¹ Aristoteles, , Athenaion Politela ed. Chambers, M. (Leipzig 1986).Google Scholar All citations from the Ath. Pol. are taken from the Teubner text. I do not wish to enter into the thorny problem of the authorship of the text. The other two Greek writers who discuss Kleisthenes’ reforms are Herodotos v 69 and Isocrates vii 6. Only the passage in Ath. Pol. has anything on nomenclature. I would like to thank Professors George Huxley, Stephen Tracy, John Traill, and A.G. Woodhead, as well as the anonymous referees, all of whom have read and commented on this article in various drafts. of course, any errors which remain are my own.

² Kenyon, F.G., Aristotle on the constitution of the Athenians ³ (Oxford 1892) 69.Google Scholar

³ In his study of the Ath. Pol. he states dogmatically: ‘der aristotelische Bericht hat keinen Sinn wenn nicht Kleisthenes den Vatersnamen durch den Demos hat ersetzen wollen’. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U., Aristoteles und Athen (Berlin 1893) 169.Google Scholar This exchange, demotic for patronymic, was necessary for the achievement of that perfect equality (‘vollkommen gleich’) which Wilamowitz perceived as the overriding priority of Kleisthenes' reforms. For a more recent statement of this idea see P. Manville (n. 4 below) 191 n. 104, where he accepts the standard interpretation and attempts to explain it in terms of egalitarianism.

⁴ Among those who have accepted the idea of a name change are: Sandys, J. E., Aristotle's Constitution of Athens (New York 1912) 85Google Scholar; Levi, M. A., Commento storico alla Respublica Atheniensium di Aristotele (Milan 1968) vi, 223Google Scholar; Vanderpool, E., ‘Ostracism at Athens’, in Lectures in memory of Louise Taft Semple (Oklahoma 1973) 220Google Scholar; Whitehead, D., The demes of Attica 50817 to c. 250 BC (Princeton 1986) 11 and 69 ffGoogle Scholar; Manville, P., The origins of citizenship in ancient Athens (Princeton 1990) 190–191 and 188 n. 96Google Scholar; see also his cautionary note 104 on p. 191 where he explains more fully his position on the issue. There are of course others. Those who question the name change: Rhodes, P.J., A commentary on the Aristotelian athenaion politeia (Oxford 1981) 251–256Google Scholar; Hignett, C.A., A history of the Athenian constitution to the end of the fifth century BC (Oxford 1952) 131 and 137–140Google Scholar, hereafter referred to as HAC. Day, J. and Chambers, M.H., Aristotle's history of Athenian democracy (Berkeley 1962) 116Google Scholar including n. 55.

⁵ I have set the lower limit of this study at 450 because Perikles' citizenship laws may have influenced habits of nomenclature following this date, and furthermore this allows for two full generations following the reforms, an ample amount of time for changes to become manifest.

⁶ The stones which I have used are IG I³ 1–31, 230–35, and 259–262. In one or two cases, e.g. IG I³ 23 dated to a.447, I have allowed for a little variance in date. The stones which contain sufficient information are: IG I³ 4a.l4–15 & b.26; 5.1; 7.2; 8.3; 9.3–4; 10.3–4; 11.15; 12.1–2; 17.3A; 18.4–5 & 6–7; 21.2–3, 61 & 86; 23.3–5; 27.2–5; 30.2–3; 31.1,4,6; 259.1–2,3; 260.1; 261.1; 262.1.

⁷ Meiggs and Lewis state that the patronymic and demotic are ‘elements not found in Attic documents much before 350.’ Meiggs, R. and Lewis, D.A selection of Greek historical inscriptions (Oxford 1969) 50.Google Scholar A. S. Henry has noted the lack of any single naming system in use on a certain class of inscription. He notes in a discussion of early naming formulae: ‘… a detailed discussion is not included of the form which the object takes when the honorand is an individual (name-patronymic-ethnic/demotic: pronoun) simply because there is no systematic development of this aspect of the formulation’. Honours and privileges in Athenian decrees (Hildesheim 1983) 12 n. 2; see also p. 13 for some illuminating comments on later use of demotics. See further Henry's comments on the appear ance of demotics on a few decrees from the early fifth century in The prescripts of Athenian decrees (Leiden 1977) where he notes that the appearance of demotics in the early period is sporadic at best. See also Meritt, B., ‘Greek historical studies’ in Lectures in memory of Louise Taft Semple Ist Series (Princeton 1967) 99–132Google Scholar, especially 121–22.

⁸ In the absence of definite proof to the contrary, I have proceeded on the assumption that the majority of individuals named in the dedications from the Akropolis without demotic or ethnic are Athenian citizens. It is well known that some foreigners also set up dedications there (DAA 3 and 9, e.g.) and so we would not be surprised to learn that some of those dedications which lack demotic or ethnic were erected by foreigners. I feel quite certain that even allowing for the existence of such dedications, the findings of the following discussion would remain unchanged. I owe this observation to Professor John Traill, and am grateful that he brought it to my attention.

⁹ Raubitschek, A.E., with Jeffery, L.H., Dedications from the Athenian Akropolis: a catalogue of inscriptions of the sixth and fifth centuries BC (Cambridge, Mass. 1949) 474.Google Scholar This work is hereafter referred to as DAA.

¹⁰ DAA 474. These statistics are Raubitschek's; my own investigations do not agree with his numbers; see below n. 14.

¹¹ DAA 474.

¹² DAA 475.

¹³ For my own figures see the appendix in Kleisthenes and Athenian Nomenclature (diss. Ohio State University, 1989). I have listed two dedications which date to the period after 475 BC and have name and demotic only. Raubitschek, however, states (DAA 474) that there is only one dedication with name and demotic dated to post 475 BC: DAA 287. I have added to this category DAA 143, a base comprised of two fragments. Raubitschek suggests the possibility that the two fragments do not belong together and he therefore excludes it from his count. The restoration [ΔΕΜΕΤ]ΡΙΟΣ ΑΝΕ[ΘΕΚΕΝ ΑΠΑΡΧΕΝ ΑΑΟ]ΠΕΚΕΘΕΝ seems quite reasonable, and for the sake of the argument I have included it. There are two other inscriptions dating to post 475 BC with traces of what may be demotics (DAA 119, which Raubitschek has mistakenly included in his count of name and patronymic, and DAA 363), but, since the restorations are highly uncertain, they are not included in my totals.

¹⁴ For Perikles' citizenship laws see Ath. Pol. 26.4. Raubitschek recognized this as a possibility, DAA 476

¹⁵ Hignett, HAC 137–40.

¹⁶ If one assumes a law was passed, then one must also assume some means of enforcement. The one area in which Kleisthenes could have hoped to enforce any kind of legislation about nomenclature would be in written official documents. E.g., he might have said that if an official inscription lacked the demotic, he would prevent it from being set up; or if an ostrakon were not properly inscribed with name and demotic, it would not be accepted as a valid vote. We have no indication that any such enforcement was in place.

¹⁷ Lang, M., The Athenian Agora xxv: Ostraka (Princeton 1990).Google Scholar See Rhodes (n.4 267–271 for a recent discussion of the mechanics of ostracism. For all aspects of ostracism see now, Martin, A., ‘L'Ostracisme athénien, un demi-siècle de découvertes de recherches’, REG cii (1989) 124–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁸ Broneer, O., ‘Excavations on the north slope of the Acropolis 1937’, Hesperia vii (1938) 228–243.Google Scholar See Broneer n. 8. It should be noted that in the group of ostraka which Broneer found bearing Themistokles' name, all of those which had the demotic were inscribed by one hand. See further Lang's comments in the catalogue of Themistokles ostraka in Ostraka (n. 18) 142–161.

¹⁹ Kinzl, K., ‘On the consequences of following A.P. 21.4,’ AHB I (1987) 25–33.Google Scholar

²⁰ Wallace, R.W., The Areopagos council to 307 BC (Baltimore 1989) 39 ffGoogle Scholar, particularly 45, and 73. See, in addition to Wallace's comments, inter al., Sealey, R., A history of the Greek city states 700–338 BC (Berkeley 1976) 4–5, 90–91Google Scholar and 105 n.1, and Badian, E., ‘Archons and Strategoi’, Antichthon v (1971) 1–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar, passim but for one specific example, see his comments on p. 19. On the idea that Aristotle is drawing an inference from the practice in his day, see Day and Chambers (n. 5) 116, and Rhodes (n. 5) 254.

²¹ See Henry, Honours and privileges (n. 7) 13 f. Henry notes that after the mid-fourth century ‘by far the commonest form is name plus patronymic plus demotic …’.

²² The phrase is D. Whitehead's in Demes of Attica (n. 4) 70.