OSCAR W. REINMUTH 93
THE ATTIC ARCHONS NAMED APOLEXIS
It is the thesis of this article that there were three Attic archons who bore the name Apolexis in the second half of the first century B. G.
1. Apolexis, son of Philokrates of the deme Oion, inter 8/7 et 1.
2. Apolexis, archon, 21/0.
3. Apolexis, archon, 46/5.
The archon, Άπόληξις Φιλοκράτους εξ Οίου is unmistakably identified by his full legal name in I.G. II2 2997, 3-6, εν τώι επί Άπολή|ξιδος του Φιλοκράτους εξ Οίου άρχοντος ένιαυ|τώι. The patronymic alone is given with his name in Fouilles de Delphes III 2 (Paris, 1911) 64, n° 63, 1-2, ΈπΙ άρχοντο[ς] εν Δ[ελ]φοΐς Ξεναγόρα, Άθή[νησι]|δέ Άπολήξιδος του Φιλοκράτους. His date is firmly fixed between 8/7 and 1 B. G. (and more likely toward the end of the period than the beginning) by the contemporary Delphic archon Xenagoras in the XXIII priestship the terminus ad quern of which is generally accepted as 1 B. G.
Two of the eight texts which are dated simply επί Άπολήξιδος άρχοντος can be assigned to the year 21/0. J. A. Notopoulos (Hesperia 18, 1949, p. 12) observed that the secretary of the prytaneis in the decree published by I. Threpsiades, Έλευσινιακά I p. 225 (Athens, 1932), and dated by the editor between 20/19 and 1 B. G., was from the tribe of Attalis which by Ferguson's law of tribal cycles would place the archon in 21/0. The archon in Fouilles de Delphes III 2, 63, n° 61, 1-2, Έπί άρχοντος εν Δελφοΐς το δεύ| τερον Άντιγένους, Άθήνησιν δε Άπολήξιδος, was with increasing refinement assigned to the period 26-11 B. G. by G. Colin, op. cit. p. 68; 25/4-18/7 by P. Graindor, Chronologie des archontes athéniens, Brussels, 1922, p. 37, and P. Roussel, Mélanges Bidez, Brussels, 1934, II p. 819; 20/19 by W. B. Dinsmoor, Archons of Athens, Cambridge, Mass., 1931, p. 293 and G. Daux, Chronologie Delphique, Paris, 1943, p. 75 (« vers 20/19 ») ; and finally, as previously stated, by Notopoulos in 21/0.
The remaining six texts in which no identifying additions are made to the name of the archon Apolexis are : I.G. II2 1040+1025, 13-14 (1),
(1) The two stones have been joined. In Hesperia 34, 1965, pp. 255-272, I have presented a revised text with new readings and an analysis of the formulae and the structure of the decrees of this inscription which permit certain definite conclusions to be drawn on its place in the sequential development of the ephebia.
