and the following entries of this catalogue (nos. 77, 79) is hazardous. F.

  • 79. [….8….]τος Τιμοκράτ[ους]. Agora XIX L6, ll. 40–1.

    Father: LGPN II, Τιμοκράτης (12) = PAA 887895.

    Lessee of a property. Identification of the lessee’s father with the father of the lessee Τιμοκλῆς (no. 78), though tempting, ought to be resisted. F.

  • 80. Ὑπερείδης Γλαυκίππου Κολλυ(τεύς). I.Eleusis 177, l. 382.

    LGPN II, Ὑπερείδης (3) = PAA 902110.

    Lessee of the Eleusinian Rharia. The eminent Athenian orator and politician. Member of a liturgical family (APF 13912). There is indirect evidence that Hypereides’ renting of the ῾Ραρία could have had speculative ramifications and should not be seen as a liturgical manifestation of piety. An anecdote concerning his life has it that Hypereides was owner of private property at (p.316) Eleusis, which he was wont to use as a resort for his erotic encounters with the prostitute Phila ([Plut.] Mor. 849d). Since Hypereides was registered in the city-deme of Kollytos, there is a slight chance that the private property attested in [Plutarch] was his base for the supervision of his investments in the ῾Ραρία (the connection is now noted by Clinton 2008, 226). A.

  • 81. Φίλαγρος Λε[…9….]. Agora XIX L6, ll. 135–6.

    LGPN II, Φίλαγρος (3) = PAA 922020.

    Guarantor of a lease undertaken by a metic. The name is of average frequency (32 entries in LGPN II), but on the basis of the remains of the patronym it is tempting to restore Φίλαγρος Λέ[οντος Ἁλαι(εύς)] (thus already Walbank 1983a, 132; the suggested supplement is likely because the 9 missing letters demand a fairly short name for the patronym). If so, the guarantor was a member of the liturgical family treated in APF 14208 bis. B?

  • 82. Φιλιά̣[δης]. Agora XIX L6, l. 168.

    LGPN II, Φιλιάδης (3) = PAA 927185.

    One of two guarantors for the lease of a property belonging to Artemis Brauronia. The name is accompanied by a question mark in Agora XIX and in LGPN II, no doubt because Φιλία̣[ς] is epigraphically acceptable, although it is a hapax in Attic prosopography. Φιλιά̣[δης], however, is rare too (5 further entries in LGPN II). F.

  • 83. Φιλοκράτης Φιλοκράτ̣[ους Ἀχα(ρνεύς)?]. Agora XIX L9, l. 60.

    LGPN II, Φιλοκράτης (18) = PAA 937675.

    Guarantor for the lease of a gues. The demotic is not certain and hence this individual is not included amongst the Acharnians in LGPN II. If he is, however, to be identified with the Acharnian individuals (as per Traill), he should be promoted to class B.

  • 84. Φιλόφρων Φιλοκλέους Πειραι(εύς). Agora XIX L6, ll. 100–1.

    LGPN II, Φιλόφρων (7) = PAA 952050.

    One of two guarantors acting on behalf of Kephisophon. This ‘F class’ individual, according to Shipton, turns out to be an energetic Athenian with a presence even outside the borders of Attica. The name is rare enough to make identification with Φιλόφρων Πειραιεύς of the mine leases Agora XIX P9 and P26 almost certain. His epitaph has been found in Imbros (IG XII (8) 110, with Cargill 1995, no. 1342). Together with Κηφισοφῶν Κεφαλίωνος Ἀφιδνα(ῖος) (no. 39), the two compose a dynamic duo which seems to encompass everything characteristic of the most advanced section of Athenian society: active participation in politics, multifaceted economic activities, distinguished social profile. C.

  • 85. Φίλων Φίλτωνος ἐκ Κοί(λης). Agora XIX L6, ll. 104–5.

    LGPN II, Φίλων (122) = PAA 955475.

    (p.317) Guarantor for the leasing of a temenos. His homonymous grandfather is mentioned by Isocrates as having been a member of an Athenian embassy (Isoc. 18.22), so he must have been of some standing (Briant 1968, has demonstrated that Athenian ambassadors effectively constituted a specialized, almost ‘semi-professionnel’ institution; Xen. [Ath. Pol.] 1.18, with Marr and Rhodes 2008, 93, assumes that ambassadors, along with generals and trierarchs, came from the upper class). Φίλων ἐκ Κοί(λης), a possible descendant, was stationed in the fortress of Eleusis in the mid-third century (IG II2 1958). D.

  • 86. Φορμί[ων] [….7…] [Φα]λη(ρεύς) vel [Παλ]λη(νεύς). Agora XIX L6, ll. 69–70.

    LGPN II, Φορμίων (24) = PAA 963115.

    Lessee of an orchard (or more than one?) near Ilissos. The less common Φορμί[δης] and Φορμί[σιος] are also possible, though they would demand an extremely short patronym. Unidentifiable. F.

  • 87. Φόρυσκος̣ […6…ἐν Ἀ]λ̣ω(πεκῆι) : οἰ(κῶν). Agora XIX L6, ll. 138–9.

    LGPN II, Φόρυσκος (10) = PAA 963420.

    Lessee of an estate. Metic. Lewis apud Walbank 1983a, 132–3 suggested that Φορυσκίδης Ἀριστομένου Ἀλωπεκῆθεν might have been an enfranchised descendant. However, a cursory look at the LGPN volumes would suffice to demonstrate that Φόρυσκος is a good Athenian name already in the fourth century, whereas outside Attica it is extremely uncommon (not attested in LGPN IIIA or IV, 1 entry in LGPN I, 1 entry in LGPN IIIB, both in the early Hellenistic period). In view of this, it seems more possible that the name passed from Athens into the family of our metic, rather than the other way around. But if so, then the connection of Phoryskos to Attica must have been at least one generation old, a fact that has to be taken into consideration when exploring the topic of metics as lessees. F.

  • 88. Χαιρέστ[ρατος] [….8….] Σφήτ(τιος). Agora XIX L6, ll. 129–30.

    LGPN II, Χαιρέστρατος (52) = PAA 975225.

    Guarantor. Unidentified. F.

  • 89. [Χαριναύτης? Χα]ιρίωνος Φαλη(ρεύς). Agora XIX L6, ll. 64–5.

    LGPN II, Χαριναύτης (5) = PAA 983860.

    Guarantor. The name has been restored on the basis of the patronym. A Chairion (LGPN II s.v. Χαιρίων (19) ) was Secretary of the Boule in 361/0 (IG II2 116, l. 6). A likely relative (brother?) of our guarantor is [- - -]νοκλῆς Χαιρίωνος Φαληρεύς, councillor in the democratic Boule of 304/3 (Agora XV 59. 7; 61. 245). D.

  • 90. [Χαριάδης Χ]αιροκλέους Λευκο[νο(ιεύς)]. Agora XIX L6, ll. 18-19.

    PAA 980360. Father: LGPN II, Χαιροκλῆς (5).

    Guarantor for a lease of a house in Kydathenaion. The patronym is so rare (5 entries in LGPN II, only 2 in the fourth century; Walbank 1983a, 126 is (p.318) wrong to state that it is a common name) that the restoration of the guarantor’s name on the basis of Χαριάδης [Χ]αιροκλέος of Leukonoion, councillor in 370/69 (Agora XV 13, ll. 35–6) is almost unquestionable. Obviously, the guarantor would have been of advanced age at the time of his surety (see no. 91). D.

  • 91. [- - - ]ς Χαριάδ[ο Λευκονο?]. Agora XIX L6, ll. 33–4.

    Father: LGPN II, Χαριάδης (18) = PAA 980365.

    Lessee of a property. Numerous restorations are possible, so identification ought to remain tentative, though the editors of LGPN II have hesitantly accepted the identification of this Χαριάδης with the alleged guarantor no. 90. E.

  • 92. […9…. Χ]αρίου Παια(νιεύς). Agora XIX L9, l. 29.

    Father: LGPN II, Χαρίας (64) = PAA 981505.

    Renter of a property. Possibly a descendant of Χαρίας Παιανιεύς, candidate for ostracism in c.417–5 (Brenne 2001, 128–9). He may be related to the guarantor Χαιρ̣[…5] [Χαρίου] Παιανιε(ύς) (Agora XIX L9, ll. 36–7). D?

  • 93. [3.]έ̣ξανδρος Χαριδήμο̣[υ] Πρ̣[οβαλίσι]ος (or Πρ̣[οσπάλτι]ος). Agora XIX L9, ll. 30–1; 35–6.

    Father: LGPN II, Χαρίδημος (55) = PAA 982560.

    Guarantor and lessee. The only possible restorations for the defective name are [Ἀλ]έ̣ξανδρος and [Δ]έ̣ξανδρος. The 3 missing letters printed in L9 are not a problem, since elsewhere in our record the chiseller has left uninscribed letter-spaces (e.g. l. 27: [τ]ούτω v τὼ γύα; l. 29: [Χ]αρίου v Παια:). Thus, [Ἀλ]έ̣ξανδρος, being one letter longer, is only marginally preferable, though neither it nor [Δ]έ̣ξανδρος were common in the Classical era (Ἀλέξανδρος became very popular in the Hellenistic period, no doubt because of Alexander the Great, but this is not the case here). In fact, it is not even certain whether the same individual acted as guarantor and lessee in two different transactions, but the patronym suggests that in the second case the lessee would have been the brother of the guarantor. Otherwise unidentifiable. E.

  • 94. Χαρίδη[μος]. Agora XIX L14, l. 13.

    LGPN II, Χαρίδημος (12) = PAA 981840.

    Lessee of a temenos? The rare Χαριδη[μίδης] is a remote possibility. Unidentifiable. F.

  • 95. Χα[ρικλῆς?] [. .]ά̣θωνος Λακ̣(ιάδης). Agora XIX L6, l. 93.

    Father: cf. LGPN II, Γνάθων (10) = PAA 279245.

    Guarantor. The patronym [Γν]ά̣θωνος is not self-evident; the more common [Ἀγ]ά̣θωνος is also a possibility, but neither is attested for the deme Lakiadai. However, both names leave 6 missing letters to be supplemented in the name of the guarantor. Of the twenty (20) different options starting with Χα- only Χαρικλῆς is attested in Lakiadai (councillor in 303/2 in Agora XV 62; his (p.319) patronym, which starts with a sigma, does not allow identification with our guarantor, though they could have been cousins). D?

  • 96. [- - -]τ̣ο̣ς Χαρίσο̣[υ]. Agora XIX L6, ll. 149–50.

    Father: LGPN II, Χάρισος (1) = PAA 985430.

    Guarantor. The patronym is extremely rare (on top of our individual 3 more entries in LGPN II). Of his son’s name only the ending -τ̣ο̣ς is preserved. One could possibly restore [Θεόδο]τ̣ο̣ς Χαρίσο̣[υ Σφήτ], on the basis of Χάρισος Θεοδότου Σφήττιος, councillor and proposer of the honorific decree IG II2 489 in 303/2. On this supplement, our guarantor would have been the father of the proposer, but identification should remain uncertain. D?


  • CLASS A: 5 (5.21%)

  • CLASS B: 11 (11.47%)

  • CLASS C: 9 (9.37%)

  • CLASS D: 23 (23.96%)

  • CLASS E: 3 (3.12%)

  • CLASS F: 45 (46.87%)

Citizen Lessees and Guarantors

Of those engaging in land-leasing at the polis level 5 were liturgists and 11 were certainly or very likely members of liturgical families (5.21+11.47 =16.68%).8 9 appear to have been actively engaged in various fields of public life, even if they did not demonstrably belong to the upper echelons of Athenian society (9.37%). Moreover, 23 individuals were very possibly active in public life or belonged to families which were active (23.96%). It is noteworthy that upper-class Athenians involved directly or indirectly in land-leasing constitute a percentage very close to that of their peers attested at the level of mine-leasing.9 What is more, the statistical analysis offered here is deliberately minimalistic and thus distorting. Most of those classified in class F lack various attributes and it is almost certain that otherwise some of them would have been identifiable, in which case the respective percentages of those grouped in the other classes would have risen considerably.10 All in all, the real wonder is not that there are few lessees and guarantors (p.320) from the upper strata of Athenian society, but that there are too many,11 as already noted by Rosivach in a rather overlooked study.12

Yet the cold logic of mathematics fails to bring out some subtler aspects of the issue in question, aspects which can be more efficiently investigated by looking at what I would tentatively label ‘mini-patterns’. Such are, for instance, geographical considerations, professional interests, family ties, political aspects, and religious concerns. Direct access to the leased properties would have been a factor to consider before any lessee decided to bid for a given property. This appears to have been the case with two of the lessees who rented houses located at Kydathenaion, namely Kephisodoros of Kydathenaion and the metic Aristagoras whose registered abode lay in the same deme. Similar considerations apply to the orchards at Mounichia leased by the Peiraieis Nausistratos and Aischines as well as to a seaside property at Phaleron rented by the son of Mys of Phaleron. I have already argued that the leasing of a swamp in Mounichia by Aristippos (?) of the deme Kerameis reflects his family’s financial engagements in the area of the port. Last, but not least, one can mention the case of Hypereides, the lessee of the Rharia, who was also owner of private property in the wider area of the Thriasian plain. However, all things considered, geographical propinquity does not seem to have been as predominant a pattern as one would have thought.

But the cases of Hypereides and Aristippos (?), especially that of the latter, clearly demonstrate that geographical proximity is not some abstract concept, but has to be construed in terms of accessibility. This is nowhere clearer than in the case of Arrheneides (no. 13). Not surprisingly, his trierarchic status has blurred a very interesing aspect of his leasing activity: Arrheneides had leased a swamp that was consecrated to Athena. Osborne, evaluating this and other instances of wealthy Athenians leasing sacred properties, hazarded an interpretation: ‘Their motives may well not have been purely financial: holding these lands conceivably brought a certain social advantage’. This may well be true, but Arrheneides’ leasing of the marsh was almost certainly motivated by financial interest. We have already seen that the other less- (p.321) than-glaring professional activity for which Arrheneides is known is his contract with the Eleusinian administrators. For a mere 12 drachmas and 3 obols, Arrheneides undertook to transport Skiran earth to Eleusis. It is inconceivable that Arrheneides himself would have cared to enter a one-off transaction for such a small profit. Surely this was just a small part of his overall business. We can now see what was there for Arrheneides in his bidding for Athena’s swamp: marshes, swamps, et similia are prime sources of high-quality earth, and, more importantly, of clay. Arrheneides, the lessee, could easily have extracted the clay from Athena’s swamp and sold it for a profit to the Eleusinian authorities. All the better, then, that he could prove himself a pious individual to two major deities, while advancing his own interest.

Another mini-pattern discernible in our leases concerns family-based behaviour.13 The family factor is of course indisputable in cases where fathers appear to have stepped in as guarantors on behalf of their sons and vice versa, as, for instance, in the case of Keleuon and Nausistratos of Piraeus or the elusive lessee of a house near the Dionysion and his father Pythodoros of Epikephisia. The same can be said about the leasing undertaken by Nausias, son of Nikostratos, a transaction supported by his father.14 No surprise here, since the pattern is detectable at the deme-level as well.15 But family bonds seem to permeate leasing transactions in a far more elaborate way that defies our understanding. Thus Kephisodoros of Kydathenaion features as renter of a house at Kydathenaion, whereas his uncle Hippeus was the surety for the lease of a swamp which is by no means connected to the transaction of his nephew. Maybe such a case merely demonstrates purely entrepreneurial interests on the part of the individuals involved and we should not try to detect any specific significance in the family aspect. But what about the son of Charias of Paiania who rented a property for which Alexandros(?), son of Charidemos, of Probalinthos (or Prospalta) stood as guarantor and who (or his brother) in return was the surety of a property rented by a relative, possibly a brother, of this Alexandros?16 In the end, it has to be conceded that the fragmentary condition of our data may be distorting the final picture, especially since family links outside the strict patrilineal line are difficult to trace.17

(p.322) It has often been thought that religious motives might have instigated certain lessees. One suspects that this might be the explanation behind the mini-pattern emerging in the cluster of names in Agora XIX L9 ll. 38–55, where, apart from the dubious case of the son of Polykles (but see no. 69), all the remaining lessees and guarantors originate from demes of the Marathonian Tetrapolis. The prosopographical analysis shows that, despite coming from different, albeit adjacent, demes, those individuals might have been linked through family and religious affiliations (see no. 10). Indeed, it is not inconceivable that links built within the framework of associations such as phratries, gene, thiasoi, and similia might account for some of the lessee-guarantor pairs emerging in our records in a way that cannot be traced. From a slightly different perspective, it is noticeable that some of the individuals in our database are connected, directly or indirectly, through close relatives, to religious offices.18 Again, one can counter-argue that such positions were essentially political in nature; with this observation we can proceed to our final mini-pattern.

Political aims should also be taken into consideration. As shown in the prosopographical appendix, one of the most prominent lessees in our database is the Aphidnian Kephisophon. Now, it has largely passed unnoticed that in 343/2, the date of our leases, Kephisophon took over the administration of the theoric fund (IG II2 223C ll. 6–7). Far from being a happenstance, this chronological coincidence could be viewed from two different angles. On the one hand, Kephisophon’s tenure of the office would have enabled him to outbid any potential rivals in the case of competitive bidding. On the other hand, by engaging in a transaction de facto profitable for the Athenian coffers Kephisophon would have provided an eloquent example worthy of emulation. No doubt, the leasing of the Rharia would have constituted a useful tool of religious propaganda for the politically ambitious Hypereides too. Kallikrates of Steiria was lessee of an Eleusinian estate in 331/0, and interestingly his son Kallikratides was ἀναγραφεύς at approximately the same time, that is, he held an office de facto connected to the leasing procedure in Athens. For two individuals there is evidence that they or their families were quite prominent in the micropolitics of their demes.19

It is true that land leases in comparison to mine operations attracted a slightly less conspicuous agglomeration of individuals. This is easily explicable, since mining provided a bigger profit margin. This is not to say, however, that lessees and guarantors attested in our records consisted mainly of nonentities. On the contrary, a lot of them belonged to the upper and middle strata of Athenian society. Overall, the theory that the leasing scheme in Athens should, to some extent, be seen as a measure of social policy (p.323) whereby the Athenian polis enabled the landless citizens to acquire agricultural property should be discounted.20 Not only is concrete evidence of such poverty-relief measures lacking, the contemporary programme of land privatization known as Rationes Centesimarum points in the opposite direction.21 The theory which would see the Athenian polis deliberately diminishing its income in order to assist impoverished citizens has no place in the Euboulean and Lykourgan programmes of increasing Athenian revenue. Far from being one man’s job, the religious rejuvenation of Athens, which is so often connected to the Eteoboutad Lykourgos, had the energetic material support of some of the most prosperous segments of Athenian society, as prosopographical analysis demonstrates.

Metics as Lessees of Sacred Lands

A trait of the leases of sacred lands that has struck scholars as inexplicable is the tiny proportion of metics attested as lessees; only four metics feature in our sources.22 And, despite what has been frivolously reiterated as a truism,23 the prosopographical analysis shows that all four of them are otherwise completely unknown. What is more, there is some evidence, albeit tenuous, which allows us to believe that one of the metic lessees was the descendant of a slave.24 Elsewhere I argued that, prior to the legislative change that gave rise to the bulk leases of 343/2 onwards, metics had probably been barred from renting sacred property. It is worth asking, therefore, why, even after the bestowal of this right, they were not heavily involved in land-leasing. This abstention is hardly reconcilable with the fact that legal prohibitions on acquisition of land by foreigners would have presumably made leases an attractive prospect to metics. To put it otherwise, since no realty placed as security was required in order to bid for a lease, metics could easily participate in auctions where temene were put up for sale.25 Various explanations could be put forward. The circumstances under which the average metic would have decided to settle in Attica must be accounted for. The vast majority of the free foreign residents in Attica were mostly engaged in (p.324) professions other than agriculture.26 The scope of land-leasing was, however, predominantly agricultural. It results from this that even when opportunity arose, inexperience might have discouraged metics from engaging in the agricultural sector of the economy. On the other hand, the fact that two of the four metics in our records are attested as having rented houses fits well with their easily understood concern to obtain domiciles. In fact, one of them, Ergophilos, almost certainly rented a house near his registered place of residence. But this remark brings us back to a slightly altered form of the principal question, namely why more metics do not appear to have sought to acquire residences through leasing.

Osborne’s contention that social convention and the religious connotations of leasing property nominally belonging to Athenian divinities should be seen as the reason for metics’ underrepresentation in land leases has some strength, but demands further analysis, since it says as much about metics as it does about the leasing agents. Surely, it is tenable that for an Athenian to render service to a cult by providing income through renting could be an incentive strong enough to force him to outbid even over-ambitious foreigners.27 On the other hand, the final decision about whom any given lease would be assigned to lay with the Athenian governmental instruments. More precisely, the whole procedure lay under the auspices of the Boule. This council was the ultimate authority to decide whether to ratify a certain lease or not and, although its role is often overlooked as a mere formality, there might have been cases where it would have annulled certain transactions as void.28 Recently, it has been strongly argued that, despite metics being theoretically allowed to make full use of the Athenian judiciary machinery, they more often than not found themselves in a social environment of animosity and inefficiency.29 Though this claim was made with regard to lawsuits, it is not difficult to see how a similar principle could apply to the realm of economy. Each metic was required by law to have the protection of a προστάτης (prostates), but the exact bond between the two parties remains debatable. It seems a fair guess that in a public auction where a metic would bid for a temenos, he would need the presence of his prostates, and, equally plausible, that the latter would serve as the metic’s guarantor. Only a few metics would have been able to break through the ideological barriers. In this light, the fact that one of the four metics was an isoteles—he had been given (p.325) various rights normally restricted to citizens—might be taken to demonstrate that only a few chosen ones would be acceptable as foreign lessees.30 The equally noticeable absence of metics from mines leases probably corroborates this hypothesis.31


(1) Shipton 2000, 39–49.

(2) Osborne 1985a, 54–6; 1988; Foxhall 1992, 157.

(3) Shipton 2000, 20: ‘The horoi records very rarely give patronyms and so identification is much less certain…’.

(4) For example, identifying a priori individuals of few attributes with the most famous homonymous Athenians or metics often builds a circular argument.

(5) Lambert 1997a, 149–82.

(6) I only note that an Αἰσχίνης (no further qualifications) is recorded in the 4th-cent. epitaph IG II2 11352 from a family grave found at Piraeus.

(7) See Walbank 1983a, 120–1.

(8) Class A: nos. 2, 13, 39, 74, 78. Class B: nos. 3, 7, 11, 14, 18, 31, 41, 42, 58, 63, 79, 81.

(9) Mine-leasing: 18.87%; cf. Shipton 2000, 30–7.

(10) See the commendable notes of Rosivach 1994, 126–7, who in his polite criticism of Walbank’s treatment of the same set of data, duly observed that the ‘assumption that anyone who cannot be identified as either rich… or famous must be poor is a very hazardous one’.

(11) This applies to a limited chronological period: that of the 340s–320s. There is hardly any prosopographical evidence from the 5th cent. with the possible exception of Παναίτι[ος], lessee of sacred land at Hestiaia in IG I3 418 l. 6, identified by Raubitschek 1943 with the well-known Παναίτιος of the Attic Stelai (who, in turn, has been identified with the Παναίτιος of Ar. Eq. 243, member of the cavalry class; cf. Sommerstein 1997, 155–6). The rarity of the name along with the chronological range makes identification highly likely (see now Moreno 2007, 90); if so, Panaitios’ prominence portends the 4th-cent. pattern. And let me briefly mention here that Lambert 2001, 59–60, after hesitantly interpreting the Lykourgan SEG XLV 206 as a lease record, has suggested identification of the man in l. 9, ‘lessee, guarantor, property owner vel sim.’, with Χίονις Δημοστράτου Παιανιεύς, member of a propertied family.

(12) Rosivach 1994, 126–7.

(13) Cf. Andreyev 1974, 43.

(14) Walbank 1983d, 224–5.

(15) e.g. IG II2 2496 (renter: Εὐκράτης ᾽Ἐξηκίου Ἀφιδναῖος; guarantor: ᾽Ἐξηκίας Ἀφιδναῖος).

(16) See no. 93 with Walbank 1983d, 225 n. 114.

(17) Particularly with regard to onomastics deriving from the maternal line (Pomeroy 1997, 72–5) and/or as a result of adoption (Habicht 1994, 127; cf. Rubinstein 1993, passim); see also Osborne 1985a, 127–53 for the intricate realities of kinship links.

(18) e.g nos. 10, 11, 65.

(19) Nos. 44, 70.

(20) Cf. Andreyev 1974, 44 (hesitantly); Walbank 1983d, 225; Shipton 2000; Shipton 2001, 143. The existence of any systematic ‘sozialstaatliche Politik’ in Classical Athens is dismissed as anachronistic by Engels 2000, 117–19.

(21) Lambert 1997a, 280–91.

(22) Nos. 5, 6, 23, 87; cf. Todd 1993, 249 (Cohen 2000, 127 is entirely mistaken in claiming that ‘religious and social associations… often leased local property to… metics’).

(23) Walbank 1983a, 128, 132–3; 1983d, 224 n. 113; more emphatically Osborne 1988, 289.

(24) See no. 23 (᾽Ἐργόφιλος). But the point may be totally irrelevant: as Cohen 1998 has recently reminded us, some slaves were extremely wealthy.

(25) Osborne 1988, 289 with n. 28.

(26) Whitehead 1977, 70–1; Davies 1981, 50–1; Németh 2001, 336 (Jones 1960, 91 points out the metics named γεωργοί, ‘farmers’, in RO 4, but some might, in fact, have been slaves; cf. Jameson 1977, 134–5; Rhodes and Osborne 2003, 27).

(27) Whitehead 1986, 157–8.

(28) Shipton 2000, 48.

(29) Patterson 2000, passim, building on the doctrines of Whitehead 1977; contra Walbank 1983d, 218–19 n. 81, who thinks that Athens ‘made no attempt to stop metics from renting such properties’.

(30) Cf. Andreyev 1974, 43.

(31) Shipton 2000, 45–6.