PA 
 
 OLIN 5f 
 UBRARYc 
 
CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 
 
 924 074 296 959 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of this book is in 
 the Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924074296959 
 
In compliance with current copyright 
 law, Ridley's Book Bindery, Inc. 
 produced this replacement volume 
 
 on paper that meets the ANSI Standard 
 Z39. 48-1984 to replace the 
 irreparably deteriorated original. 
 
 1992 
 
API2TOTEAOT2 
 A0HNAIHN nOAITEIA 
 
©vforS 
 
 PRINTED AT THE CLARENDON PRESS 
 
 BY HORACE HART, PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY 
 
A0HNAIJ1N nOAITEIA 
 
 ARISTOTLE 
 
 ON THE 
 
 CONSTITUTION OF ATHENS 
 
 EDITED BY 
 
 F. G. KENYON, M.A. 
 
 FELLOW OF MAGDALEN COLLEGE, OXFORD 
 ASSISTANT IN THE DEPARTMENT OF MANUSCRIPTS, BRITISH MUSEUM 
 
 THIRD AND REVISED EDITION 
 
 PRINTED BY ORDER OF THE TRUSTEES OF THE BRITISH MUSEUM 
 
 SOLD AT THE MUSEUM 
 
 and by Longmans and Co., 39 Paternoster Row 
 
 B. Ouaritch, 15 Piccadilly; Asher and Co., 13 Bedford Street, Covent Garden 
 
 Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner and Co., 57 Ludgate Hill, London 
 
 also by Henry Frowde, Clarendon Press Depot, Oxford 
 
PREFACE 
 
 The first edition of Aristotle's Constitution of Athens 
 was published in January 1891, and the second, which 
 was little more than a reprint, almost immediately 
 followed. The third edition, now issued, has been 
 carefully revised and corrected throughout. 
 
 EDWARD SCOTT, 
 
 Keeper of MSS. 
 
 British Museum, 
 
 2$th January, 1892. 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 TO THE FIRST EDITION 1 
 
 When Neumann in 1827 edited the Fragments of the 
 rioAn-eTcu of Aristotle he lamented, not unnaturally, ' eheu 
 amissum est in sempiternum praeclarum opus, nisi e 
 palimpsestis quibusdam fortasse eruatur.' The field which 
 now shows the greatest promise of restoring to us some of 
 the lost works of antiquity had then hardly been opened 
 up at all, and. there was little sign that Egypt might still 
 return to the modern world some of the treasures which 
 were committed to her by the ancient. Since that date 
 discoveries of no little value have been made among the 
 papyri which have from time to time been brought to 
 Europe and are now preserved in the great libraries of 
 England and the Continent. Several papyrus MSS. of 
 parts of the Iliad, dating from the first century before the 
 Christian era to the fourth or fifth after it, are now known 
 to the world, which, though they have not affected the text 
 of Homer in any appreciable degree, are yet of interest as 
 carrying back the tradition of it for many centuries before 
 the earliest MS. that was previously known. Fragments 
 of Thucydides, Plato, Euripides, Isocrates, Demosthenes, 
 and other classical authors have been discovered, which, 
 
 1 [This Introduction is reprinted with verbal alterations and a few omissions. 
 Some notes have been added, which are distinguished from those which appeared 
 in the first edition by being enclosed between square brackets.] 
 
viii INTRODUCTION. 
 
 while not of any great importance in themselves, were 
 hopeful signs of the discoveries which might be expected 
 in the future. More than this, there have been one or two 
 finds of works hitherto completely lost, and these are of 
 course the great treasures of the papyrus literature. They 
 include a mutilated fragment of Alcman, now at Paris 
 (quoted in Mahaffy's Greek Literature, vol. I. p. 172), and 
 several orations of Hyperides, all of which (with the 
 exception of one lately reported by M. Revillout to be in 
 the Bibliotheque Nationale of Paris) are preserved in the 
 British Museum 1 . The British Museum has now the 
 satisfaction of publishing the latest and most important 
 addition to the extant stock of classical Greek literature, 
 the often-quoted but hitherto lost 'Adrjvaiwv UoMreia of 
 Aristotle. 
 
 None of the lost works of Aristotle is so much quoted 
 by the writers of the early centuries of the Christian era as 
 the rioAimai, which, containing as it did a summary of the 
 political constitutions of a hundred and fifty-eight states of 
 all kinds, was a storehouse of historical information for 
 subsequent ages. The portion relating to Athens, together 
 with those relating to Corinth and Pellene, may possibly 
 (though this is doubtful) have been in the library of Cicero 
 
 1 To the discoveries here mentioned should now be added the very interesting 
 fragments of Plato and Euripides which have been found by Professors Sayce and 
 Mahaffy among the papyri brought from Egypt by Mr. Flinders Petrie. Apart 
 from the fact that they include a portion of the lost Antiope of Euripides, they 
 are considerably the earliest classical MSS. at present known to us, dating 
 (according to the Professors' letters in the Academy of Oct. nth, and the 
 Athenaeum of Oct. 25th and Dec. 6th, 1S90) from the third century B.C. 
 Further, the British Museum has recently acquired several classical papyri, 
 among which, in addition to some interesting early fragments of Homer, 
 Demosthenes, and Isocrates, is the conclusion of a speech which may perhaps 
 be ascribed to Hyperides, and also several of the lost poems of the iambo- 
 grapher Herodas. [These texts have since been printed, the Petrie papyri in 
 Cunningham Memoirs, No. VIII, edited by Dr. Mahaffy and published by the 
 Royal Irish Academy, and the British Museum MSS. in Classical Texts from 
 Papyri in the British Museum, published by the Trustees of the British 
 Museum.] 
 
INTRODUCTION. ix 
 
 {ad Att. II. 2) ; it is quoted by Plutarch in the first century 
 of the Christian era ; it was largely used by Pollux in the 
 second ; its name occurs in a catalogue of a library in the 
 third (Zundel in Rhein. Mus. 1866, p. 432); in the fourth 
 it is repeatedly cited by Harpocration ; in the sixth we 
 know, on the evidence of Photius, that it was used by the 
 rhetorician Sopater *. On the other hand Photius himself, 
 three centuries afterwards, does not seem to have known 
 the work otherwise than in quotations by earlier writers; 
 and any references to it in grammarians and compilers of 
 later date are probably made at second hand. Between 
 the sixth and the ninth century it disappeared and was 
 seen no more until in this nineteenth century it has once 
 more been brought to light. The treatise on Athens was 
 naturally the part which was of most interest to the 
 scholars of the Greek world after the date of Aristotle, 
 which was most frequently quoted in their works, and 
 which was no doubt most frequently copied ; and it is 
 therefore not surprising that this, rather than any other 
 portion of the work, should have been preserved from the 
 library of an Egyptian scholar of one of the early centuries 
 of the Christian era. Tastes will differ as to whether we 
 could have wished some other lost work of Greek literature 
 to have been returned to us rather than this. Some might 
 have preferred an addition to our stock of poetry, in a new 
 tragedy of Aeschylus or of Euripides, to have recovered 
 another play of Aristophanes or to have broken fresh 
 ground with a specimen of the New Comedy of Menander. 
 Others might wish that, if the discovery were to be histor- 
 ical, it might be an Ephorus by which we might check the 
 accuracy of Plutarch, or a Theopompus to throw light on 
 
 1 Heitz and Rose believe all these quotations from Aristotle to be taken at 
 second hand from the compilations of Didymus or other early writers, and that 
 the work of Aristotle was lost at a very early date. As we now know that the 
 latter was not the case, their arguments for the most part fall to the ground. 
 
x INTRODUCTION. 
 
 the obscure details of the period of Alexander. But if it 
 were to be an additional authority on the period which we 
 already know comparatively well, but in which much still 
 remains in obscurity and open to conjecture, no work could 
 be named of equal value artd authority with Aristotle's 
 Constitutional History of Athens. 
 
 A short description of the MS. is necessary, in order to 
 understand the state in which the text has come down to 
 us. It is imperfect at the beginning ; but this appears 
 to be due to the first chapters never having been written 
 (probably because the MS. from which this was copied was 
 imperfect or illegible in that part), and not to the subsequent 
 loss of any part of the papyrus ; for a blank space has been 
 left before the first column of writing, which was no doubt 
 intended to receive the beginning of the work. The latter 
 portion of the MS. has, however, suffered severely ; but 
 the fortunate fact that another document (of which more 
 is said below) is written on the other side of the papyrus 
 enables us to estimate with tolerable accuracy the extent 
 of the mutilation. There are four separate lengths of 
 papyrus, which no doubt were originally distinct rolls. 
 The first of these is complete, or nearly so (the only doubt 
 being as to whether a larger space was left blank to receive 
 the commencement of the work than now remains), and 
 measured, when acquired by the Museum, 7 ft. 2\ in. in 
 length. It has since been divided, for convenience of 
 mounting, into two pieces measuring 4 ft. a\ in. and 3 ft. 
 respectively. This roll contains eleven broad columns of 
 writing ; the later ones are in good condition, but the 
 earlier ones are badly rubbed and often very difficult to 
 decipher. The second roll measures 5 ft. 5^ in., and 
 contains thirteen much narrower columns, in fairly good 
 condition throughout. The third measures 3 ft., and 
 contains six broad columns, which have been put together 
 from a large number of fragments ; but one of these is 
 
INTRODUCTION. xi 
 
 very imperfect, and there are several other small lacunas 
 in this part of the papyrus. The fourth roll is purely 
 fragmentary ; its original length may be estimated, partly 
 by the help of the writing on the other side of the papyrus, 
 at 3 ft., but no column except the last remains perfect, and 
 the writing is miserably defaced and in many places quite 
 illegible. The height of the papyrus is throughout about 
 ii inches, except in the fourth roll, which measures 
 rather less than 10 in., and which, as appears from the 
 matter on the other side, was taken from a different piece 
 of papyrus. 
 
 The text is written in four hands. The first is a small 
 semi-cursive hand, employing a large number of ab- 
 breviations of common syllables, such as rrjv, r?;?, nepi, km 
 (see list at end of Introduction). The writing is not that 
 of a professional scribe, but is on the whole very correct 
 and easy to read wherever the papyrus has not been badly 
 rubbed. This hand includes the first twelve columns 1 , 
 which vary in width from 4^ to 11 inches, each containing 
 from forty-three to forty-eight lines of close writing. The 
 second hand is uncial of fair size, written in a plain but not 
 very graceful style, and with habitual mis-spellings and 
 mistakes which show that the writer was not a scholar nor 
 a well-educated person. Many of the mistakes are corrected 
 in the first hand, which suggests that the writer of that 
 hand was a scholar who desired a copy of Aristotle's work 
 for his own library, while the writer of the second was a 
 slave or professional scribe employed by him to complete 
 the transcript. Columns thirteen to twenty are written in 
 this hand ; they are much narrower than the preceding 
 
 1 The sequence of these columns is broken after the middle of the tenth, by 
 a column and a half of writing in the reverse direction, which had evidently 
 been inscribed on the papyrus before the Aristotle, but was struck out when 
 the sheet was required for the latter. The hand is not the same as any of those 
 of the Aristotle, but is apparently of the same date. [For a description and 
 transcript of its contents see Appendix II], 
 
xii INTRODUCTION. 
 
 columns, measuring only 3 to \\ inches in breadth and 
 containing forty-four to fifty-one lines. In the third hand 
 are written half the twentieth column and columns twenty- 
 one to twenty-four, together with the much damaged 
 fragments of the fourth roll of the MS. This hand is 
 semi-cursive, but much larger and more straggling than the 
 first hand. The fourth hand, in which are written the six 
 columns of which the third roll consists, closely resembles 
 the first, and employs many of the same abbreviations, but 
 the strokes are somewhat finer and more upright and some 
 of the letters are differently formed 1 . 
 
 1 [The German editors of the 'Affrjvaiow vokireta, Professors Kaibel and von 
 Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, express the opinion in their preface (pp. v, vi) that 
 only two scribes took part in the MS. , identifying the second and third hands, 
 and the first and fourth. 'With this view it is impossible to agree. As regards 
 the second and third hands they argue that the only difference is that the scribe 
 became careless and lapsed into cursive, returning to uncial just at the con- 
 clusion of the fourth roll. But, apart from the difference of general appearance 
 between the writings here distinguished as the second and third hands, a com- 
 parison of the uncials of col. 37 with those of cols. 13-20 shows that they 
 cannot be by the same scribe. The former are rough, coarse, and ugly ; the 
 latter, if not very graceful, are neat and careful. Still less is it the case that the 
 scribe at the end of the second roll (col. 24) returns to the style of the second 
 hand. Moreover, the change of hands in col. 20 (after the letters €0jj in 1. 28) 
 is not at first a change from uncial to cursive. The letters continue for a few 
 lines to be separately formed, as though the new scribe wished to maintain 
 uniformity with his predecessor, but he uses a lighter pen, and forms his letters 
 (notably v) differently. Further, the orthographic characteristics of the hands 
 are different. While the second hand writes 1 for ei continually (van Leeuwen 
 gives forty-one instances, besides those which have been subsequently corrected), 
 the third hand does so only four times ; per contra, the fourth hand writes ei 
 for ( sixteen times, the third only eleven times, of which five occur in the same 
 word e\evffeivo6ev. 
 
 As to the first and fourth hands, superficial observation shows a likeness and 
 a difference, — a likeness in the use of contractions and in general formation of 
 letters, a difference in size and thickness of characters, the first hand being con- 
 sistently thicker and larger than the fourth. If fanciful speculation were ad- 
 missible, the resemblance and the difference are such as one sees in the hand- 
 writings of two members of the same family. Closer examination confirms the 
 difference. Several letters are differently formed ; notably the peculiar f-shaped 
 77, which is characteristic of the first hand, is never found in the fourth. 
 Similarly the first hand has ordinarily a y-shaped v (t), while the fourth con- 
 sistently has the v-shape. £ is generally flatter and squarer in the fourth than 
 
INTRODUCTION. xiii 
 
 The condition of the writing varies considerably in 
 different places. The earlier columns are badly rubbed, 
 especially at the places where the roll was folded, and the 
 writing is often either absolutely illegible or discernible 
 only with great difficulty. In some cases, however, where 
 the letters are not in themselves legible there are yet 
 sufficient traces to verify or to condemn a conjectural 
 restoration of the text. This is the case with many 
 passages which have been restored in the printed text, 
 and in some which still await conjectural emendation. 
 Except in these earlier columns the writing is generally 
 in fair condition. In the greater part of the MS. holes in 
 the papyrus are rare ; but the six columns of the third roll 
 have been put together, as has been already said, out of 
 many different fragments, and large gaps still remain, in 
 one place amounting to a considerable part of a column, 
 in which case restoration is naturally for the most part 
 impossible. The text, apart from difficulties of decipher- 
 ment, is in good condition and requires little emendation 1 , 
 
 in the first hand, and « is sharper and more angular. Further, there are 
 differences in the use of abbreviations. A reference to the statistics in van 
 Leeuwen's obscrvationes palaeographicae (in the Dutch edition of the 'A.w.) 
 confirms the general impression to this effect, </ and V are used frequently by 
 the first hand, rarely by the fourth ; £ only by the first, a 1 and v" only by the 
 fourth. The symbol for xporos is found only in the first hand. The termina- 
 tion -aBai is written by the first hand as o^, by the fourth as off. The final 
 syllables -os, -ov, -01, -ov, -ois, -ovs, are constantly indicated in the first hand by an 
 o above the line, but only twice by the fourth hand, which prefers abbreviating 
 by placing the preceding consonant above the line. The first hand is also 
 fond of representing -av and -as by an ou above the line, which the fourth hand 
 does rarely in the first case, never in the second. Finally, the first hand places 
 the sign of diaeresis over i and v twenty times, the fourth only once. Differences 
 such as these forbid us to identify the writers of these two hands, even apart 
 from the impression produced by a study of their general appearances, which is 
 easier to feel than to explain.] 
 
 1 [A critic has taken exception to this statement by referring to the very large 
 number of conjectures that have been proposed since the appearance of the first 
 edition. But, apart from the fact that u conjecture made is not the same as 
 an emendation necessary, he has omitted to notice how many of these con- 
 jectures refer to passages in which the MS. reading is doubtful. It was of 
 
xiv INTRODUCTION. 
 
 beyond the correction of the somewhat uncultured spelling 
 of the second and third hands. 
 
 It remains to estimate the date of the MS. The palaeo- 
 graphy of the first centuries of the Christian era is still so 
 uncertain, owing to the want of dated materials, that it 
 would be difficult to fix it with any accuracy by the 
 writing alone. Fortunately there are other means at hand. 
 The text of Aristotle is written on the reverse side 1 of the 
 papyrus, and on the recto are accounts of receipts and ex- 
 penditure which are dated in the eleventh year of Vespasian, 
 of which a specimen is given with the facsimile of the 
 IIoAtreia (Plate 22) 2 . The dating of this document pre- 
 sents some points of interest. The heading at the 
 beginning of it (which is to be found on the second of the 
 pieces into which the first roll of papyrus is now divided, 
 its text running in the contrary direction to that of the 
 Aristotle) is as follows : Erovs evbeKarov avTOKparopos Kaicrapos 
 Ovecnrao-Lavov 2e/3aorou apyvpiKos Xoyos E~Lp.a\ov UokvbevKovs 
 Xrjp.pLa.Ta)v km avrj\mp.aTo)v toiv Si e/xou A1.bvp.0v Acnracnov xeipi- 
 Cop-evoov, u)v ewai Xry/xja" tov p-rjvos 2e/3aoTou. The names of 
 the months for which the accounts are given succeed 
 one another in the following order, 2e/3ao-rou, <i><m<pi, 
 Neou 2e/3a(rrou, Xoiax, Tu/3i, Me\eip, <t>a/xewo0, $>appovdi, 
 Uax^v. The remarkable feature here is the occurrence 
 of the names 2e/3aoros and Ne'os 2e/3ao-ro's in the place of 
 Thouth and Athur respectively. The former does not seem 
 to have been observed elsewhere in Egyptian documents ; 
 but one of the Archduke Rainer's Papyri is dated /xrji/os 
 
 course not meant that the MS. was as accurately -written as the best vellum 
 MSS., but among papyrus MSS. it appears to hold a good character, and 
 should not be treated as a schoolboy's exercise.] 
 
 1 /. e. that side on which the fibres of the papyrus are laid perpendicularly 
 icf. 'Wilcken's article Recto ader Verso, in Hermes, Vol. XXII). 
 
 3 The text of these accounts, which are those of the bailiff of a private 
 estate, will be printed in the Catalogue of Greek Papyri in the British 
 Museum, which is now passing through the press. 
 
INTRODUCTION. xv 
 
 2e/3aor<w Advp irejuwrTj (Pap. No. 171 7, cf. Mittheilungen 
 mis der Sammlung der Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer, pt. II. 
 p. 16, 1887). The name 2e/3aoro's is of course equivalent 
 to August ; but it is noticeable that it was given in Egypt 
 to the month Thouth, which began on Aug. 29th, rather 
 than to Mesore, which occupied the greater part of the 
 Roman month of August. Athur was no doubt re-named 
 in honour of Vespasian, who was born in that month. As 
 to the year named, Vespasian was proclaimed emperor at 
 Alexandria in July, 69 a.d. The Egyptian year began 
 with Thouth, and according to the usual mode of dating in 
 that country his second year would be reckoned to begin 
 with the Thouth next following his proclamation, i.e. at 
 the end of August in the same year 69 A.D. His eleventh 
 year would therefore be that which began in August of 
 78 A.D. ; and in the following June he died. The entries 
 of the present document extend to the preceding month, 
 Pachon in the Egyptian calendar beginning on April 26th. 
 The writing on the recto of the papyrus consequently 
 belongs to 78-79 a. d. 1 We cannot tell how soon afterwards 
 the verso was used for receiving the text of Aristotle, but 
 on the one hand it is not likely to have been so used while 
 the accounts on the recto were still valuable, and on the 
 other the papyrus is not likely to have continued unused 
 and undestroyed for very many years after the accounts 
 had ceased to be of interest. Moreover some of the most 
 remarkable forms of letters and abbreviations which occur 
 in the Aristotle are also found in the accounts. The date 
 of the Aristotle may therefore be fixed with some certainty 
 
 1 It may be noted that writing of a very similar character is found in other 
 papyri of which the date has hitherto been a matter of pure conjectnre (e. g. 
 Papyri XCIX, OX, and CXIX in the British Museum), but which may now 
 be safely assigned to some part of the second century. Another British Museum 
 papyrus (CXXV redo), which cannot be earlier than the middle of the fourth 
 century, shows how far this style of writing had degenerated by that time. 
 
xvi INTRODUCTION. 
 
 at the end of the first century of our era or, at latest, the 
 beginning of the second \ 
 
 To pass on to the contents of the MS. The first thing 
 necessary is to prove that this work is actually the lost 
 'AO-qvaioov FIoAtreia of Aristotle. This is of course done 
 by means of the extant fragments of that work. Quota- 
 tions from it are frequent in the grammarians, especially 
 in Harpocration, to whom most of the fragments in which 
 the work is specifically named are due. The last edition 
 of Rose's collection (Aristotelis qui ferebantur libromm 
 Fragmenta, Lipsiae, 1886) contains ninety-one fragments 
 which are ascribed, with more or less certainty, to the 'A0tj- 
 vatcnv TloXireia, in fifty-six of which the work is referred 
 to by name. Of these fifty-six, fifty-three occur in the 
 MS. now before us ; one (No. 347 2 ) belongs to the beginning 
 of the book, which is wanting in the MS. ; one (No. 432) 
 probably belongs to the latter portion of it, which is imper- 
 fect; while one alone (No. 407) differs distinctly from a 
 passage on the same subject occurring in the text. Of the 
 thirty-five fragments in which the work is not named, though 
 in most of them Aristotle is referred to as the author, twenty- 
 five occur in our MS. ; four (Nos. 343, 344, 346, 348) come 
 from the lost beginning, though as to at least one of them 
 (No. 344) it may be doubted whether it belongs to this work 
 at all ; four (Nos. 354, 361, 364, 376, together with parts of 
 
 1 [Since the appearance of the first edition, several dated documents of the 
 first and second centuries have come to light (see the Palaeographical Society's 
 publication for 1891, 2nd series, pt. 8), which confirm the date here given.] 
 
 ' The references for the fragments are to the numbers given in Rose's 
 collection in the fifth vol. of the Berlin Academy edition of Aristotle, published 
 in 1870, as it is to these numbers that reference is generally made in the 
 lexicons and elsewhere. But for the benefit of those who use the last edition of 
 Rose (in the Bibliothcca Teutmeriana, 1SS6) it may be mentioned that Nos. 
 381-412 in the 1886 ed. correspond to 343-374 in the 1870 ed. ; 414-428 to 
 375-389; and 430-471 to 390-431 ; while Nos. 413 and 429 of the 1SS6 ed. 
 are not given in the 1870 edition. 
 
INTRODUCTION. xvii 
 
 356 and 360) probably do not belong to this work, being 
 merely incidental references which might occur by way of 
 illustration in any other writing as well as in a professedly 
 historical one; one (No. 416) belongs to the mutilated 
 section on the law-courts, if it is from this work at all ; 
 while one (No. 358) is apparently a misquotation (due pro- 
 bably to a scribe) of a passage in the MS. Thus of the 
 total number of ninety-one fragments (of which eighty-five 
 or eighty-six are probably genuine references to this 
 work), seventy-eight are found in the MS. in its present con- 
 dition, and all the rest, with only one clear exception, are 
 accounted for. It may be added that the passages dis- 
 covered on some papyrus fragments at Berlin by Blass and 
 identified as portions of the 'AflrjwuW Tlokireia by Bergk 
 (see Hermes, XV. 366, Rhein. Mus. XXXVI. 87, Berl. 
 Akad. Abhandl. 1885) are found in this MS., though Rose 
 disputed the accuracy of Bergk's identification (Aristotelis 
 Fragmenta, ed. 1886, pp. 260, 270). References are given 
 in the notes to the fragments as they occur in the MS., and 
 those which do not so occur are added in an Appendix. 
 
 It may therefore be taken for certain that we have here 
 the work which was known and cited in antiquity as ?; r&v 
 'A6r]vaia>v IloXtreta. Whether it is a genuine work of 
 Aristotle's is another question. The subject of the Aris- 
 totelian canon is a difficult one, and must be left to those 
 who are specialists in it ; but the following facts are clear 
 in relation to the present treatise. The rioAimcu, of which 
 this was the most important section, is included in the lists 
 of Aristotle's works given by Diogenes Laertius, Hesychius, 
 and Ptolemy (the latter being known only in an Arabic 
 version). It is true that Valentine Rose, whose thorough 
 study of the remains of Aristotle is indisputable, considers 
 the works named in those lists to be composed not by 
 Aristotle but by obscurer members of the Peripatetic 
 school (Aristoteles Pseudepigraphus, 1 863) ; but this ex- 
 fa 
 
xviii INTRODUCTION. 
 
 treme view, which is in itself improbable, is rejected by 
 Heitz [Die verlorenen Schriften des Aristoteles, 1865), Grote, 
 and most other competent critics. No doubt several 
 spurious treatises may be included in the lists, but there 
 is no sufficient ground for rejecting them in the main ; 
 and the position of the noXtreiai is stronger than that of 
 most of the doubtful works. From internal evidence it is 
 certain that it must have been composed before 307 B.C., 
 for the author in describing the constitution of Athens in 
 his own day speaks always of ten tribes, which number 
 was increased to twelve in the year just mentioned. On 
 the other hand the date. 329 B.C. is incidentally referred to 
 in ch. 54, and in speaking of the two sacred triremes 
 in ch. 61 the name Ammonias is used in place of the 
 Salaminia. This change of name (see note ad loc.) must 
 have been made during the reign of Alexander, who 
 claimed to be the son of Ammon, and out of respect 
 for whom offerings were no doubt sent to the temple of 
 Ammon in Egypt. This work was therefore written, or at 
 least revised, at the earliest in the last seven years of 
 Aristotle's life, and at the latest in the fifteen years after 
 his death l . We know further from a quotation in Polybius 
 that Timaeus, who died about the middle of the third 
 
 1 [Other scholars have narrowed the limits required by the internal evidence. 
 Keil and Pais have pointed out that the division of functions among the 
 strategi mentioned in ch. 61 had not been made in 334 B. c, and the former 
 adds that the foreign possessions of Athens are in ch. 62 limited to Samos, 
 Scyros, Lemnos, and Imbros, which was the state of things established by the 
 peace of Demades in 338 B. c. These dates go to show that the date 329 B. c. 
 mentioned in ch. 54 is not due to a later revision of the work. On the other 
 hand Weil and others show that the changes introduced by Antipater after the 
 Lamian war are not mentioned, which indicates that the work was composed 
 before 322 b. c, the year of Aristotle's death. Further, Mr. C. Torr argues 
 from the fact that quadriremes are mentioned in ch. 46 (see note ad loc), but 
 not quinqueremes, that it must have been written before 325 B. c. The date of 
 the treatise is consequently clearly fixed for the years 32S-326 B.C., inclusive. 
 The argument for Aristotelian authorship may therefore be strengthened by 
 affirming that the work was certainly written in his lifetime.] 
 
INTRODUCTION. xix 
 
 century B.C., or barely two generations after Aristotle him- 
 self, referred to the rToAireiai, and referred to it as Aristotle's 
 (cf. Rose, Frag. 504) 1 . It is perhaps dangerous to use any 
 argument from style, owing to the doubts which exist as to 
 the manner of composition of the works of Aristotle as 
 they have come down to us ; but the style of this treatise 
 is in sufficient accordance with that of Aristotle as we 
 know him elsewhere, and supports the belief that it is 
 a genuine work of his. Whether the mention of t&v 
 (Tvvriyixevav itokiTei&v at the end of the Ethics is an explicit 
 reference to the no\iretcti, and whether the latter was then 
 in process of compilation, it would take too much space to 
 discuss here; but one would naturally suppose that it is 
 such a reference, and that the work in question was then 
 either completed or in course of being completed. In any 
 case it may be taken as established that the present work 
 is that which is freely quoted and referred to in ancient 
 times as Aristotle's ; that it certainly was composed either 
 in his life-time or a very few years afterwards ; and that 
 the evidence, internal and external, tends strongly to show 
 that Aristotle himself was its author. Under these circum- 
 stances the burden of proof lies on those who would dispute 
 its genuineness. 
 
 One word should be said as to certain divisions which 
 appear in the MS. At the head of the first and twelfth 
 columns respectively the letters a and fi have been written, 
 while above the twenty-fifth column are the words y ro'/noy. 
 At first sight it might appear that these letters indicate 
 sections into which the treatise was originally divided. 
 This, however, is not the case. In the first place the letters 
 in question are not in the original hand of the MS. Further, 
 they correspond to no rational divisions in the subject. 
 The first stands over the first column of the MS., but that 
 
 [See Introduction to third edition, p. lx]. 
 
 b 2 
 
xx INTRODUCTION. 
 
 column does not contain the beginning of the work, which 
 is wanting. The second and third both occur in the middle 
 of a subject, in the one case the constitution of the Four 
 Hundred, in the other the duties of the fiovkr]. Again, 
 in no citation of the treatise in any ancient author is there 
 any indication of its having been divided into sections. 
 One, manuscript of Harpocration does indeed read kv r?\ 
 a 'Adrjvaluv ■noktrua [Frag. 378), but even if the reading is 
 correct it is only on a level with ev rfj 'Idaicqo-iW -nokiTeiq 
 jn/3' in Photius {Frag. 466), implying that the Athenian 
 constitution stood first in Aristotle's list of states, while 
 that of Ithaca was forty-second. The purpose of the 
 letters in the MS. is quite different. In each case they 
 stand at the beginning of one of the rolls of papyrus of 
 which the whole MS. is composed, and there is no doubt 
 that they are simply intended to indicate the order in 
 which these rolls follow one another. Probably the person 
 who added them (or rather the first two of them, since the 
 third is in a different hand) did not observe that the 
 beginning of the work is wanting, when he wrote the first 
 of them above the first column of the MS., taking no notice 
 of the blank space that precedes it, which was no doubt 
 intended to receive the missing portion of the work ; but 
 this might easily be the case, as this same blank space 
 naturally gives the column which follows it the appearance 
 of being the beginning of a work. As there is no trace of 
 writing on this blank space, it may be taken for certain 
 that the beginning was, for some reason or another, never 
 written, and the MS. consequently begins with an in- 
 complete sentence. 
 
 The subject of the treatise is the Constitutional History 
 of Athens, and it falls into two sections. The first, which 
 is the most interesting, contains a historical account of the 
 development of the constitution from the earliest times to 
 the re-establishment of the democracy after the expulsion 
 
INTRODUCTION. xxi 
 
 of the Thirty Tyrants. This section is complete, with the 
 exception of the beginning. The second is a detailed 
 description of the various official bodies and persons in 
 the state in the writer's own day. Much of this is lost, 
 including the greater part of the account of the procedure 
 in the law-courts ; but the loss is not so much to be 
 regretted, as the whole of this section of Aristotle's work 
 has been very freely used by the later grammarians, 
 especially Pollux in the eighth book of his Onotnasticon 
 and Harpocration in his Lexicon of the Ten Orators. The 
 historical section, on the other hand, throws fresh light upon 
 many parts of the history of Athens, in regard to both 
 the early legislation before the Persian wars and the period 
 between the Persian and Peloponnesian wars which is only 
 briefly touched on by Thucydides. So many assumptions 
 which have been confidently made on the strength of the 
 previously existing evidence are now shown to be un- 
 founded, that it is impossible to be dogmatic as to the 
 conclusions to be drawn from the fresh material now 
 submitted to the historian, and if phrases like ' it is 
 probable/ 'perhaps,' 'it seems likely,' do not occur in 
 every line of this Introduction, it is not from any want of 
 perception of the uncertain character of some of the con- 
 clusions which are arrived at ; but it is necessary to make 
 the attempt to show in what respects our conception of the 
 course of Athenian history is changed by the re-appearance 
 of the testimony of Aristotle. In the notes the separate 
 points are dealt with as they arise, the object being to 
 bring the narrative of Aristotle into relation with those of 
 Herodotus, Thucydides, and Plutarch ; but a short sketch 
 of the history of Athens from the new standpoint may 
 serve to show how far the traditional views of the chief 
 crises in that history have been modified. The main out- 
 lines remain the same, but the details are in some cases 
 altered and in others made more definite. 
 
xxii INTRODUCTION. 
 
 The beginning of the work, as has been said before, is 
 lost. The MS. opens with the conclusion of the narrative 
 of the conspiracy of Cylon and of its consequences in the 
 way of the expulsion of the Alcmeonidae and the puri- 
 fication of the city by Epimenides of Crete. The direct 
 narrative of the period of the kings is therefore wanting ; 
 but a summary of the constitution as it existed before the 
 reforms of Draco throws some light on the earlier history 
 of Athens. This is especially the case with the period 
 known as the rule of the Medontidae. On the death of 
 Codrus, as has been universally agreed, some modification 
 took place in the position of the kingship. The house of 
 Codrus remained upon the throne, and its representatives 
 governed for life, and the title of king (contrary to the 
 popular tradition) continued to be given to them; but 
 their power was modified in various ways. In the first 
 place it is probable that the king was elective. The 
 choice was indeed confined to the kingly house of the 
 Medontidae ; but the Eupatrid aristocracy, through its 
 organ the Areopagus, selected the member of it who 
 should represent the rest during his life. Further, with 
 the king two other officers of considerable importance were 
 associated, the Polemarch and the Archon. Of these the 
 Polemarch was the successor of the commander-in-chief 
 who, from the time of the legendary Ion, had been 
 associated with the more unwarlike kings ; but the Archon 
 was a new creation at the accession of either Medon or 
 Acastus. The duties of the Archon are undefined, but it 
 is clear that these two magistrates formed some check on 
 the autocratic government of the kings. Meanwhile the 
 Areopagus, which had at first no doubt been a body of 
 advisers nominated by the king from the families of the 
 aristocracy, was growing to be the chief power in the state. 
 This became still more the case when, in 753 B.C., the life- 
 magistracy was abolished, and the Archon was elevated to 
 
INTRODUCTION. xxiii 
 
 the titular headship of the state, with a limit of ten years 
 to his government, the king being relegated to the second 
 place in rank. The first four decennial archons were 
 elected from the house of the Medontidae, and then the 
 office was thrown open to all members of the Eupatrid 
 aristocracy. The final fall of government by a single 
 ruler took place thirty years later, in 683 B.C., when the 
 archonship was made annual, and six additional archons, 
 with the name of Thesmothetae, were associated with the 
 three already existing magistrates. 
 
 With this change the power of the Areopagus reached 
 its height It was now the one permanent body in the 
 state. It elected the archons and other magistrates, and 
 all who had served the former office became members of it 
 after their year of government, — a method of recruiting its 
 numbers which was no doubt adopted when there ceased 
 to be a single ruler with sufficient authority and position to 
 nominate new members as vacancies occurred. It thus 
 represented the whole official experience and the official 
 traditions of the state, and it is not surprising that it 
 assumed a supreme control over the whole administration 
 and the general welfare of the country, imposing fines, 
 amending and enforcing laws, directing finance, and no 
 doubt guiding foreign policy. The Ecclesia, if it existed 
 at all at this time, had certainly no power nor practical 
 influence on affairs. The position of the Areopagus was 
 analogous to that of the Roman senate during the greater 
 part of the duration of the republic, and it owed its 
 strength to the same causes. 
 
 Meanwhile, as at Rome, so at Athens, economical phe- 
 nomena were tending to an upheaval of the whole fabric 
 of state. The cultivators of the land, unable to stand the 
 pressure of bad seasons, had fallen into the hands of the 
 more moneyed class, and were crushed under a load of 
 debts and mortgages. Like other peoples in similar con- 
 
xxiv INTRODUCTION. 
 
 ditions they sought for a political remedy to their economical 
 distress by calling for a share in the government of the 
 country. At the same time they complained that there 
 was no certainty nor uniformity about the administration of 
 justice. The Thesmothetae had indeed been appointed 
 partly with the intention of securing written and recorded 
 decisions of cases ; but there was no general code to guide 
 them, and it would be long before a system of purely 
 judge-made law could attain the desired precision and 
 certainty of codified law. The agitation on both these 
 grounds grew hot and led to violent civil dissension, and 
 matters were not improved by the factions which prevailed 
 among the governing aristocracy, of which the most 
 powerful family was that of the Alcmeonidae. 
 
 The first outcome of the perturbed state of the country 
 was an attempt to establish a tyranny. Cylon, an Olympic 
 victor of the year 640 B. C, about eight years later seized 
 the Acropolis with a band of friends and followers, and 
 called on the populace to rise in his support. The attempt 
 was unfortunate. The government had a sufficient force 
 in hand to check a rising, if the people had been disposed 
 to attempt it ; the Acropolis was blockaded, and the well- 
 known results followed. Cylon escaped, but his followers 
 were forced to surrender and were treacherously put to 
 death by the archon Megacles the Alcmeonid. These 
 events did not tend to allay the discord in the state. The 
 enemies of the Alcmeonidae had an effective handle 
 given to them by the commission of this sacrilege, and 
 attacked them more bitterly than before. The poor still 
 complained of their want of representation in the govern- 
 ment, of the uncertainty of the administration of the law, 
 and of the generally hopeless condition of their prospects 
 in life. This agitation at last had its effect, and about the 
 year 6a 1 B. C. the aristocracy consented to the appointment 
 of Draco to deal with the trouble as seemed to him best. 
 
INTRODUCTION. xxv 
 
 The work by which Draco was best, and indeed almost 
 solely, known in later times was his codification of the laws, 
 by which penalties, severe indeed but at least definite, were 
 assigned to the various crimes known to them. But he was 
 not merely a legal reformer. His more important work was 
 a re-adjustment of the constitution which in many respects 
 anticipated the subsequent legislation of Solon, in which the 
 reforms of the earlier statesman were swallowed up and lost 
 to the memory of posterity. A share in the government was 
 given to all persons capable of furnishing a military equip- 
 ment, — precisely the qualification which, two hundred years 
 later, was revived on the overthrow of the administration 
 of the Four Hundred. With this step the Ecclesia must 
 have come into practical existence, and to it was apparently 
 transferred the election of officers of state ; and along with 
 it Draco created a Council consisting of 401 members, with 
 duties analogous to those which its successor fulfilled under 
 the constitution of Solon. For the selection of this body, 
 as well as for the appointment of some of the less im- 
 portant magistrates, the principle of the lot was called into 
 existence, probably mitigated by an initial selection of a 
 limited number of candidates by the tribes. Property- 
 qualifications of varying amount were instituted for the 
 several offices of state ; and fines were imposed for non- 
 performance of public duties. Meanwhile the Areopagus; 
 whose powers were diminished only in respect of the 
 elections, remained as before the centre of political power. 
 
 Draco attempted to provide a political solution for an 
 economical problem, and with the natural result. The 
 aristocracy were displeased with the infringement of their 
 Eupatrid monopoly. The poor, with the land question 
 unsettled, were just as much at the mercy of their 
 creditors, who were practically their landlords, as they 
 were before. There is an almost cynical tone in the 
 brief sentence with which Aristotle closes his account of 
 
xxvi INTRODUCTION. 
 
 the reforms of Draco ; eirl 5e reus crdpatriv r\crav SeSe/xepoi, 
 /cat fj \a>pa hi! okiycav r\v. The natural results followed, 
 <We'oT?] rols yvcopip.oi,s 6 Stj/uos. The populace rose against 
 the upper class, the upper class was divided against itself, 
 the land was full of conflict, and abroad it could show no 
 front to its enemies, who held Salamis before its very 
 door. Various remedies were tried, but with little avail. 
 The Alcmeonidae, with the curse of heaven supposed to 
 be resting on their house, were expelled from the country, 
 and even their dead cast out of their tombs. But still the 
 trouble continued, and Nisaea and Salamis, which under 
 a sudden enthusiasm inspired by the poet Solon had been 
 captured from Megara, were lost again within a few years. 
 The curse was still on the country ; and Epimenides the 
 Cretan was called in to make a solemn purification of the 
 land. The popular excitement was thus allayed, but the 
 economic causes of trouble were still untouched, and it is 
 a sign of the pacific effect of the visit of Epimenides that 
 a few years afterwards all parties came to an agreement 
 to entrust the complete reform of the state to a single 
 individual. Solon, who had won the respect of all as 
 poet and devoted patriot, who was moreover of fair 
 position and wealth, was selected and received a free 
 hand to deal with the economic and political condition 
 of affairs. 
 
 He began with the former, and he found matters too 
 desperate to admit of any but one remedy. All debts, 
 public and private, were cancelled, and for the future the 
 securing of debts upon the person of the debtor was 
 forbidden. Independently of this, and subsequently to 
 it, he effected a reform of the standards in use for weights, 
 measures, and money, and introduced the Euboic standard 
 of currency in place of the old Pheidonian or Aeginetan 
 standard, thus simplifying Athenian trade with the mer- 
 cantile cities of Euboea, and giving rise to that increase 
 
INTRODUCTION. xxvii 
 
 of prosperity from commerce which was the best security 
 against the repetition of such drastic measures as the 
 
 The economic pressure being lightened, he proceeded to 
 deal with the political constitution. In the first place all 
 existing laws, except those relating to murder, were 
 repealed, so as to give the reformer a clear field on which 
 to reconstruct the constitution according to his own ideas. 
 He then proceeded to take a completely new basis for the 
 organisation of the state. There was already in existence 
 a classification of the people according to their property, 
 which was no doubt used for purposes of taxation. 
 This Solon adopted for his political purposes, and ac- 
 cording to a man's position in one or other of these four 
 classes, such was his share in the government of the 
 country. The highest offices, such as the archonship and 
 the stewardship of the treasury, were reserved for the 
 Pentacosiomedimni. The Hippeis and the Zeugitae were 
 eligible for minor magistracies; while those who were 
 classed as Thetes, among whom was included the whole 
 mass of the unskilled labourers of the country, received 
 a voice in the Ecclesia and a seat in the law-courts by 
 which the conduct of outgoing magistrates was reviewed 
 at the conclusion of their term of office. The revolution 
 was great, and even greater in potentiality than in im- 
 mediate result. The qualification of birth was swept 
 away and the qualification of property substituted. The 
 election of magistrates was established on a popular basis, 
 being given primarily to the tribes, ultimately to the lot. 
 Thus in electing the archons the four tribes each elected 
 ten candidates, and from the forty names thus submitted 
 nine were chosen by lot. The Ecclesia, in which these 
 elections were probably conducted, grew in importance, 
 though still it is not likely that it exercised any perceptible 
 control over the general management of public affairs. 
 
xxviii INTRODUCTION. 
 
 The Council of Draco was re-established, with the odd 
 member struck off, making the total four hundred. By 
 these measures, and by the general improvement in the 
 position of the lower orders, the powers of the Areopagus 
 were curtailed, but it still remained, as Aristotle expressly 
 says, the guardian of the laws and of the state, with 
 a general supervision of both public and private life, and 
 a power of inflicting summary punishment. 
 
 The constitution of Solon, though in many points he 
 was only following his predecessor Draco, was rightly 
 regarded in later times as the origin of the democracy of 
 Athens. The labouring class was for the first time given 
 a voice in the government, and was taught to look upon 
 itself as having the right to review, and if necessary to 
 censure, the conduct of affairs by the magistrates whom 
 it had itself elected. The popular assembly became for 
 the first time the representative of the collective voice of 
 the whole people, though a long course of political training 
 was necessary before the classes newly admitted to the 
 franchise were capable of exercising to any important 
 extent the powers thus committed to them. The consti- 
 tution of Solon was a great and memorable achievement, 
 not so much for what it immediately accomplished as for 
 its indication of the lines along which the Athenian 
 democracy was to develop. 
 
 At the moment, indeed, it gave little satisfaction to 
 anyone. The poorer classes had had their hopes and 
 their cupidity excited by the long agitation which preceded 
 the reforms ; and though in fact they were gainers every 
 way by the new legislation, for the moment they were 
 disappointed because there had not been a general re- 
 distribution of the soil of the country, which would have 
 given them a slice of their neighbours' property without 
 labour and without cost. The aristocracy had more 
 reason to be discontented with an arrangement which 
 
INTRODUCTION. xxix 
 
 abolished the old distinctions of birth and threatened 
 even their stronghold in the council of Areopagus, in 
 addition to the absolute loss of whatever money they had 
 had out on loan at the time of the o-eio-ax^eta. Even 
 Solon's personal friends were not satisfied, except perhaps 
 those who had made a fortune by sharp practice out of 
 an early knowledge of the impending economic measures. 
 They had confidently expected him to follow the example 
 of so many other persons who had received similar au- 
 tocratic powers in other states, by establishing himself 
 as despot. No one indeed would have been surprised if 
 he had done so ; but his conduct and his writings (from 
 which Aristotle makes considerable quotations) alike 
 prove him to have been a man of rare principle and 
 unselfish devotion to the public good. 
 
 The immediate consequences were not, however, en- 
 couraging. Assailed on all sides by complaints and criti- 
 cisms, the discontented parties naturally making more 
 noise than those who were satisfied, Solon preferred to 
 quit Athens for a prolonged period of foreign travel, 
 and to leave the public excitement to cool down by 
 itself. For a short time there was no actual outbreak 
 of disorder, but political feeling ran high, and the elections 
 to the office of archon caused much excitement. In 
 590 B. C. the conflict of parties was so keen that no archon 
 could be elected at all, and four years later the same 
 phenomenon was repeated. No details are given as to 
 the parties or the leaders between whom these contests 
 were at this time carried on, but probably the divisions 
 were the same as those which we find existing a little 
 later, namely, the party of the Plain, who were the ex- 
 treme oligarchs ; the Shore, which included the Alcmeo- 
 nidae and desired a moderate or mixed form of government ; 
 and the Mountain, which represented the poorer classes of 
 the democracy, to whom were attached the desperate and 
 
xxx INTRODUCTION. 
 
 broken men ' and every one that was distressed, and every 
 one that was in debt, and every one that was discontented ' 
 in every class of society. 
 
 But a fresh turn was given to affairs in 581 B.C., when 
 an attempt was made to overthrow the constitution and 
 establish a tyranny in its place. Damasias, who had been 
 archon in the previous year, contrived to be continued in 
 office during this year also. We are not told on what 
 pretext this was effected, and the fact does not appear to 
 have aroused alarm. But when the time came for new 
 archons to enter into office in 580 B.C., and Damasias still 
 showed no signs of abandoning his position, it was clear 
 that his intention was to establish himself as a despot. 
 Against this danger all parties of the state united, and 
 as the would-be tyrant had neglected to provide himself 
 with the only trustworthy support of a despotism, a paid 
 military force, he was expelled from his position within 
 two months after the completion of his second year of 
 office. It then became necessary to provide for the govern- 
 ment of the country during the remainder of the year, and 
 as all parties had combined in the expulsion of the tyrant, 
 all had a right to have their claims to consideration re- 
 spected in the matter. The old aristocracy could not 
 reasonably exclude the representatives of the other classes 
 from a share in the government, but on the other hand 
 they thought it a good opportunity to abolish the Solonian 
 property-qualification which refused to recognise the claims 
 of birth. Accordingly they reverted to the older division 
 of classes, and drew up a board of ten, of which half was 
 reserved to the Eupatridae, while three representatives 
 were assigned to the Geomori and two to the Demiurgi. 
 But this arrangement does not seem to have given satis- 
 faction, for we hear nothing of its being continued beyond 
 the year for which it was created, and we must presume 
 that the Solonian system then returned into force. 
 
INTRODUCTION. xxxi 
 
 Matters now settled down for twenty years into a condi- 
 tion of active party warfare, but without positive disturbance 
 so far as we are aware. Probably the sections which bore 
 the most prominent part in the yearly struggles for office 
 were the Shore and the Plain. The labouring class, known 
 as the Mountain, could not hope to elect any representative 
 of their own to high office in the state, being excluded by 
 the property-qualification ; but they might turn the scale 
 between the two other parties, and they might be of great 
 value to an able leader with ulterior designs of his own. 
 Such a leader they found at last in Pisistratus. Born 
 probably about 600 B.C., he had distinguished himself 
 while still comparatively young as a leader in war, and 
 had conducted a successful campaign against Megara, 
 which culminated in the capture of Nisaea. On the 
 strength of this achievement he appeared as a leader 
 in the political contests, attaching himself to the party 
 of the commons and being accepted by them as their 
 chief. Within a few years his real intentions, of which 
 the now aged Solon had warned the people in some 
 more of those political poems which had first won him 
 fame, became manifest to all. In 560 B.C. he made his 
 first bid for the tyranny. By the well-known stratagem 
 he secured an armed body-guard, and with that body- 
 guard he seized the Acropolis. His force was sufficient 
 to overawe opposition for the moment, and it is probable 
 that the common people did not regret a change which 
 relieved them from the government of their hereditary 
 enemies, the Eupatrid oligarchy. The exhortations of 
 Solon were unheeded, and Pisistratus was allowed to es- 
 tablish himself in autocratic power. 
 
 At first, however, it did not appear that this new attempt 
 at despotism would have a much greater success than that 
 of Damasias. After five years the two other factions in 
 the state combined against the despot, and their power 
 
xxxii INTRODUCTION. 
 
 proved greater than his. Pisistratus was driven into exile, 
 and for four years he had no chance of a return. Then 
 the cards of party were shuffled anew, Megacles the leader 
 of the Alcmeonidae and Pisistratus made friends, and 
 the latter was re-established in the tyranny as the husband 
 of his ally's daughter. Still, however, he had not learnt 
 the only way in which a despotism could be made secure, 
 and when a quarrel with his father-in-law threw the latter 
 once more into alliance with Lycurgus and the party of the 
 Plain, he had no choice but to escape while there was time, 
 lest a worse thing happen to him. His second period of 
 government had lasted about six years, but he had nearly 
 twice that length of time to pass in exile. This time he 
 learned his lesson thoroughly. He settled for some years in 
 the rich metalliferous districts about the Strymon and 
 Mount Pangaeus, and with the money which he derived 
 thence he hired mercenaries and allies, and when about 
 SS5 B.C. he came back to Athens, he came to stay. His 
 last period of government was not indeed very much 
 longer than his other two, lasting apparently for about 
 eight years, but it was of a very different kind. Before 
 he had never been certain of his seat and was dependent 
 on the precarious support of political rivals. This time he 
 was firm in the saddle, and when he died at a good old 
 age in 527 B.C. he left the quiet possession of the kingdom 
 to his sons. 
 
 Of the government of the tyrants at Athens there is not 
 much that is new to be said. It is agreed on all hands 
 that the administration of Pisistratus was mild and bene- 
 ficent, so that, as Aristotle expressly mentions, men re- 
 called it afterwards as the Golden Age. The principle 
 of the policy of Pisistratus was to keep the people em- 
 ployed and to keep them contented. To these ends law 
 was administered equally and fairly, capital was provided 
 to encourage agriculture and commerce, public works were 
 
INTRODUCTION. xxxiii 
 
 commenced on a large scale, while a tax of one-tenth on 
 the produce of the land served the double purpose of pro- 
 viding the government with a sufficient revenue, and of 
 requiring the cultivator to devote more time and attention 
 to his occupation in order to meet this additional demand. 
 The sons of the tyrant continued the same policy. The 
 main business of government was conducted by the elder, 
 Hippias, while Hipparchus cultivated literature and art 
 and devoted himself to the pursuit of his own enjoyment. 
 For thirteen years this lasted uninterrupted and unthreat- 
 ened. Then came the conspiracy of Harmodius and 
 Aristogeiton (as to the details of which Aristotle differs 
 pointedly from Thucydides), the murder of Hipparchus, 
 four years of soured rule from the alarmed and embittered 
 Hippias, the bought interference of the Delphic oracle, 
 and finally in 510 B.C. the expulsion of the tyrant and his 
 house by the agency of Sparta. 
 
 The democracy was re-established, and with the demo- 
 cracy its party struggles. But a fresh departure was at 
 hand. The Alcmeonidae had always been opposed to the 
 extreme oligarchs and in favour of some form of govern- 
 ment intermediate between oligarchy and democracy. This 
 time they went further, and their leader Cleisthenes entered 
 into close association with the commons, thereby securing 
 his own elevation to power. The attempt of the Spartans 
 to destroy the new democracy at the instance of the 
 expelled oligarch Isagoras, and in revenge for the fraud 
 by which the Delphic oracle had prompted them to over- 
 throw their good friends the Pisistratidae, here checked his 
 progress for the moment, but the resolute action of the 
 populace of Athens nipped in the bud an effort which had 
 not calculated on so vigorous a resistance. The oligarchs 
 captured with Cleomenes and Isagoras in the Acropolis 
 were put to death, and their friends learned a lesson which 
 kept them from interfering with the development of the 
 
xxxiv INTRODUCTION. 
 
 democratic schemes of Cleisthenes. He determined to put 
 an end, for good and all, to the local and family factions 
 which had so long disturbed Athens. The old tribal 
 divisions, with their subdivisions the trittyes and naucraries, 
 were swept away. A new set of tribes, ten in number so 
 as to be incapable of being made to correspond with any 
 existing subdivisions of the earlier four, was called into exis- 
 tence, with newnames and newassociations. To each of these 
 tribes were assigned three divisions bearing the old name 
 of trittyes, of which one was taken from each of the three 
 local divisions of the Plain, the Shore, and the Mountain, 
 and these trittyes were again subdivided into demes, which 
 henceforth became the local unit of Athenian politics. In 
 a short time all the ordinary associations of civil life were 
 connected with the deme to which a man belonged, and by 
 the name of which, together with the name of his father, he 
 was officially known ; and the old local factions dis- 
 appeared finally from Athenian history. 
 
 This was the main feature of the constitution of Cleis- 
 thenes, but there were various other alterations introduced 
 by him, mostly of a less striking character in themselves, 
 but all tending in the same direction, namely the extension 
 of the powers of the commons. The most remarkable of 
 these was the law of ostracism, which gave the populace 
 the power by a free vote to decide between two rival 
 leaders of the state, and thereby to commit itself un- 
 reservedly to the policy of one or the other. This was 
 especially introduced as a precaution against the partisans 
 of the expelled tyrants ; but in the first instance the mere 
 threat was found to be sufficient, and it was not put in 
 force until the first Persian invasion showed that danger 
 was still to be apprehended from that quarter. Another 
 measure which must be ascribed to Cleisthenes, though it 
 is the absolute contrary of that which has generally been 
 believed to be a great feature of his constitution, is the 
 
INTRODUCTION. xxxv 
 
 direct election of the principal magistrates, such as the 
 archons, by the popular assembly. Solon had, as we have 
 seen, established a combination of election and the lot, 
 a system which had probably been abrogated by the 
 government of the tyrants ; for, though archons were 
 undoubtedly elected during that period, it is certain that 
 the people were not allowed to make a free choice of their 
 magistrates (Thuc. VI. 54). Cleisthenes, however, naturally 
 thought that it would strengthen the democracy to be able 
 to choose directly the chief officers of the state ; and 
 indeed some such step must have seemed necessary in the 
 critical years following the expulsion of the tyrants. It 
 was not until the democracy seemed firmly established 
 that, in the year 487 B.C., a system of the lot, closely 
 resembling that of Solon, was re-established. 
 
 Certain other measures followed in connection with the 
 institution of the ten tribes. The old tribes had elected 
 one hundred members each to form the Council of Four 
 Hundred ; the new tribes were required each to elect only 
 half that number, which gave the new Council a total of five 
 hundred. The numerous boards of ten which existed in 
 later days in Athens were of course based on the ten tribes 
 of Cleisthenes, but they cannot safely be ascribed to his 
 times. The most important of them, the Strategi, does 
 not seem to have been instituted till some years afterwards ; 
 and for many of the others there would have been no 
 necessity at that date. Nor does Aristotle give us any 
 ground for connecting the dicasteries with Cleisthenes in 
 any way. That they existed in some shape before that 
 time is certain from his account of the constitution of Solon, 
 in which the right to obtain justice for injuries and the 
 power of voting in the law-courts, especially with reference 
 to the review of a magistrate's conduct at the end of his 
 term of office, are specified as two of the most important 
 characteristics of that constitution ; and there is nothing to 
 
 c % 
 
xxxvi INTRODUCTION. 
 
 show that the elaborate organisation of the judicial body 
 which prevailed at a later time is to be attributed to 
 Cleisthenes. 
 
 Of Cleisthenes himself we hear nothing after the year of 
 his recall, in 508 B. C, and his predominance does not seem 
 to have lasted long. The story of his suffering under his 
 own law of ostracism is certainly false, and may be ascribed 
 to a pleasing sense of poetical justice untrammelled by the 
 details of facts ; but the suggestion of Curtius, that he was 
 forced to retire from public life through the indignation 
 aroused by the proposal to buy Persian help against 
 Sparta by submission to the Great King, is not improbable. 
 However that may be, his work was done, and the Athenian 
 democracy had made its next great step in advance on the 
 lines laid down by Solon. The power of the lower orders 
 now began to be felt in the state. The Ecclesia began to 
 exercise larger functions, and its consent to any policy 
 suggested by the Areopagus could no longer be assumed. 
 The old factions were swept away, and it became necessary 
 for the statesman who aspired to guide the country to have 
 the ear of the people. The difference in practical working 
 between the constitution of Solon and the constitution of 
 Cleisthenes may be seen by a contrast of the methods of 
 party warfare employed by Megacles and Pisistratus on the 
 one hand, and Themistocles and Aristides on the other. 
 
 The effect of the reforms of Cleisthenes was seen at once 
 in a long period of peace and development, during which 
 Athens made that striking progress which is so strongly 
 commented on by Herodotus (V. 78). Then came the 
 period of the Persian wars, from which the democracy of 
 Athens, which had been threatened with utter overthrow 
 and dissolution, emerged stronger than ever. The years 
 between the two invasions showed some striking develop- 
 ments of great importance. Two years after Marathon the 
 Athenians resorted for the first time to the machinery of 
 
INTRODUCTION. xxxvii 
 
 ostracism, and against the very individual against whom it 
 had been first designed, Hipparchus the representative of 
 the family and party of the exiled tyrants. The appearance 
 of Hippias in the Persian army and the treacherous attempt 
 to betray the city to the invaders by the signal from 
 Pentelicus showed that precautions must be taken against 
 the recurrence of such an event, in case the threatened 
 repetition of the invasion by Darius should actually take 
 place ; and accordingly at this time several persons be- 
 longing to the same party were ostracised. Having once 
 tasted the pleasures of this summary method of dealing 
 with leading personages, the populace was unwilling to 
 abandon it, and extended it to others from whom no 
 similar danger could be feared ; and in 486 B.C. Xanthip- 
 pus, and about 483 B.C. Aristides, were sent into exile, 
 though both were recalled, with others, in the spring of 
 480 B. c, when Xerxes was marching upon Greece. Mean- 
 while in 487 B.C. the system of the lot was re-introduced 
 for the election of the archons, in the shape of an extension 
 of the Solonian method. The tribes nominated ten (or 
 possibly fifty) candidates each for the post, and from this 
 number the nine archons were chosen by lot, one from each 
 of nine tribes, while from the tenth was chosen their 
 secretary. In 483 B.C. occurred the very important dis- 
 covery of the silver mines of Maroneia, in the district of 
 Laurium, from the proceeds of which Themistocles per- 
 suaded the Athenians to build the triremes which secured 
 the safety of Athens and of Greece at the battle of Salamis. 
 The period which follows the Persian wars and leads up 
 to the Peloponnesian war is one of steady development 
 of the power of the democracy. With the expansion of 
 the Athenian maritime empire and the course of inter- 
 Hellenic politics during this same period Aristotle has 
 nothing to do ; but he throws some light on the chronology 
 of the internal history of Athens. The first notable result 
 
xxxviii INTRODUCTION. 
 
 of the war was a revival of the power of the Areopagus. 
 The reforms of Cleisthenes and the consequent develop- 
 ment of the democracy had seriously impaired its authority, 
 but a period of war gave it an opportunity such as came 
 to the Roman senate during the struggle with Carthage. 
 At the critical moment before Salamis, when there was 
 much doubt whether sufficient crews would be forthcoming 
 to man the fleet, the strategi, who now were the chiefs of 
 the military and naval forces of the country, seemed to be 
 inclined to throw up the game in despair and bid every one 
 save himself as best he could. At this moment the 
 aristocratic council intervened and by a timely donation 
 of money secured crews to man the fleet and saved Athens 
 and Greece from disaster. This achievement raised the 
 prestige of the Areopagus, and for several years it was 
 once again the centre of the administration. Under its 
 superintendence, as Aristotle testifies, all went well. The 
 power of Athens expanded on every side. Under the 
 leadership of Aristides the Confederacy of Delos was 
 established in 478 B.C., and by the combined action of the 
 two rivals, Aristides and Themistocles, the walls of Athens 
 were rebuilt. Each of these statesmen served his country 
 in his own way ; but while the great achievements of 
 Themistocles were connected with war and the preparations 
 for war, Aristides is more important from the constitu- 
 tional point of view. Though it is not the case, as has 
 been supposed, that he threw open the archonship to all 
 classes of the community, it was he that initiated another 
 step which was of far greater importance for the develop- 
 ment of the democracy. Aristotle attributes to him the 
 counsel that the people should gather in the capital, 
 instead of living scattered over the whole face of Attica, 
 whereby they would be able to use their numerical strength 
 to control the course of public affairs ; while they could 
 count on making their living by the payments given for 
 
INTRODUCTION. xxxix 
 
 service in the army or in garrisons and for other public 
 duties. This was the beginning of that system of living 
 on the public purse which was carried to such lengths by 
 the later demagogues in their competition for popular 
 favour, whereby, even before payment was introduced for 
 service in the Ecclesia, upwards of twenty thousand persons 
 were receiving money from the public treasury. 
 
 Meanwhile a reaction was taking place against the 
 supremacy of the council of Areopagus. Though that 
 body could no longer have been the exclusively aristo- 
 cratic assembly which it was in the days when it elected 
 the magistrates from whom it was itself to be recruited, 
 it still represented a conservative element in the con- 
 stitution. Office has a sobering and conservative effect 
 upon all men, and the Areopagus was for some time after 
 the Persian wars composed largely of men who had won 
 their archonship by direct election, and who probably in 
 most cases belonged to the higher classes of society. All 
 the traditions of the body were opposed to the rapid 
 march of democracy, and it could only hold its own by 
 evidence of pre-eminent capacity for government. But in 
 this respect a change was coming over it. The degradation 
 of the office of archon by the introduction of the lot in the 
 elections told upon the character of the Areopagus. Instead 
 of being a council of the elite of the aristocracy it was 
 becoming little more than a glorified vestry. It was not 
 likely that the growing democracy, conscious of its strength 
 in its own assembly, would always submit to the super- 
 vision of a body composed of second-class magistrates 
 selected by the hazard of the lot, whose prestige and 
 considerable powers were generally directed to the re- 
 tarding of its growth and development. The attack which 
 was at last formally made upon the ancient council was 
 headed by Ephialtes, and was delivered in the year 462 B. c. 
 In this enterprise he had a strange ally from within the 
 
xl INTRODUCTION. 
 
 numbers of the Areopagus itself, in no less a person than 
 Themistocles. This somewhat tortuous politician was at the 
 time under apprehension of a charge of Medism, which was 
 being investigated by the Areopagus ; and his share in the 
 attack which was now being made on that body consisted 
 principally in hastening the course of events. Having 
 first warned Ephialtes that the Areopagus was about to 
 arrest him, he proceeded to the Areopagus and there 
 denounced Ephialtes as being engaged in a conspiracy 
 against the state, and offered to conduct a party to the 
 house where the conspirators were assembled. On arriving 
 at the house of Ephialtes he managed that he should be 
 seen talking with the members of the council who ac- 
 companied him. Ephialtes, thinking no doubt that the 
 warning of Themistocles was being fulfilled, escaped and 
 took refuge at the altar ; but realising that his only chance 
 of safety lay in taking the bull by the horns, he hurried to 
 the Council of Five Hundred and made a violent attack 
 on the Areopagus, presumably proposing to strip it at 
 once of its peculiar powers. In this he was seconded by 
 the versatile Themistocles, who no doubt was able to 
 furnish some plausible explanation of his conduct. The 
 matter was carried from the Council to the Ecclesia, and 
 the attack was there completely successful. The Areo- 
 pagus was deprived of all the rights which made it the 
 general guardian of the state, and its functions were 
 distributed between the Five Hundred, the Ecclesia, and 
 the law-courts. Neither of the leaders, however, derived 
 much advantage from their success. In the heat of party 
 strife to which the conflict had given rise Ephialtes was 
 assassinated, within the same year as the overthrow of 
 the Areopagus ; and though Themistocles seems to have 
 escaped from the accusation which was then impending, 
 he was ostracised almost immediately afterwards, and 
 whilst in banishment the revelations which followed on 
 
INTRODUCTION. xli 
 
 the disgrace and death of Pausanias of Sparta made it 
 necessary for him to flee from the soil of Greece and take 
 refuge in Persia 1 . 
 
 With the fall of the Areopagus the last check on the 
 autocratic rule of the democracy was removed, and from 
 this moment Aristotle dates the deterioration of the tone 
 of Athenian politics. It is marked by the rise of the 
 demagogues, men who depended for the retention of their 
 power on their ability to please the varying tastes of the 
 popular assembly. As soon as it becomes necessary for 
 statesmen to think, not what is best for the interests of 
 the state, but what will be popular with the majority, the 
 character of politics and of public life must be lowered. 
 The decline was hastened by the drain on the best 
 material of Athens caused by the constantly recurring 
 foreign wars and expeditions, in which, according to 
 Aristotle, the incapacity of generals of excellent family 
 but no military experience led to the loss on each occasion 
 of two or three thousand of the flower of the army. No 
 constitutional changes of any great importance took place 
 in this period, though Aristotle notes the extension of 
 eligibility to the archonship to the Zeugitae in 457 B.C. 
 and the limitation of the citizenship to those who could 
 show Attic descent on both sides in 451 B.C. The latter 
 measure was the work of Pericles, who here makes his 
 first appearance in the pages of Aristotle. No doubt he 
 had taken part in public life for some years before 
 this time. He may have been one of the supporters of 
 Ephialtes in his campaign against the Areopagus, though 
 he certainly was not one of the leaders in it ; and in any 
 case he followed up the policy thus initiated by fresh 
 legislation against some of the remaining privileges of 
 
 1 [On the historical difficulties involved in this narrative, see note on ch. 25, 
 1. 14. The story is here told on the principle of accepting provisionally the 
 point of view of the new authority.] 
 
xlii INTRODUCTION. 
 
 that body. In the purely constitutional history of Athens, 
 however, Pericles is not a figure of any great importance. 
 No new departure was made by him. He merely carried 
 out the principle of the sovereignty of the popular assembly 
 which had been established by Ephialtes, and though he 
 carried it out in such a way as to disguise the real dangers 
 and weaknesses of that principle, he was yet in truth only 
 the first of the demagogues to whom Athens ultimately 
 owed her ruin. So long as the Ecclesia was directed by 
 a man of high character and far-sighted statesmanship, 
 such as Pericles, no harm could result ; but when he was 
 removed from the scene, the leadership fell into the hands 
 of men of no principle and little statesmanship, and the 
 assembly, growing arrogant by the very weakness of its 
 leaders, became less and less manageable and less and less 
 capable of directing the affairs of an empire through the 
 various crises of a great war. The populace subsisted 
 now on the public purse. Pericles had instituted payment 
 for service in the law-courts, and when the Peloponnesian 
 invasions drove all the inhabitants of Attica within the 
 walls of the capital, and everyone was receiving pay either 
 as juror or as soldier or as magistrate, the control of the 
 state fell into the hands of the least capable but nu- 
 merically largest section of the democracy, and of those 
 who were best able to tickle its fancies or gratify its greed. 
 The Athens of the early days of the Confederacy of Delos, 
 in which the aristocratic and democratic elements were not 
 unequally blended in the constitution, was capable of 
 empire ; but the Athens of the unmitigated democracy 
 was not. 
 
 So Athens went steadily downhill, and of the later 
 politicians those whom Aristotle finds it most in his' heart 
 to commend are Thucydides and Nicias and even the 
 opportunist Theramenes. The mention of the latter leads 
 on naturally to the description of the constitutional crisis 
 
INTRODUCTION. xliii 
 
 of the year 411 B.C. The disasters in Sicily and the 
 absence of a large part of the able-bodied population of 
 Athens with the fleet at Samos left the democracy at 
 home weak and without leaders. In addition to this the 
 report was industriously put about that the support of the 
 Great King might be secured if only the constitution was 
 changed from an extreme democracy to a moderate 
 oligarchy. Those who preferred the safety of the country 
 to the particular form of its government might thus be 
 excused for being lukewarm in the defence of the de- 
 mocracy, while those who might have been disposed to 
 resist were paralysed by the terrorism established by the 
 oligarchical clubs and societies. The proposals- of the 
 oligarchical leaders were complicated and rather obscure, 
 involving a provisional form of government of which a 
 Council of Four Hundred was the chief element, and a 
 scheme for a constitution to be adopted hereafter, with a 
 sovereign body of Five Thousand and councils, four in 
 number, succeeding one another in rotation, and including, 
 with certain ex officio members, all qualified persons above 
 the age of thirty. It is not necessary to go into the details 
 of these schemes, which are given at great length by 
 Aristotle. They are of little constitutional importance, 
 as for the most part they were not carried into effect but 
 represent merely the paper constitution of an oligarchical 
 commission, which failed of being put into force through 
 the overthrow of the government of the Four Hundred 
 four months after it had been established. 
 
 On the course of events between the fall of the Four 
 Hundred and the end of the war Aristotle throws little 
 fresh light. He repeats briefly the approval expressed by 
 Thucydides of the government of the Five Thousand (a 
 nominal number including all those who were able to 
 furnish arms) which was established after the overthrow 
 of the oligarchy. He merely adds that the democracy 
 
xliv INTRODUCTION. 
 
 re-assumed the government very shortly afterwards, which 
 may be taken to confirm the suggestion that this occurred 
 after the battle of Cyzicus in 410 B. c, when the fleet, with 
 its strong democratic tendencies, returned fo Athens. 
 Four years later came the victory of Arginusae, which 
 gave Athens her last chance of an honourable escape from 
 the war. But that victory was followed by a blunder and 
 a crime which neutralised its results. The crime was the 
 condemnation of the generals, of which Aristotle gives 
 only a brief and apparently inaccurate account. The 
 blunder was the refusal of the peace proposed by the 
 Lacedaemonians, fatuously voted by the criminally light- 
 hearted Ecclesia in obedience to the drunken braggadocio 
 of Cleophon. The opportunity passed, never to return, 
 and the next year saw Athens at the feet of her conqueror. 
 The summer of 405 B. c. brought the fatal battle, or 
 rather surprise, of Aegospotami, and in the following April 
 Athens surrendered. 
 
 The fall of Athens brought upon her the last of her 
 many alterations of constitution. The terms of peace 
 included the provision that ' the ancient constitution ' 
 (■fj Trarptos -noAireia) should be restored. The expression 
 left room for a considerable variety of interpretation, and 
 the democrats, the moderate aristocrats (the leader of 
 whom was Theramenes), and the extreme oligarchs all 
 claimed to interpret it in a way suitable to their own 
 views. But Lysander constituted himself a court of 
 appeal to which there was no superior, and he cast his 
 vote with the extreme oligarchs. The Thirty Tyrants, as 
 they were subsequently entitled, were established in power 
 by a forced vote of the people, and entered upon office 
 about the beginning of May, 404 B. C. At first no com- 
 plaint could be made of their rule, beyond their neglect to 
 draw up the scheme of the constitution which was the 
 special duty committed to them. Few regretted the 
 
INTRODUCTION. xlv 
 
 strong measures which they took against those pests of 
 the law-courts, the professional accusers, and the other 
 discreditable parasites of the democracy. But ' l'appetit 
 vient en mangeant,' and the Thirty were less in favour 
 when they passed on to lay hands on persons whose only 
 offence was wealth. The butcher's bill mounted up fast, 
 and in a few months the total of persons put to death by 
 the oligarchy reached fifteen hundred. Meanwhile trouble 
 was impending both within and without the city. Abroad, 
 the numbers of the exiles in the neighbouring states of 
 Thebes and Argos were increasing and the government 
 was rapidly losing the sympathy of the inhabitants of 
 those countries. At home, the moderate party among 
 the Thirty was protesting more and more vehemently 
 against the violence of the extremists. Theramenes, their 
 leader, constantly urged the more extreme party to place 
 the government on a broader basis, in order to secure 
 more popular support. To pacify him, his colleagues 
 agreed to draw up a roll of three thousand names, who 
 should have some share in the government ; but they 
 delayed to publish the list and had clearly no intention 
 of making it a reality. 
 
 At this point their action began to be hastened from 
 outside. Late in the autumn Thrasybulus, with his little 
 band of seventy fellow-exiles, surprised and occupied the 
 frontier post of Phyle. The Thirty made one or two 
 attempts to expel the intruders, but the severe weather 
 and a clever surprise effected by Thrasybulus caused their 
 forces to retire defeated. They began now to take alarm 
 and perceived that it was necessary to set their house 
 somewhat in order, that they might not be divided against 
 themselves at home. The first step was to dispose of 
 Theramenes, a person who must at all times have been 
 singularly embarrassing to his less versatile colleagues. 
 This was done, according to Aristotle, in a somewhat 
 
xlvi INTRODUCTION. 
 
 neater fashion than the rough-and-ready method described 
 by Xenophon. A law was proposed which gave the Thirty 
 summary power of life and death against all who were 
 not on the list of the Three Thousand as finally revised 
 and published. This was probably passed without much 
 opposition even from the more moderate members of 
 the Thirty ; but it was followed by another which enacted 
 that all persons should be excluded from a share in the 
 government (z*. e. from the Three Thousand) who had had 
 any hand in overthrowing the Four Hundred. By this 
 law Theramenes was clearly put outside the pale and was 
 thereupon arrested and put to death. Immediately after 
 this the whole population outside the Three Thousand was 
 deprived of arms, a Spartan force was (now for the first 
 time, according to Aristotle) invited to the Acropolis, and 
 the Thirty may have felt that they could now look their 
 enemy in the face. 
 
 If so, they were promptly undeceived. Thrasybulus 
 had been waiting at Phyle till his numbers had increased 
 to upwards of a thousand ; but about January, a time 
 when military movements were not to be expected, he 
 suddenly set out for Athens and established himself in 
 Munychia before the Thirty could gather a force to oppose 
 him. The combat that followed killed the chiefs of the 
 Thirty and wrecked their government. The very next day 
 their followers met in the agora and deposed their defeated 
 and discredited leaders, and appointed a new board of Ten 
 with instructions to bring the war to a close. The Ten, 
 however, had ideas of the pleasures of government which 
 led them to neglect their commission, and their first steps 
 were to send representatives to Sparta to secure coun- 
 tenance and a loan of money. When complaints began 
 to be heard against them in the city, some timely severity, 
 backed by Callibius and his Spartans, showed that they 
 did not mean to be trifled with. It was not until the bulk 
 
INTRODUCTION. xlvii 
 
 of the population had slipped away to Piraeus, and it 
 became clear that the party of the city had grown weaker 
 than that of the suburb, that the obstruction of the Ten 
 was overcome. A second board of Ten was appointed, 
 consisting of moderate and constitutional men, and these, 
 acting in unison with the Spartan king Pausanias, brought 
 the negotiations to a successful issue. An amnesty was 
 granted, with exceptions only against the Thirty, the first 
 board of Ten, and their immediate instruments, and, while 
 every inducement was held out to persuade all other persons 
 to remain in Athens, a sanctuary was granted at Eleusis to 
 those who were afraid to stay. The tact, moderation, and 
 justice of Archinus, one of the leaders of the exiles who 
 returned with Thrasybulus, smoothed over the dangers and 
 difficulties which naturally attended the first few months of 
 settling down after the civil war ; and when, two years 
 afterwards, the last traces of the evil times had been 
 obliterated by the re-absorption of the secessionists at 
 Eleusis into the body of the community, the last of the 
 revolutions of Athens was over and her constitutional 
 history closed. 
 
 So at least it seemed to Aristotle, and few will care to 
 dispute his judgment. It is true that the restored de- 
 mocracy lasted for three-quarters of a century yet, and that 
 a history of that period is much to be desired from some 
 less prejudiced authority than that of the orators. But it 
 presents no points of constitutional interest, and Aristotle 
 could have done little but echo the lamentations of De- 
 mosthenes over the shallow fickleness and the vanished 
 energy of the Athenian democracy. Nor could we wish 
 for an account of the petty details of changes which followed 
 on the descent of Greece to the position of a subject 
 power, or to know that a tribe was added here and a ship's 
 name altered there in compliment to one or other of the 
 successors of Alexander. The lessons of Athenian con- 
 
xlviii INTRODUCTION. 
 
 stitutional history, such as they are, end with the close of 
 the fifth century. Aristotle sums them up in a list of 
 eleven epochs 1 , and when we consider that ten of the 
 changes enumerated fall within a period of barely more 
 than two hundred years, it can but intensify the feeling 
 which inevitably arises from the study of the history of 
 Athens, that, while no nation ever possessed such brilliant 
 philosophical writers with such an aptitude for political 
 theory, none was ever so incompetent to convert those 
 theories into stable political practice. 
 
 The second part of Aristotle's work requires little de- 
 scription. It is shorter than the first, in its present con- 
 dition considerably shorter, since the conclusion of it is 
 seriously mutilated ; and its contents are less new and of 
 less general interest. It has been largely quarried by the 
 grammarians and lexicographers of later ages, from whom 
 modern students of Athenian antiquities have derived their 
 information ; and in these passages its chief value is that it 
 substitutes a primary and contemporary witness for the 
 secondary authorities upon whom we have hitherto de- 
 pended, while, for the most part, it shows that these com- 
 pilers have done their work accurately. It adds, however, 
 a considerable number of hitherto unknown facts, and it 
 must unquestionably take rank for the future as a leading 
 authority for the student of the details of Athenian ad- 
 ministration. It is a summary of the machinery of govern- 
 ment as it existed in the days of Aristotle. It opens with 
 
 1 He takes the original establishment of Ion and his successors as his starting- 
 point, and enumerates the following epochs of change: (i", Theseus, a slight 
 modification of absolute monarchy ; {2} Draco, the first legislator ; (3) Solon, 
 the foundation of the democracy; (4) Pisistratus, the period of tyranny; 
 . 5) Cleisthenes, the re-establishment of democracy in a more pronounced form ; 
 (6) the Persian wars, the revival of the Areopagus ; (y) Aristides and Ephialtes, 
 the encouragement of the lower orders and overthrow of the Areopagus, 
 followed by the disastrous period of the demagogues ; (8) the Four Hundred ; 
 (9) the restored democracy; (10) the Thirty and the Ten; [11) the finally 
 restored democracy. 
 
INTRODUCTION. xlix 
 
 a description of the form of admission of the youthful 
 Athenian to his place in the constitution when he came of 
 age (ch. 42). It then describes the various apxai which the 
 constitution included, the Ecclesia, the Council, the magis- 
 trates, whether elected by lot or by direct vote, and the 
 courts of law. The Ecclesia is only mentioned as it were 
 incidentally, in connection with the functions of the Prytanes 
 (cc. 43, 44) ; but the Council is shown to be the pivot of 
 Athenian domestic administration. Its constitution is de- 
 scribed in cc. 43, 44 ; the functions which it administered 
 independently in cc. 45, 46, 49 ; and its co-operation with 
 a multitude of different magistrates in cc. 47-49. These 
 magistrates were all elected by lot ; and a description fol- 
 lows of other magistrates similarly elected (cc. 50-60), the 
 archons being dealt with at especial length (cc. 55-59). 
 The military officers elected by direct choice are enume- 
 rated in ch. 61 (there is an allusion to some other magis- 
 trates similarly elected in ch. 43). A slight account is then 
 given of the method of election of those magistrates who 
 were chosen by lot, and of the pay which various magis- 
 trates received (ch. 62). Finally, the machinery of the law- 
 courts is described at considerable length (ch. 63 and 
 fragments), but unfortunately the greater part of this 
 section is hopelessly mutilated. 
 
 Here Aristotle's treatise closes. He does not attempt 
 to apply to the history of Athens the principles which he 
 lays down in the Politics, nor indeed to extract any lessons 
 from it at all. He was here concerned solely in summaris- 
 ing the facts of that history, leaving the generalisations and 
 deductions to the philosophical work. Facts stated in the 
 Politeia are often alluded to in the Politics, not unfrequently, 
 as the notes in the present volume try to indicate, in similar 
 words and from the same point of view ; but there is no 
 direct reference from the one to the other. One may there- 
 fore refrain here from discussing the political lessons which 
 
 d 
 
1 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 may be derived from the constitutional history of Athens 
 as represented in this treatise. The point of importance 
 is that we may now fairly believe ourselves to be in the 
 possession of the testimony of Aristotle as to the course 
 and details of that history. 
 
 The importance of this testimony will hardly be disputed, 
 whether his work be regarded as a contribution to the 
 lessons of political philosophy, or as an assistance to the 
 reconstruction of the history of a country in which we are 
 so deeply interested as Athens. It is true that we have 
 already Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, and Plutarch 
 as authorities for the same period. But of these Thucy- 
 dides alone is beyond suspicion, and it is precisely the 
 years covered by his history that are of least importance to 
 the work of Aristotle. Herodotus is brief and often un- 
 satisfactory on the early history of Athens, and has little 
 interest in purely political and constitutional details. 
 Xenophon's accuracy is open to doubt, and his narrative 
 is so incomplete as to admit of considerable supple- 
 menting, not to say correction. Plutarch's sources were 
 of too various a quality to allow of his extremely valuable 
 narratives being taken without reservation ; and one of the 
 great advantages of the re-appearance of Aristotle's work 
 is that it enables us to test in many points the accuracy of 
 Plutarch's compilations. On the merits of Aristotle as an 
 authority it is not necessary to dwell. His impartiality, 
 his dispassionateness, his matter-of-fact statement of his 
 materials, are as evident here as in any of his other works. 
 He records facts creditable to the democracy and facts 
 which tell against it with an equal air of desiring nothing 
 but the truth. And indeed he occupied a position in 
 which impartiality was not very difficult. The game of 
 Athenian independence was over. Aristotle's own interests 
 were in no way bound up with the credit or with the 
 success of any political party. He was able to stand aloof 
 
INTRODUCTION. li 
 
 and calmly collect the facts of the past history of Athens 
 just as impartially as when he was dealing with the 
 Carthaginians or the Brahmins, with the rules of the 
 syllogism or the structures of the animal creation. 
 
 Of the authorities used in his task he tells us little, 
 almost nothing. It is certain that he was acquainted with 
 both Herodotus and Thucydides. Herodotus he quotes 
 by name (ch. 14) ; and in another passage he mentions, for 
 the purpose of correction, a narrative which is identical 
 with that of Thucydides (ch. 18). For the period of Solon 
 he evidently used Solon's own writings, from which he 
 makes considerable quotations. But for the rest there 
 seems to be nothing to show what his sources were. Only, 
 from the detailed way in which he describes the constitu- 
 tions of Draco or of Cleisthenes, from the precise dates 
 which are so frequently given in his narrative (which 
 enable us to fix several events with an exactness hitherto 
 impossible), it is clear that he did not rest upon tradition 
 alone, but was making use of written records of some kind 
 or another. Fortunately it is not of so much importance 
 to identify his actual sources as in the case of such an 
 author as Plutarch. Aristotle took care to sift his evidence 
 for himself, instead of leaving it to be done by posterity, 
 and when he clearly and positively states a fact his state- 
 ment is not lightly to be put aside. 
 
 This Introduction is only the first word upon a subject 
 on which the last word cannot be spoken for a long time. 
 The whole work opens up possibilities of discussion in 
 every direction, and raises questions which can only be 
 settled by a consensus of opinion after they have been 
 examined and considered by scholars of all countries. In 
 the present edition the matter of most importance is the 
 text, and every effort has been made to reproduce it as 
 accurately as possible. There remain not a few passages, 
 
 d2 
 
lii INTRODUCTION. 
 
 however, which still require emendation by conjecture, in 
 some of which the reading of the MS. is completely lost, 
 while in others a few faint traces of letters remain which 
 will serve as tests of the accuracy of any proposed restora- 
 tion. For the rest, the notes represent a first attempt to 
 estimate the bearing of the new material on the received 
 versions of Athenian history. 
 
 The text has been divided into chapters for convenience 
 of reference, but the beginnings of the original columns of 
 the MS. are indicated in the margin. Square brackets 
 have been used to mark words or letters which have been 
 supplied where the MS. is illegible, and words which 
 appear to have been accidentally omitted in the MS. 
 are supplied between angular brackets. The few cases 
 in which the reading of the MS. has not been followed 
 in the text are recorded in the notes, while passages in 
 which the MS. reading appears to be corrupt, but which 
 have not been altered in the text, are marked by obeli. 
 
 F. G. K. 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 TO THE THIRD EDITION. 
 
 A FEW words of introduction may serve to explain the 
 object of the present edition of the 'A6r\va'mv Ylokada. 
 The first and second editions (the latter being an immedi- 
 ate reprint of the former to supply the first demand, with 
 only a few corrections) having been exhausted, it has been 
 represented that a revision of the editio princeps might be 
 of some service to English students, especially as, up to the 
 present time, no independent study of the original MS. has 
 been undertaken, which might state the bearing of the 
 testimony of the MS. on the various emendations which 
 have been proposed since the first appearance of the work. 
 Those who have most used the MS. or the facsimile of it 
 know best that in very many passages words must be con- 
 jectured before they can be read, and that faint indications 
 of letters may often be interpreted in different ways. Hence 
 no one can be less surprised than the editor that the in- 
 genuity of other scholars and continued work on the 
 papyrus have led to the decipherment of some passages 
 which were left blank in the first edition, and to the 
 correct reading of others which had been mis-read. The 
 first purpose of the present edition is, consequently, to 
 offer a revised version of the text, in which full attention 
 has been paid to the conjectures of others and to the 
 readings which have been extracted, or thought to be 
 
liv INTRODUCTION. 
 
 extracted, from the facsimile; and the opportunity has 
 also been taken to revise, to some extent, the historical 
 notes by which the text is accompanied. 
 
 For the execution of this revision the materials, in 
 addition to the repeated study of the papyrus itself, are 
 many and various. In the first place must be mentioned 
 the two recensions of the text, based upon collations of 
 the facsimile, which appeared almost simultaneously during 
 the past summer, the first by G. Kaibel and U. von Wila- 
 mowitz-Moellendorff, the second by H. van Herwerden 
 and J. van Leeuwen. The names of these scholars are 
 sufficient to guarantee the value of their contributions to 
 the textual criticism of the work ; but, in addition to this, 
 both pairs of editors have devoted much time and labour 
 to the collation of the autotype facsimile of the MS. The 
 difficulty of such a task can only be understood by those 
 who have attempted the same undertaking. The original 
 MS. is not always easy to read ; but the difficulty of 
 decipherment is greatly increased when the decipherer 
 is forced to use a photograph, which, however well and 
 carefully prepared, is in vitably (in the case of a stained 
 and dark-coloured papyrus) less clear than the original. 
 Shadows and fibres of papyrus assume the appearance 
 of ink-strokes, and only a reference to the MS. itself can 
 save the most brilliant decipherer from errors arising from 
 this cause. In spite of these obstacles, it must gladly be 
 recognised that both the German and the Dutch editors 
 have accomplished their task admirably, and have in many 
 cases arrived at the correct readings of passages which had 
 hitherto baffled decipherment. Unfortunately the Dutch 
 editors took no steps to have their readings of the obscurer 
 passages collated with the MS., and they have conse- 
 quently at times fallen into very natural errors of the kind 
 just alluded to ; and it is further to be regretted that they 
 had not seen a list of tolerably certain corrections from the 
 
INTRODUCTION. Iv 
 
 MS. of the readings of the first edition, which appeared in 
 the Classical Review for June 1891. This, however, affects 
 only a comparatively small number of details, and does 
 not greatly detract from the value of an edition which 
 (although several of the emendations adopted in it ap- 
 pear unnecessary) has considerably advanced the textual 
 criticism of the newly discovered classic, and has been 
 of great assistance in the preparation of the present text. 
 The collection in the notes of the principal conjectures 
 which have been offered for the improvement of the text 
 and the observationes palaeographicae appended to the 
 volume have been of special use ; while the detailed index 
 verborum supplies a want which many scholars have felt. 
 The German editors, though they do not give these addi- 
 tional aids, are more successful in their extraction of the 
 MS. readings, and more conservative in their retention of 
 them. Prof, von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff has, moreover, 
 devoted much pains to the correct reading and restoration 
 of the mutilated and defaced fragments of the fourth roll 
 of the papyrus ; and the brilliant results achieved out of 
 such unpromising materials, resulting in the restoration to 
 Aristotle of several additional paragraphs, deserve the 
 greatest admiration. It would be impertinent in the present 
 editor to attempt to commend the work of scholars of such 
 eminence as these, but it may briefly be stated that it is 
 only the advantage of having the original MS. to work 
 from which justifies the independent views expressed in 
 this volume, and that it is to be wished that, in order 
 to settle the most doubtful points, a separate study of 
 the MS. may be undertaken by some independent scholar 
 of recognised palaeographical experience. 
 
 An Italian recension of the text has also appeared, 
 edited by C. Ferrini, with a translation attached. This, 
 however, does not represent a fresh study of the MS. or 
 facsimile, but is a revision of the text of the editio princeps 
 
lvi INTRODUCTION. 
 
 upon conjectural grounds ; hence, though useful, it is not 
 so important as the two works just mentioned. The 
 translations of Kaibel and Kiessling, Poland, Reinach, and 
 Zuretti have also been frequently consulted. Treatises on 
 the ! ' A.dr\vaia>v HoXiTtia have been written in all languages 
 and of all kinds, and many of these have been made 
 available (chiefly by the kindness of their authors) for the 
 preparation of the present volume. A list of these is 
 given at the end of this Introduction ; among the most 
 useful may be mentioned those of Messrs. Newman, 
 Macan, Weil, Keil, Gomperz, and Meyer, and the de- 
 tailed examination of the chronology of the treatise by 
 Adolf Bauer ; while the treatises of Cauer and Riihl 
 are interesting as representing the case of those who 
 take the most adverse view of the value and authenticity 
 of the work. References to some of the opinions ex- 
 pressed by these writers will be found in the notes. 
 
 There remain the emendations of single passages which 
 have been made by various scholars at home and abroad. 
 Emendations have indeed been made oAa> rcS dvk&Kip, and 
 if a larger proportion of them has not been adopted in the 
 present edition, it is not so much from a want of recognition 
 of the ability of their proposers, as from a doubt as to the 
 extent to which conjectural emendation is admissible. The 
 I recent discoveries of very early MSS. of classical authors 
 do not produce a very exalted idea of the success of 
 modern ingenuity in restoring ancient texts, except in 
 the most obvious details ; and though a MS. may be 
 wrong, the chances seem to be largely against a con- 
 jecture going right 1 . The evidence afforded by the Petrie 
 
 1 Two somewhat remarkable instances of the danger of conjectural emenda- 
 tion, even where apparently most justifiable, are provided by the present IIS. 
 In cli. 12, 1. 22, the MS. reads Sijiov, which was altered in the ist ed. to 817101, 
 in accordance with Plut. Sol. 16, where the passage is quoted. But the MSS. 
 of Plutarch have 817101/, and 817101 was only a conjecture of Reiske's, adopted by 
 Bergk. Again, in ch. 43, 1. 29, the MS. reads imxeiporovlav , but the editions 
 
INTRODUCTION. lvii 
 
 Papyri, so far as it goes, tends to show that our texts 
 have already suffered from the application of mechanical 
 rules of style and diction on the part of the Alexandrian 
 critics ; and hence it appears to be safer to err on the side 
 of altering too little than on that of altering too much. At 
 the same time many alterations of the text as originally 
 printed are unquestionably necessary, and emendations 
 which it was not thought' right to attempt in the first 
 edition may reasonably be introduced in a revision. For 
 these improvements acknowledgment has to be made to 
 a large number of scholars of all countries. The editor of 
 the Classical Review, in particular, has done great service to 
 all students of the subject, not only by his own conjec- 
 tures, but also by his collection of the emendations which 
 had been proposed in more ephemeral publications. It 
 is impossible to enumerate all those who have contributed 
 something to the revision of the text ; but special acknow- 
 ledgment should be made of the assistance derived from the 
 work of Professors J. E. B. Mayor, Blass, and van Herwer- 
 den, and Messrs. Richards, Wyse, and Kontos. The de- 
 cipherment of a few passages of particular difficulty is due 
 to the experience of Dr. K. Wessely. It has not been 
 thought necessary to increase the bulk of the textual notes 
 by ascribing to those who happened to be the first to point 
 them out the correction of obvious errors in the first 
 edition ; but in all other cases it is hoped that the 
 obligations of the editor have been duly acknowledged. 
 No doubt when the promised editions (including collations 
 of the MS.) of Diels, Blass, Sandys, and Haussoullier have 
 appeared, the materials for fixing the text will be largely 
 
 of the Lex. rhet. Cantabrig., In which this passage is quoted, give irpoxetporoviav, 
 on which authority the text is altered in the edition of Kaibel and Wilamowitz. 
 But the MS. of the Lexicon has emxeipoToviav, and irpox^poToviav is merely a 
 conjecture by Meier, adopted as certain (' bene Meierus correxit ') by Houtsma. 
 The independent evidence of the present MS. must be decisive in both passages. 
 
lviii INTRODUCTION. 
 
 increased ; meanwhile it is hoped that good use has been 
 made of the materials already at hand. 
 
 On the general question of the value and authenticity of 
 the 'A07]i>cuW rioAima much has been written, but it would 
 be premature as yet to say that any definite result has 
 been arrived at. English scholars have, for the most part, 
 expressed themselves more or less tentatively against the 
 attribution of it to Aristotle ; the leading French and 
 German scholars, on the other hand, find no difficulty in 
 accepting its authenticity. The judgments of different 
 writers vary remarkably, almost ludicrously, both as to 
 the literary style and as to the historical insight and in- 
 tellectual capacity shown in the work. While not a few 
 critics praise the clear arrangement of materials, the pre- 
 cise and masterly indication of the principal landmarks of 
 Athenian constitutional history, others find the treatise 
 badly arranged, obscurely expressed, and silent as to facts 
 of great importance. The last argument, based upon sup- 
 posed omissions of important facts, is one which requires 
 great discretion in its use. The author of the ' 'A6r]vaia>v 
 UokLTua, whoever he was, was not writing for the nine- 
 teenth century after Christ, neither was he composing a 
 detailed history of the constitution of Athens. He was 
 writing a sketch of that history for the benefit of the 
 general public of his own day. He had to omit much, 
 to assume a certain knowledge in his readers, to pass 
 lightly over matters which were well known and on which 
 he had nothing to add to the accepted version, to dwell 
 with greater detail on subjects on which he desired to 
 correct (tacitly or expressly) the views of his predecessors 
 or to add some details of his own. Consequently, to con- 
 clude that he cannot be Aristotle because he does not 
 quote inscriptions or laws which we should like to see, 
 because he does not mention Alcibiades or Hyperbolus 
 (neither of them persons of any real constitutional im- 
 
INTRODUCTION. lix 
 
 portance), because he alludes casually to persons or events 
 without giving any account of them in their chronological 
 place, is a fatally uncritical method of procedure. 
 
 With criticism in this very unsettled state (and it is 
 inevitable that it should be so for some time to come), 
 no one can do much more (except by detailed examination 
 of the style and the statements of the work) than express 
 for himself the impression produced upon him by the study 
 of it ; and that, in the present instance, it is not worth 
 while to do at any length. But the statement may be 
 emphasised which was made in the Introduction to the 
 first edition, that at present the burden of proof lies upon 
 those who dispute the authenticity of the work. Putting 
 aside the hypothesis of a modern forgery, which no one 
 has yet propounded or is likely to propound, the facts as 
 to the appearance in this work of the quotations in ancient 
 writers prove beyond a doubt that this is the treatise which 
 was known to the ancients as r] tov ' Apia-Tortkovs ' ' Ad-qvaiuv 
 UoKirda. No doubt is ever expressed in any ancient author 
 as to the correctness of the ascription to Aristotle ; but 
 how far back this ascription can actually be traced is 
 another matter. Simplicius, by his phrase Iv reus yvr)<riai.s 
 avTov 7roAiretcuy (in Cat. f. 4), shows that criticism was alive 
 to the question of the authenticity of the constitutional 
 treatises passing under the name of Aristotle in the fifth 
 century of our era, and it is clear that the Athenian Constitu- 
 tion never fell under suspicion ; but this leaves a consider- 
 able interval since the date of Aristotle. It is certain, how- 
 ever, that Pollux used it as a work of primary authority, 
 and that Plutarch regarded it as undoubtedly Aristotle's ; 
 further, that Strabo, in the first century before Christ, refers 
 to al 'ApuTToreXovs 7roXtreiai collectively (VII. p. 321), and 
 specifically to the sections on Aetolia, Acarnania, Leucas, 
 Megara, Opus, and apparently to those on Argos, Epi- 
 damnus, Elis, Tenedos, and Chalcis, in all cases using 
 
lx INTRODUCTION. 
 
 the name of Aristotle. Whether the evidence can be 
 carried further back depends on a well-known passage 
 in Polybius (exc. XII. 5), in which the views of Aristotle 
 as to the foundation of the Locrian community are quoted 
 at length, and are said to have been assailed by Timaeus, 
 who died shortly after 264 B.C. It is not expressly stated 
 that the quotation is from the Tlokirelai, but that is the only 
 reasonable supposition, and the passage is placed under 
 this head in Rose's edition of the fragments of Aristotle. 
 In this case there is evidence that the generation succeed- 
 ing Aristotle regarded some at least of the noAireuu as for 
 all practical purposes the work of the philosopher himself. 
 Whether Philochorus, writing at the close of the fourth 
 century B.C., referred to the Athenian Constitution as Aris- 
 totle's, as has been stated by a competent American critic, 
 may require further demonstration 1 ; but he certainly seems 
 to have used the work as one of some authority. It does 
 not, then, seem too much to say that the unanimous testi- 
 mony of antiquity, probably dating back to the generation 
 which followed the composition of the treatise, ascribed it 
 to Aristotle ; and this should surely constitute a prima 
 facie case in favour of the authenticity of the work, which 
 ought not to be rejected except upon really strong grounds. 
 What precisely is meant by " Aristotelian authorship ' may 
 be another question, upon which few persons would care 
 to dogmatise. It may not be inconsistent with the exist- 
 ing evidence to hold that the great philosopher caused this 
 and similar works to be prepared by his pupils, on outlines 
 laid down by himself and under his revision ; but the 
 evidence does unquestionably seem to show that it was 
 written in the lifetime of Aristotle, and that he was con- 
 
 1 This further demonstration has been now supplied by the critic referred to, 
 Dr. J. H. Wright, in the American Journal of PAi/ologj>,\H,no. 3, pp. 310-317. 
 A copy of this article, by Dr. Wright's kindness, has been received just as this 
 sheet was going to press. The demonstration does not, it is true, amount to 
 absolute proof, but certainly to a strong presumption. 
 
INTRODUCTION. lxi 
 
 tent to publish it under his name and with the stamp of 
 his authority. If this be so, it matters comparatively little 
 for historical purposes whether the actual words in which 
 it stands are those of Aristotle himself or of a pupil ; yet 
 even on this point the burden of proof lies with the sceptics. 
 The argument from style rests chiefly on individual im- 
 pressions, and it is notoriously difficult to apply it to such 
 an author as Aristotle. The number of ctaraf Xtyo/ieva in 
 his unquestioned works is large ; and we have no other 
 historical work, and indeed no other work written for the 
 general public at all, with which to compare it. No recog- 
 nised Aristotelian scholar has yet ventured to declare it 
 to be impossible that the language should be Aristotle's. 
 Under these circumstances, caution upon this head is ad- 
 visable ; and he may laugh best who laughs last. 
 
 The presumption in favour of Aristotelian authorship 
 might be pressed further by arguing that the views ex- 
 pressed in this treatise are in accordance with those held 
 by Aristotle in the Politics, the only passage in the latter 
 which conflicts irreconcileably with the IIoAireto occurring 
 in the probably unauthentic final chapter of the second 
 book [cf. 'A. 77. ch. 4, 1. 3) ; while the systematic arrange- 
 ment, the critical use of materials, and the impartiality of 
 judgment displayed in it are not unworthy of the author of 
 the undisputed works of Aristotle. But the first of these 
 arguments rests on the quotation and discussion of in- 
 dividual passages, which is better reserved for the notes ; 
 and the opinion formed upon the other points depends 
 too much on the ' personal equation ' of the critic to be 
 worth expressing at length, except by one whose ipse dixit 
 on such a question is valuable, unless with the support of 
 a detailed examination for which there is no space here. 
 It must suffice to express the belief that on none of these 
 counts will the verdict necessarily be unfavourable to the 
 authenticity of the work. 
 
Ixii INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Believing then that the treatise bears the authority of 
 Aristotle for historical purposes, and leaving on one side 
 the question of the literary authorship, the historical critic 
 has still to examine its value as a witness to the events of 
 Greek history. 
 
 Concerning the second part (cc. 42-end) no question is 
 possible. It is a contemporary sketch of the mechanism 
 of government as it existed about the year 325 B.C.. and 
 it is the source from which we have already indirectly 
 derived a great part of our knowledge concerning the 
 Athenian officials. The difference is that we now receive 
 our information at first hand and in an approximately 
 complete form. It is as to the historical section that in- 
 quiry is needed. The sketch of Athenian history begins 
 in remote and undefined antiquity, and ends in 403 B.C., 
 nearly eighty years before the composition of the treatise, 
 and twenty years before the birth of Aristotle. Clearly 
 the value of such a sketch depends upon (1) the sources 
 of information available to the writer, and (2) the use 
 made of them. Each consideration is as important as the 
 other ; you cannot make bricks without straw, neither with 
 straw can you make them unless you know how to use it. 
 Mr. Macan {Journal of Hellenic Studies, XII. 35-40) has 
 briefly examined the sources, and sums them up as (1) 
 general tradition or agreement (waiTe? o^e'Sor, 01 T:\eiovs, 
 k.t.X.) ; (2) special traditions and criticisms (hwi, ol Stj^ot-ikoi, 
 Tivh, k.t.X.) ; (3) individual authorities, such as Solon and 
 Herodotus and other unnamed sources, among which were 
 certainly Thucydides, Xenophon, and a table of archons ; 
 (4) skolia ; (5) official or quasi-official records, derived per- 
 haps from the avvayaiyr} ■v/njc/utrjuarcoi' of Craterus ; (6) archaeo- 
 logical evidence, such as the Kvppeis, but only scantily 
 employed ; (7) reconstruction of past institutions from sur- 
 vivals in later days, a method which no doubt requires 
 careful criticism. Mons. T. Reinach, in the preface to his 
 
INTRODUCTION. Ixiii 
 
 translation (pp. xxii-xxvii), adds Theopompus, Cleidemus, 
 Phanodemus, and Androtion to the list of historians more 
 or less certainly used by Aristotle. It is not proposed to 
 carry this examination further here. It is rather with 
 reference to the use made of his materials by the author 
 that it is desired to add a word of explanation. It was 
 never intended to maintain, in either the Introduction or 
 the notes to the first edition, that the authority of the 
 newly discovered treatise was to be considered as final. 
 The most impartial and painstaking of historians may 
 make mistakes, and the new evidence, especially where 
 it conflicts strikingly with the old, as in relation to Draco 
 and Themistocles, unquestionably requires careful scrutiny ; 
 which, however, is a different thing from prompt rejection. 
 But if there is good reason for believing this treatise to be 
 in substance the work of Aristotle, then its statements, 
 whatever its ' sources ' may be, have a' greater weight than 
 if they proceeded merely from an unknown compiler. We 
 certainly should expect a priori that the same qualities of 
 mind which distinguish his other work would also be ap- 
 plied to historical research, and that he would not without 
 sufficient reason either follow or depart from the current tra- 
 dition. We should remember that he had, for the most part, 
 ampler materials and better means of forming a judgment 
 than we have, and, while not accepting him as infallible, 
 we should not wish to depart lightly from his conclusions. 
 
 In the present edition the textual notes have been 
 separated from the historical, the lines of the chapters 
 (not pages) have been numbered, and the division into 
 sections by Kaibel and von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff has 
 also been given, in order to facilitate the identification of 
 references to other editions. A complete collation has been 
 made of the readings of the editions of Kaibel- Wilamowitz 
 (denoted by K-W.) and Herwerden-Leeuwen (denoted by 
 
lxiv INTRODUCTION. 
 
 H-L.) which differ from those adopted in the present text ; 
 and a selection is given of the more important among the 
 other emendations which have been proposed. In an ad- 
 ditional appendix a transcript has been given of the alien 
 matter which appears on the papyrus between the tenth 
 and eleventh columns of the Aristotle (see pp. 216-219), 
 relating to the speech of Demosthenes against Meidias. 
 
 The spelling has been revised throughout in accordance 
 with the evidence derivable from inscriptions as to the 
 orthography in use at the date of the composition of the 
 work, as presented by Meisterhans in his Grammatik der 
 Attischen Inschriften, 2nd ed., 1888. 
 
 Acknowledgment has been made earlier in this Intro- 
 duction of the sources which have contributed most to- 
 wards the preparation of this volume ; but the editor 
 would wish to add a word of sincere thanks to those 
 scholars, both at home and abroad, from whose kindness 
 and generosity he has derived special help and encourage- 
 ment. To mention all who have gone out of their way to 
 show friendliness would be impossible ; but from Professor 
 J. E. B. Mayor, Dr. H. Jackson, Dr. J. E. Sandys, Professor 
 Th. Gomperz, Professor G. Kaibel, Professor U. von Wila- 
 mowitz-Moellendorff, and Mons. B. Haussoullier he has 
 received such constant kindness, both in private communi- 
 cations and in published writings, that it is a duty as well 
 as a pleasure to acknowledge it. Dr. Sandys has added 
 to these obligations by taking the trouble to communicate 
 many suggestions and corrections while the sheets have 
 been passing through the press. Finally, Professor F. Blass 
 has generously allowed the editor to make use of the results 
 which his ingenuity and experience have derived from a 
 collation of the facsimile. Unfortunately the printing of 
 the present text had proceeded too far for it to be possible 
 to use this new material in the earlier part of the treatise 
 (e.g. ch. 2, 1. 10 01 Scweicr/xot ttclo-iv, 4, 1. 28 r\<rav ol haveicr^oi, 
 
INTRODUCTION. lxv 
 
 the omission of clvt£>v in 15, 1. 26, 16, 1. 52 /ecu for em, 18, 
 1. 17 jxtTeyovTMv iroWav, which are at least possible ; and 12, 
 1. 56 erpacpiiv or cypatp-qv for ecrrpacpTiv, which is certain) ; but 
 in three or four other passages Professor Blass's reading has 
 been thankfully adopted, notably in 42, 1. 44, where he has 
 unquestionably solved a problem which had baffled all 
 previous decipherers. Professor Blass has also made 
 further progress with the decipherment and arrangement 
 of the mutilated fragments, having discerned that frag- 
 ments 3 and 1 on p. 199 contain the beginnings respec- 
 tively of 11. 1-9 and 11-21 of col. 35, while he has also 
 arrived at some new readings in col. 36. To have in- 
 corporated all these results would, however, have caused 
 considerable delay, and it would moreover have been an 
 abuse of his generosity so far to anticipate his forthcoming 
 edition. p q k. 
 
 The following is a list of the principal works connected 
 with the 'AOrjvaLcav noKireta which have come under the 
 notice of the editor, and to most of which reference is 
 made in the notes to this edition. Some additional articles 
 will be found in the list given by Dr. P. Meyer, in the 
 work quoted below. 
 
 Aristotelis noAlTEIA A9HNAIQN. Ediderunt G. Kaibel et U. de 
 Wilamowitz-Moellendorff. Berolini, 1 89 1. A second edition 
 of this has also appeared, with a few alterations. 
 
 De Republica Atheniensium : Aristotelis qui fertur liber A9HNAIQN 
 noAlTEIA. Post Kenyonem ediderunt H. van Herwerden 
 et J. van Leeuwen, J. F. Accedunt manuscripti apographum, 
 observationes palaeographicae cum tabulis IV, indices locuple- 
 tissimi. Lugduni Batavorum, 1891. 
 
 A6HNAICN noAlTEIA. Aristotele, La Costituzione degli Ateniesi. 
 Testo Greco, versione Italiana, introduzione e note, per cura 
 
 e 
 
lxvi INTRODUCTION. 
 
 di C. Ferrini, Prof. Ord. di Diritto nell' Universita di Modena. 
 Milano, 1891. 
 
 G. Kaibel and A. Kiessling : Aristoteles Schrift vom Staatswesen 
 
 der Athener, verdeutscht von G. K. und A. K. Zweite ver- 
 
 besserte Auflage. Strassburg, 1891. 
 F. Poland : Aristoteles' Staat der Athener, iibersetzt von Dr. F. P. 
 
 Berlin, 1891. Contains some useful notes. 
 T. Reinach: Aristote, La Rdpublique Athe'nienne, traduite en 
 
 Francais pour la premiere fois par T. R. Paris, 1891. With 
 
 an introduction. 
 C. O. Zuretti : Aristotele, La Costituzione di Atene, tradotta da 
 
 C. 0. Z. Firenze e Roma, 1891. 
 
 W. L. Newman : review of Aristotle on the Constitution of Athens, 
 
 Classical Review, V. 155-164. 
 R. W. Macan: A9HNAIQN nOMTEIA. Journal of Hellenic Studies, 
 
 XII. 17-40. 
 Classical Review, vol. V passim : notes and emendations by many 
 
 scholars, partly collected from other journals. 
 A. Bauer : litterarische und historische Forschungen zu Aristoteles 
 
 A6HNAIQN nOAlTElA. Miinchen, 189 1. Includes especially 
 
 a thorough examination of the chronology of the ircvTriKovTaerla. 
 F. Blass : emendations in Lillerarisch.es Centralblalt, No. 10. 
 
 A. Brieger: die Verfassungsgeschichte von Athen, nach Aris- 
 toteles' neu angefundener Schrift. Unsere Zeit, II. 18-36. 
 Descriptive article. 
 
 F. Cauer : Hat Aristoteles die Schrift vom Staate der Athener 
 geschrieben ? ihr Ursprung und ihr Wert fiir die altere Athe- 
 nische Geschichte. Stuttgart, 1891. 
 
 O. Crusius : Die Schrift vom Staate der Athener, und Aristoteles 
 iiber die Demokratie. Philologies, L., pp. 173-178. 
 
 H. Diels : article in Deutsche Litter aturzeitung, No. 7. 
 
 A. Gennadios: emendations in 'AkpottoKis, March 19, 1891, et seqq. 
 
 Th. Gomperz : Aristoteles und seine neuentdeckte Schrift von der 
 Staatsverfassung der Athener. Deutsche Rundschau, May 
 1891. Descriptive article, separately reprinted. 
 
INTRODUCTION. lxvii 
 
 Th. Go.mperz : Uber das neuentdeckte Werk des Aristoteles und 
 die Verdachtiger seiner Echtheit. Sitzungsberichte der kaiser- 
 lichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, nr. x-xi. With 
 special reference to collections of ' Unaristotelean words and 
 phrases ' in the Classical Review. 
 
 Die Schrift vom Staatswesen der Athener und ihr 
 
 neuester Beurtheiler. Eine Streitschrift. Wien, 1891. Chiefly 
 directed against the article of F. Riihl, vide infra. 
 
 B. Haussoullier : descriptive article in Revue Critique, No. 10. 
 
 F. Hultsch : Das Pheidonische Maszsystem nach Aristoteles. 
 
 Note in Fleckeisen's Jahrbiicher filr class. Philologie, Hft. 4, 
 
 p. 263. 
 B. Keil : descriptive article in Bed. Philol. Wochenschrift, No. 
 
 17-20; separately reprinted. 
 K. S. Kon'tos : emendations in Fleckeisen's fahrbilcher and in 
 
 'ABrjva, vol. III. pp. 289-400. 
 
 B. Lacox : emendations in 'E$>j/»ptf, March 20th, 1891. 
 
 J. van Leeuwex : notes and emendations in Mnemosyne, vol. XIX, 
 
 April 1 89 1.. 
 P. Meyer : Des Aristoteles Politik und die 'Adr/miav irdKirda, nebst 
 
 einer Litteratur-Ubersicht. Bonn, 1891. 
 
 C. Michel : Un nouveau Traite" d' Aristote. Reprinted from Revue 
 
 de flnstruciion Publique en Belgique, torn. XXXIV, pts. 2 
 and 4. 
 
 G. Muller : article in Rivista di Filologia ed Istruzione Classica, 
 
 XIX. pp. 55i~557- 
 
 E. Pais: article in the same periodical, pp. 557-569. 
 
 F. Ruhl : Uber die Schrift vom Staate der Athener. Rheinisches 
 
 Museum fur Philologie, pp. 426-464. 
 B. Saint-Hilaire : Sur la Constitution d'Athenes. Revue bleue, 
 
 March 21st, 1891. 
 R. Scholl: Aristoteles' Staat der Athener. Descriptive article, 
 
 reprinted from Beilage zur Allgemeinen Zeitung, No. 107-108. 
 H. Weil: article in fournal des Savants, April 1891. 
 [J. H. Wright] : article in The Nation, vol. LII, pp. 382-384. 
 
 New York, May 7th, 1891. 
 
ABBREVIATIONS IN USE IN THE MS. 
 
 5 
 
 — 
 
 at. 
 
 
 
 M v 
 
 ^z 
 
 liera. 
 
 o x 
 
 = 
 
 dva. 
 
 
 
 o' 
 
 = 
 
 ovv. 
 
 h 
 
 = 
 
 aVTTJV 
 
 (col. 9, 
 
 1.8). 
 
 n" 
 
 = 
 
 irapa. 
 
 Y 
 
 = 
 
 yap. 
 
 
 
 7!' 
 
 = 
 
 Trcpl Or TTep. 
 
 8' 
 
 = 
 
 8e. 
 
 
 
 a' 
 
 = 
 
 <TVl>. 
 
 a s 
 
 = 
 
 did. 
 
 
 
 Tj 
 
 = 
 
 rat. 
 
 \ 
 
 = 
 
 twai. 
 
 
 
 T X 
 
 = 
 
 ttjv. 
 
 / 
 
 = 
 
 cot/. 
 
 
 
 r' 
 
 = 
 
 T7]!. 
 
 // 
 
 = 
 
 ilai. 
 
 
 
 T' 
 
 = 
 
 T(HV. 
 
 6' 
 
 = 
 
 6<u. 
 
 
 
 ,/ 
 
 = 
 
 virc'p. 
 
 k' 
 
 = 
 
 Km. 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 = 
 
 WTO. 
 
 K X 
 
 = 
 
 Kara. 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 = 
 
 Xpovos. 
 
 M' 
 
 = 
 
 fi(V. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Where the expanded word has not been accented in the above 
 list, it is to be understood that the abbreviation is used for the 
 syllable in question when it occurs as part of a word, as well as 
 when it stands by itself or (in the case of prepositions) in com- 
 position : e.g. avayx'ov, ycyevrfpos. 
 
 In addition to these there are occasional abbreviations of 
 the terminations of words : e.g. a^rpar^y" for orpari/yor, pa* for pdxi"; 
 yevca 6 for ytviaSai. These are, however, rarely used, and present 
 no difficulty. 
 
 It may be mentioned that in three cases accents are found in 
 the MS., and in two cases breathings. cKpaprupSiv (col. 3, I. 9) 
 and vopotpvXaKfiv (col. 3, 1. 26) have circumflex accents, d (col. 12, 
 1. 3) has a rough breathing of an angular shape, and r)yS,vTm (col. 
 13, 1. 11) has both rough breathing and circumflex accent. The 
 first three cases occur in the first of the four hands in which the 
 MS. is written ; the last is an addition to the second hand, 
 presumably by the person who has corrected that hand through- 
 out, viz. the writer of the first hand. 
 
API2TOTEAOT2 
 A0HNAIX1N nOAITEIA. 
 
 I . . . . [Mjyyacoi'Of kolO' lepcov o/xoa-avres apurTiv- 
 8rjv. KarayvaxrOevTos 8e tov ayo[y~\? [avWol p.ev 
 
 2. KaTayva>(T0(VTos : corrected to mSapBivroi in MS. airoi: the t is doubt- 
 ful ; 1st ed. \viKp\oi H-L. [ol vticjpoi, but there is not room for the article. 
 K-YV. [auTJoi, after Kirchhoffs conjecture. 
 
 Ch. I. The opening words evidently belong to a narrative of the 
 revolutionary attempt of Cylon and its consequences. The date of 
 this attempt has always been doubtful. We know from Herodotus 
 (V. 71) that Cylon was an Olympic victor, and his victory is placed by 
 Africanus in 640 B.C. It is also certain that his attempt was made in 
 an Olympic year ; but it has generally been assumed that it occurred 
 after the legislation of Draco, whose date is given by Jerome as 
 621 B. c, and it is therefore usually placed in the chronologies at 620 
 or 616 B.C. The assumption is natural, from the way in which 
 Plutarch (who certainly used Aristotle's work in preparing his life of 
 Solon) brings the attempt of Cylon into connection with the career 
 of Solon, making the visit of Epimenides to purify the city occur only 
 shortly before Solon's legislation and long after the career of the 
 latter as a public man had begun. Plutarch does not, however, 
 mention how long a time intervened between the slaughter of the 
 accomplices of Cylon and the expiation effected by the expulsion of 
 the Alcmeonidae and the purification by Epimenides ; and the present 
 work makes it certain that the date of Cylon is anterior to that of 
 Draco. This is probable on other grounds. The attempt of Cylon is 
 spoken of as that of a young man, aided by companions of his own 
 age (irpo&iroiticrdnevos eTaiprjtriu ran* rjXiKitoTecov, Herod. /. c.) ; whereas a 
 man who had won an Olympic victory in 640 b. c. would be a middle- 
 aged man in 620 or 616 B. C. Moreover, according to Plutarch's own 
 narrative (Solon, 12) it is clear that sufficient time had elapsed before 
 the expulsion of the Alcmeonidae for the party of Cylon, which had 
 
 B 
 
a API2T0TEA0T2 [ch. i. 
 
 €/c tcov rafytav i^e/3X^8rjaav, to Se yevos avrcov 
 e(j)vyei> atMpvyiav. 'E^tj/ieviST/y 5' 6 YLprjs eVt 
 5 tovtoi? €Ka9rjpe Trjv iroXiv. 
 
 2. Mera 8e ravra avve/3r] o-TO.aria.crai tovs re yvu>- 
 plfiovs /cat to ttXtjOos ttoXvv yjpovov \tov Sij/xov. tjv 2 
 
 at the time been nearly exterminated, to recover strength and carry on 
 a vigorous feud with its opponents. It is therefore probable that the 
 attempt of Cylon should be placed about the year 632 B. C, or 628 B. C. 
 at the latest. A similar conclusion had already been arrived at by 
 Busolt {Handb. d. griech. Geschichte, I. 498). Whether the date 
 of the visit of Epimenides, which is assigned to about 596 B. C, 
 should be altered is another matter. Aristotle in the present passage 
 may very probably be merely carrying on the narrative of the rising 
 of Cylon to its conclusion, and the words p.era 8e ravra which follow 
 may easily refer to the attempt itself and not to the visit of Epi- 
 menides. Hence there is no sufficient reason for supposing Plutarch, 
 who had seen Aristotle's work, to have made so gross a mistake as 
 to assign to the lifetime of Solon (with whom he states Epimenides 
 to have associated freely) an event which occurred before the legisla- 
 tion of Draco. The feud arising out of the Kvkavaov ay»s (the 
 memories of which were still active in Greece at the period of the 
 outbreak of the Peloponnesian war) had evidently lasted for a con- 
 siderable time before the expulsion of the Alcmeonidae ; and it was not 
 till some years after this that the visit of Epimenides took place. 
 
 1. Mvpavos : Myron is mentioned by Plutarch as the accuser of the 
 Alcmeonidae at the trial to which Solon persuaded them to submit. 
 The word apmrivi^v occurs in the same passage (xpitfiji/ni rpiaxoalav 
 apiarlvbrjv biKa£6vrav), referring to the selection of the judges on that 
 occasion. 
 
 2. Karayvaxrdhros: both the tense and the context seem to make 
 KaTayvGHrdivros preferable to the correction KadapBivros. 
 
 3. e'/c tSuv rdcpav i!-(fi\r)8ri<Tav : both Thucydides (I. 126) and Plutarch 
 (/. c.) mention the disinterment of the bones of the members of the 
 Alcmeonid clan who had died since the affair of Cylon. 
 
 4. 'Emiiividr]! : cf. Plutarch, /. c. 
 
 II. 2. rbv brjiiov : these words have been obelised as being probably 
 a gloss on to n\ij8os. Professor J. E. B. Mayor, however, suggests that 
 o-racridtTai is transitive and rav Sijfiov the object. In favour of this it 
 may be argued that it is improbable that a gloss should be required 
 at the date of this MS. on so common a word as 7rXij0or. On the 
 other hand Sijuos does not seem to be used in this treatise as denoting 
 the whole state, except with the collateral sense that the state was a 
 
CH. 2.J A0HNA1I2N I10AITEIA. 3 
 
 yap [t6t€J tj 7roXiT€la t[o?9 re] aXXois oXiyap-^iKrj 
 iracri, /cat Srj /cat iSovXevov ol ir£vr)Te\s rjot? irXova-'iois 
 /cat avrol [/cat rja re/cra /cat at yi>i/at/cey, /cat e/ca- 5 
 Aowro 7reAarat /cat €KTTjfj.6por Kara ravrrji/ yap rrjv 
 
 II. 4. «ai 5^ Km' : the second W is added above the line. 6. Kara 
 
 ravrtjv ttjv niaSaimv : so K-W. ; uaTa («') is doubtful in MS., but suits the 
 visible remains. MS. Tavr s t k pioBaiT, not tovt' t, as in 1st ed. and H-L. 
 
 democracy. The most doubtful cases are ch. 14, 1. 8 (eVavao-rar . . ™ 
 Srjpa) and ch. 15, 11. 17, 20 ( irapeXopevos toO Sfifiov to. Sitka), and even 
 here there is the sense of an attack on the democracy by a despot. 
 If cTTao-iiio-ai is transitive, one would rather have expected tt)v ttoXiv 
 as the object. Supposing tok fiij/iop to be an addition, it was probably 
 written as a correction of to irXfjdos, not as an explanation. 
 
 4. eSoiXevov : in earlier times, according to Herodotus (VI. 137), there 
 were no slaves (oixc'rat) in Attica ; but he is speaking of the time when 
 the Pelasgian community living under Hymettus was still independent. 
 As at Rome, so in Attica, the pressure of debt very early brought the 
 poorest class of the community into a position of serfdom, if not of 
 slavery. 
 
 6. neXarcu rat eVrij^dpot : Photius quotes Aristotle as his authority for 
 the word ireXdrai, which he explains as ol p.io-8<S dovXevovrcs, eirel to 
 ireXas «' ■yyw, oiov eyyicrra Sta ireviav irpoo-wvres, and again as 01 irapa rois 
 irXrfaiov ipya^opevoC rat d^res ot airroi rat inTifpopoi, iireibr) c/cra pepet 
 twv napirav elpyd£ovro rf)V yrjv. Cf.&iso Pollux III. 82, ireXdrat Be (tat dfjrts 
 eXevdepiov ioTiv ovopara Sid ireviav iir apyvpia SovXevovrtcv and IV. 165, 
 eKTrjp6poi,ol neXdrai irapa. rois 'Attikoij. (KTr/popoi, not inTT)p6ptoi, seems 
 to be the proper form. ireXdrai is also used to represent the Latin 
 clientes in Plut. Rom. 13 etc. Plutarch has drawn from this passage 
 of Aristotle in his description of the state of things immediately 
 before the legislation of Solon [Sol. 13). See Rose's Fragmenta, 
 frag. 351. 
 
 eienjfiopoi : interpreted by Photius (/. c.) as those who retained one- 
 sixth of the produce, and by Plutarch (Sol. 13) as those who paid 
 one-sixth to their landlords. With Photius agrees Schol. Plat. Euthyph. 
 4 C. ; Hesychius gives the first explanation s. v. UTijpopoi, the second 
 s. v. iirlp.opTos. The former seems most in accordance with the general 
 description of the depressed state of the peasantry ; but the latter is 
 the natural interpretation of the words of Aristotle. Gomperz has 
 pointed out (Die Schrift vom Staatswesen der Athener, pp. 45-48) 
 that the burdensomeness of any rent depends on the general condition 
 of agriculture in the country, pio-dao-is must mean ' rent,' not ' wages ' 
 as it is rendered in most of the translations. 
 
 B 2 
 
4 API2T0TEA0T2 [CH. 2. 
 
 fju<r0a>criv [eijpyd^ovTO ra>v irXovaicov tovs dypovs. 
 rj 8e iraua yrj 8c oXcycou i]v /cat el firj tols pucr- 
 Oco&ei? [a7r]o5t5otez> dya>ycp.oc /cat avrol /cat ol Tratfiey 
 
 io iycyvouro, /cat \8e\8\epLevoc tols Savela^aaiv eVt tocs 
 (rcofxacriv rjaav p-exP 1 2o'Aa>z/os" ovtos 8e 7rpa>Tos iye- 
 v\ero tov\ 8rj[p.ov~\ Trpoa-rdrrjs. yaXeiraTarov /xeu ovv 3 
 /cat iriKpoTarov r/i> rot? 7roAAot? ra>z> Kara rrjv 
 iroXcreiav to \8ovXev\ecu. ov p.rjv dXXa /cat €7rt 
 
 15 tois aAAoty iSva-^epacuow ov8evos yap, a>? eiirelv, 
 krvyyavov p.£riyovT€s. 
 
 3. 'Hy 5' 77 rd^cs ttjs ap^aias 7roAtreta? 7-77? 77730 
 Apa/covro? [rotaSe]. ray /iiey dpyas [/ca6V]crraa-aj' 
 a.pi(TTlv8r]v /cat tvXovtiv8t]V r}px ov $* [ro] /u,ei/ 7rpc3- 
 
 10. kyiyvovTO : MS. C711/01/TO, f/] Meisterhans, p. 141. feat . . . Saveiaaaiv : 
 K-W. ml yap, but there does not appear to be room for the yap. H-L. 
 tmoxptai yap, but the IIS. forbids. 14. to bovKivuv, K-W.'s reading, is 
 
 in accordance with the visible remains. H-L. [to rijs yijs p.ri k/jo:t]«V. 
 
 10. SeSe/j/voi tois Save io-ao-iv : the reading is partly conjectural, and the 
 whole expression is rather unusual ; but it will bear the sense required 
 and is in accordance with the traces remaining visible in the MS. 
 8e8epevoi is moreover confirmed by the parallel expression at the end 
 of ch. 4. For the phrase eVl rois o-apacnv cf. Plutarch, /. c. 
 
 12. tov Sr]fiov77poo-Tarrjs : this title, an echo from a later time, but still 
 having a legitimate meaning as ' champion of the people,' is again 
 applied to Solon, together with Pisistratus, Cleisthenes, and others, 
 in ch. 28. 
 
 III. I. ttjs apxaias nokneias : in the first part of the work, now miss- 
 ing, Aristotle had mentioned the settlement of Attica by Ion and the 
 changes introduced by Theseus it/, fragg. 343, 346); but materials 
 were probably wanting for the assignment to precise dates and per- 
 sons of the various items of the early constitutional history. Such an 
 account would inevitably have been largely mythical ; and hence it 
 appears that Aristotle contented himself with giving a summary in this 
 place of the development of the constitution up to the date of Draco. 
 There is therefore no contradiction between the scheme here adopted 
 and the recapitulation in ch. 41. 
 
 3. %px ov Sf to /"" 7rpS>Tov 81a /3iou : the reading of the MS. is some- 
 what doubtful, owing to the faintness of the writing, but the sense is 
 
CH. 3.] A0HNAIJ2N nOAITEIA. 5 
 
 2 t\ov 8ta j3iov], fiera 8e ravra [SeKJaerlav. [xeyiaTai 
 8e kcu irparai tu>v ap^av -qaav /3ao-[iAev? kcu 5 
 
 III. 4. Sid Piov K-W., H-L. ; there is room for this in the lacuna, but the 
 latter part of the space shows no trace of having been written on. 1st ed. ati. 
 5. PamKevs : 1st ed. 0aai\tvs Tt, corr. Rutherford. 
 
 certain. The noticeable point is the combination of the mention of 
 election (KaQ'iaraaav apurrivhiiv kcli ir\ovTivdr)v) with the retention of 
 office for life. This must refer to the period of the Medontidae, a 
 period at present involved in great obscurity. It has been generally 
 agreed that the stories told of the alterations in the constitution after 
 the death of Codrus imply some limitation of the kingly power ; and 
 the present passage does something to elucidate the point. It is 
 probably not the case (see the following note) that the title of king 
 was abolished; but it seems certain that the powers of the king were 
 considerably altered, and that for a hereditary and nearly autocratic 
 monarchy was substituted an elective life-magistracy confined to the 
 members of the kingly house, with whom were joined, in varying 
 degrees of subordination, a Polemarch and an Archon. How this 
 is to be reconciled with the tradition of the gratitude of the 
 Athenians to Codrus is another matter; but we may perhaps connect 
 with it the story- of the dispute which arose as to the succession 
 of the lame Medon and the consequent secession of a large body of 
 emigrants who led the Ionian colonisation of Asia Minor. In them we 
 may see the malcontents who were unwilling to accept the new regime ; 
 and even the ' lameness ' of Medon may be only the traditional repre- 
 sentation of the mutilated character of the monarchy enjoyed by him. 
 5. Ttparai Tav apx&v: this account of the origin of the archon's office 
 differs from that which has hitherto been generally accepted. In the 
 absence of other evidence the legendary account has naturally been 
 adopted, to the effect that the rule of the kings was followed first 
 by that of the Medontidae, who held office for life but without the title 
 of king, and perhaps with some limitation of authority (Pausanias, 
 IV. 5, 10, calls it an dp^ij iirevdwos), and then by decennial archons 
 possessing the same powers but subject to the limit of time ; and 
 that this was again followed by the creation of a board of nine 
 archons, who shared among them the powers of the single ruler. 
 From the account of Aristotle it appears that the office of Polemarch 
 dates back to the period of the kings, at which time, however, 
 it would amount to no more than the position of a commander-in-chief 
 under an unwarlike sovereign ; and it does not follow, as Cauer {Hat 
 Aristoteles, &c, p. 46) supposes, that the military functions of the 
 sovereign were henceforward always delegated to a Polemarch. The 
 office of apxav came into existence in the time either of Medon or of 
 
6 API2T0TEA0T2 [CH. 3. 
 
 7ro\jeiiapxos kcu ap\j(cov\' tovtcou Se 7rp[a>T~\r] /xev r\ 
 tov (3acri\ea>?, avrrj yap eV [apx]]? [V v >~\ fevrepa 8' 
 iTTiKareaTT] [77 iro\e\pa.pyjia 8ia to yi^yv\eo-6al tlvcls 
 
 7. kv dpxS V v '■ K-W. iv a/>x§ KaTtOTi], H-L. [tot/xos (in corrigendis) tyevero], 
 but it appears possible to trace most of the letters in the MS., and there is not 
 room for either of these readings. 8. t) : added by J. B. Mayor, and so 
 
 H-L., but not K-W. It is doubtful whether there is room for it in the M.S., 
 but it might easily have fallen out. yiyvcoBcu : K.-W. -/tviaieu. 
 
 Acastus, i.e. at the beginning of the rule of the JMedontidae. At this 
 time, however, says Aristotle, the office was of comparatively little 
 importance, and was inferior to both the /Sao-tXc is and the irdheiiapxos, 
 and it was only at a later period that the fipxav took precedence of 
 these magistrates. This throws some light on the constitutional 
 change which took place after the death of Codrus. It would appear 
 that in effect the rule of a board of three was substituted for that of 
 a monarch, or at least that two other magistrates were elevated to posi- 
 tions which detracted considerably from the autocratic authority of 
 the titular governor. A change of this kind would probably also tend 
 to increase the power of the Areopagus. It seems, however, that 
 the old tradition that the name of king gave place to that of archon 
 is inaccurate. There is other evidence tending to show that the title of 
 flaoikcis still continued in use (cf. Busolt, I. 401, and Abbott's History 
 of Greece, I. 286, quoting Pausanias, I. 3, 3), and this passage of 
 Aristotle makes it practically certain. The fiavikevs still continued to 
 rule for life, but associated with him were the Polemarch and the 
 Archon. There is no evidence to show how long the term of office 
 was in their case, but it may be conjectured that they were magistrates 
 elected for a term of years by and from the Eupatrid aristocracy, the 
 actual electing body being, no doubt, as in later times (ch. 8, 1. 10), 
 the Areopagus. The abolition of the title of king as that of the 
 chief magistrate of the state probably took place when the decennial 
 system was established. The name was then retained only for 
 sacrificial and similar reasons, and, to mark the fact that the kingly 
 rule was actually at an end, the magistrate bearing the title was 
 degraded to the second position, while the Archon, whose name 
 naturally suggested itself as the best substitute for that of king, was 
 promoted to the titular headship of the state. Dates would then be 
 indicated by the year of the Archon, as previously by the year of the 
 reigning king ; and when the office was made annual the Archon 
 became in the full sense of the term iirawfios, the magistrate from 
 whose name the year was called. The Thesmothetae, as Aristotle 
 proceeds to state, only came into existence at this last-named period, 
 after the abolition of the decennial system (683 B.C., cf. Busolt, 
 I. 404). 
 
CH. 3.] A0HNALQN I10AITEIA. 7 
 
 tcov j3acnXecoi> ra iroXepua ploX^clkovs, odev k<u\ top 
 o"Icom /xere^TrefjLJ^avTO ^pe'ia^s KJaraXafiova-rjs . re- 10 
 Xevrala 8' r) [rod ap^ojiroy [01] p.ev yap wXeLovs [e]7ri 
 MeSovTO?, evioi 5' eVt 'Axacrrov ^acrt yevecrdai \ttjv 
 apXV v ' o-rjfxelovj 8' eirKptpovaiv [ort] 01 eVvea apyovrts 
 op-vvovai [/ca#a7reyo] eVt 'Akolotov to, opma Troi[rj~\(reiv, 
 toy e7ri toi»[toJu ttJs fiao-iXela? irapaxoopr^advTav 15 
 rav Ko5[/ot5e3i>] olvti rdSv 8o6eicrS)V too apypvTi 
 8copea>v. tovto p.ev ovv biroripais ttot eyei fuicpov, 
 eyeuero yap ev tovtois tols yjpovois' on 8e reXevraia 
 tovtcov iyevero tcov apywv, \crt)\p&iov nai Pro] p.r^8~\eu 
 \tu>v 7rjaTpiQ)v tov apyovTa SioLKeiv axnrep 6 fiacriXevs 20 
 
 9. SOev Kai: K-W. [trpiiiTOv] hi, but the letters 06 seem partly legible. 12. 
 ttjv apxqv '■ K-W. [ravrijv]. 14. ra opma iroi-qaeiv : the first five letters are 
 doubtful, but the remains are in accordance with this reading, irotqoeiv Wes- 
 sely, who also suggests ra dprta ; K-W. (after first ed.) [ti}»] tto\\jws a~}p£tiv, 
 H-L. (after Piatt; l&aoi\ea>s ap£]etv. 15. tou'tou tt}s : so H-L., probably 
 
 rightly ; 1st ed. and K-W. ttjs «[k«Vov] r t' and to are sometimes written almost 
 identically in this hand. 18. eyiveTo yap: the reading is not certain, 
 
 but is in accordance with the traces in the MS. K-W. a\\' [ovv kyk ve] to, 
 H-L. [SuMptpei]. tv tovtois tois : the reading is rather doubtful, the s of 
 
 tovtois running into the t of Tofs. K-W. and H-L. give iv tovtois (toPs) 
 20. mrpiuv : suggested by Wyse, and with that assistance it is possible to read 
 the rest of the passage. 
 
 10. "lava: according to the legend Ion, who was ruling over the 
 Aegialeis, came to the assistance of his grandfather Erechtheus in his 
 war with Eumolpus of Eleusis, and was made commander-in-chief of 
 the Athenians. Herodotus alludes to it, and gives him the title of 
 o-TpaTapxns (VIII. 44) ; and a scholiast on Aristophanes (Birds 1527) 
 actually calls him Polemarch, Trarpaov 8e np,ao-iv 'AnoKKoiva 'Adr/vaioL, 
 eVel "lav o TroXifiapxps 'Adrjvaiav i£ 'AnoWavos Kai Kpeoiar/s tt)s EovBov 
 [yvvatKos] eyivero. 
 
 16. avrl tZv dodeto-av tw Spxovri Sapeav : the first three words are 
 very Taint, but the reading seems nearly certain. The expression 
 is somewhat remarkable, but the meaning is clear ; ' in his reign the 
 Codridae retired from the kingship in consideration of the prerogatives 
 which were surrendered to the archon." Certain prerogatives were 
 transferred to the archon, and to that extent the Codridae abandoned 
 the kingly power. 
 
8 API2T0TEA0T2 [CH. 3. 
 
 /cat 6 iroXepLapyps, aXXa \jiovov to. eW#Jera. 8lo /cat 
 vecoarl yeyovev rj apxv fieyaXrj, rols eVjYperots' av^rj- 
 O^etcra. decrj/jLoderat, 8e 7roAAo[t]y vcrTepou erecnv ripe- 4 
 0rj(rav,rj8r] kclt Ivlclvtov alp^ovp.iva>v\Tasa.pyas, ottcos 
 avaypatyavTts to. 8icrp.ia (jyvXaTTCocri irpos rt]v twv 
 \7rapav0fiQvjvTc0v KpicFLV 816 /cat p.6vT) t£>v ap-^wv ovk 
 iytvero TrXeicov \rf\ eviavaios. \ovtol\ p.ev ovv yj)6vov 5 
 toctovtov Tvpoiypvaiv aXXcov. opKiqaav 8' oi>x ap.a 
 Trdvres 01 Ivvia. ap\ovres, aXX' 6 p.ei> fiacriXevs epjX e 
 
 21. jiSvov ra tirideTa: K-W. [o\ojs fitjSev jJ-]iya, H-L. \jiaiva riva £iri]9cTa. 
 26. irapavonovvToiv : H-L. [aaoa^ov^vraiv, which is hardly enough to fill the 
 lacuna. 27. TtXtiav : H-L. emend irXeiv, K-W. ttXuov. 28. akkaiv. 
 
 amrjaav : MS. aWrjavrjoav. Dr. H. Jackson prefers aW-qXav. rjaav, and so 
 Blass, K-W., H-L. 
 
 21. inldera : for the contrast between rrarpia and irrlSera cf. Harpo- 
 cration, s. V. imOirovs copras . . . ras p.r) narpiovs, aXXas 8' inL^t]<pi.adeiaa!. 
 imSirovs indXovv. iXiyero 8e nap' avrols ml aXXa irridera riva, ortoaa fir) 
 Tvarpta ovra r) it- 'Apdov irayov ftovXr) ioUa^iv. 
 
 25. avaypdijfavTes : hitherto, apparently, judicial decisions had not 
 been recorded, and consequently there was no stability in the adminis- 
 tration of justice. The Thesmothetae therefore received their name not 
 merely from the fact that they made law by administering it (Thirlwall, 
 II. 17 : Diet. Ant. art. Archon), but from being the first to lay it down 
 in written decisions. There was therefore some written basis of law 
 before the time of Draco ; but his legislation was no doubt required 
 in order to give the archons fixed principles to work on and to secure 
 uniformity of administration. Judges' law requires a substratum of 
 fixed and codified law on which to work. 
 
 28. aXXtoj' k.t.\. : aXXr)Xmv is no doubt nearer to the MS., but it is hardly 
 logical to say that the various archons precede one another, and the 
 point of the sentence appears to be to show that the archons were by 
 far the earliest of the Athenian magistrates in point of date, rjaav, 
 moreover, appears to be rather flat ; and in support of uKTjo-av it may 
 be suggested that the ceremony connected with the king-archon's wife 
 seems to indicate that the archons resided in the buildings assigned to 
 them, and did not merely use them for official business. H-L. recog- 
 nise r]aav as corrupt, and Herwerden proposes ihimafav, Gennadios 
 KaBlfrv, Kontos trvvfjo-av, but these (except the last) fail to explain the 
 corruption. 
 
 caKrjo-av K.r.X. : cf. Suid. S. V. ap-^av : wpb jxtv rS>v SoXavos vo/iav ovk 
 e£rjv avrols afia &u<a(fiv, dXX' 6 jiiv fiaaikevs KaOrjoro napa ra KaXovjj.ii/a 
 
CH. 3.] A0HNALQN nOAITEIA. 9 
 
 to vvv KaXovp.evov Bou/coAtoz/, TrXrjcriou tov Upvra- 30 
 veiov {crrjp.e'tov 8e' en Kal vvVyap rrjs tov fiao-iXecos 
 yvvaiKos rj o~vpp.ei.£is evTavQa ylyveTai t<£ Aiovvacp Kal 
 6 yafios), Se apyav to UpvTavelov, 6 8e -roXep.ap^os 
 to 'E-riXvKeiov b -rporepov p.ev eKaXelro HoXep-ap- 
 ^eiof, eirel 8e 'EttlXvkos a.vcoKoSop.rjo'e Kal kcltc- 35 
 o-K.eva.o~ev olvto -ToXep*a[pxq\cra$ 'YiTnXvKeiov eKX-qdrj' 
 QearpoQeTai §' elyov to Qecrp.06eTei.ov. e~rl Se ^.oXcovos 
 ajVjai/res' eh to Qeo-p-odeTehv o-vvrjXdov. Kvpioi 5' 
 fjo-av /cat tcl? 81k<x.s avTOTeXeis [/cptV]eti>, /cat ov\ 
 
 32. avppeigis : MS. ovppi£is : cf. Meisterhans, p. 144. y'cyverai : MS. ytverai. 
 Kal 6 yapos : expunged as a gloss by H-L. following Rutherford. 36. 
 
 iro\cpapxh aas '• H-L. Tro\tpap\_x&v\ against the MS. 'SttiXvhuov : MS. 
 
 tmXvKwv. 39. avToreKus : H-L avT0T(k[us] after J. B. Mayor. 
 
 BovKoKta' to Se rjv irKrjtrlov tov UpvTavdov' 6 8e iro\epapxos iv Aufceio), Kal 
 6 apxou napa tovs iiravipiovs, Kal 01 8eo-po6eTai vapa to Oecrpo6eTelov. 
 (Rose, ed. 1886, Frag. 413). The residence of the archon is here 
 described as irapa i-oir iiravipovs, whereas Aristotle says that he 
 occupied the Prytaneum. The two accounts are not irreconcileable. 
 The statues of the eponymous heroes stood close to the Prytaneum 
 (Schol. Aristoph. Pax 1 183, tottos Trapa npvravuov iv a io-TrjKaaiv 
 avbpiavres ovs inavipovs koXovo-iv), and if the archon occupied a 
 wing of the Prytaneum adjoining these statues both descriptions will 
 be satisfied. 
 
 31. tt)s tov fiao-iXeas yvvaiKos : the wife of the king-archon, who was 
 called @aal\ivi>a or fiaa-ihia-o-a, always went through the ceremony of 
 marriage to the god Dionysus at the feast of the Anthesteria. Cf. 
 Dem. contr. Neaer. c. 76, p. 1371. 
 
 34. 'EmXuKeiov : it has generally bsen supposed that the Polemarch 
 occupied the Lyceum, on the strength of the passage of Suidas quoted 
 above. Hesychius, indeed, under the word fViXvieeiov describes it as 
 the residence of the Polemarch ; but this has generally been written 
 as two words, eVt Avkciov, and explained in accordance with Suidas. 
 The words of Aristotle, however, show that there was a separate 
 building called the Epilyceum. It does not follow that his version of 
 the origin of its name is correct, and the ' polemarch Epilycus ' looks 
 suspiciously like a traditional invention to account for the name. It 
 is more probable that the building was in the neighbourhood of the 
 Lyceum and derived its name from that fact. 
 
 38. Kvpioi 5" r/aav : cf. Suidas, /. C, Kiiptoi re rjo-av wo-re ras dUas airo- 
 
io API2T0TEA0T2 [CH. 3. 
 
 4° acnrep vvv irpoavaKpivuv. ra p.ev ovv [Ve/)i] ras 
 apyas tovtov eiye tov rpowov. 77 5e tcou 'Apeo- t 
 Tvayvrwv fiovXrj ttjv p.ev ra^iv elye tov SiarTjpeiv 
 tovs vop.ovs, Sicoicei 8e ra TrXelara kou to. payiaTa 
 
 41. 'ApeorrayiTuiv : MS. apiowayeiraiv, and so in 1. 47. 
 
 re\ei? Troieltrdai, vo-repov 8e 2oXo)i>os oiifttv erepoii avrois rfXeiTat j) [xovov viro- 
 Kpivovai tovs avnSiKovs. It is possible, in the light of this passage, that 
 the verb here should be read as nou'iv instead of xpiveiv ; but the active 
 is less suitable for such a sense than the middle, and Kpivmv cor- 
 responds better with npoavaKpiveiv. 
 
 41. if raw ' ApetmaytrSiv ^ouXij : this passage is important, as bearing 
 on the origin and early existence of the Areopagus. Plutarch (Sol. 19) 
 mentions that most persons believed Solon to have been the founder 
 of that council, but in disproof of this statement quotes the fact that 
 the Areopagus is referred to in one of Solon's own laws as already 
 existing. The reference to it in the Politics as the oligarchical 
 element in Solon's mixed constitution (Pol. ii. 12) is no argument 
 against its preexistence ; Solon made the constitution a mixed one by 
 adding a democratical element to the oligarchical and aristocratical 
 ones already existing. The present passage makes it clear that, in 
 Aristotle's opinion, the Areopagus not only existed before Solon and 
 before Draco, but that it was even at that time composed of those who 
 had held the office of archon, and that it was in reality the central 
 force in the administration. Its position appears, indeed, to be 
 analogous to that of the senate in the best period of the Roman 
 republic. It represented a governing aristocratical council, electing (as 
 appears from an almost certain restoration of ch. 8, 1. 10) the archons, 
 who entered its body after serving their year of office ; and its weight, 
 as containing all the official experience of the state, must have given 
 it at least as much influence over the annual magistrates who expected 
 shortly to become members of it as the Roman senate held over the 
 consuls. It seems entirely unnecessary to suppose that there was any 
 other council in existence before the time of Draco. The court of 300 
 which tried the Alcmeonidae in the case of Cylon was clearly a 
 special court for a special purpose ; and the council of the same 
 number which Cleomenes and Isagoras attempted to set up in 508 B.C. 
 was only a revolutionary substitute for the existing council of 400 (or 
 of 500, if the reform of Cleisthenes had already been actually carried 
 out, which seems improbable). At what time the method of recruiting 
 the Areopagus from the ex-archons was adopted, or what was its 
 character before that date, it is impossible to say with certainty ; but 
 common sense and analogy make it probable that originally it was a 
 council of elders summoned by the king. It is not impossible that all 
 
CH. 4-] A0HNA1X2N nOAITEIA. n 
 
 tcou kv rfj woXei, kou KoXa^ovcra kou fyjpliolvo-a 
 iravTas tovs anoo-p.ovvTas Kvplcos. rj yap aipecrLS 45 
 tgov apypvTuv dpiaTLvSrjv /cat irXovTivbrjv rjv, i£ a>v 
 01 Apeo7rayiTai KaOiaravTO. 810 /cat p.6vrj to>v dpypv 
 avTi) p.ep.ev7)K€ 81a filov /cat vvv. 
 
 4. 'H p.\v ovv TTpcorr] 7roAtret'a ravTrjv e[tjx e T V V 
 v7ro[ypaj(pr]v. p.eTc\ Se ravra, %povov twos ov 7toXXov 
 8ieX66vTO$, eV ' 'Kpio-Ta.iyjp.ov apypvros ApaTKCoju tow 
 
 44. «a! KoAafouua : H-L. expunge «ai, after Gennadios. 45. uvpiais : 
 
 Kvpia yv Kontos. 
 
 heads of yivrj may have had a traditional right to a summons, which 
 would fix the total number at 360 ; but it is highly improbable that 
 they had any absolute right, as such councils in early times almost 
 always rested on the will of the sovereign. But when the monarchy 
 was abolished there was no individual to whom the duty of nominating 
 the governing council could fitly be entrusted, and the automatic 
 process of forming it from all ex-archons was therefore probably put 
 into operation from the date of the establishment of the annual 
 archonships, though it would of course be many years before the 
 council came to be composed solely of those who had served this office. 
 IV. 3. fV 'ApicrTaixnov ap-^ovros : the name is not otherwise known. 
 It is to be observed that Draco was not archon eponymus at the 
 time of his legislative reforms, as has been commonly supposed. The 
 phrase of Pausanias (IX. 36, 8) ApaKovros ' 'AffyiWoir deo-p-odtTqaavros 
 may possibly indicate that he was one of the junior archons, though 
 it is not necessary so to interpret the word. 
 
 bpanav tovs 8e<rpovs (8r)K(v : this chapter presents considerable 
 difficulties, on two grounds, (1) the mention of Draco as a constitu- 
 tional reformer, (2) the details ascribed to his constitution. No other 
 author speaks of Draco except as a jurist, the maker (or codifier) of 
 criminal law; and in Pol. II. 12, it is expressly stated that he made 
 no change in the political constitution (n-oWf/a 8' vnapxaio-r] tovs 
 v6povs tdtjKe). As regards the latter passage, Dr. P. Meyer {Des 
 Aristotehs Politik und die 'h6rjvaia>v ltokmla, pp. 31-44), accepting it as 
 genuine, argues that the constitution here ascribed to Draco does not 
 substantially differ from that described in ch. 3, so that Draco actually 
 made no new constitution. He considers the repetition to be intended 
 to prove precisely this point, so that we have here the proof of the 
 statement of the Politics. But, on this theory, the meaning is very 
 awkwardly concealed, for certainly there appears on the face of it to 
 be a marked contrast expressed between the dpxaia iroXvrtla and that 
 
12 API2T0TEA0TS [CH. 4. 
 
 6e<T/xovs edrjuew rj 8e ra^is avrrj TouSe rov rpoTrov e^X 6- - 
 
 4. avrrj : MS. apparently avr\ i.e. avrr/t. 
 
 of Draco. The name of Draco is also connected with the second 
 /ifTa^oXi) of the constitution in the list in ch. 41 ; and though Dr- 
 Meyer urges that the constitution in question is only described as ' in 
 the time of 'Draco (17 eirl ApaKovros), he omits to notice that precisely 
 the same phrase is used to describe the constitution of Solon, and the 
 name is clearly given as that of the person responsible for the reforms. 
 Far the simplest explanation is to accept the conclusion which is 
 already held by most students of the Politics, that the 12th chapter of 
 the second book is spurious. This removes the contradiction between 
 the Aristotelian writings, though it leaves the difficulty that no other 
 author mentions the reforms of Draco. Probably the name of Solon 
 eclipsed that of his predecessor. The tendency notoriously was to 
 attribute everything to Solon ; and as the laws of Draco were all 
 repealed (except those relating to murder), the statutes enacting the 
 institutions (such as the f3ov\r)) which Solon borrowed from his 
 predecessor all ran in the name of Solon. The extension of the 
 franchise to all persons capable of providing a military equipment, 
 which was Draco's principal reform, was quickly swamped in the 
 wider measure of Solon, and dropped out of public knowledge. 
 Plutarch tells us that even the institution of the Areopagus was 
 habitually assigned to Solon ; and hence it is less surprising that the 
 name of Draco should have been connected in later times only with 
 that part of his legislation which had actually survived. 
 
 As to the details of the Draconian constitution, it is certainly sur- 
 prising to find so many institutions and offices referred to, which had 
 hitherto been only known to exist at a later date. M. T. Reinach 
 regards the whole chapter as a later interpolation, which also involves 
 the rejection of the words rijr npii Ap&Kovros in ch. 3, 1. 1 and the 
 clause referring to Draco in ch. 41, 11. 14, 15. Mr. Macan (Journ. of 
 Hellenic Sttidies, XII. 27) and Mr. J. W. Headlam (Class. Rev. V. 
 166-168) ingeniously suggest that we have here a representation of 
 the constitution which was ascribed to Draco by party politicians at 
 the time of the formation of the constitution of the Four Hundred, 
 which agrees with that here described in several particulars. But 
 even supposing that such a garbled version of the Draconian con- 
 stitution were in existence, it must have borne some resemblance 
 to the authentic original in order to avoid immediate exposure. 
 Perhaps the objections that have been felt to the details here given 
 arise rather from the novelty of the information than from any in- 
 trinsic improbability. The extension of political rights to all men 
 capable of furnishing a military equipment is a very natural tran- 
 sition between the exclusion of all except Eupatrids from political 
 
CH. 4.] AGHXAIHN nOAlTElA. 13 
 
 onreSeBoTO fiev 77 7roXiTeia rots oirXa Trape^ofievoLS' 5 
 fipovvro 8e tov9 fJ.ev Ivvia ap^ouras [/ecu rjovs ^rjafxlas 
 
 5. liiv : the MS. is not clear, but some letter with a mark of abbreviation 
 precedes 37. 6. apxovTas : MS. apxovrts. 
 
 power and the extension of rights to all citizens by Solon. The 
 officials mentioned, strategi, hipparchs, treasurers, prytanes, are all 
 necessary even to this early stage of organisation ; and it may be 
 observed that the strategi and hipparchs are treated as exactly on 
 the same level, which would hardly be the case if this were a reflec- 
 tion from the time of the Four Hundred. The provision requiring 
 sureties from retiring magistrates is certainly not borrowed from the 
 constitution of the Four Hundred or any other stage of Athenian 
 history, and therefore has an air of authenticity. There is no in- 
 trinsic reason why a ftov\t] should not be instituted by Draco as 
 much as by Solon, and the number of 401 sounds more like a genuine 
 provision than a late invention. The system of fines for non-attend- 
 ance is certainly old icf. note on 1. 22) ; and the details of that system 
 show that no one below a (evyiTrjs was a member of the Council or 
 Ecclesia. The chief difficulty is to be found in the respective pro- 
 perty qualifications of the archons and strategi, and here there may 
 well be a corruption in the text, numerals being notoriously easily 
 confounded. A full examination of the problems connected with this 
 chapter is not possible within the limits of a note, but a sober histo- 
 rical judgment will probably in the end find its statements not so 
 startling as they at first appear. 
 
 It is noticeable that Aristotle says nothing of the legal code which 
 is the best-known work of Draco. No doubt the present treatise is 
 primarily constitutional, not legal, and therefore reforms in judicial 
 procedure and criminal law have no direct place in it ; but at the same 
 time it is so far historical that one would have expected some allusion 
 to facts so well known, which have, moreover, some bearing on the 
 transition from the autocratic to the popular method of government 
 at Athens. 
 
 5. dn-fSe'SoTo : possibly an-eStSoro should be read. The pluperfect 
 would properly mean that the extension of the franchise had taKen 
 place earlier ; but in that case it would have been mentioned in the 
 preceding description rijr irpo Apt'iKovros iroXtriias, and the contrast 
 here between what previously existed and what Draco enacted would 
 be more clearly expressed. 
 
 toU o?rXa 7rapex"^"Ois : the same qualification was revived at the 
 deposition of the Four Hundred in 41 1 B.C., and under this constitution 
 Thucydides (VIII. 97 J affirms Athens to have enjoyed the best govern- 
 ment within his memory ; a favourable judgment which is repeated by 
 Aristotle {infra, ch. 33). 
 
14 API2T0TEA0T2 [CH. 4. 
 
 ovcriav KeKTrjpevovs ovk eXarrco <5e/ca /ii'coy iXevdepav, 
 
 [Col. 2.] 7-ar 5' aAAa? apyas (ray) e'Aarrouy e/c rc3z/ 07rAa irape- 
 
 ^[opevcou], (TTparrj-yovs oe /cat tTrirapyov? ova-lav airo- 
 
 10 (paivovras ovk eXarrov 77. i/carou fivav eXevdepav Kai 
 waloas e[/c] yaperrjs yvvaiKos yvTjcr'iovs iirep 5e'/ca er^ 
 yeyovoras" tovtovs 8" eSet 5ie[yyvJaTcr0atj rou? 7r/)i»- 
 raveis Kal tovs o-TpaTrjyovs /cat roup 'nnrap^ovs tovs 
 evovs P^XP L tvOvvcov, eyyvrjTas e'/c tov avrov TtXovs 
 
 15 otypjxtvovs ovirep ol o-rpar-qyol /cat ol tinvapyoi. fiov- 
 Xevew 8e TerpaKoaiovs /cat tva tovs Xaypvras e/c Trjs 
 
 7. IXaTToi : K-W. emend iXarrov tj. 8. tcLs %\o.ttovs : ras is added by 
 
 Richards, Blass, H-L., K-W. 10. (\ev0epav : MS. e\evS€pwv. 12. S' «5ei 
 Bif77ua(rflai : MS. 8' 5i . . . , and over 81 is written S«. H-L. suggest that Set 
 is an addition, not a correction, reading ?8« Siarripiiv • but the letter after 81 
 appears to be e, and there seems also to be an a later. If Siey/vaoSai is right, 
 the termination is contracted. K-W. mark a lacuna. 
 
 7. SeVa fivav : this qualification is absurdly low. As Mr. E. S. 
 Thompson and others have pointed out, a property of ten minas would 
 not even gain admission into the third ' Solonian ' class. Mr. Thomp- 
 son therefore proposes eKarov, M. Weil SiaKoo-iav, and rpiaKoo-iav (r for I) 
 is also possible. The writing of the MS. in this and the following 
 lines is very faint, but the readings are tolerably certain. 
 
 9. a-Tparriyois : this is the earliest mention of these officers, but their 
 existence is perfectly natural. They were, of course, purely military 
 officials at this date, and the polemarch was their superior and com- 
 mander-in-chief (ch. 22, 1. 11). 
 
 12. tovtovs 8e k.t.X. : the correct reading of this passage is primarily 
 due to Paton and van Leeuwen (independently), the former conjec- 
 turing tovs evovs and iyyvr)Tas 8' (both of which are confirmed by the 
 MS.) and the latter tovs cvovs and cn-i^eXi/ras 8'. Mr. Paton, however, 
 explained tovtovs as referring to the irdide s, whereas it appears rather 
 to refer to the <n-paTjj-yoi and wnrapxoi. He also read 5ia(pv/Vci|<u above. 
 
 15. jiavkevew: this is the first mention of a Council other than the 
 Areopagus, and it was probably created for the first time by Draco. 
 Until the Ecclesia began to have some definite work to do there was 
 no occasion for the jiov\r„ the general supervision of the administration 
 being in the hands of the Areopagus. 
 
 16. TfTpaicoo-Lovs ko.\ ei/a : this addition of a single member in order to 
 secure an uneven number in an assembly is paralleled by the Si/cnon/pia 
 of later times, but was not retained by Solon in his reorganisation of 
 
CH. 4-3 AGHNAIflN IT0AITE1A. 15 
 
 7ro\iTeias' KXrjpovcrdaL 8e /cat ravrrjv /cat rap aXXas 
 a PX as T0V $ V7rep rpiaKovra err) yeyovora?, /cat 5ty top 
 avrov p.r) apyziv irpo rod iravra? [e£JeA#eti> - totc de 
 7raA[ti/J e£ vTrap-^-qs KXr/pouv. el 8e tls t<£v fiovXevrcov, 20 
 orav eSpa (SovXt)? rj e/c/cA^crtay r), e/cAetVot ttju crvvo- 
 
 18. Tpi&KovTa : MS. TpiaKov9. 19. i£e\0etv : so K-W., H-L. ; 1st ed. 
 
 [wcpi](\Bfiv : K-W. 2 [Ste~\£ek9eiv, for which there is not room. 21. ix- 
 
 keiiroi : H-L. emend l/cAiiroi, 
 
 the Council. Apparently under the Draconian system the members 
 were selected by lot from the whole body of those possessing the 
 franchise (i< tjjs noKmias), in which case the odd number presented 
 no difficulty ; whereas the Solonian Council was chosen equally from 
 the four tribes. 
 
 17. Kkrjpovadai: this is the first mention of the use of the lot as a 
 method of election. At present it was applied only to the Council and 
 some subordinate magistrates. On the general working of the lot, cf. 
 Mr. J. W. Headlam's essay on Election by lot at Athens (Cambridge, 
 1891). It is clear from the provision stated below (m! Sir . . . ££e\6e~iv) 
 that all qualified persons would be required to serve in their tujn, 
 and that the lot merely decided the order in which they took office. 
 
 Ka\ Tas SXKas apx''s : this cannot mean that all the magistrates 
 were henceforth elected by lot, as we know that the archons were not so 
 elected till a later period (cf. infra, ch. 22), and the same must certainly 
 have been the case with the other more important offices. The passage 
 merely means that the Council and those magistrates who were chosen 
 by lot were chosen from persons of the stated age, i. e. over thirty. 
 
 18. in-ep Tpianovra Utt] : it is probable that this limit of age con- 
 tinued in force in later times, though it is nowhere directly stated 
 except as regards the members of the Council (Xen. Mem. I. 2. 35) 
 and the dicasts (ch. 63, 1. 14 of this treatise, Poll. VIII. 122) ; but these 
 instances in themselves make it probable that the same restriction 
 applied to other magistracies, and the present passage tends to support 
 this view. {Cf. Meier, Alt. Proc. p. 204, Schomann, Ant. fur. Pub. 
 p. 238). 
 
 21. fKK\ti<rias : this is the first mention of the existence of this body, 
 and raises the question as to its original character. It has been com- 
 monly supposed that it existed from the earliest times, and that it repre- 
 sented the general meetings which we find mentioned in the Homeric 
 poems. It has further been held that it elected the officers of state and 
 was consulted on questions of peace and war, and that reforms in a popular 
 direction, such as the appointments of Draco and Solon to re-model 
 the constitution, were due to its action (cf. Abbott, I. 301). As to the 
 
1 6 AP1ST0TEA0TS [CH. 4. 
 
 Sou, OLTrerivov 6 fieu irevTaKocriofiebnivos rptis $P a X~ 
 
 existence of some such body before the time of Draco, it may reasonably 
 be argued that, were it otherwise, the institution of it would probably 
 have been mentioned here, as that of the £011X17 is. But it seems certain 
 that it did not exist in any effective shape. The analogy of the English 
 constitution may show that the primitive consultation of the tribal or 
 national assembly may practically disappear, or be represented only by 
 the summoning of a council of nobles, until the people acquires sufficient 
 strength to demand an effective voice in the state. The discontent of 
 the lower orders, necessitating some measure of reform to pacify them, 
 finds its expression in early times in ordo-is rather than by constitutional 
 means. It was ordo-ir, which needed no Ecclesia for its expression, 
 which forced on the reforms of Draco and of Solon. Elections, as we 
 know from ch. 8, were in the hands of the Areopagus. Even in the 
 case of war there is no necessity to suppose the consultation of a 
 popular assembly. The army was formed by contingents from the 
 various tribal divisions, and the domination of the aristocracy was 
 so great as to make it very unlikely that there would be any 
 effective resistance from the people, except when extreme exasperation 
 provoked a oTao-is-, and then no doubt the inability of the governing 
 class to form an army in the case of a foreign attack or the revolt 
 of -a dependency was a powerful inducement to them to come to terms 
 with the lower orders. There may, however, have been some gathering 
 of the people before military service known as an ecclesia, which will 
 account for the omission to notice the creation of such a body by 
 Draco ; but it was Draco who took the first step towards making it an 
 important part of the constitution. He made all persons capable of 
 furnishing a military equipment members of it, and to them was 
 apparently committed the election of the officers of state ; and though 
 it is not likely that any other business of real importance was delegated 
 to it, and the Areopagus still retained the general direction of affairs, 
 yet the Ecclesia was henceforth an integral portion of the state and 
 capable of the development which was effected by Solon and subse- 
 quent statesmen. 
 
 22. aneTivov k.t.X. : fines for non-attendance at official duties are 
 characteristic of the earlier part of Athenian history alone, as they 
 naturally cease with the establishment of payment for attendance. 
 As Boeckh {Staatshaushaltung, 3rd ed. I. 444, bk. III. ch. 12) shows, 
 in the time of Solon the fines were usually very small ; thus a person 
 convicted of using abusive language in public was fined only five 
 drachmas under the laws of Solon, whereas in later times the fine 
 was 500 drachmas. In comparison with this scale a fine of one to 
 three drachmas for missing a meeting of the Council or Assembly 
 appears high. 
 
 7revTaKoa10iJ.e81.nvos k.t.X. : the mention of these property classes 
 
CH.5.J A0HNAIX2N nOAlTEIA. i 7 
 
 4 fids, 6 [8e 'iJTnrev? 8vo, fayirrjs 8e filav. rj 8e fiovXrj 
 rj e£ 'Ape[ov wdyov <pvXa£ rjv rav vojxcov /cat Ster7?p[et 
 ra]y dpyas arras Kara tovs vop.ovs apyuxriv. ifjrjv 8e 25 
 tS d,8iK.ovp,eva> irpb\s tt]v Tav\ ' Apeo7rayiT[a>u~\ /3ou- 
 Xrjv eiaayyeXXeiv ajrocpaivovTL irap ov a<5t/cetrat 
 
 5 vop.ov. eVt 8e tois (rco^jiajaiu rjaav 8e8ep.euoi., 
 Ka.8a.Trep eipriraL, /cat 77 ywpa 81 oXiycov y\v. 
 
 5- Toiavrrjs 8e 7-775- rd^ecos ovarjs kv rfj TroXiTela 
 
 /cat tcqv [ttJoAAcoi' SovXevovrcov tois oXlyois, avTeo-TT) 
 
 2 tois yvcopipiois b 8rjp.os. io")(ypas Se Trjs ardaeoos 
 
 ovcrrjs /cat 7roA[ui/J ypovov dvTiK.a6rjp.£va>v dXXrjXois, 
 
 eiXovro KOtvfj SiaXXaKTrju /cat apyovTa "26Xcoi>a, /cat 5 
 
 2 3- ^vyhrjs: K-YV. and H-L. prefix (<5). Palaeographically the supplement 
 is easy, but the position of Se is against it. 26. ' ApeonayiTuiv : MS. apto- 
 
 wa-/€iTaiv. 28. SeSe/xera : Richards and H-L. SfSaveia/j-tvot. The MS. is 
 
 somewhat doubtful. 
 
 before the time of Solon is surprising ; cf. note on ch. 7, 1. 10. That a 
 system of property qualification existed even previously to Draco is 
 shown by the use of the word TtXovrivbrjv in ch. 3, 1. 3. 
 
 28. eVi fie tois o-ojfiao-LP rjcrnv fieSt/ic'voi : in this fact lies the explanation 
 of the failure of Draco's legislation to remove the distress existing in 
 Attica. Though a large class of persons who had hitherto had no part 
 in the state were now admitted to a share in elections and a chance of 
 service in certain posts, yet the labouring class were in no way touched 
 by this reform, and their economical condition was in no way improved. 
 It was not until Solon had relieved them of their pecuniary burdens, 
 and had admitted them to at least a slight control over the admini- 
 stration, till Cleisthenes and the reformers of the first half of the fifth 
 century had made that control effective, till pay was given for public 
 service, and the large increase of the slave class had relieved them of 
 the greater part of the manual labour necessary in the country, that 
 the democracy could become fully established. In the time of Draco, 
 however, most of these changes would have been premature and 
 impracticable ; but one evil did call emphatically for remedy, namely 
 the economical condition of the labouring class, and it was this which 
 made the legislation of Solon necessary within a few years of the 
 reforms of Draco. 
 
1 8 APISTOTEAOYS [CH. 5- 
 
 t\tjv 7roXi]Tel[aju eTrirpe^av avra TroirjaavTL ttjv 
 iXeyelav r/s kariv apxV 
 
 Tivd)\_<TKoi\, /cat /J.OL (j>pevb<; evSodev a\yea /ceTrat, 
 Trpecrj3vToiTrjv icropcov yalav laovias. 
 
 io kou yap eVeXawet /cat Trpos eKaripovs virep eKarepcov 
 lx.aytTa.1 /cat 8Lap(pLo-^r]TeL, /cat fJLera ravra kolvtj 
 ivapaivei \KaTa\rraveLV rr)v ivecrTcocrai' (pikoviiaav. 
 tjv 8' 6 loXcov rfj p.ev [0u]cret /cat rfj 8o£r) t&v TrpcoTCou, 
 rfj 8' ovala. /cat tols 7rpdyp.acn twv p-eacav, as e/c re 
 
 15 tg>v aXXoov 6p.oXoy€iTOU kcu olvtos iv Tola8e tols 
 7rocr]fjLa(riv p-aprvpei, ira.pa.Lvav tols ttaovo-lols prj 
 irXeoveKTelv 
 
 V. 10. yap (TrfXavvH itai : the reading is very doubtful ; MS. apparently 
 (ire\avvev. J. B. Mayor and Richards propose yap imSXami, K-\V. 
 yap 7ro\t[-n /Carrara], H-L. [ffvp.@ov\evajv TroAAa]. 12. fptKoviKtav : so 
 
 corrected in MS. from tpt\oTi/iiav. 13. <pvati : first ed. prjaet ; the frag- 
 
 ment of papyrus containing the first letters of this word has been lost in 
 mounting, so it is now impossible to verify the reading, cpvati. Richards, 
 Wyse, Blass, K-W., H-L. 
 
 V. 6. TroiTja-avTi ttjv iXeyelav : in this part of his work Aristotle has 
 preserved considerable fragments of the poetry of Solon. Many of 
 them are already known through having been transferred by Plutarch 
 to his life of Solon and through quotations in other authors. The 
 couplet given here is, however, an addition to the remains previously 
 extant. It appears to belong to the poem on the state of Athens of 
 which a considerable portion is quoted by Demosthenes, de Fals. Leg. 
 § 255, pp. 421-3 (Bergk, Frag. 4). As there quoted, the beginning is 
 clearly wanting. It may be noticed that the manner in which Aristotle 
 tells the story seems to indicate that this political poem of Solon was the 
 direct cause of his nomination as SiaXXnin-r/r, which may be so far true 
 that the publication of it may have called attention to his patriotism 
 and political moderation at the critical moment ; but he was of course 
 already a well-known citizen (cf. infra, rfj bo^rj ratv wparav). 
 
 14. irpdyp-aa-i : i. e. ' position in life,' not ' ability in affairs.' 
 
 to>v iica-av : cf. Pol. VI. (IV.) II, 1296" 19, S6\a>v re yap t)V roirav 
 (sc. Tav fiea-av 7ro\ir5>v), SrjXoi 8' ex tt)j Troirjcreais. The poetry of which 
 Aristotle was thinking is here quoted. 
 
CH. 6.] A0HNAI12N nOAITEIA. 
 
 T9 
 
 T/xeis 8' rjo-vxacravres ivl cf>pecrl Kaprepbv fJTop, 
 ot ttoXXwv ayaduv e's Kopov [rjXjdcraTe, 
 
 ev (AtTpioLCTL T\p€(j)€(r6]e peyav voov' ovre yap T^/xets 20 
 TreLaopeO , ovff vp.lv apria Ta\yT~\ iaerai. 
 
 /ecu oXcos aiei Trjv alriav tt}s (TTcicrecos avairrei toIs 
 -TrXovaioLS' 8lo kcu kv dpxfj Trjs kXeyeias SeSoiKevcu 
 (ftrjai ttjv re (f)[iXapyvp]iav ttjv re VTreprjtyavLav, as 
 81a ravra ttjs e'xfyay ii/eo-Tco[cr~\r}?. 25 
 
 6. Kvpios 8e yevo/xevos tcov 7rpayp.[d.rjcov 1,6Xcov 
 tov re 8rjp.ov rjXevdepaxre kcu kv tco irapovTi kgu els 
 to p.tXXov, KcoXvaas 8\ave[\£ei.v eVt toIs o-co/jlcxtiv, 
 kcu vop.ovs edr]K€ kcu xpe&v d\jo\KOTrc\s eV[o]n7o-e kcu. 
 tcov ISlcov kcu tcov 8r}p.o<Ticov, as creicrdyOtiav kccXov- 5 
 
 19. fiXaaare; so Postgate, quoting Tyrtaeus II, 10, followed by K-W. and 
 H-L. 20. Tpe<pe<re* : H-L. T[ifle<r]0f, following Piatt. 21. apna : H-L. 
 
 apxta, following Kontos. toSt' : so H-L., Kontos; K-W. no[w'], but MS. 
 seems certainly to have to . . First ed. to[AA']. VI. I. S6\cov : K-W. 
 
 prefix (6). 4. koJ ro^ot/s iB-qite : bracketed as an interpolation by 
 
 K-W., Reinach. 5. as aaaaxOtiav : MS. originally aa(iaa\9ia, but the s 
 
 of os has been added above the line. Wessely, however, considers the addition 
 to be merely a rough breathing to a. 
 
 24. ttjv . . . lircpri<fiavLav : it should be hardly necessary to point out 
 that this is a line quoted from Solon. Prof. J. E. B. Mayor proposes 
 (f>i\oxpr;naTiav for (piKapyvptav, from Plut. Sol. 14, oKvav CprjiA to irpwrov 
 a^raoBm ttjs TroXtreias fori SeSoncuy t5>v ficv ttjv ^>CKo\prffiarLoa> to>v Se tt\v 
 virepr]<f>aviav. But the double re would hardly have been inserted 
 unless it occurred in the verse itself. 
 
 VI. 5. veicraxdtiav : Aristotle does not say much about this measure, 
 which was not constitutional but economical in its character. If, 
 however, any doubt remained as to whether it amounted to a clean 
 sweep of all debts, Aristotle's express definition of it as xP e °> v arroKonai 
 should remove it, in spite of the opposite statement of Androtion 
 (fr. 40, ap. Plut. Sol. c. 15), which limits it to a restriction of the rate 
 of interest and connects it with the alteration of the currency, whereby 
 debtors were allowed to pay their debts in the new and less valuable 
 currency. It would even appear that it extended beyond debts 
 secured on the land, since no limitation is expressed and public debts 
 as well as private were included. It is hardly likely that debts to 
 
 C % 
 
20 
 
 API2T0TEA0Y2 [CH. 6. 
 
 aw, as airocreio-dpLevoi to fidpos. iv of? ireip&VTai 
 ■n[ve?] 8ia/3dXXeiv avrov crvve/3r] yap tS ~2,oXcovl 2 
 fieWovTt iroielv rr)v (reLad^d^eiav •npoeiireiv tlctl 
 tcov [yvta]pt/Aft)[v], eireiff , a>? p.ev ol 8rjp.ori.Kol Xeyovai, 
 
 io irapaarT pa.Tr\yr)Qr)vai 8ia tcov (plXcov, a>? 8' ol [/3ouAJo- 
 pevoi fiXao-fprjp.e'iv, /cat avrov koivcovclv. 8a.veicrap.evoi. 
 yap ovroi (TvveirpiavTO iroXXr)v -^copav, \jiera 6j ov 
 7roXv ttjs rav -)(pea)v wrroKoirr]s yevop.evr)s ewXovTovv 
 odev (pacri yevecrQai tovs varepov 8o[icojvvTa9 elvai 
 
 is iraXatoTrXovTOvs. ov p.r)v dXXa 7rL&\avcoJTepos [6] tcov 3 
 8rip.0TLKa>\v Aloyo?" ov yap [et/cjo? iv p.ev rot? aAAot? 
 ovrco p.erpiov yevecrQai /cat koivov [cSo-jt', e^ov 
 
 6. airoatioaiiGVOL : MS. airoffiaapLtvoi. aTroa€tffafxivoiv J. B. Mayor, K-W. 
 0<kpos : H-L. [ax^]"!, but the MS. is clear. 7. -n^es : so Wyse, K-W., 
 H-L., etc. ; first ed. ti [W]. 10. 5id : K-W. tnro, but the MS. is clear. 
 PovKo/jitvoi : this supplement is due to Prof. J. E. B. Mayor and others, 11. 
 Sai/€iadfj.(voi : MS. Savurafievoi. 12. fiera 5' : H-L. eiTa per. 13. 
 ftvo\ikvr]^ : so K-W„ H-L. ; MS. and first ed. yivonivjjs. 17. war : this 
 supplement is due to Dr. Jackson and others. 
 
 the state were secured by mortgage, since payment of such liabilities 
 can seldom be deferred or allowed to fall into arrears. Probably, in 
 dealing with the large number of obligations secured on the person or 
 land of the debtor, Solon found it impossible to avoid touching the 
 remaining class of debts, and was unable to annul the one without also 
 annulling the other. As the usual security was evidently real property, 
 it is probable that the amount of debts otherwise secured was com- 
 paratively small, so that the extension of the xpe&v aTTOKoirr) to all debts 
 alike effected a great simplification of the measure without any con- 
 siderable increase of hardship. In short, Solon's economical reform 
 was a complete measure of ?iovae tabulae. 
 
 7. crwe^Tj yap k.t.X. : this story of the profit made by the friends of 
 Solon out of the <rua-ax8eia is also given by Plutarch, c. 15. Aristotle 
 does not mention the circumstance which Plutarch adduces as having 
 proved Solon's innocence of complicity in the transaction, viz. that he 
 was himself a creditor to the extent of five talents, which he lost by his 
 own measure. He rests his justification of Solon on his general 
 character as proved by his whole career, especially his consistent 
 refusal of the chance of making himself tyrant ; this is a fact beyond 
 question, while the story of the five talents may be apocryphal. 
 
CH. 7.] A0HNAII2N nOAITEIA. 21 
 
 avrcp [tjovs \_u6fijov9 vTroiroLrjcrap.evov Tvpavvelv rrjs 
 7roXecos, ap,(poTepois aive^G\£o-Qai kcu wept TrXeiovos 
 \jroLjrj(racrdai, t[o KajXov kcu rrjv rrjs iroXecos o-cottj- 20 
 plav 7] tt)v avrov TrXeove^lav, kv [our]co 8e p.LKpols [/cat] 
 
 4 av[a£[ojis K.aTappvTra.[v\e\iv iavrov. on 8e ravrrjv 
 ecr^e tt)v l^ovcriav, ra re irpa.yp.aTa vocrovvra fiap- 
 
 rvpel koI kv tols Troir)p.acriv avros TroXXa-^ov 
 
 p.ep.vr\Tai koa. 01 aXXoi o-vvop.oXoyovo~i 7ray[Tey]. rav- 25 
 7-771/ p.ev ovv -)(pr) vop.l^eiv \jsev8f} ttjv alr'iav eivai. 
 
 7. YloXirelav 8e KareaTTjcre /cat vop.ovs edr\K.ev 
 aXXovs, tols 8e ApaKovros 0ecrp.ols kiravoravTO \pco- 
 /xevoi irXrjv t5sv (povucwv. avaypa^avres 8e tov? 
 vop.ov$ els tovs Kvpfieis eo-rrjcrav kv rfj o-roa. rf/ 
 fiacriXeicp Kal a>p.oo~av yjit]creo-6ai iravres' oi 5' 5 
 kvvea ap^ovres bp.vvvres irpos tco XiOcp Kare(pan£ov 
 avaQrjcreiv avSpiavra yjpvcrovv kav riva TrapafSaxn twv 
 
 2 vop.cov odev en Kal vvv ovtcos 6p.vvovcri. KareKvpcoaev 
 Se tovs vop.ovs els eKarov [e]rr7 ko.1 8iera^e rrjv iroXi- 
 
 18. vopovs : H-L. [frip]ovs, after Blass, who compares II, 1. 16. 22. 
 
 mTappv-naiveiv : MS. pvmuvtiv, with Kara added above the line. 23. 
 
 paprvpti : the decipherment is due to Wessely and Blass. MS. at first fiaprvpo, 
 but et is written above the line. The following word is doubtful, but appar- 
 ently ends in -to. Sandys, K-W. 2 suggest toSto, Wessely 4 laaaro, but neither 
 seems satisfactory. //CTCx E 'P'< r< "'o H-L. (after an earlier suggestion of Sandys), 
 but this is certainly not the word in the MS. 
 
 VII. 3. avaypd^avres Se . . . rrj fJao-ikcia : this is the first passage (out 
 of very many) which directly proves the present treatise to be Aristotle's 
 'Adrjvaiwv TLoXtrela, these words being given by Harpocration (s. v. 
 xvpffeis) as a quotation from that work. Plutarch also {Sol. 25) and 
 the scholiast on Aristophanes' Birds 1354 refer to Aristotle for the 
 word KvpBeis {cf. Rose, Frag. 352). 
 
 6. ojivvvrcs k.t.\. : Plutarch (/. c.) paraphrases this passage, m/ivvev . . . 
 eVcacrTor rav Beapoderav iv dyopa npos ra \L8cp, KaTaCpari^aiv, el ti napaSair/ 
 tS>v deapiusv, avhpiama xpvaovv laop.erpr]Tov dvadrjcreiv iv Ae\(pois. 
 
22 API2T0TEA0T2 [CH. 7. 
 
 10 relav Tovde (roi/> rpoirov. TLfirjfialra SilelXev els rer- 3 
 rapa TeXrj, icaddirep Siyprjro kcu 7rpoTepov,eis irevra- 
 Koaiop^bLp^vyov Kal 'nnreaj kcu ^evylnqv kcll 6r\ra. ras 
 
 VII. 10. topSc (jov} rpoirov: rovSe rpoirov occurs no less than three times in 
 the present MS., here and in 29, 1. 36 ; 37, 1. 5. In face of such repetition it is a 
 strong measure to correct the MS. to the common usage, but the correction is 
 made. in deference to the opinion of Blass, K-W., H-L., and others. toSto* 
 rpoirov ,12, 1. 1) is not on the same footing, as the omission of the article there 
 admits of a simple palaeographical explanation. Tipij^ara : K-W. mark a 
 
 lacuna, 'velut (to irdv ir\ij$os Ik) np-qparav,' which is hardly convincing. 
 H-L. prefix r&, after Gennadios. 
 
 10. Tiji.r]jiaTa k.t.~K. : the question raised by the present passage is a 
 difficult one. Hitherto there has been no manner of doubt that the 
 well-known property qualification described in it was established by 
 Solon. Harpocration (s, v. imrds) quotes the present work thus, 
 AptoToreXf/? 8 eV Adrjvaicov iro\ireia cpTjcriv otl 'SoXojv els rerrapa SielAe 
 tc'Xt; to 7Tav irXrjdos ' ASjjvalaiv, 7revTaKO(TiOp:eBifivovs xal 'fmreas <a\ (evyiras 
 Kal dijTas, and again (s. V. ireVTaKoaiopLibipiVOv), on S ri\r] eVoir/O'Ej' 'A.9q- 
 vatiov atiaVTaiv 2o\g)i/ . . . SedrjXaKev ' ApiaTOTeXrjs ev ' Adqvaitjiv TroXireia 
 (Rose, Frag. 350). Plutarch {Sol. 18) ascribes the system expressly to 
 Solon. In the second book of the Politics (c. 12) Solon is mentioned 
 in connection with the four property classes, but it is not definitely 
 asserted that he was the originator of them. If the present passage 
 stood alone, one would be strongly inclined to suppose the words 
 Kadanep dijjprjTo Kal irporfpov to be an interpolation ; but it is supported 
 by the statement above (ch. 4) that the members of the first three 
 classes incurred certain fines for non-attendance to political duties 
 under the Draconian constitution, and that passage it seems impossible 
 to explain except on the supposition of the existence of these classes 
 before the time of Solon. The statements of Aristotle here can only 
 be reconciled with the general ascription of the classes in question to 
 Solon, by supposing that the latter brought them into a relation with 
 the political constitution which they had never held before. In the 
 first place it may be noticed that Solon began his reforms by repealing 
 all of Draco's laws except those relating to murder. This includes the 
 laws settling the political constitution, and as no written laws existed 
 previous to those of Draco, it means that Solon made a clean sweep of 
 all the laws relating to the constitution, so as to have a free hand in 
 re-constructing it according to his own ideas. He then re-introduced 
 the property classes, as well as the Council of Four Hundred and the 
 Areopagus ; and thus the earliest laws which were known in later 
 times in Athens establishing these parts of the constitution were those of 
 Solon. The period between Solon and Draco was short, and it is not 
 surprising that all memory of the pre-existence of the two first-named 
 
CH. 7.] A0HNAIHN nOAITEIA. 23 
 
 fj.[eu otijv apx<xs dTreueifJieu ap\eiv e/c 7T€VTaKocriofie- [Col. 3. 
 
 items should have been lost, in face of the fact that the existing laws on 
 which they rested were laws of Solon. The Areopagus dated too far 
 back and had held too large a place in the early history of Athens to 
 share the same fate entirely ; yet even in its case an error of the same 
 kind was propagated, and in the time of Plutarch it was the belief of 
 the majority that it too had been created by Solon, a belief which 
 he refutes on sufficient evidence (Sol. 19) and which was certainly 
 erroneous. In addition to this, Solon made the property qualification 
 more directly a part of the constitution than it was before ; for whereas 
 under Draco's laws the definition of a person having a right to some 
 share in the franchise was that he was tS>v ow\a napexopevav, in the 
 Solonian constitution it was that he was a member of one or other of 
 the four classes. A property qualification was not unknown in Athens 
 before both Solon andDraco,as is shown by the use of nXovrivSrjv in ch.3, 
 1. 3 ; but this probably meant nothing but the affixing of a certain income 
 to certain specified offices, and not necessarily a classification of the 
 whole people on a property qualification for political purposes. The 
 mention of it above in the constitution of Draco speaks of it as used 
 for differentiating the amounts of the fines due for neglect of public 
 duties, and it may reasonably be supposed to have been employed 
 for purposes of taxation as well ; but Solon was probably the first to 
 employ this classification as a basis for the political organisation of 
 the state. Before his time none but the members of the old Eupatrid 
 aristocracy had any important share in the government ; and hence 
 Solon was rightly regarded in after times as the reformer who substi- 
 tuted the qualification of property for the qualification of birth, while 
 the fact that the property classification had existed previously for 
 other purposes was forgotten. The only real difficulty arises from the 
 direct citation of Aristotle by Harpocration, and this may be due 
 to careless or second-hand quotation. It is also possible (though 
 hardly probable) that the words KaBairep hirjprjTo teal npoTepov may be 
 an interpolation due to some one who noticed the mention of the 
 property classes in the description of the Draconian constitution, so 
 that, while the fact of the pre-existence remains the same, the mention 
 of it in this particular sentence would disappear. This would relieve 
 Harpocration from the charge of inaccurate or garbled quotation : 
 but in view of the fact that the MS. is certainly much earlier than 
 the date of Harpocration this does not seem to be a very safe expla- 
 nation. 
 
 13. drreveipev ap^ftv : the latter part of this sentence explains the first. 
 It does not mean that members of the first three classes were eligible 
 to all the offices named, as is clear from the statement a little lower 
 down that the rapiat were elected from the first class alone, which it is 
 practically certain was also the case with the archons (cf. Plutarch, 
 
24 API2T0TEA0T2 [CH. 7. 
 
 Sifjivcov /cat hnrecov kcu ^evyirav, tovs kvvia apyov- 
 
 15 ray kcu rouy raplas /cat tovs 7T6)A?7[ray] /cat row 
 
 evSeKa /cat rouy /ccoAa/CjOeray, eKaarois dvaXoyov rc3 
 
 peyeOei rod rtyi[?7]/x[aro]y a7ro5t5oi>y t\tjv dpjxv v - 
 
 rot? 5e ro Or/TLKOV reXovcriu e'/c/cA^crtay /cat <5t/cacr- 
 
 TTjplcou fiereScoKe povov. e'<5et 5e reAetV TrevraKOcriope- 4 
 
 20 Sipvov p,ev by av e/c r??? ot/cetaf 7rot7j irevTO-Koo'ia. 
 
 perpa rd o~vvdp(j)co £r)pa /cat vypd, LTnraSa 5e rou? 
 
 rpiaKocria ttolovvtols, coy 5' eVtot 0acrt rouy hnroTpo- 
 
 (pelv Bvvapevovs. arjpelov 8e (pepovat to re ovopa 
 
 To[y~\ re'Aouy, coy ai> a7ro rou 7r/aay[/j,]aroy Kelpevov, 
 
 25 /cat ra dvaQ-qpara rcov dpyaLav' aj/a/cetrat yap ev 
 
 oLKpoTToXei ducov AicplXov e'[0' 17 €7r]tyey/3a7rrat ra6V 
 
 20. ttJj: 7^5 Bywater, but Kontos {Athena III. 321, 322) gives main- 
 instances which support the MS. reading. 21. ^■qpa.nal vypa : H-L. fapuiv 
 ical iypwv, from Plut. Sol. 18, which, however, has iv with dat. 23. 5c 
 (pipovai : H-L. 8' imcpepovai, from ch. 3, 1. 13. 24. us av . . . K(ip.(vov : 
 H-L. omit as an interpolation. 
 
 Arist. 1). The offices mentioned were rilled from the first three classes, 
 but some of them were filled from one class and others from another, k<aa- 
 tois avakoyov to) peycdei tov TiftTjuaTos tnroSiSous rrjv &px*l v - The highest 
 offices were open to the first class alone, the lower to the others as 
 well. 
 
 18. rots 5e to Otjtikov Tekovmv iKKkrjtr'ias kol SiKacrTrjpttav /zereSajKe fiovov '. 
 this corresponds with the avayKaioTarrj hvvap.is which Solon is said in 
 Pol. II. 12 to have given to the lowest class, to ras ap%as alpelaOu Ka'i 
 eidiveiv. This was the most distinctively democratic innovation 
 introduced by Solon, and in virtue of it he was rightly regarded in 
 subsequent times as the founder of the democracy of Athens. He was 
 not the first to shake the ascendancy of the Eupatrid oligarchy. That 
 was the work of Draco ; but Solon was the first to remove all con- 
 siderations of birth from the political constitution, and to give the 
 labouring classes a share in political power. 
 
 22. cos 8' cnai <f>a<ri : no doubt the two standards are really the same. 
 An income of 300 medimni was fixed as representing that on which a 
 man could furnish himself with the equipment of a mounted soldier. 
 
 26. ei/aav Ai<fii\ov : Mr. A. S. Murray has pointed out that this must 
 be a mistake, either of the author or of the copyist, for, as appears from 
 
CH. 7.] A0HNAIX2N nOAITEIA. 25 
 
 A.L(j)i\ov Avde/XLCDv t^vS' dvidrjKe Oeois, 
 drjTiKov avTt reXous LTnrdS' dju.eu|/aju,ei>os. 
 /cat Trapeo-TTjKev lttttos iK/xaprvpav coy rt]v LTnrdSa. 
 tovto (rrjfia^ijvova^ajv. ov firjv dXX' evXoycoTcpov 30 
 rots p.erpoi? Siyprjcrdat. KaOairep tovs Trei>TaKO(riop.e- 
 8lp.vovs. ^evyicriov 8e reXelv tov? SiaKoaia rd 
 a-vvap-Cpco iroiovvras' tovs 8' dXXov? Otjtlkov, ov8e- 
 p.ids p,€Tf)(OVTas dpyrjs. 810 kolI vvv eVetSay eprjrat 
 
 29. eiCfiapTvpwv : H-L. ivipuapTvpav, after Blass (who also conj. I« twv 
 apuTrepaiv) ; K-W. obelize the word. 31. /k't/jois : MS. /xerpiois. 32. 
 
 54 : H-L. S' fS«, after Kontos. 
 
 the inscription, Diphilus belonged to the class of Thetes and conse- 
 quently could not properly have been represented with a horse. The 
 statue must have been of the son, Anthemion. This statue is also re- 
 ferred to, and the inscription upon it quoted, by Pollux (VIII. 131). 
 The MSS. of the latter give the first line as Auf>l\ov 'Avde/iiav lirnov 
 rovd' aveSqKe deals, excepting one which agrees with the present text with 
 merely the substitution of tovB' for tijkS'. The editors and commen- 
 tators have either taken the name Ai<pi'Aov out of the line, attaching it 
 to the word cn-typa/i/ia which precedes it, or else have emended it into 
 a hexameter, Aupt'Xov 'Avfe/iiW tov$ Imrov Beois AvedrjKe. The present 
 text probably gives the real reading of the inscription, as two penta- 
 meters, the corruption of most of the MSS. of Pollux being explained 
 by the intrusion into the line of the gloss "asnov. Many reconstructions 
 of the line as a hexameter have recently been offered, but none of them 
 explains the corruption. 
 
 32. bioKoo-ia : this confirms the usual statement as to the property 
 qualification of the Zevylrai, as against Boeckh (Staatsh., 3rd ed. I. 581, 
 bk. IV. 5), who holds it to have been 150 medimni, on the strength of a 
 law quoted by Demosthenes {Contr. Macart. § 54, pp. 1067, 1068), in 
 which the dowry which a man of one of the three upper classes was 
 bound to give to a relative in the lowest who was heiress to her deceased 
 father («n'/c\i;por) was fixed, if he was a pentacosiomedimnus at 500 
 drachmas, if he was a knight at 300 drachmas (in each case the equi- 
 valent of a minimum year's income for the class), and if he was a 
 zeugites at 1 50 drachmas, which Boeckh argues must equally represent 
 the minimum income (a medimnus being valued at a drachma in 
 Solon's system) of the third class. But this is too slight a basis on 
 which to construct a refutation of all the ancient writers who mention 
 the subject, to whom is now added the great authority of Aristotle. 
 
 34. Sio Kai. vvv k.tX : this is interesting, as showing that the property 
 
26 API2T0TEA0T2 [CH. 7. 
 
 3 tov p.eXXovra KXrjpovcrOai tiv apxw wolov reXo? 
 
 \ " > s»> A ? 3t /\ / 
 
 T€A€t, OVO av 61? €L7T0L 07)TLKOV '. 
 
 8. Tay 8' ap^as i7roi7)<re KXiqpcoras Ik irpoKpiTcov, 
 
 VIII. 1. Tas 8' apx&s '■ MS. t 5 apxqs. 
 
 qualification can never have been entirely abolished by law. The date 
 of the final extension of eligibility to the archonship belongs to the 
 period between the Persian and Peloponnesian wars, the Zevylrai being 
 made eligible in 457 B.C. (see ch. 26, 1. 17 and notej. Whether 
 there was any partial extension previously to this there is no evidence 
 to show ; but the final extension can only have taken the form of 
 throwing open the office to all possessed of the lowest qualification, 
 that of a Zeuymjr, while by a legal fiction even a person who did not 
 come up to that standard was allowed to represent himself as possess- 
 ing the required qualification. A partial parallel may be found in the 
 notorious evasion of the law of property qualification for a member of 
 the English parliament previous to 1858. 
 
 VIII. 1. KXrjparas ex irpoKplrav : this passage is at variance with the 
 ordinary belief as to the manner of election to the archonship in the 
 sixth century. It has been supposed, as common sense suggested in the 
 absence of direct evidence, that until the lot was introduced about the 
 time of the Persian wars the archons were directly elected, whether by 
 the people or in whatever manner prevailed in earliertimes. It is nowcer- 
 tain (cf. infra, 1. 10) that in early times (presumably until the constitution 
 of Draco, by whom the election was apparently given to the ecclesia) 
 the archons were directly elected to their offices by the Areopagus ; 
 but that when Solon introduced the people to political power a com- 
 bined process of selection and sortition was devised. The four tribes 
 elected ten candidates each, and from the forty persons thus designated 
 the nine required officers were chosen by lot. With this passage may 
 be compared the statement in [Demosth.] contr. Ncaer. § 75, p. 1370, tot 
 pkv fia.(7i\£a ... 6 drjp.os ypelro eKirpoKpiroiV Kar dvdpaynBiav ^eLpoTovav. The 
 author of the speech refers this system to the time of Theseus, which is 
 plainly impossible ; but it may be a recollection of the state of things 
 under the Solonian constitution. The only discrepancy with the 
 passage of Aristotle lies in the word xctporoiw : for whereas Aristotle 
 represents the second stage of the election as conducted by the lot, 
 the orator regards both processes as selective. On a priori grounds 
 the latter version would be preferable, and it accords with the general 
 view that the lot was not introduced for any purpose before the time 
 of Cleisthenes at the earliest. On the other hand the orators, who 
 are notoriously inaccurate in their history, are not to be compared 
 with Aristotle as an authority, especially as the latter quotes a proof 
 of his statement from the practice of his own day. Isocrates has a 
 
CH. 8.] 
 
 A0HNALQN nOAITEIA. 27 
 
 [ojvs [e/cacrjT77 irpoKpivtie ra>v (f>v\a>v. irpovKpivev 
 8' el? tovs kvvia. apyavras e/cacn-77 5e/ca, /cat roujjroty] 
 i^7T€KjXrjpovv oOev en 8iap.evei. rat? (pvXcus to 5e/ca 
 KXrjpovv eK.a.(TT7]v, etV e/c tovtcov Kva/ievehv]. <rr]p.eioi> 5 
 
 2. irponpiveie: so K-W. following Gertz; MS. and 1st ed. irpoKpivei, H-L. 
 (after Blass) npovKpivi. 3. toutoij iirac\ripovv : there is only room for 
 one letter between -rot; and t, but something has been written above the line, 
 and it looks as if the scribe had written tous and corrected it to toutois. 1st 
 ed. tovtovs e«\ripovv, which H-L. accept. K-W. (Ik) tov[tdiv tn\]ripovv 
 (K-W. omit Ik), Gomperz ko.k for mi. 
 
 passage on the subject (Areofi. c. 22, p. 144), ovk i% anavrav ras 
 apx<is K\rjpovvTss, dWa tovs 3eXri<rrovj Km roiis tKavaiTdTOVS ify' l<a<TTOv 
 tS>v epyav TrpoKpivovres, but he makes no clear distinction between the 
 constitutions of Solon and of Cleisthenes, and is too vague to be of 
 much use in an argument. He is clearer in Panath. § 145, p. 263 (cited 
 by Mr. \V. L. Newman, Class. Rev. V. 161), nept 8e roiis aiirois xpovovs 
 K(i8io~Ta<jav eVl ras ap%as roiis TrpoKpidevTas vtto t&v (pvXeriov Kai drjporcov, 
 but the reference to the 817^0701 is probably inexact. In any case the 
 Solonian system was not of long duration ; for even in the years which 
 intervened between its establishment and its abrogation by the tyranny 
 of Pisistratus we find that there were several disturbances to the normal 
 process of election. On the changes subsequently introduced, see 
 below, ch. 22, 1. 27, and note. 
 
 It must be observed that the present passage, in ascribing this 
 system of election to Solon, is not consistent with the statement in the 
 Politics (II. 12) that Solon made no change in the election of magis- 
 trates. This however is not the first contradiction that we have found 
 between that chapter and this treatise, and it has already been noticed 
 that the chapter in the Politics is of doubtful authenticity (cf. note on 
 ch. 4, 1. 3). 
 
 3. tovtois ineickripovv : if this reading is right (and it does not seem 
 possible to make anything else of the MS.) raj ipxds must be supplied 
 to complete the sense. The meaning evidently is that they cast the 
 lot among the forty selected candidates to determine which should 
 serve as archons ; but the expression is not satisfactory. In ch. 59, 
 1. 19 occurs the phrase eViKX^poOo-t rah apxais ra SiKao-Trjpia, which is 
 partly parallel. 
 
 5. KkripoCv . . . Kvapevew ; there is no difference in meaning between 
 these words, both being regularly used of election by lot, as opposed 
 to x* l P 0T0V *<- v or alpeurOat. The difference between the earlier and the 
 later practice was that at first the tribes elected their ten candidates 
 apiece by deliberate choice, and the lot was only put into operation 
 between the forty individuals thus nominated; whereas afterwards 
 the lot was employed in both stages of the election. 
 
28 API2T0TEA0T2 [CH. 8. 
 
 5' otl KXrjpcoTas iiroirjaav e/c tcov Tip.rjpaTcov o irepi tcov 
 Tapicov vop,os co ^pc6p.evoL [8iaTeXo~]vo-iv en kcu vvv 
 KeXevei yap KXr/povv tov? rafiias e/c 7vevTaK.00-10p.e- 
 8lpLvco[u. 2o'A]a>i> p.ev ovv ovrcos evop-odeTrjcrev nrepi 2 
 
 io tcov evvea apypvTcov. to yap apyaiov r) iv 'Ap[elco 
 iraycp fiovXYq avaKaXeaap.evrjKa\ Kp ivacra Kad' avrrjv 
 tov eiriT-qoeiov i(j) eKao-Ty tcov apyoav eV [eViJa[uT jov 
 [SiaTa^ajo-a aireaTeXXev. (j)vXa\ 8' fjcrav 8 KaOairep 3 
 TvpoTepov /cat (pvXofiao-iXeL? TeTTapes. e'/c 8e [rrjij 
 
 15 (pv\Xr}s e/c]aa"T77? rjcrav vevep.7jp.evai TpiTTves p.ev Tpets, 
 vavKpaplai 8e ScoSeica Kaff endo-Trjv. \r)v oe tcov] 
 vavKpapmv apyj) KaOeo-Tr/Kvla vavKpapoi, Teraypevr] 
 
 6. iirolrioav : H-L. eiroiricev, after Hude. 12. eieaarri: H-L. 
 
 fKa<7T7]V. 13. 8iaTa£a<ra: K-W. \_/£aOtffTCi]aa. 14. TeTTapes: MS. 
 
 Teoaapes. ex : H-L. i-ri, for which there is not room in the MS. 16. 
 
 vavKpapiat : MS. vavtcpaipai. ?jv be tojv : Blass em 5e twv, K-W. and H-L. rjv 5' 
 eirl Tuv : it is doubtful whether there is room for this supplement. 17. 
 
 KaSeaTTjKvia : H-L. are wrong in stating that the MS. has KaOeoTTjKva. 
 vavKpapoi : MS. vavitpaipoi. 
 
 10. 17 e'v'Apela irdym [3ov\r] : cf. note on ch. 3, 1. 41. This direct state- 
 ment by Aristotle is of great value, as confirming what might have been 
 independently conjectured from the preceding account of the early 
 importance of the Areopagus, though historians have hitherto been 
 shy of making any definite assertion as to the election of magistrates 
 in the times preceding Solon. At first sight it appears to contradict 
 the statement in ch. 4, that 01 oir\a napexppevoi (z. e. the ecclesia) elected 
 the archons and other magistrates under the constitution of Draco. 
 Aristotle's phrase to apxalov, however, does not necessarily imply that 
 the election of officers by the Areopagus lasted up to the time of Solon. 
 It probably occurred to him that he had not mentioned the primitive 
 method of election in the previous part of his work, and he therefore 
 inserted it here. Draco's reforms took the election from the Areopagus 
 and gave it to the persons qualified to sit in his ecclesia. Solon threw 
 open the ecclesia to a much wider circle, and thereupon introduced 
 the double process of election by vote and lot described in this chapter. 
 
 13. <j)v\a\ 8' ri<rav . . . Ka6' eKtio-rrjv : quoted by Photius, J. v. vavKpapiu. 
 who prefaces his quotation with the words, in tt\s 'Apiorore'Xour 7ro\neias, 
 61/ rponov SieVn^e T17V ttoKiv 6 26\a>i> (Rose, Frag. 349). 
 
 16. Kaff e<a(TTr)v : SC. (pvXrjV. 
 
 iy. vavKpapoi: this passage does not do much to clear up the 
 
CH. 8.] A0HNAI12N IIOAITEIA. 29 
 
 irpos re Tas e[l(Tj(j)opas /cat ras 8a.7rux.vas} ras yiyvo- 
 /A€va$' 810 rat kv tois vo/xots toI^s ^joXcovos oils ovKeri 
 yjpuvraL iroXXa^ov^ yiypairrai rovs vavK.pa.povs 20 
 
 18. fiyvojiivai : MS. yivofievas. 20. mWaxov : so Wessely, appar- 
 
 ently rightly ; Paton read noXKaxoSi, which H-L. accept, but there is hardly 
 room for the termination. K-W. rroAX[d/«]?. The letters here given are rather 
 doubtful, especially ax- 
 
 obscurity which surrounds the question of the vavxpapoi. Photius 
 (/. c.) ascribes the invention of the name to Solon (26X<axos ovras 
 ovopacravTos , us koX 'ApioroTt'Xrjr Kprja-iv), but the reference to Aristotle, 
 if correct, must be to some other passage than the present. Probably, 
 however, he does refer to this passage, assuming from the mention 
 of the Naucraries here that Aristotle intended to ascribe their origin, 
 and therefore their name, to Solon. It is not clear that this was 
 Aristotle's intention. It appears rather that he expressly avoids doing 
 so ; for having stated that the four tribes existed previously, he pro- 
 ceeds to say that those tribes were subdivided into Trittyes and 
 Naucraries, whereas in speaking elsewhere of the institutions of Solon he 
 always attributes them to him directly (Wis apxas eVoii;o-e KX^pcoras . . . 
 ovras ivojxodtTri&ev . . . QovXrjv 8' eVoi'iyrrf). It is moreover certain from 
 Herodotus (V. 71) that these subdivisions of the tribes existed from 
 much earlier days. The Naucraries were evidently the units of local 
 administration, as the demes became subsequently ; and we learn 
 from the present passage that their principal duty was financial. Thus 
 Hesychius describes them (s. v. vav<\apoi) as olnves dcp* eKaorijs x<ipas 
 Tas ficrcpopas fiucXeyov, and Pollux (VIII. I08), Wis 8' eltrcpopas ras Kara 
 87//10VS biex'EipoTOVovv octroi Kal ra e£ avrwv dva\a)p.aTa, adding also vavKpapla 
 8 iicdcrTT] Svo imreas 7rapft^€ Ka\ vavv piav, a(p* 77s uras o>v6p.aoro (Rose, 
 Frag. 349). The quotation which Aristotle proceeds to make from 
 the law of Solon shows that the vawpapoi, who were the governors 
 of each division, had the duty of collecting and administering certain 
 funds within their own districts. Aristotle does not mention the 
 KpvTaveis rav vavxpapav whom Herodotus (/. c.) states to have been the 
 magistrates at the head of affairs in Athens at the time of the con- 
 spiracy of Cylon; but it is probable that they were a central committee, 
 whose number we do not know, on which the forty-eight vavxpapoi served 
 in turn, and who had the general administration of the finances, 
 subject no doubt to the supervision of the Areopagus. As to the 
 statement that they at any time managed affairs in Athens, it is clear 
 that (in the absence of the first part of the present treatise, which 
 might have thrown some light upon the subject) the counter-statement 
 of Thucydides (I. 126), who must be deliberately correcting his 
 predecessor, deserves greater credence ; and the way in which the 
 office is here spoken of seems to imply that Aristotle has not mentioned 
 it already in the now missing part of his work. 
 
30 API2T0TEA0TS [CH. 8. 
 
 elcnrpaTTeiv /cat uvaXiaKeiv e'/c tov vavKpapiKov apyv- 
 p[lov. (3ovX~\rjv 8' itroirjcre rer/ja/cocrto[u?], e'/caroi> e£ 4 
 iicdonjs (pvXris, ttjv Se to>v ' KpeoirayLTwv era^ev 
 e[7rt to] vopo(pvXaKtiv, axnrep virrjpytv /cat irportpov 
 
 25 iTTicrKOTros o[i3]cra ttjs 7roAtre/a? • /cat to. re dXXa ra 
 wXelara /cat ra ply una. tcov ttoXlt(lk')S)v SieTrjpet. 
 /cat tov? apapTOLVovTas rjvOvvev Kvpi[aj odcra [/cat 
 £77] /*t[o£)f] /cat KoXa^eiv, /cat ra? e'/cr/cret? ave(pepev els 
 7toXlv ovk kiriypd(povo-a. ttjv 7rp6(f)ao-i[u tov ev9vv\- 
 
 30 eaOaL, /cat roi's- eVt /caraAucret roO Srjpov crvv^LJaTa- 
 pivovs eKpivev, ~26Xcoi>o? Oev^rosj vopov et<ra[yyje- 
 A[t'ay] 7repl avTcov. opcov 5e ttjv p.ev iroXiv ttoXXolkis 5 
 
 24. em to: so K-W . and H-L. after Paton and Gennadios. It is in accord- 
 ance with the remains in the MS. ; 1st ed. in. 2:. xal ra re aAAa : 
 the nai is a little doubtful. H-L. xal els ra a\\a, but the re 15 clear. 26. 
 itoKniKoiv: so K-W., H-L., after Richards. Perhaps rum (vepi rav} iroXnav, 
 which gives an easier explanation of the corruption. 27. nai 
 friiuovv : teal H-L., following Blass. rov (for nai), 1st ed. and K-W. ; but a 
 mark of abbreviation seems visible in the MS. 29. ciBvveaBcu : so H-L., 
 after Blass; 1st ed. ico\d£c<r$ai, K-W. mark lacuna. 31. vouov : so also 
 K-W. ; 1st ed. and H-L. 6 /iiv [ovv tout' irafe]. tiaayyeKias : this reading is 
 mainly due to a suggestion by Wessely. 
 
 22. fiovXrjv : this is the same assembly as that established by Draco, 
 with the exception that the one additional member is omitted (cf. note 
 on ch. 4, I. 16). Its origin has hitherto been universally ascribed to 
 Solon, by Plutarch among others (c. 19, bevrepav wpoa-xaTii/tifie flovXrjv) ; 
 but cf. note on ch. 7, 1. 10. 
 
 25. ra re aXka K.r.X. : cf. ch. 3, 1. 43, oiw/<ei 8e ra ■nkeujra feat ra piy terra 
 rav ev rjj 7rdXei, Kal Ko\d£ovaa kcu fyuLovaa izdvras rovs dKotTpovi/ras 
 Kvpias. 
 
 31. vd/tow eio-ayyeXt'ar : cf. Hyperid. Euxen. 22, 1. 19 ff., where the law 
 
 regulating eio-ayyeXt'a is quoted, idv tis rbv Srjuov rbv 'ABrjvaiav KaraKCj], 
 r) o-vvii) ttoi eVi KaTaXijcm rov Brjuov, k.t.X. The hearing of such cases 
 was by that time transferred to the SiKaorijpia, but the procedure by 
 eiVnyyeXia remained. This (if the reading is correct) is by far the 
 earliest mention of this method of procedure, the earliest hitherto 
 known having been in 446 B. C. (Smith's Diet. Ant., 3rd ed.), and it 
 is possible that the technical term is only retrospectively employed. 
 
 32. 7roXXdi«r <TTa(rid£ovcrav : MS. iroXXaKioTao-tnfoucraj'. The form 
 ?roXXdftt is found in the Herculanean papyri, as Prof. Gomperz has 
 
CH. 9.] A0HNAII2N nOAITEIA. 31 
 
 (TTCL(rLa.£ov<Tav, tcdv 8e ttoXltcov tviovs 8\ia\ rrjv 
 padvp^lajv [TrepLopjcSvras to avro/iarov, vop.ov edrjKev 
 irpos avrovs ISiou, by av araaia^ovo-qs rf)? Tr6X\eco]? 35 
 p\jl QjyTcu ra oirXa [ir)8e fieO' erepoov, artpiou elvou 
 kcu 7-77? 7rdAewy p.r] fxeTe%eiv. 
 
 9. Ta p.ev ovv \jrtp\ rajs ap^as t\ovt\ov et^e tov 
 
 TpOTTOV. 8oK€l 5e TTjS ^oXdiVOS 7roXlT€LaS TpiCt. TO.VT 
 
 34. TrepiopwvTas : so Bury ((/. Thuc. iv. 71); of all the emendations pro- 
 posed it seems nearest to the visible remains. K-W. and Kontos dyarrSivTas. 
 J. E. B. Mayor, Sandys, Marchant, Blass, Gennadios, H-L. neptfiivovTas, but the 
 letter before vt appears to be a. Rutherford a-rrouvovvTas. 36. 9rjrat : 
 
 so H-L. ; K-W., Richards, Blass TiOrjrcu, but there does not seem to be 
 room. IX. 1. E?x e: *Ta£e K-W., H-L., the former apparently thinking 
 
 it can be read in the MS. ; but the letters of dx e are faintly traceable. 2. 
 
 tout' ■ H-L., K-W. 2 TdS\ against the MS. 
 
 kindly pointed out, but it is hardly likely to be right here, where the 
 explanation of the omission of the s is so easy. 
 
 34. vojxov tdrjKev : this passage is quoted and amplified by Aulus Gellius 
 (II. 12) : ' In legibus Solonis . . . legem esse Aristoteles refert scriptam 
 ad hanc sententiam, " si ob discordiam dissensionemque seditio atque 
 discessio populi in duas partes fiet et ob earn causam irritatis animis 
 utrimque arma capientur pugnabiturque, turn qui in eo tempore in eoque 
 casu civilis discordiae non alterutra parte sese adiunxerit, sed solitarius 
 separatusque a communi malo civitatis secesserit, is domo patria 
 fortunisque omnibus careto, exul extorrisque esto."' This laborious 
 amplification, which adds nothing to the direct simplicity of Solon's 
 original law, must be the work of a scientific jurist of a late period, 
 or perhaps of Gellius himself. Plutarch also (c. 20) refers to this law, 
 which he calls 'l&ws fiaXia-ra kcu TrapaSo^os. Cf. Rose, Frag. 353. 
 
 IX. 2. rpla ra SrnioTiKaraTa : in Pol. II. 12 the summary of the Solonian 
 constitution is that it gave to the lower classes the necessary minimum 
 of political power, viz. the election of magistrates and the power of 
 calling them to account. In the present passage the first of these 
 points (which was not due primarily to Solon, as appears from ch. 4) 
 is passed over, but much stress is laid upon the other, which was 
 in fact the hinge of the Athenian constitution. The constitutions of 
 different countries have each had their one decisive fact, which may 
 not have been the one possessing most legal prominence, but which 
 nevertheless has guided the course of the political development of the 
 country. In England this decisive fact has been the control of the 
 Commons over financial supplies, which has always been the lever 
 by which the popular House has at first checked and finally brought 
 into subordination the power of the Crown. In Rome it was the 
 
32 API2T0TEA0T2 [ch. 9. 
 
 elvai to. Srj/jLOTiKCOTaTa, irparov fxev kcu fxeyio-TOV to 
 fir] Bavei^tLV eVi toIs (rco/xaaiv, eVeira to e^elvai 
 5 r<» f3ov\ofxei>q> ^rifxcopeivj inrep tS>v aSiKovfieucou, 
 TpiTov 8e ((a>) p.d\io-Ta (pacriv \aryyK.£va.i to ir\r)6os) 
 r) el? to SiK^ao-Tr/piov] e(j)[e<rLjs' tcvpios yap gov 6 
 8r)p.os tt]s yjsrjCpov KvpLosyiyveTat tt)s ttoXltziols. €tl 8e 2 
 kou 81a. to p.r) yeyp[aj(pd[(u to~\vs vop.ovs awXco? /xr]8e 
 
 3. rd : om. H-L. 5. rifiapeiv : so Paton, K-\Y. ; H-L. TijuapuaBm, 
 
 after Wyse. 6. w : so H-L., a *ai K-W. ; 1st ed. ^. 8. yiyvtrai ; 
 
 MS. yLverm. 
 
 initiative of the magistrate, which in earlier days threw all the power 
 into the hands of the body from which the chief magistrates came and 
 to which they returned, while from the time of the Gracchi onward 
 it was the weapon with which the democratic magistrates attacked and 
 overthrew the government of the aristocracy. In Athens it was the 
 immediate control which the people exercised over the magistrates, 
 summarily directing their proceedings in office by means of the ecclesia, 
 and sharply punishing any neglect of its wishes by means of the courts 
 of law. Solon deserved the reputation which he won as the founder 
 of the Athenian constitution by being the first to introduce into it this 
 special feature. The reforms of Cleisthenes, Ephialtes, Pericles, and 
 others only developed the constitution on the lines which Solon had 
 laid down ; and though these modifications were doubtless far enough 
 from his original intention, they yet followed naturally from the growing 
 strength of the lower classes whom he had introduced into public life. 
 
 5. Tipapeiv : cf. Plutarch (c. 1 8) navri Xajiav 8Lkt]v iirep tov kukSis 
 TTtnovdoTos e§o)Ke' Koi yap 7T^TjyevTos trepov Ka\ SiaaQevTos r] /3Xa/3eiTos e£rjv 
 ra Svvapeva <ai fiovXofiiva ypdabecrdai tov aScKovvra k.t.X. This quotation 
 suggests ypd<peo-0at as the natural word to supply in the lacuna ; but 
 there appears to be an a> as about the fourth letter of the word, and 
 this supports Tip.apuv, which is read by K-W. TipapilaBm, which is 
 proposed by Mr. Wyse and adopted by H-L., would also be possible 
 if the termination were written in contracted form. 
 
 7. e<peo-is : Plutarch (c. 18) notices the importance of this right of 
 appeal, as throwing the ultimate authority into the hands of the law- 
 courts ; Kal yap Sera rats dp\ais era£e Kplvuv, Ofioias zeal 7repi eneivav els to 
 SiKao-TTipiov ecpeo-eis e8a>Kf rots flotAo/ieVoir. The construction of 77 . . 
 e'aWis is somewhat irregular, and the whole sentence has suffered cor- 
 ruption in the MS., apart from the difficulties of decipherment in 
 the case of certain letters ; but the sense is quite clear. 
 
CH. i a] A0HNALQN nOAITEIA. 
 
 33 
 
 aacpas, aW axnrep 6 rrepi rcov KXrjpoov /cat kin- 10 
 nXrjpcov, av^ay^K^rj 7ro]AXa? apcpio-fi-qTrjo-ei? yiyvecrOai 
 /cat Traura fipafteveiv /cat ra kolvol /cat ra 'ISia to 81- 
 /ca[crr]^/)[ioz/]. olovrcu p.ev odv Tivts £irLn)8es aaa(pds 
 avrov iroLTjcrai tovs vop.ovs oirws y tt}$ Kpicrecos 
 [o S]t7[/ao? icjvpio?. ov p.rjv et/coy, aXXa 8ia to 15 
 yu.77 8vvao~Qai KaQoXov 7re/)tAa/3eti> to ^IXtlo-tov ov 
 yap [5]t/c[atoi>] e'/c tS>v vvv yiyvopivaiv dXX' e/c ttjs 
 aXXrj? 7roAtret'a? decopeiv ttjv iicetuov fiovXTjcriv. 
 
 IO. 'Ev [fiev ovv r]ot? vopois toajto. Sokcl delvat 
 BrjpoTiKa, Trpo 8e ttj? vop.o8ecrias 7roirjaai tt)v to>v 
 Xpea>\v anro^Koir-qv, /cat /iera TavTa T-qv re tcov peTpcov 
 /cat aTadpau /cat ttjv tov vop.io-p.aTos av^Tjaiv. eV 
 
 II. jroXXas : so Paton, K-W. ; H-L. Jjv iroKXas, but there is not room for the 
 verb. yiyveoBat : MS. iivtaBai. 1 2. to SiKaar-qpiov : so also K-W. ; the 
 MS. is rather doubtful ; 1st ed. and H-L. tol 5ucaarrjf[ia]. 14. 5 : 1st ed. and 
 K-W. ti ; the MS. admits of either. H-L. omits. K-W. and H-L. insert $ in 
 lacuna in next line. 16. Before Ka66\ov (about which there is no doubt, 
 
 as H-L. suppose) ire/>iAa/3«i> is written and erased. For Ka66\ov H-L. read 
 travra\ov. 17* yiyvofJLevojv : MS. yivofJLtvwv. X. 2. notTjaai : K-W. 
 
 iroMjffas doubtfully. 4. wofrqaiv : so MS., not evavfamv as K-W., nor 
 
 Kaxaaraaiv as H-L. The letters are fairly clear except the f . 
 
 IO. 6 Trepi rSv KKrjpav «ai imttkripav : cf. Plutarch, c. 20. Mr. Rutherford 
 brackets the parenthesis as an interpolation. 
 
 13. olovTai fiev ovv k.t.X. : Plutarch mentions the same story (c. 18). 
 In itself it is of course absurd, but it is useful as showing that Aristotle 
 placed the origin of the Socao-rijpia at least as early as the time of Solon, 
 which Grote doubts. In some form they must have existed for the 
 purpose of the evdvva • and it is not necessary to suppose, nor is it 
 probable, that they had a much more extended existence at this time. 
 Solon gave the lower classes a potential rather than an immediately 
 actual share in the government, and the great development of the 
 law-courts undoubtedly belongs to the fifth century, when pay was 
 introduced for service in them. 
 
 X. 3. /xirpav nai <TTa6fiS>v : this confirms Boeckh's opinion as against 
 Grote's, that Solon introduced some reform into the system of weights 
 and measures, but details are not given except as to the monetary 
 standard. It seems clear, however, in spite of the contrary opinion of 
 
 D 
 
34 API2T0TEA0T2 [ch. 10. 
 
 5 eKeivov yap iyeuero kcu to. fierpa pelfa tcov <t>€i8oo- 
 v€L(ov, kcu r) fiva rrporepov [eXKojvaa Trapa\irXr]a\i.ov 
 ij38ofir]KQVTa 8payjp.as ctverrX-qpcuQt] rats eKarov. 
 [Col. 4.] r/v 8' 6 apxcuos \apaKTrjp -fSlSpaxp-ovf. eVoi^cre 8e 
 kcu o-radpa Trpos t\o\ vopnapa fr[/j]eiy /catf e^r/KOVTa 
 10 pi>as to Tohavrov ayovaas, /ecu e7ri8ievepr]dr]o-av [at] 
 fxval rat araTrjpi kcu toIs olXXols aradpols. 
 
 5. peifa : so MS., notarial as stated byH-L. 6. e\nov<ra: so Wyse, 
 
 K-\V., H-L. Trapair\t)oiov : irapa [funp]6v K-W., [rpeis KaX] H-L. The it" 
 
 ( = rrapa) seems clear, also the above the line for the termination, which is 
 preceded by what may be an 1 ; but there is hardly room in the interval for 
 the letters required. J. rais : H-L., reading reir, emend it to t6t' ch, 
 
 but rail is clear. 9. araBpa : 1st ed. and H-L. CTaBpov : H-L. emend 
 
 -rrpos rhv OTaB/xov to vofuapa, but with hesitation. rpcts nai : H-L. delete. 
 
 Androtion (ap. Plut. Sol. 15), that the reform of the monetary standard 
 had nothing to do with the o-euraxdeia. As all debts were abolished 
 by the latter, there would be no call for an enactment that the new 
 and smaller drachmas were to be taken as equivalent to the old 
 drachmas for the purpose of discharging debts. The measure appears 
 to have been purely commercial, perhaps with the view of developing 
 the Athenian trade with the great commercial cities of Euboea, whose 
 standard of currency coincided with that now adopted by Solon. 
 
 5. ra iicrpa pe ifu tSiv $ei8uvela>v : on this passage Hultsch (Jahrbiicher 
 fur Class. Philologie, 1891, hft. 4, p. 263) remarks that we now learn 
 for the first time that the Pheidonian measures of capacity (of which 
 alone Aristotle is speaking in this clause) were smaller than the cor- 
 responding Attic ones. He accordingly identifies the Pheidonian 
 system with the Babylonian, with which the old Egyptian scale was 
 closely connected. The Pheidonian pcTprjTfjs consequently corresponded 
 with the Babylonian epha and the Egyptian artabe, and stood to the 
 Attic peTprjTrfs in the relation of 12 : 13. 
 
 8. f)v 8' 6 dpxa'ios xapaKTr)p SlSpaxpov : so Pollux (IX. 60) says of the 
 8i8paxp-ov, to 8e TraKaioi' tovto r)v AOrjvaiois vopurpa, Kai eaeaAetTO j3ouy. 
 But x<*P alt *hp is not a proper word for the value of a coin, and it may 
 be suggested that the sentence should run rjv 8' 6 apxalos x°P"<rr)p /3o0r, 
 SiSpaxp-ov having in an earlier MS. been written above /3o0r as an 
 explanation, and having subsequently been understood as a correction 
 of it and placed in the text instead. Mr. J. B. Mayor has proposed 
 rpi 8' 6 a. x- Bovs kcu to vopurpa SiSpaxpov, but the corruption is perhaps 
 harder to explain in this case. 
 
 9. Tptls Kai e£r)Kovra /irar to raKavrov dyoio-as : this appears to be the 
 reading of the MS., though the letters of the first word are rather faint. 
 
CH. i i.J A0HNAIX2N nOAITEIA. 35 
 
 1 1 . Aiara^ay 8e ttjv iroXiTeiav oinrep e'lprjTai, 
 TpoTrov, €7reifi?7 Trpoaiovres avTm irepi twv vopxov 
 rfvwyXovv, to. pev iiriTipavTes to, 8e avaicpivovTes, 
 $ov\6ptvos p-^Te ravra Kiveiv prjr a.-re^ddveo'daL 
 irapav a-ro8r)piav iiroirjaaTO kclt ipiropi\av\ apa kcu 5 
 decopiav els A'tyvTrrov, [e'nrjcov a>? ov% [^£]« 8e<a 
 ircov ov yap o'tecrOcu SiKaiov elvou [roluy vop,ovs 
 e^rjyeladai irapcov a.W eKaarov ra yeypapp,(va 
 2 Troirjaai. apa 8e /cat o~vv€^aiv\ev~\ avrm to>v re 
 yvcoplpcov 8ia(f)6pov? yeyevfjadai ttoWov? 81a ras 10 
 tcdv \p€av aTTOK07raJs, /c]ai ray aTacreis ap(j)OTepas 
 peradeo-Ocu 81a. to irapa 86£av olvtol? yevccrdou. ttjv 
 Ka.Ta.o~Ta.cr iv. 6 pev yap 8r)p.o? a>ero iravT avaSacrTa 
 TTOi-qo-eiv avTov, oi 8e yvcopipoi \tto^\lv els ttjv avrrjv 
 
 XI. 3. -fivaix^ovv : so J. B. Mayor, followed by H-L. ; MS tvax^-ovv, which 
 K-W. retain. 4. tcivtiv : MS. iceiveiv. 6. d-nav a/s ovx tJ£« : this reading 
 and supplement are due independently to van Leeuwen (H-L. pref. p. x.) and 
 Wessely. elirwv is nearer the traces in the MS. than van Leeuwen's \iywv. 7. 
 tiicaiov : S'maios Jackson, followed by H-L. ; it would be more regular, but 
 the usage is not so invariable as to make a departure from the MS. neces- 
 sary. 9. irotijaai: K-W. read the MS. as jroietv. 13. Karaaraaiv : 
 MS. at first apparently ovaav (K-W. rear) ra(iv, but xaraaraaiv is written 
 above, either as correction or explanation. K-W. KaraoTamv, H-L. ovaav ra£iv, 
 I st ed. ovaav KaraaTaaiv. Either word seems equally possible ; jcaTaaraats is 
 commoner in this treatise, but rafis is also used, e.g. in the following sentence. 
 14. K-W. bracket e£s, K-W. 2 substitute ij. 
 
 The words rpcls <ai must, however, be corrupt. There is no indication 
 that the number of minae in a talent was ever other than sixty. Prob- 
 ably Tpels (cai was written as an explanation of irapanKijo-iov above, 
 and was subsequently inserted in the text in the wrong place. Mr. 
 Ridgeway {Class. Rev. V. 108), writing apparently on the theory that 
 the Attic standard was slightly higher than the Euboic, suggests that 
 rpels Kai is genuine, the meaning being that Solon made his new talent 
 (of sixty minae) equal in weight to sixty-three old minae, thus effecting 
 a vofiia-jiaros at/|jjcrir. But the standard previously in use in Attica 
 was the Aeginetan, not the Euboic, and it is difficult to see how the 
 substitution of a stater of 135 grains for one of 195 grains could be 
 represented as vop.io-p.aTos av^o-is. One would rather suppose that it 
 is a loose phrase, indicating that 73 old drachmas were replaced by 
 ico new ones. 
 
 D a 
 
36 API2T0TEA0T2 [CH. 11. 
 
 ! 5 tclqv arroBaxreiv, r) crpuKpov 7rapa\Xajj\ei,W 6 8e 
 ajutyoTepoLS rjvavT icodr), /cat igov clvtcd /xed' biroTtpcov 
 ifiovXero o-vo-t(Si>tl\ Tvpavveiv etXero Trpos dp.(j)OTe- 
 povs CLTTey6icr6a.L awcras rrjv 7rarpl8a /cat ra /3e[A- 
 Tt]cr7-a vop-oOtTrjaas. 
 
 12. TaOra 8' on tovtov (toi>) rpoTrov koyev oi 
 t aXXoi crvp.cpcovovo'L iravres, /cat avros ev rfj TroirjcreL 
 fieyivjrjrai wep\ avrav kv rotoSe' 
 
 Arjp-a) pukv yap !Sw/ca rocrov yepas ocrcrov anap\_Ketj, 
 
 S TI/M7S OVT OL(j)£\o)V OVT €.TT0ptt;ap,€V0<S. 
 
 oi 8' eX^ov SvvafjiLV /cat •^prjp.ao'iv rjcrav ayr)TO[C], 
 
 /cat Tots i(f>pao-dp,riv prjhzv d[et]/ce? ^X eiVt 
 eo-Tr/v S' dp.<f>L^a\o)v Kparepov crd/cos djiic/>OTepotcri 
 ijkclv o ovk eLaar ovoerepovs aot/cws. 
 io ttolXiv 8' aTro(pGuv6p.evos irep\ rod 7rXrjdovs, a>? a[urjc<5 2 
 Set ypr)o-6a.L' 
 
 A.rjp.o^ S' a>8' av apucrTa avv y)yep.6veo~o~LV eiroiTO, 
 p/rjre. \iav dv[e]#ets /zTjTe /3ta£djtievos. 
 
 15. ^ o/MKpov Trapa\\6{w & Se : so K-W. and H-L., after Blass. Else- 
 where the MS. has /u«pos. A p is perhaps visible in the first lacuna : the 
 second lacuna would perhaps hold more letters; ist ed. 9)s [/kVtoi] irapaK- 
 Xa([as 86£tjs], 17. (0ov\e to : MS. and K-W. -qfiovKeTo. lS. 
 anexOeaOai : MS. aTrexOeaByvat. Possibly drrex^o-vtaOcu, as in Aristides, /. c. 
 (note on 1. 16). XII. i. tot : om. MS. This omission is not parallel 
 with the omissions of tot after roVSe in this MS. (cc. 7, 10 ; 29, 36 ; 37, 5;, 
 since it is so easily explained by the fact that the same syllable immediately 
 precedes. iaxtv ' K-W. emend tTxf. 4. brifiw : MS. Srjfioi. yipas : 
 Kparos Plutarch. aitapnu: knapKei Plutarch, where Corae's had proposed 
 avapjcei ; H-L. airapiceiv. 5. tTrope£ap:evos : MS. aiTop^ap.(vos. 6. 
 0! : MS. off oi. 13. Xiav ; \iijv Plutarch. 0ia(6/ievos : me£6ptvos Plutarch. 
 
 16. rat i£bv airra k.t.X. : paraphrased by Aristides (II. 360), tKelms 
 fiivroi napov avra o"rao"tafouo"i;s rijs 7rdXecos OTrorepav (3ou\oito irpooravTi. 
 rvpavvflv, awexSoveaBai p.aK\ov aficporepois etXfTO virep tov StratW rat ran 
 fiiv n\ovo-iav Screw KaXcos eix ev olj>tTki, ru fir/fia) 8' ovk cSwicev 00-ov e'(3otJ\f to, 
 
 (c.t.X. (the reference is due to Prof. Mayor). 
 
 XII. 4. Arjp.(o fiiv yap k.t.X. : quoted in Plutarch (c. 18), Bergk, 
 Frag. 5. 
 
 12. Aij/tor S' 2>S' fiy k.t.X. ; the first two lines are quoted in Plutarch 
 
CH. 12.J A0HNAIJ2N nOAlTEIA. 37 
 
 tlkt€l yap Kopos vfipiv, mav ttoXv's o\/3os €irr)T\jxi] 
 avdpaTTOicriv ocrois jxtj vdos apTLOs rj. 15 
 
 3 kou ttoXlv 8' [eTep~Jcodi wov Xiyei wepl rwv Siavei- 
 /jLacrdai rr\v yrjv fiovXofievcov 
 
 Ot 8' i<ji apTTayaicnv rjXOov, iXm[S' eTJ^ov afyvedv, 
 kolSokovv eKacrTos avrcov o\/3ov evpyjcreiv noXvv, 
 Kai jiie KOiTtWovra Xetws Tpa)(pv ii«f)avelv voov. 20 
 
 ya.vva. \xXv tot i(j)pdcravTO, vvv Se fiot -)(o\ovfievoi 
 \o\_£bv o](j>9aX\jj.oi\<; opuxn, TrdvTts wore Stj'lov. 
 ov xpea>v' a /xev yap eiira crvv Oeotcriv ^vw[cra], 
 [aAAa S' o]v fj[ajrr)v iepB[o]v, ovSe p.01 TvpavviSos 
 avSdveu /Sia tl [peQew, ouSe 7rie[ipa]s x9ovb<s 25 
 
 iraTpiSoq KaKolcnv icrdXovs l(rop.oipiav exew. 
 
 14. 7ro\iiy : Ka/foj Theognis. 15. av6p6i-noiatv offois: avQp6jirw teal otw 
 
 Theognis. 16. K-W. bracket nai. 8' kripaBi: so Hicks, Wyse, Sidgwick, 
 K-W. ; Si aWoBi J. B. Mayor, Bywater, Blass ; Si) aWoBi J. A. Smith, van 
 Herwerden ; a\\axo9i H-L., after Naber ; the a is clear, but the other remains 
 do not suit any of these conjectures. SiavdpaaOm : H-L. read the MS. 
 
 SiavepeoOai, doubtfully. 2 2. Sr/'iov : Bergk (after Reiske) emends this 
 
 to 817101, and so 1st ed. and H-L.; but the agreement of the present text 
 with the MSS. of Plutarch can hardly be disregarded. 23. a p-tv yap 
 
 (lira : aim yap atK-nra Aristides, (a phi yap ae\irra, two MSS.), a plv aeXnra 
 (as beginning of a line;, Gaisford, Bergk. 24. d\\a: iipa Aristides; 
 
 aKKa, Gaisford, Bergk. oi : au Schneider, Bergk, and so 1st ed. 25. 
 
 avbava k.t.A. : H-L. rjvbavtv (after Richards) Pima Xijpm', against the MS. 
 ptfriv : Kivsiv Bury. 
 
 {Sol. et Pop/. Comp. 2), Bergk, Frag. 6. The two remaining lines 
 occur in Theognis, 153, 154; but the first is quoted as Solon's by 
 Clement of Alexandria [Strom. VI. p. 740), and it is clear that the 
 couplet has, like many others, been wrongly incorporated in the collec- 
 tion which bears the name of Theognis. 
 
 18. 02 8' i(j> apnayaitnv rj\6ov k.t.\. : this quotation is from a poem 
 which, as Aristides (II. 536) informs us, was composed ifrirbnj&ts eh 
 airov <al ty)v iavrov iroXireiav. Lines four and five are quoted by Plu- 
 tarch (c. 16, Bergk, Frag. 34), and part of lines six and seven by 
 Aristides (I.e., Bergk, Frag. 35). The rest is new. The two pother 
 fragments in the same metre (Bergk, 32, 33) are no doubt from the 
 same poem, including the well-known lines on his refusal to set himself 
 up as tyrant, ovk i'<pv SoXav fia8i<ppa>v. Plutarch, in quoting one of these 
 fragments, states that the poem from which it comes was addressed to 
 Phocus. 
 
38 APIST0TEA0T2 [CH. 12. 
 
 [7raAtz/] 5e /cat irtpX ttjs air\j)K\oirris rcov ^pejcov 4 
 kou tcou SovXevovTwv fiev irporepov i\evdepco6evTcoi> 
 Se 81a ttjv atiarcLyde^av^ 
 30 'Eyw Se tcjv p,£v ovveK a^ovrjkaTOV 
 
 SfjiLov rt Tovroiv irplv Tvyuv irravadfir^v, 
 crvp.p.apTvp[oi\q tolvt av iv Sikjj -^povov 
 P-tJttjp p,eyC(TTT] 8aip.6va>[y 'OXv]/u,7rtwv 
 aptcrra, Trj fiekaiva, rrjs iyco rrore 
 35 [ojpous av€i\ov TroWa^y) 7re7r^ydra[s], 
 
 2 7. diroKoirijs twv xp lwv : so MS. ; the correct reading is due to Wes- 
 sely. 29. H-L. insert t6tc before Sia. 30. eiVe*' afovriXaTuiv K-W. 2 ; 
 
 df onjA.aToi' : MS. doubtful ; the \ might be read as J or 7; a£ov rjyayov 
 Wessely. ovvtKa £tvq\aTov Jackson ; ovvena (vvqyayov Piatt ; ^vyqkaTov, 
 ^vyqXarov, or £vyq<popov, Marindin ; ovvac' i^avriyayov van Leeuwen ; ovvik' 
 oil gfvqKaTOv E. S. Thompson. 31. dijuov : H-L. are in error in stating 
 
 that the 17 is accented in the MS. ti toutm/: toiovtwv Sidgwick, van Leeuwen. 
 tvxwv : or tux«""> which is preferred by Tyrrell, Thompson, K-W. ; van 
 Leeuwen tvxwv. \-nav(ja\ir\v : t-navaa vvv Sidgwick ; ewav<ra viv, £\vaap:r]v, 
 
 or ippvaaftrjv, van Herwerden ; i\vaap.r\v Wyse ; ippvaapcqv Piatt. 
 
 28. bovktvovTuv : this is the first word legible on the first of the two 
 fragments of the noXiTfia discovered by Blass in the Berlin Museum 
 (cf. Hermes, XV. 366), and identified as Aristotle's by Bergk. The front 
 side of the first fragment contains twenty-three lines, all imperfect, 
 ending with a portion of the line iroKkav av avSpav rj8' ixiP^I ndXis. 
 
 30. 'Eyio 8e twv fiev k.t.X. : the first two lines are new ; the rest is the 
 well-known fragment quoted by Aristides {I.e.), and partly also by 
 Plutarch (c. 15), Bergk, Frag. 36. 
 
 d£ovr]\aTov : the word is a strange one, but it does not seem possible 
 to make anything else out of the MS. It is only known elsewhere in 
 Aesch. Suppl. 181, where it is an epithet of ariptyyes, and is used in its 
 simple sense of ' whirling on the axle.' Here, if genuine, it is meta- 
 phorical and indicates a torture such as that of Ixion. All sorts of 
 substitutions have been suggested, but none that is very convincing. 
 
 31. Sijpov k.t.X. : this line must be corrupt, but no satisfactory emen- 
 dation has been proposed. The simplest is to substitute TOioiiraiv for 
 ti ToiiTav. inavo-ifirfv, which is plainly the MS. reading, is strange, but 
 may perhaps stand. The sense of the passage appears to be, ' Let 
 Earth bear witness to the motive which prompted me in my relief of 
 the poor, namely, the misery of their previous condition.' 
 
 32. xp° vov '■ so too the MSS. of Aristides ; Bergk accepts the con- 
 jecture Kpovov, but the MS. reading appears to give a perfectly good 
 sense. It is Solon's appeal to the judgment of Time. 
 
CH. 12.J A0HNAK2N IIOAITEIA. 39 
 
 [TrpoaOlev Se SovXeuoucra, vvv iXevdepa- 
 
 iroXXovs 8' 'Adrfvas, irarpt'S' ets 0e6KTii\ov\, 
 
 [dvrjlf/ayov ■Kpo.divra.%, dXXov e'/cSyccus, 
 
 aXXov oi/catws, tov<s 8 dvayKairjs vtto 
 
 Xpeiovs (j>vyovTa<;, yXcocrcrav ovk4t 'Attiktjv 4° 
 
 teVras, &)s a,!/ TroXXa^yj 7rXav[ci)jiiei'OVs] ) 
 
 tous S' ivOdS" avTOv S[ovX£}qv dei/cea 
 
 [ej^ovras, ^17 SecnroTav Tpop.evp.iv\ov<i\, 
 
 [iXjevdepovs e8rjKa. raCra jxev tepdrei 
 
 v6p.ov, ^iav Te koX hiKrjv crvvapp^ocras, 45 
 
 [ep]e£a, nal SifjXdov a»s VTrz.<ryopjr)v. 
 
 Qecrp.ov'i ff o/xolw; t<w Kauai re KayaOu, 
 
 evdelav ei? eKacrrov app.6cra<; Si/ojv, 
 
 eypa\}ia.. Kevrpov 8' dXXos ws eyw Xa/3(t>v, 
 
 [/ca/c]o(^pa8-^s re kgu (f)LXoKTrjp.a)v dvr\p, 50 
 
 ou/c dv /carecr^e Srjjxov' el yap ^[^ejXov 
 
 36. 5c : H-L. 7t, after J. B. Mayor. After vvv H-L. add 5', thinking it to 
 be in the MS. If so, it is added above the line, where there are slight traces of 
 ink. 37. SeoKTiTov : MS. Bioktiotov, and so also all MSS. of Aristides 
 
 except one. 43. tjStj : 7787/ Aristides, emended by Bergk. StairoTuiv : 
 
 Beo-noras Aristides, except one MS. 44. updret : MS. xpareet. icparrj 
 
 Bergk, with one MS. of Aristides, Berl. Pap. 45. vo/iov : ojiov 
 
 Aristides, Plutarch, Berl. Pap. ; and so K.-W. 46. diij\8ov : van 
 
 Herwerden suspects Btrjvva' to have been the original verb, on which SifjAfloi/ 
 is a gloss. 47 6' : 5' Aristides, and so K-W., H-L., after Wyse. o/ioiais : 
 dfioiovs, Bergk, with two MSS. of Aristides. 51. Bijfiov : H-L. suspect 
 
 flu/toy should be read here and in 1. 65. 
 
 40. xpeioOr (pvyovras : this is certainly a better reading than the 
 fantastic xpwp° v teyovras, which is given by the MSS. of Aristides, 
 to the confusion of commentators. 
 
 44. lepdrei vofiov : the present text seems preferable to the readings 
 Kparq o/jlov which have hitherto appeared in this passage: ' by the 
 strength of law I did it, fitting might and right together.' 
 
 5 1. el yap 7$8e\ov k.t.X. : the quotation in Aristides ends with the words 
 ovk av Kario-\e dy/iov, but Plutarch (c. 1 6) says KtuVoi <jir](riva>s el ns aWos 
 eir\e TT]V airrjV hvvafiiv, ovk Av KaTeo-\e Srjfiov .... yd\a (cf. infra). 
 
 Consequently the latter line and a half have been joined on to the 
 quotation of Aristides ; while the lines el yap fjde\ov .... earpaxpriv 
 \vkos, which are separately quoted by Aristides, stand as an inde- 
 pendent fragment (Bergk, 37). The present passage shows what must 
 
40 API2T0TEA0T2 [CH. 12. 
 
 a rots ivavTio\icrC\v rjvBavev Tore, 
 av6i<; 8' a roZariv ovrepoi tfrpacraiaTO, 
 ttoWcov av dvSpwv tjB e^pcodrj 7rd\i9. 
 55 TO)V OVVtK dXtCTjV TTOLVToOeV 7roiev/xei'05 
 
 &)S iv KVCrlv 7ToXXaL(TLV i(TTpd<f>7]V Xvkos. 
 
 /cat ttolXlv oveiBlfav 7r/>oy ras vcrrepov avT\a>vj //.e/xi^t- 5 
 jioipias afMpOTepcow 
 
 At^/aw jaev ei ^jor) SLcufydSyjv oraSicrai, 
 60 a iw e^ovariv ovttot o^daXp-olcnv av 
 
 evSovres etSoi'' 
 
 ocrot Se /acinous Kal /3iav d/xavoves 
 
 aivolev av p.e /cat <f>iXov ttoioioto. 
 
 el yap tls olXXos, (prjcri, ravrys rrjs Ti/x^y erv^ev, 
 
 65 ovk av Karecr^e 8rjp.ov ovS hravcraTO, 
 
 nplv avTapdtjas irLap ifjelXev ydXa. 
 [Col. 5.] eyw Se toutwi' axnrep iv p-erai-yjiioi 
 
 opo<i KariaT-qv. 
 
 52. d Tofs : MS. auTou. totc : iroefi' H-L., after Sidgwick. 53. auflis 
 
 k.t.\. -. so Piatt, K-W. ; MS. avroiaiv ovTepat (or ovrepot), Aristides d rolaiv 
 arepois (Ahrens and Bergk iKartpois) Spdaat Slo. (edd. 8i'x a ) ; Diels retains 
 ovrepat, as = ot cripa. H-L., following Sidgwick, substitute x a P' s iai roioiv, 
 taking dpaacu 8ix a as a gloss on x w p' LS ' 55* ovvsic : K-W. eiVe/c 1 . dA/njv : 
 apxn v Aristides, opyfiv Bergk. irotevpe cos : so Piatt, followed by K-W., H-L. ; 
 MS. Troiovfievos, Aristides Kv/cetip.evos : cf. rpontvp-tvovs above, 1. 43. 57. 
 
 avruiv : H-L., a5[0is]. 59. $ia<pa£-qv : MS. 8ia<ppa57]V, emended by Kontos 
 
 and K-W. ; H-L., p.' dfupaSrjv, after Piatt. 66. irplv k.t.X. : wplv av 
 
 rapagas map i£iKri ya\a, Plutarch, whence Adam (on Plat. Crito 44 D) con- 
 jectured avrapagas and igeiKev. So also Sidgwick, Blass, H-L. K-W. restore 
 the reading of Plutarch's MSS, which is probably due to a misunderstanding 
 of the compound avrapafas ; but K-W. 2 irplv rj . . i£el\iv. map : MS. 
 map, but the sense confirms the reading in Plutarch ; so Adam, K-W., H-L. 
 
 be taken as the true re-arrangement of the lines, from which it appears 
 that Solon used the phrase ovk av Kariax^ Sfjjuov more than once. 
 
 61. (vSovres elSov : it is evident that the quotation was broken offhere, 
 in the middle of the description of the indebtedness of the lower orders 
 to Solon, and it is resumed where he passes on to show what he had 
 done for the upper classes. 
 
 67. f'yw 8e k.t.\. : the following line and a half were not hitherto 
 known. 
 
CH. 13.] A0HNAII2N nOAITEIA. 41 
 
 13. Tr)u p,ev oiiv a7ro8rjp.[av eTTOLrjcraro 81a ravras 
 ras curias. ^oXcovo? 8' airo8r]p.r)<Tavros, en rrjs 
 7roAea>? Tera.payij.evr]?, eVt p.ev err) rerrapa Sirjyov \e\v 
 r)(rv)(l.a' rw Se irennrrco fxera. rr)v "EoXcouo? apxv v °v 
 
 XIII. 4. tw Se irefiTTTO) fxera ttjv SoKavos apx^v k.t.X. : the chronology 
 of this period is somewhat doubtful. The date usually assigned for 
 Solon's legislation is 594 B.C. (though the note of time in 14, 11. 8, 9 
 would, if correct, place it in 591 B.C.). Accepting this date, we get 
 590 b. c. for the first year of anarchy, 586 B. c. for the second, and 
 582 B. C for Damasias. The Parian Marble mentions Damasias, 
 but the date is unfortunately mutilated, and is variously restored to 
 indicate 586, 582, or 581 B.C. Both the Marble and the scholiasts on 
 Pindar (Proleg. Pytk.) assign the first regular Pythian games (aya>v 
 (TTe(j>aviTijs) to the archonship of Damasias, and this excludes 581 B. C, 
 which was not a Pythian year. Busolt (I. 493) accepts the restoration 
 which gives 586 B. C, which is also the date assigned to Damasias by 
 Clinton; on the other hand Pausanias (X. 7. 5) gives 582 B.C. as the 
 date of the first Pythian ayiou ore0anTi;s, and this accords with the text 
 of Aristotle. The chief difficulty is that 590 B. C, which according to 
 Aristotle was a year of anarchy, is assigned to the archon Simon by 
 the Parian Marble ; but some doubt is thrown on the archonship of 
 Simon by the scholiasts on Pindar, who place him five years before 
 Damasias, and as the statement of Aristotle (on the most natural 
 interpretation of the Greek) is apparently supported by Pausanias and 
 possibly by the Parian Marble, 582 B. C. seems to be the safest date to 
 assign to Damasias. Bauer {Forschungen zur Aristoteles 'Ad. Uo\. t pp. 
 46-49) and K-W. interpret eVei Tre/wr™ in each case as = ' five years after- 
 wards,' and ignore the words Sta tuv airav xpo"o>v, thus giving 589 B.C. 
 and 584 B. C. for the two years of anarchy, and 583 B. C. for the com- 
 mencement of the rule of Damasias. This seems questionable inter- 
 pretation of the Greek, and Bauer appears moreover to have confused 
 the dates of the Pythian years, placing the festival in 583 B. c Where 
 there is so much uncertainty about the data it is impossible to feel 
 confident as to the result ; but H-L. agree with the date here given, 
 and Reinach and Poland arrive at the same conclusion by a different 
 method. They accept the date 591 B. C. for Solon, place the years of 
 anarchy in 587 B. C. and 583 B. C, and ignore Sia tS>v alrav xpova>v. In 
 favour of this it may be said that the threefold occurrence of four- 
 year periods is suspicious, that it avoids the difficulty about Simon's 
 archonship (so far as the Parian Marble is concerned), and that it 
 harmonises the dates here given with the statement as to the date of 
 Solon in ch. 14. 
 
42 API2T0TEA0T2 [CH. 13. 
 
 5 KaT€(TT7](rav apypvTO. 81a ttju (ttIclct^lv, kol waXtu eret 
 7re/^7rrop (<5ta) ttjv avrrjv airiav avapyiav eTroirjaav. 
 fiera 8e ravra 81a tcov avrav xpovcov A[a/i]a[o"tas 2 
 
 5. oi ttarkarrjaav : so MS., as K-W. saw, though much resembling ouk 
 aireoTTjoav, which is given by 1st ed. and H-L., and emended to ini- 
 arrjuav. 6. Sid rr}v avrijv airiav avapyiav : MS. rrjv avrrjv airiav apyaiav, but 
 the fieri. Pap. is said to have Sia ravrr/v .... hence K-W. read 5id rr)v avrf/v 
 airiav avapyiav : so also Campbell, Housman, Bumet, H-L. r) airr) atria 
 avapyiav liwirjoev Rutherford, Sta ttjv avrrjv airiav avap\oi r\tyav Marindin, 
 rfjv avrr)v en avapyiav Blass. 7. 5id rwv avrwv ypuvaiv : bracketed by 
 
 K-W. on grounds of interpretation. 
 
 7. Aapao-Las : until the discovery of the Berlin fragments of the 
 IIoA ire ia nothing was known of this person beyond his name, nor was 
 there any sign of a constitutional crisis being associated with his rule. 
 The reverse of the first Berlin fragment (Blass, Hermes, XV. 372; Diels, 
 Berl.Acad. 1885) contains a portion of the present passage, beginning 
 with the word apyovra just above, but becoming intelligible first with the 
 name Aa/iao-Las. It contains twenty-four lines (all imperfect, especially 
 the last five), and ends with the words to x?* a - The present discovery 
 of the complete passage at once overthrows a large number of con- 
 jectures which were made as to the date and character of the events 
 referred to in it. The date has been discussed in the preceding 
 note, and is there taken, in accordance with the text of Aristotle, as 
 582 B. c. (for his accession to office). As to the constitutional signifi- 
 cance of the episode, it is evident that Damasias, having been duly 
 elected archon eponymus (unless we are to suppose that he was 
 elected sole archon, which is not probable, since Aristotle's comment 
 below, w xal br)\ov k.t.\., indicates that though the archon's was the 
 most important post it did not stand alone) in 582 B. c, illegally con- 
 tinued himself in office during the following year, and in fact endea- 
 voured to establish a tyranny. Possibly he made some plausible 
 excuse for securing a second year of office ; but when the third year 
 began and he still showed no signs of retiring, all parties in the state 
 seem to have combined to expel him. The fact that there was an 
 alliance between the different orders seems to be shown by the 
 character of the board of archons which took up the government 
 after his fall (581 B. c). This was a mixed board of ten members, 
 five belonging to the Eupatridae, three to the Geomori (here called 
 aypoiKoi), and two to the Demiurgi. The Berlin fragment being 
 imperfect as to the numbers, it has hitherto been supposed that the 
 board had nine members, that being the regular number of the 
 archons, and that the Eupatridae had only four representatives, which 
 would make them a minority of the whole college. It was perhaps to 
 avoid that condition that the number ten was fixed upon. We have 
 
CH. 13.J A0HNAII2N nOAITEIA. 43 
 
 alpejOeh apycov errj 860 kcu 8vo prjva? r\p^v, ecos 
 e^TjXaOrj fiia ttjs apxv?- «r e8o£e[v] avrots 8ic\ 
 to o-Tao-ia^eiv apyovras kXicrdai 6Y/ca, Trevre pJkv 10 
 evirarpiSav, r/)e?y 8e d^ypjoUcov, 8vo 8e 8rjp,iovpya>v, 
 kcu ovtol rov p-erct Aap,ao~lav [y]p£ a L v ejuLClVTOV. 
 a> kcu SrjXov otl p.eylcrTr)v ei\€V 8vvap.Lv apycov 
 (pcuvovTCu, yap alel o~T[a~j(rid£ovTe? irepX Tavrrjs ttjs 
 3 TOf ■ oAcay 8e 8iereXovv vocrovvres rd 77-/50? 15 
 tavrovs, ol p.ev dpyrjv /cat Trpotyacnv eyovrcs ttjv 
 
 9. '4r)\ae^ : MS. ^riXaaS^, emended to the earlier form by K-\V„ H-L., 
 
 Richards. H-L. insert e« before ttjs. 13. elxev ivva/uv : Berl. Pap. 
 
 5vvap.iv (Txtv. 14. aiei : dei Berl. Pap.. H-L. ik. vooovvw. om. 
 Berl. Pap. 
 
 not sufficient evidence to show for what reason the old class quali- 
 fication was resorted to, instead of the property qualification intro- 
 duced by Solon. No doubt the latter was very unpopular among the 
 aristocracy, as admitting the rich parvenus to an equality with 
 themselves. They were therefore anxious to revert to the old system ; 
 but the other classes having probably assisted in the overthrow of 
 Damasias, and having made good their footing in official life since 
 the reforms of Solon, it was impossible to eject them summarily, and 
 they were therefore admitted to the new board, but under the guise of 
 the old class qualification. This, presumably, did not give satisfaction ; 
 for in the absence of any statement to the contrary we must suppose 
 that the Solonian system was re-established in the following year. 
 Cf. Busolt (I. 544). 
 
 II. aypoUav. the important letters of this name are unfortunately 
 illegible in the MS., but a trace of what appears to be the tail of 
 the p is visible. The Berlin fragment is said to read anoUav, but 
 it can hardly be the true word. Apart from the fact that aypomoi 
 corresponds with the name of the middle class as it is otherwise 
 known (yiapopotj, it is the very name which Dionysius of Halicar- 
 nassus (Rom. Ant. II. 8) mentions as that of all those who were not 
 Eupatridae ; and Hesychius (s. v. dypotwrai) explains that word thus, 
 aypoiKin, Kai yivos 'AdrjVTjo-iv, o! avribiecrTeWovro npos tovs eviraTpiSas' jjv 
 de to tS)u yeapyatV) Kai TpiTov to to>v Srjfiiovpycov. 
 
 14. aUi: this spelling is so commonly found in the MS. that it 
 seems better to retain it in the text where it occurs. Cf. Meisterhans, 
 Grammatik der Attischen Inschriften, pp. 24, 25. 
 
 16. oi fjih . . . ol hi: these two classes are not the upper and lower 
 classes, since the latter would have no reason to complain of a great 
 
44 API2T0TEA0Y2 [CH. 13. 
 
 twv xpecov a7TOK07rr)v, crui/e/3e/3^/cei yap avrols yeyo- 
 vevcu 7rei>r)(riu, ol 8e ry woXLTeia. 8vo-yepaivovT€s 81a 
 to fieydXiqv yeyovevai p.eTaf3oXrju, tvioi 8e 8[i.d Trjvj 
 20 irpos aWrjXovs (piXoviiclav. rjcrav [<5'J al ardaeLS 4 
 rptis, fila fjueu rcov irapaXlwv, &v 7rpoeicrTr]Kei Meya- 
 nXr/s 6 'AXKpLecovo?, o[?]7re/) iSoKovv paXiara 8mdk€lv 
 tt\v /xea-rjv tvoXitz'kxv aXXr] 8e rcov 7re<5ia[/aSj/], ol ttjv 
 oXiyapyiav i^r/rovv, rjyelro 8' avrcov AvKOupyos' 
 
 19. Se : Berl. Pap. y.kv. 22. oiirip : Berl. Pap. apparently oi 
 
 Si. 24. eQ/jTovv : iftKovv Bury and H-L. 
 
 neTaftoXr) in the constitution, but different sections of the upper class, 
 some of whom disliked the reforms of Solon on account of the 
 pecuniary loss they incurred thereby, while others were angry at the 
 loss of the political supremacy which they had hitherto enjoyed. The 
 reforms of Solon were very far from producing a peaceful settlement of 
 affairs. Except for the four years immediately after his term of office 
 there was almost perpetual dissension until the establishment of the 
 tyranny of Pisistratus ; and that in turn led immediately to the 
 reforms of Cleisthenes. In fact the Solonian constitution, though 
 rightly regarded as the foundation of the democracy of Athens, was 
 not itself in satisfactory operation for more than a very few years. In 
 this respect it may be compared with the constitutional crisis of the 
 Great Rebellion in England. The principles for which the Parliament 
 fought the King were not brought into actual practice until after a 
 return to Stuart rule and a fresh revolution ; and yet the struggle of 
 the earlier years of the Long Parliament and the principles of Eliot 
 and Pym are rightly held to be the foundation of the modem British 
 constitution. 
 
 20. rfaav S' al orao-fis k.t.X. : the story of the rise of Pisistratus is 
 substantially the same as that which we know already from Herodotus 
 and Plutarch. 
 
 22. 'AXx/ieWoj : the spelling of the MS. is retained, which consistently 
 has € for the more usual at in this word and its cognates, such as 
 'AXKfieaviSai ; and the correctness of this spelling is shown by the 
 evidence of inscriptions of the fifth and fourth centuries B.C. Cf. 
 Meisterhans, p. 28. In the patronymic the spelling of the MS. varies 
 between w and {cf. ch. 20). 
 
 23. 7redtaKav : this is the form used by Aristotle elsewhere {Pol. 
 V. 5, 9), and it is probably the right reading here ; for, though the 
 termination is lost, the a is certain. Plutarch uses the form 7re8i«oi>. 
 
CH. 14.J A0HNAII2N ElOAITEIA. 45 
 
 Tplrr] 8' 77 twv SiaKplcov, e<j6' fj reray/ieVoy r\v 25 
 5 Ueiala-rparos, 6\7ju.[oT]t[/cJwTaTO? dvai 8oku>v. irpocr- 
 €K€KO(rp7]VTO 8e tovtols ot re a(j)[ri"jpr}p:ei/oi to. XP* a 
 81a ttjv a.Trop[f\av, /cat ot t<3 yevei yu.77 naOapoi 81a 
 tov (po^ov a"rjp.€Lov 8', on p.era rrjv (rav) rvpavvav 
 KaraXvcTLV tironqcrav 8La\j/rj(f)io-p.ov a>? 7ro\Aa>v koi- 3° 
 vcdvovvtcdv ttjs iroXiTtlas ov irpoo-rjitov. elyov 8' 
 e/cacrrot ras iironvvpLLas airo tu>v T\o\rrcov kv oty 
 eyecopyovv. 
 
 14- Arj/xoTLKcoraTO? 8' elvat 8oko>v 6 Ueio-lo-Tparos, 
 /cat cr(f)68p' ev8oicip.rjK.cos ev tco -rrpos Meyapeas 
 
 26, 27. wpoaiKeie6iTii.7]VTo: irpoceKe«6\Xr]vTo H-L., Kontos, Gennadios, lrpoa- 
 evtvepjvTO Butcher. 29. twv : added by Blass, Gennadios, K-W., H-L. ; 
 
 there is room for it (in abbreviated form) at the end of the line in the MS., 
 but it cannot be determined whether it was actually written. 30. 
 
 SiaipTjipiaiiov : MS. bia<pr]nioiu>v, corrected by Sandys, H-L., K-W. XIV. 2. 
 
 evboKifirjKws : H-L. tjv5okiij.tjkws. 
 
 28. 81a tov <f>60ov : sc. of a return to the aristocratic regime of class 
 and family qualifications, which would involve an inquisition into their 
 claims to citizenship. 
 
 31. el\°v °" c/caoroi k.t.X. : the three local divisions of the Plain, the 
 Shore, and the Mountain (or the Highlands) corresponded with differ- 
 ences of class which account for their being taken as the basis for 
 political parties. In the Eleusinian and Athenian plains lived the rich 
 landowners who represented the old aristocracy ; to the shore belonged 
 the commercial classes, who were well off but not attached by sympathy 
 or tradition to the ultra-oligarchical party ; while the rough uplands were 
 occupied by the poorer classes of cultivators, who had no voice at all 
 in the state until Solon admitted them to the ecclesia and law-courts. 
 
 XIV. 2. eih'oKipjjKas e'v ra Tvpbs Meyapeas iroKepa: the date of this 
 Megarean campaign is of some importance in reference to the age of 
 Pisistratus. The fact of his having earned distinction in a campaign 
 against Megara is confirmed by Herodotus (I. 59), nporepov evhoKiario-as 
 ev rfj irpbs Meyapeas yevopevrj o-Tparriyij], NiVaiaj' re e"\d>v, Kal a\\a airo8e£d- 
 p.evos p.eya\a epya, and Plutarch (Sol. 8) represents it as having occurred 
 in the successful war against Megara which was the result of the first 
 appearance of Solon in public life, some time about 600 B.C. This is 
 accepted by some modern historians [cf. Abbott, I. 399), Grote, though 
 he argues that the dates make it practically impossible, believing that 
 
4<5 API2T0TEA0T2 [CH. 14. 
 
 7ro\efia>, KaTaTpav/JLaTiaa? iavrov crvveirucrz tov 
 
 Herodotus intended to refer to that war. There seems to be no 
 sufficient reason for the latter assumption, which, however, is not 
 of great importance, since Herodotus is not preeminent for chrono- 
 logical accuracy ; but, so far as the actual facts are concerned, it is clear 
 both that the war in which Pisistratus distinguished himself cannot be 
 that which was undertaken under Solon's influence, and that there 
 must have been another war against Megara between the date of 
 Solon's legislation and that of the first tyranny of Pisistratus. To 
 have served with distinction in war (without laying stress on the 
 phrase of Herodotus, Ni'craiai/ iK&v, which would imply that he was in 
 a station of command) he cannot have been less than eighteen years old, 
 which would make him ninety-one at his death in 527 B.C. Thucydides 
 (VI. 54) says that he died yrjpaws, but that does not imply that he had 
 reached an age so far beyond the ordinary duration of life in those 
 times; and it is highly improbable that he should have reached the 
 age of fifty-eight (which would then have been considered old agej 
 before making his attempt on the tyranny, and eighty (or nearly) when 
 he finally settled himself in power. Further, Aristotle himself declares 
 the story to be impossible on the ground of the dates (itifra, ch. 17, 
 1. 5> (pavepas Xrjpovtn <pd<TKOVTes epapevov eivtu XieiaiurpaTOv 26\avos Kal 
 (TTparrjye'iv iv tw npos Meyapeas no\ep(0 nepl 2uAa/iZi>off" ov yap ei/Se^erai 
 rals fjXiKiats). On the other hand, it is certain that a successful war 
 against Megara must have been fought after the date of the legislation of 
 Solon. We know from Plutarch (c. 12) that after the capture of Salamis 
 by Solon, and about the time of the expulsion of the Alcmeonidae, the 
 Megarians renewed the war and recaptured Nisaea and Salamis. This 
 disaster led to the visit of Epimenides to purify the city from the curse 
 which still seemed to attach to it, and the visit of Epimenides appears 
 to have been followed very closely by the legislation of Solon. There 
 is no indication of any re-conquest of Salamis or Nisaea by Athens in 
 the interval, and therefore it may be held to be certain that it did not 
 take place till a later period. Now supposing Pisistratus to have been 
 about seventy at the time of his death, which is as high as we can safely 
 go, he must have been born about 600 B. C. At the age of thirty or thirty- 
 five he may reasonably have been in command of an expedition against 
 Megara (Aristotle's word orpaTT/yeii; confirming Herodotus' iWatni/ 
 i\mv), which may be assigned approximately to 565 B.C. (cf. Busolt I. 
 521, who assigns the war to about 570 B. a). Accepting this date it is 
 easy to understand how the reputation won by his successful conduct 
 of it would help him powerfully in his bid for the tyranny, which would 
 hardly be the case if his victory were some forty years old. 
 
 ev8oiap.T)Ka>s : the augment is omitted, as it also is in the MSS. of 
 other Attic writers, e.g. Aristophanes' Clouds, 103 1 ; Xen. Hell. VI. 1. 2. 
 
CH. 14.] A0HNAII2N nOAITEIA. 47 
 
 Srjpou, a>? [^] 7r [°] ™" OLUTLo-Taa-Lcorcov ravra Treirov- 
 6\£\s, (pvXaKrju kavrw Sovuat rod cra/taro?, 'Apia-- 5 
 tioovos \y\p[a\^ravTOS rrjv yvcapaqv. Xaficov 8e tovs 
 Kopvvr)(f)6pov? KaXovpevov?, eVa^ao-ra? p-era tovtcov 
 tw Srjpco KaTzo-yz ttjv aKpoiroXiv erei Sevrepcp kcu 
 rpiaKocrrcp pera ttjv twv vopcou decnv, eVt K[copjeov 
 2 apyovTos. Xeyercu 5e ^,6Xcova, YleicrLcrrpaTov ttjv 10 
 (pvXaKTjv alrovvros, avriXe^cu /cat e'nrei[i> ojn rav 
 
 4. viro : first read by K-W. ; 1st ed. and H-L. ira/xi, though the latter say that 
 vtto would be expected. Only the it is visible, with a trace of the v, the 
 rest being eaten away. 8. Sfvripai : K-W. and Bauer conjecture 5'. 10. 
 XltiffiaTpdrov : MS. TriffiffTparov. The spelling of the name varies in the 
 MS. between the diphthong and the single vowel. 
 
 and in inscriptions of the end of the fourth century and later ; cf. 
 Meisterhans, p. 136. 
 
 5. 'Apiariavos : Plutarch (Sol. 30) gives the name as Ariston. 
 
 8. erei SevTepa km TpiaKoara: the archonship of Corneas is also given 
 on the Parian Marble, as 297 years before the archonship of Diognetus 
 (264 B. C.), which according to the inclusive method prevalent in the 
 early part of the chronicle (cf. Busolt, I. 493) gives 560 B. C, the date 
 usually adopted. On this basis we get 591 B. c. for the date of Solon, 
 in place of the more usual 594 B. C. Bauer, however, adopts the ex- 
 clusive method of calculation, and thence obtains 561 B. C. for Corneas ; 
 then he alters the reading here from Sevrepa to 8', and thereby gets the 
 usual date 594 B.C. for Solon. K-W. accept the alteration of reading, 
 but as they give 560 B. C. for Corneas it is not clear how they arrive at 
 594 B. C. for Solon. The present passage must be taken in connection 
 with ch. 13, 11. 3-7, where see note. A change in the text is necessary 
 either here or there, to make Aristotle consistent with himself; and 
 perhaps the state of the text is more suspicious in the former passage. 
 The other authorities for the date of Solon are not unanimous ; the 
 best, Sosicrates, places him in 594 B. C, but Eusebius (Arm. version) 
 in 590 B. C, and Jerome in 592 B. C. The date 560 B. C. for the begin- 
 ning of the tyranny of Pisistratus suits best with the other authorities 
 for his chronology (cf. Busolt, I. 551). 
 
 9. Ka>p,eov: in Plutarch (Sol. 32) the name is spelt Kmp.ias. The 
 matter is not of importance, but the authority of Aristotle is entitled 
 to the preference, and this MS. is much older than any of those of 
 Plutarch. On the Parian marble the two middle letters are missing. 
 
 10. XeyfTai 26\ava x.r.X. : cf. Plutarch (Sol. 30). 
 
48 API2T0TEA0T2 [ch. 14. 
 
 p.\v elr] cro(f)coT€po9, tS>v 8' a.v8pet.6\Tepoj?' ocroi. fiev 
 yap ayvoovcri Yleiaio-Tparov e7n.TL0ep.evou Tvpav\_vi8ij 
 crcrtpcoTepos elvai tovtoov, ocroi 8' elSores Karacnoo- 
 
 iSiraxTLv av8pei6repos. eire\ 8e Xeycov [ovk eireL^Oev, 
 e£apap.evos to. ottXgl irpo tg>v 9vp5>v avros p.ev e(prj 
 fiefiorjdrjicevcu rfj TrarpiSi Kad' ocrov ijv 8vvaros (rj8r) 
 yap <r(f)68pa irpeo-fivrris rjv), a^iovv 8e kol tovs aXXovs 
 ravro tovto rroLelu. ^,6Xcoi> \_p-ev ovv ovjSei/ rjvvcrev 3 
 
 20 tote 7rapaKaXS)V YleicricrTpaTos 8e XaBcou tttjv apxv v 
 SicpKei to. KOiva ttoXltlkSis fiaXXov rj rvpavvLKm. 
 ovttco 8e ttjs o-PXV? eppL^a>p.evr]s bp.o(ppovr]aavTes 
 [01] irepl tov MeyaicXea /cat tou AvKov[pyo~\v i^efia- 
 Xov avrov eKTCo erei p.era rrju irpwTt]v KaraaracrLv, 
 
 2 5 i(p' 'Hyrjcrlov apypvros. eret 8e 'fScoSeKarcpf p.era 4 
 
 13. TiuaiaT paTov : MS. naiarparov. 14. KaTamaynuiaiv: MS. 
 
 KaraaiairavTes. 1 5. ovk ZiruOev : so R. D. Hicks, followed by K- \Y. 
 
 and H-L. 16. i£ap&nevos : MS. f(aipapcvm. 20. TleiaiaTpaTos: MS. 
 
 maurrparos. 25. daiSfKarw : K-W. substitute Terapra in their text, 
 
 as suggested by Thompson, who thinks S' must have been altered to SfKarai. 
 and then to StoSexaroi ; but K-W. 3 replace Sade/cary, and suggest itipntTcp in a 
 note. 
 
 22. ovira 8e rtjs apxJjs ippifapevris : Aristotle is clearly following 
 Herodotus' njw Tvpavvl8a ovkco Kapra €ppi£apevrjv e)(av (I. 60). The date 
 which Aristotle adds, e/cra erei pera ttjv npa>Tr\v KardcrTaa-iv e'0' 'Hyi/cn'ou 
 apXovTos, is, however, new, and the name of the archon is otherwise 
 unknown. This will place the first expulsion of Pisistratus in 555 B.C., 
 and helps to clear up the disputed points in the chronology of his life. 
 Herodotus says merely pera oi ndkvv xpovov, and this, coupled with 
 the phrase oiV<o ippifapevrjv, would justify Curtius' belief that the 
 first tyranny lasted only about a year, were it not for the direct 
 statement of Aristotle, which is reinforced, though not accurately con- 
 firmed, by the chronology in Pol. V. 12 (cf. following note). 
 
 25. erti 8e SaSeKarq pera ravra: Aristotle gives us plenty of materials 
 for determining the chronology of Pisistratus, but unfortunately they are 
 absolutely irreconcileable. The two extreme dates are practically certain, 
 viz. 560 B.C. for his first seizure of the tyranny, and 527 B.C. for his death. 
 In ch. 17 Aristotle tells us that of the thirty-three years between these 
 two points he reigned for nineteen and was in exile during the rest. 
 This, in the first place, differs from Aristotle's own statement in Pol. 
 
CH. 14.J A0HNAK2N nOAITEIA. 49 
 
 ravTa 7rept.e\avv6fAevos 6 MeyaKXfjs rfj aTacru, 
 
 V. 12 that he was in possession of the tyranny for seventeen years out 
 of thirty-three ; and the details which are given in the present narrative 
 fail to clear up the obscurity, which may, however, be partly accounted 
 for by different reckonings of the odd fractions of years. He tells us 
 that the first expulsion took place exra em, or five full years after 
 the first establishment of the tyranny; that the return and estab- 
 lishment of the second tyranny occurred SmfieKarcu em ptTa. ravra, 
 that the second expulsion took place em fiakiara <f/38o/-"» pera tijv 
 KaBoiov, and the final return e'l/Sexdra eVet. These periods, added 
 together, amount at the lowest computation to thirty-two years, leaving 
 only one for the third tyranny, which it is clear from all the accounts 
 was the longest ; moreover, the two periods of exile amount to twenty- 
 one years instead of the fourteen which Aristotle assigns to them in 
 his summary of Pisistratus' career. Bauer and others, to avoid this 
 difficulty, calculate the eras SmSeVaTov from the commencement of the 
 first tyranny ; but this is contrary to the usage of the present treatise, 
 in which jiito. ravra- always refers to the last fixed chronological point, 
 which in this case is the archonship of Hegesias. Moreover, this cal- 
 culation gives sixteen years of exile in all, instead of fourteen. It is 
 certain, then, that there is a mistake somewhere, and the most probable 
 place is the first period of exile. It is not spoken of, either by Hero- 
 dotus or by Aristotle, as if it were so important as the second period, 
 and no account is given of the movements of Pisistratus in the course 
 of it. Taking ten years as the duration of the second exile, on which 
 point Herodotus and Aristotle agree, four years are left for the first 
 exile ; and if the durations of the first and second tyrannies are correct 
 we get the following chronology of the career of Pisistratus after his ac- 
 cession to power. First tyranny, 560-555 B.C.; first exile, 555-551 B.C.; 
 second tyranny, 551-545 B.C. ; second exile, 545-535 B.C. ; third 
 tyranny, 535-527 B.C. As Aristotle is uncertain as to the exact length 
 of the second tyranny, it is possible that its duration should be slightly 
 curtailed, and the third correspondingly increased. It has hitherto 
 been generally supposed that the final term of rule was longer in 
 proportion to the other two than is here represented ; but no other 
 arrangement seems possible without considerable violence to the text 
 of Aristotle. Moreover eight or nine years are enough to prove the 
 complete establishment of the despotism, and if we suppose the first 
 and second periods to have been more or less disturbed by threatened 
 attacks from Lycurgus and Megacles and their followers, whereas in 
 the third Pisistratus was unassailed and was able at the end of it to 
 hand his power on to his sons without question, a sufficient difference 
 between it and the earlier periods is indicated to account for the way 
 in which Herodotus and Aristotle speak of it. 
 
 E 
 
50 APirroTEAors [ch. 14. 
 
 ttolXiv i7riK7)pvKevo-dpevos irpos [rojv YleicrLo-TpaTOu 
 i(j)' w re ttju Ovyarepa avrov Xrjyj/erai, Karrjyayev 
 avrov ap^aiKms /cat Xiav airX&s. tt pohiao-weipas 
 
 30 yap Xoyov as rfjs 'Adrjva? Karayovarjs Tleuri- 
 arrparov, kou yvvalna peyaXrjv Kal KaXr/v itjevpav, 
 u>s,p.€v 'HpoSoTo? (f)rjaiv e'/c rov Brjpov rcou TlaiavLtav, 
 a>? §' tvioi Xeyovcriv i< rov KoAAirrou are(f)ai>oTrcoXiv 
 Qparrav, fi ovopa <&vrj, rr\v Oeov diropiLprjaapevos 
 
 35 rco Kocrpcp <rvv\ei(Tri~\yaye[v] per avrov, kou 6 pev 
 Ueiaiarparos e'0' apparos elo-r)Xavve irapaifiarovo-ris 
 rrjs yvvaiicos, oi 5' iv rco acrrei irpoo-K.vvovvre$ 
 i8e)(0i>T0 Oavpd^ovres. 
 
 15. 'H pev ovv TrpcoTt) K.d6o$os i\yev^ero roiavrrj. 
 
 27. TitiaiarpaTov : MS. irimarparov. 30. Xlusisrparov : MS. maiarpa- 
 
 tov. 32. iprjaiv. MS. <pr]. 33. KoXXutoS : MS. koKvtov, with a second t 
 
 written above the first and what may be a second A. above the first \. 34. 
 
 QpaTTav : apparently Bparrav in the MS. ; another t has been written above 
 the line, apparently to correct the first of those in the word itself, which is 
 badly formed. 35. avveLarjyaycv : so apparently MS., not /caTrjyayev, as 
 
 1st ed. and K-W. Richards suggested eiarjyayev. 36. litioieTparos : 
 
 MS. TTiffiffT/MTOs. 38. $av/xa(ovTfs : om. H-L., after Richards. 
 
 It may be noticed that according to this arrangement the embassy 
 of Croesus to Greece, to make an alliance with the most powerful Greek 
 state, falls in the second tyranny of Pisistratus. This is quite in 
 harmony with the words of Herodotus (I. 59), to fiiv 'Attikov kcitcxo- 
 p.ev6v re Kal btecnrao'fievov enwddvero 6 Kpoiaos viro Ueio-to-TpaTov rov 'Itttto- 
 Kpdreos, tovtov toi/ xpdvoi/ Tvpavvevovros 'ABrjvaiav. According to this 
 passage Athens was at that time under Pisistratus, but his rule was 
 not yet firmly established and was still threatened by rival parties ; 
 a state of things such as we suppose to have existed during the second 
 period of tyranny. 
 
 29. apxaUas Kai Xiav dn-Xws : Prof. Mayor (Class. Rev. V. 121) cites 
 Plut. Sol. c. 3, iv be rois cpvcriKo'is dnXovs eVri Xlav Kal ap^a'tos. 
 
 33. o-Te<pav6na\iv : so Athenaeus, XIII. p. 609. 
 
 36. irapai^aTovo-rjs : Cleidemus (fr. 24, ap. Athen. I.e.) uses the same 
 word in the same connection, i£e8<oKe 8e Kal 'lirirdpxa to vlei tijv irapat.- 
 fiaTr)o-ao-av avra yvvaXxa iurjv (referred to by Reinach, p. xxv). 
 
CH. 15.] A0HNAK2N nOAITEIA. 51 
 
 fiera 8e Tavra, coy e£ eVetre ro SevTepov erec fiakiara 
 e/386fAG> fiera ttjv KadoSov, — ov yap ttoXvv yjpovov 
 naTelyev, aAA[a] hia to p.rj fiovXecrOai rfj tov 
 Meya/cAeoi/y dvyarpl avyyiyvecrdai (pofirjOels dp.- 5 
 2 (poTtpas ray crrao-ety vire^rjXOev kcu irpwTOv p.ev 
 (rvvcpKLcre trepi tov Qepp.ci.lov koXttov ywp'iov o 
 /caAetrat 'PainrjXos, enelOev 8e iraprjXOev els tow 
 irepi Ylayyaiov tottovs, oOev )(prjp.aTio-dp.evos /cat 
 CTTpaTMDTa? p,io~6a>o-ap.evos, eXOcov els '^peTpiav 10 
 eV5e/carco iraXiv erei Tore irpaiTov dvao-cbo-aaOai fila 
 tt}v dp^qv eireyeipei., crvp.TrpoOvp.ovp.eva)v ai)T<S 7roX- 
 
 XV. 2. ws : K-W. believe the MS. to have t, which they strike out in their 
 text ; but this is not enough to fill the space, and the ai seems fairly clear. H-L., 
 after Gennadios, avBis, which is too much for the space. 3. k$S6yiw : 
 
 K-W. alter to t/jitcu. 4. xartixtv : MS. Kariax^v, altered by Wyse, 
 
 K-W., H-L. 5. avyyiyveoBai : MS. avyytveeScu. •j. owi&Kioe : 
 
 H-L. wKiffe, after Gennadios and Hude. 8. "PaimjXos : so corrected in 
 
 the MS. from pawT/Sor. 11. tote : so K-W. and H-L. after Blass ; MS. to. 
 
 avaawaaoBai : MS. avaawaaaBai, H-L. and K-W. 2 avaKTqaaaBai, reading 
 avaaTi]eao8ai in the MS. ; but the a seems certain. 
 
 XV. 2. as e'leVeo-e k.tX. : the construction of this sentence is ungram- 
 matical, as there is no principal sentence on which the clause o>r e£«re<re 
 can depend. The syntax can be restored by striking out <ai before 
 npmrov jiev and taking ov yap . . xme^rjKBev as a parenthesis ; but it is 
 more probable that Aristotle broke off his original construction at 
 oi yap, and forgot to resume it. 
 
 3. ip86p.a : it has been objected (e. g. by Riihl) that the refusal of 
 Pisistratus to fulfil his compact must have led to a breach in less than 
 six years, and it has been proposed to read p.rjvL for Im. But the 
 ground is too uncertain to justify the change ; and Prof. Gomperz 
 ingeniously suggests that the daughter of Megacles may not have 
 been of a marriageable age when the alliance was made, so that the 
 actual marriage would have been deferred for some years. 
 
 6. Trp&Tov fiev k.t.X. : Aristotle is fuller than Herodotus in his account of 
 the movements of Pisistratus during his second exile. His mention of 
 the residence at Rhaicelus and in the neighbourhood of Pangaeus 
 explains the reference in Herodotus to the supplies which Pisistratus 
 drew airb 2rpvp,6vos irorap-ov. Herodotus mentions no other place of 
 retirement than Eretria, while it appears from Aristotle that he did not 
 go to that place until he was already supplied with men and money for 
 his descent on Athens. 
 
 E 2 
 
53 API2T0TEA0T2 [CH. 15. 
 
 Xa>v pev /cat aXXcov, paXto-ra 8e Qrjfiauov /cat 
 Avy8dp,ios rod Na£t'oi>, en 8e rav hnreav rav 
 
 J 5 kyovroav iv ''Eperpla. rrjv TroXirelav. viKrjcra? 8e 3 
 rrjv eVt YlaXXrjviSi \jidxn\v kcu Xafiav [rrjv ccpxv\ v 
 /cat irapeXopevos rod 8-qp.ov rd oirXa Karel^ev 
 rj8rj~ rrjv rvpavvlSa /3e/3atW, /cat Na^oy iXav 
 dpyovra Karicrrr\o-e Avy8ap,LV. 7rapeiXe[roJ 8e rod 4 
 
 20 8r)p,ov rd oirXa rovSe rov rpoirov. i^OTrXio-iav iv 
 r[c5] Q-qaeia Troir\crdpevos iKKX-qaid^eiv tireyeipei, 
 \rr}S 8e (pcovrjs iydX~\ao-ev piKpoV ov (pao-Kovrcov 8e 
 KaraKoveiv eKeXevaev avrovs 7rpocrav[a~jl3r}[vaLJ rrpos 
 to irpoirvXov rrjs aKpoTroXecos iva yeycovfj p,dXXov. 
 
 25 iv a> 8' eKelvos 8uirpi^e 8rjpt]yopaiv, dveXovres 
 
 18. leal Nafoi' (\uv: so K-W. (but adding yap after kcS) apparently cor- 
 rectly, isted. and H-L. xal fis Nd£ov l\8uiv. 19. impelXeTo : so restored 
 by Rutherford, K-W., H-L. Se appears to be in the MS., not a supplement as 
 marked by K-W. 20. e£o*kuriav : MS. ((cnrXaotav, which is retained by 
 K-W. and Kontos, on the authority of some inscriptions. 21. Qrjauai : 
 the first three letters are written in straggling and ill-formed characters, and 
 are partially obliterated ; but it is practically certain that this is the reading 
 and not 'KvaKtia, as was read (from Polyaenus) in the first edition. K-W. and 
 H-L. adhere to'Avaice'w, the former reading the initial a at the end of the pre- 
 ceding line (which is impossible), the latter in the same line with the rest of 
 the word. 22. T77S 5« iptovijs hxaXaoiv. so Kontos, by far the happiest 
 suggestion yet made for this passage. H-L. [ImrijSes S' k<puivri]at, after Tyrrell 
 and Gertz (but approve of Kontos' supplement in their preface). K-W. \jp9ky- 
 yia8ai S i<rnov8]aoev. 25. Siirpipe : MS. 8i(Tpu0e. 
 
 16. ttjv eVl naXAjjpi'Si paxi" '■ the scholiast on Aristoph. Ac/tarn. 234 
 refers to this passage : naXKr/vaSe' ol naXXnxeir Bfjfios eon ttjs 'Arnxr/y, 
 %v6a UeuTHTTpaTco fiovkofievcp rvpavveiv Ka\ 'Adrjvciiois ap.vvop.hois airov 
 vvveOTr) 7r6\ep.os .... /ie/iVijTai Be tovtov koI Av8pona>v xal 'ApiaroTe'Xr/r 
 iv 'Adqvaicov woXireia (Rose, Frag: 355). 
 
 19. n-apei'Xero 8Z k.t.K. : the story of this stratagem is told by 
 Polyaenus (Strateg. I. 21, 2). 
 
 22. Tijr Se tpavrjs e'xaXao-ev fiiKpov : this restoration by Kontos (for which 
 he refers to Lucian, Bis Accus. 21, Aelian, Hist. An. xii. 46) suits the 
 sense well. The sense, as appears from Polyaenus, is that Pisistratus 
 intentionally spoke in a somewhat inaudible voice, and when the people 
 complained that they could not hear him invited them to a more con- 
 venient spot, to which they followed him, leaving behind their arms, 
 which they had stacked according to custom. 
 
CH. 1 6.] A0HNAIGN IIOAITEIA. 53 
 
 01 €7Tt TOVTO) T€TayjJ.€UOl TO. OTtXcL CWTCOV [/Cat 
 
 (TvyJKXyo-avTe? ety [raj ttXtjctiov o'lKrifiara tov 
 Qr/creiov 8ieo~r)p,r)vav iXdovTes irpos tov YltLcricrTpa- 
 5 tov 6 8e [eVet tjov aXXov Xoyov eVere'Aecrej', eiVe 
 /cat irepl T&V ottXcov to yeyovos, [/cat coy ov XPv] 3° 
 0avp.d£eiv ov\8' cijdv/xelv, dXX' direXOovTos eVt twv 
 I8ia>v elvcu, tcov 5e kolvcov [auroy i7rijp.€Xrjcrecr0ai 
 wavTcov. 
 
 16. ['H p.ev ovv HeLjo-io~Tpa.TOV Tvpavvls i£ dp^ijs 
 re /care'crrT? [tovtovJ tov Tpoirov kcu [/j,era/3o]A<xy €o~\ev 
 
 2 TocravTas. Sicdkcl 8' 6 Iletcr/crr/aaroy, wcnrep eiprj- 
 
 TO.I [77577], 7-77I> TToXlV fieTpLCOf KCU p.dXX0V TToXlTLKCDS 
 
 77 TvpavuiKms' ev re yap toIs aAAoty [(pijXdvOpcoTros 5 
 ■fju /cat Trpdos /cat rot? dp-apTavovcri crvyyvcopLoviKos, 
 kcu 8rj kcu roty a[7rd]/)ot[y] 7rpoe8dvei£e ^[^ajra 
 irpos ray e'/jyacr/ay, cocrre 8iciTpe(peo~6cu yecopyovvTas. 
 
 3 tovto 5' eVcuet 8volv \\a\piv, iv\a] p.r)Te kv Tea dcrTet 
 5tar/?t/3cocrtj/ dXXa 8iecnrapp.6voi /cara ttjv yapav, 10 
 kcu bircos \ev7rojpovvTes tcov /xeTplcov kcu irpos roty 
 
 26. toutq; : so Rutherford ; MS. tovtow. Cf. r\v for i?i (26, 28), c£i]v for f^rji 
 (27, 22), Aqvauav for A-qvatai (57, 5). After this word there is an erasure 
 of one or two letters in the MS. K-W. tovto, H-L. tovt* inTerayfievot. 28. 
 HaaiaTpaTov: MS. maiOTpaTov. 30. /cat <hs ov XPV '• so H-L.; 1st ed. 
 
 \eytuv as ov x/"7> but the space will not admit of so much. K-W. ecp-ri 5' 
 oi S«V. 31. aBvpeiv; this reading is due to K-W. H-L. [07a- 
 
 mikt]«V. 32. auras iirtfiekriaeoBai : so supplied by Blass and others. 
 
 H-L. insert vvv after ovtos. XVI. 3. IleiaioT/xxros : MS. iriaiorpaTor. 
 
 tiprjTOi tjStj : 1st ed. and H-L. tlpr)Kay.(v, but the abbreviated termination of 
 eipiyrai seems visible. The hiatus is the only objection. 5. Tois 
 
 aXKots : H-L. T[afs 6pi\iais] doubtfully, but the reading is fairly certain. 8. 
 SiaTperpfcrSat ytapyovvras : so MS. ; a second 7 has been written above the first 
 letter of ytvpyovvras, which is badly formed. H-L. Siaveicis iysoipyovvTo. misled 
 by the oiau.nep%s hyeapyovvro of the 1st ed. 10. dt€0"irapjJLtvoi : H-L. add 
 
 Siai, after Kontos. 
 
 XVI. 9. tovto 8' cVoi'n K.r.A. : cf. Aristotle, Pol. V. 1 1, where the house 
 of Pisistratus is mentioned among the tyrants who undertook great 
 public works as a means of keeping the people poor and constantly 
 occupied. 
 
54 API2T0TEA0T2 [CH. 16. 
 
 [fjS/ots' ovres \x.r)T eiriOvpcoo-L fir/re a^oXa{l\coo~iv\ 
 iirifjieXelcrdaL tcov koivcov. ap.a 8e avvefiaivev avTco 4 
 /cat ras Trpoar68ovs yiyvecrOai /i[ei£b]uy e£epya£op.evr)s 
 
 15 Trjs papas' errpaTTi.ro yap diro tcov yiyvop-evcov 
 SeKaTrjv. 810 /cat tovs /cara [5^/x]of? /care<r/ceua£e 5 
 St/cacrraV, /cat aiiTos e^ei ttoXXolkls els ttjv ywpav 
 kiricrKoircov [/cat] 5taA[if]<»i/ tovs 8ia(jiepop,evovs, 
 ottcos p.rj KarafiaivovTes els to acrrv 7rapap.eXcoo~L 
 
 20 tcov \ayp^cov. TOLavTTjs ycip rivos itjoSov Tcp ITetcrt- 6 
 (TTpaTco yiyvopevr)S avp/3rjva[ <pao~i Ta irepl tov ev 
 tco VYixrjTWco yecopyovvTa to kXtjOcv vcrTepov ^(copiov 
 dreXes. l8cov yap Tiva traTTaXco Tterpas (TKcmTOVTa 
 /cat epya^opevov, Slci to dav/xdcrai tov 7ra[t<5a] 
 
 25 eKeXevev [ipjecrdcu t'i yiyverai e'/c tov ^coplov 6 8', 
 
 14. yiyveaSai : M.S.yivea$ai. If fpya£op.cvT]s : H-L. If ipya^o/itvrjs. 16. 
 KaTtamva^t : K-W. /caTecncevatje. 17. Ifi?'*« : IIS. ef^ci. 18. 5ia- 
 
 Xvav : 1st ed. and H-L. SiaWdrrav, for which there is not room. 20. 
 
 neiaiaTpaTw : MS. Tnaiarpwriai : and similarly in 11. 27, 29, 34. 21. to : 
 
 H-L. to. 22. 'T/ir/TTw : MS. perhaps v/ifajrai. 23. mzTTaAai : 
 
 K-W. it. . . Xa)[s], Wessely TrayTfAiDs, H-L. irpcaPiiTriv, which the MS. will 
 not admit of. irirpas : K-W. and Wessely [If] irhpcus, thinking the MS. to 
 read iriTpaiaxatrTovTa, which is possible, but there is not room for the preposi- 
 tion. 24. Sid tu Bavpaaai : bracketed by K-W. and suspected by H-L. 
 TralSa : so H-L., K-W. ; 1st ed. v&rrdkov, for which there is hardly room, even 
 in abbreviated form. 25. yiyvercu : K-W. think there is space for 
 irepiyiyverat, but there does not seem to be any lacuna between ri and yiyvtrau. 
 
 16. 8eKdrr]v : Boeckh {Staatsh? I. 398, bk. III. 6) mentions this tithe, 
 but the evidence has hitherto been of doubtful authority. Thucydides 
 (VI. 54) mentions an eiKoo-n; as levied by the Pisistratidae (his phrase 
 perhaps including Pisistratus himself also), and both Grote and Abbott 
 speak of this as the only tax of the kind then levied, Grote expressly 
 refusing to accept the evidence for the higher tax. 
 
 22. 'Y/lw/tt<3 : the reading is doubtful, but this is the locality named by 
 Apostolius {cf. next note). 
 
 23. iraTTakq: the word is very doubtful, except the first two letters, 
 but the only substitute yet proposed which suits the traces in the MS., 
 vavreXas, is not very satisfactory. The story is told, though not in the 
 same words, by several of the collectors of proverbs {cf Zenobius, iv. 
 76 ; Apostolius, x. 80). 
 
CH. 16.] A0HNAIQN nOAITEIA. 55 
 
 ocra Kana /cat oSvvai, ecprj, kcu tovtcov tg>v kolk&v kcu 
 rav \o\8vva>v YieicrlcrTpaTov 8el Xafieiv rrji/ <5e[/ca]- 
 rr\v. 6 pev ovv avdpanros [a]7re[/c/3t]z/aro ayvowv, 6 
 8e YieicncrTpaTos TjcrOels 81a ttjv irapp-qcriav Kal rr/u 
 
 7 (piXepyiav ^ajreXrj dirdvTcov eiroir]o-ev avTov. ovSev 30 
 Se to irXrjdos ov8' iv toIs aXXots irapmyXeL Kara rr\v 
 apyrjv, dXX' alel 7r[a]|oeo-/c[eif]a£ei' elprjvrju kcu ejYJ^/jet 
 ry]v T]crvyiav 810 kcu 7roXXaKis \wapcopidQeTO cbs 
 [77] HeLcno-TpoLTOv Tvpavvls 6 eirl Kpov[ou] /3/oy elrj' 
 crvveftt] yap vcrTepov 81a. [rrjis vfipiuj tcov viecov 35 
 
 8 7roXXcp yevecrOai Tpayyripav ttjv dp^-qv. pLeyicrrov 
 
 8e TTCtVTtoV 7]V \TCOV VKCtlVOV^livCOV TO 8r]pOTLKOV elvOU 
 
 t£> fjdei kcu cpiXavQ pcntrov . ev Te yap tols aAAo[ty 
 etco#et] wdvTa Sloikciv koto, tovs vopovs, ov8epiav 
 kavTco irXeove^lav 8i8[ovs, Kal 7ror]e 7rpoo~KXr]dels 40 
 cpovov 81ktjv els' Apeiov 7rdy[ov] avTos pev dirr)VTT]crev 
 cos [a.7roXojy7)cr6p.evos, 6 8e irpoaKaXecrdpevos cpofirj- 
 
 9 dels eXnrev. 810 kcuttoXvv yjpovov epeivev (iv) [dpxfi 
 /cat] ot eKirearonrdXiv direXdpfiave paSlcos. efiovXovTO 
 yap Kal tcov yvcopipxov Kal tcov [8r)po~^TiKCOV ol 7roXXo[' 45 
 tovs pev yap rat? opiXlais tovs 8e Tals els Ta 18 1a 
 
 26, 27. raiv kokSiv Kal toiv bSvvaiv : H-L. del. ; K-W. bracket second 
 tSiv. 28. dyvoav : H-L. prefix avrov. 31. wap&x* fl '■ ]• B. Mayor 
 
 irapt]vwx*-ei, followed by H-L., K-W. ; but mpoxhiw is found in Theophrastus, 
 and neither word is common. 33. irapw/ua^eTo : H-L. [SoTcpov iKiycro], 
 
 K-W. [tout' (\e]yeTo, Wessely IBpihrjaav , the first letters of which appear 
 consistent with the traces in the MS., but not the last. 35. rf/v v0piv : 
 
 supplied by Sidgwick, Gennadios, K-W., H-L. 37. toiv iiraa/ovjiivoiv : 
 
 supplied by J. B. Mayor, Newman, K-W., H-L. 39. tiwBei : K-W. [irpo- 
 
 yptiTo]. 43. eKiirev : H-L. If iMirev, after Richards. iv apxy : 
 
 so H-L. ; Blass and K-W. iv ttj apxy. A x appears visible, but after ijmvn 
 there is a down-stroke like that of a <p, with space for five or six letters after 
 it. 44- xal 6V : part of what appears to be a mark of abbreviation is 
 
 visible in such a position as to make it certain that ore, not oirore nor (ire, 
 is the word used. &ire\aij.t3ave : so Wyse, Gennadios, Ferrini, H-L. ; MS. 
 
 (ire\an0avi, Richards, K-W. dveXa/iffavf. 
 
 40. Kal wore irpo(TK.\r)6e\s k.t.K. : cf. Arist. Pol. V. 12, Plut. Sol. 31. 
 
56 API2T0TEA0TS [CH. 16. 
 
 f$0T)6eiais irpo^o^qyeTO, kcu Trpos ap-tyorepovs e7re(f)v- 
 K€L Ka\a>?. rjcrav Be kcu rols 'Adrjvalois oi 7repl tcou io 
 
 [TVJpdvVCOl' VOpLQL TTpOLOl KO.T eKeiVOVS TOVS KCUpOVS 
 
 5° ot t dXXoi kcu 8rj kcu 6 p.d.XiaTa Ka6\r]K\av irpos tt\v 
 ttjs TvpavvlSos ([KaraaracrLv}. vop.os yap clvtoIs 
 rjv bSe' 6io~p.ia rdSe ' Adir]vaL\cov ecrrtl irdrpia, idv 
 [rt^je? Tvpavveiv kiravLCTTS^y^ai t eVt rvpavv'i&L f 
 (.V) ri ( ? ) crvyKaOiaTrj rrjv rvpavvlSa arip-ov elvai 
 
 55 avrov leal yivos. 
 
 1 7 • TIeicTL(TTpaTOS p,ev ovv iyKareyrjpacre rfj dp\fi 
 
 kcu d.Tr[edjave voarjcro^s eVi] QiXoveco apypvros, d<p' 
 
 ov p.ev KarecrTr) to irpcorov rvpavvos errj rpcdJKoji'lTJa 
 
 kcu rpla fiicoaas, a 8' iv rfj dpxfj 8ie/j.eivev ivos Seovra 
 
 5 eiKocri' e(f)[evyjev yap to. Xonrd. 8ib /ecu (pavepcos 2 
 
 47. lrpoirfiyeTo : the letters are faint, but the reading is fairly certain. 50. 
 
 Ka6rjKcn>: H-L. /ca[0f<rras] doubtfully, K-W. emend ivr/icav. 51. 
 
 KaraoTaeiv : not in MS., but this seems the most satisfactory restoration of the 
 passage. That there is some confusion in the MS. is shown by the two articles 
 before rvpavviSos, therefore some correction is necessary. H-L. read to for 
 r-rjv in the MS., perhaps misled by the facsimile. K-W. accept KaTaaraaiv in 
 a note as possible, but mark a lacuna in the text. 52. eari : K-W. [koto 
 
 to]. 53. iirtTvpavviSi: probably this was originally written as a cor- 
 
 rection of Tvpauvetv, as being the commoner construction after irravlaTr]iu. 
 The infinitive is, however, confirmed by the law (quoted as ' Solon's ') in Andoc. 
 De Myst. § 97, p. 13. 13, lav ns rvpavvav ivavaaryj t\ top rvpavvov ovyicaTa- 
 0T770-77. 54. jj tis : 77 and ti are almost identical in some of the forms of 
 
 these letters, and it is possible that the MS. reading is intended to be simply 
 ^ (TvyKaBiaTTJ : but the characters appear rather more like ti, and Tir seems to 
 be required, and the corruption is easily explained by the similarity of the 
 letters. K-W. read ti, but correct to r\. rfjv rvpavvida : H-L. avvcu/waiav, 
 
 against the MS., which is faint but legible. thai : H-L. thai xal, which 
 
 is possible. XVII. I. nuaiarpaTos : MS. maiarparos, and similarly 
 
 in 11. 6, 15, but not 1. II. tyKaTtyqpaae: MS. evKarcpipaae, which 
 
 Rutherford would retain. 5. t<ptvyw, so J. B. Mayor, Rutherford, 
 
 H-L., K-W. ; it is doubtful if the lacuna in the MS. will hold three 
 letters, but the sense requires the imperfect, and if the scribe wrote 
 e(pvytv it must have been by mistake. 
 
 XVII. 2. eVi &i\6vca> ilpxovTos : the name of Philoneos does not occur 
 in the list of archons previously known to us, but may now be inserted 
 for the year 527 B.C. On the chronology of Pisistratus' life here 
 summarised, see notes on ch. 14, 11. 2 and 25. 
 
CH. 17.J A0HNAIGN nOAITEIA. 57 
 
 Xrjpovaiu (oi) (pdo-KOVTe? ipdfxevov elvcu Yleiai- t Co1 - 7] 
 crrpaTov ^dAcovo? /cat o-rpaTrjyelv kv tS 7r/>oy Me- 
 yapias irokipxa 7rep\ "2,aXap,lvos' ov yap ivSe^erai 
 raty ^Ai/ctaty kav tls avaXoyL^qrcu tov eKarepov 
 
 3 /3tW /cat e(p' ov aireOavev ap^ovTOS. TeXevTiqcravTOs 10 
 Be YleLCTiarpaTov Karel^ov oi utety ttjv ap^qv, irpoa- 
 yovres ra irpa.yp.aTa tov avrov Tpoirov. rjaav 8e 
 Svo p.€v €K ttjs yap.eTrjf, 'l7T7rtay not \Tnrapyps, Svo 
 
 5' €K ttjs 'Apyeias, 'Io(pa>v /cat 'Hy^cr/or/jaroy, a> 
 
 4 Trapavvp-iov rjv GerraAoy. eyr)p.ev yap WeLariaTpaTos 15 
 i$j "Apyovs avBpos 'Apyetov dvyaTepa, a> ovop.a tjv 
 YopylXos, Tip-couaao-av, rjv irpoTepov ea^ev yvvalna 
 'Ap)(ii>os 6 ' ' KpirpaKuliTrjs t£>v K.vyjreXi8coW oOev /cat 
 
 77 irpos tovs 'Apyeiovs eveo-Trj (pikia, /cat crvvep-a- 
 ^io~avTO ^t'Atot ttjv iirl HaXXrjvidi p.ayr\v 'Hyaena- 20 
 TpaTov Kop.io~avTos . yrjp.ai 8e (pacri ttjv 'ApyeLav oi 
 p.ev eiareo-ovTa to wpcoTov, oi 8e Kare^ovTa ttjv apyr\v. 
 
 6. \rjpovaiv 01 : so K-W., H-L., Lacon, Hade ; MS. \r]pov<xi, which may 
 perhaps stand. 8. 2a\a/«Vos: MS. traAa^eivos. II. npoayovrts : 
 
 so Rutherford, Blass, K-W., H-L. ; MS. vpoayayovrts. 13. H-L. insert 
 
 'Attiotjs before yap^r^s. 19. iveorri : H-L. avviarr]. 20. 'Hyijaiar parov 
 the correct reading of this word was due first to a suggestion by J. B. Mayor. 
 
 13. in. ttjs yafieTrjs : the name of Pisistratus' first wife is not known. 
 
 14. 'HyrjaioTpaTor, a irapavvfiLov rjv OcttoKos : Thessalus is mentioned 
 by Thucydides (I. 20) and also by Plutarch {Cato, 24), who calls him 
 the son of Pisistratus and Timonassa ; Hegesistratus is named by 
 Herodotus (V. 94), who calls him rtaiha v68ov ytyovora <f| 'Apyeirjs 
 yvpaiicos ; but there has been nothing hitherto to show their identity. 
 Pisistratus must have been regularly married to Timonassa, if the 
 union was accompanied by an alliance with Argos ; and the term 
 vodus, applied to him by Herodotus, probably means only that he 
 was not of Athenian birth on both sides, and consequently was not 
 legally qualified for citizenship. Hence it is unnecessary to insert 
 npaTrjs before ya/ieTrjs in 1. 13, as Bury proposes, or 'Kttikt)s as van 
 Herwerden. 
 
 22. Karexovra tt)v apxqv : this must refer to the first tyranny, since 
 during the second Pisistratus was married (or at least betrothed) to the 
 
58 API2T0TEA0T2 [CH. 18. 
 
 18. 'Haav 8e Kvpioi pXv tG>v Trpay/xarcov 8lcl to. 
 
 a^LCOfiara kou 81a ray rjXtKias "\Tnrapyos /cat 'Iinrla.?, 
 
 7rp€crl3vTepo$ 8' a>i> 6 'linrias kou rfj (pvcrei 7roAtTt/co? 
 
 kou ep(ppcov tirecrTOLTei rrjs apyfis. 8e '\inrap\os 
 
 5 7rai8i(o8r}? /cat ipcoTiKO? kou (piXop-ovcros rjf, /cat tovs 
 
 7T€pl ' KvOLKpioVTOL KOU '2,Lp,(Dv[8r}V /Cat TOVS OiXXoVS 
 
 7TOL7]Tas ovtos f)i> 6 p.eTa7iep.7r6p.evo?' QerraXos 8e 2 
 vecorepo? 7roXv /cat ra /3ta) Opaavs /cat vfipiaTTjS. 
 a(p' ov /cat avvefir) tt)v a.p\r]v avTols yeveadaL 
 
 XVIII. 1. ij.Iv toiv : so Blass, Richards, K-W., H-L. ; MS. top p.iv. 
 
 daughter of Megacles. Timonassa must have died before this date ; 
 she could not have been repudiated in order to facilitate the arrange- 
 ment with Megacles, without breaking the friendly relations with 
 Argos. 
 
 XVIII. 5. rovs Trepl'AvaKpeovra ml 2ipa>vL8riv : the presence of these 
 two poets at Athens under the patronage of Hipparchus is also men- 
 tioned in the pseudo-Platonic dialogue Hipparchics, p. 228 C. 
 
 8. i/ecin-f pos no\i : as Timonassa (see note on ch. 17, 1. 22) was ap- 
 parently dead in 551 B.C., Thessalus' birth cannot be placed later 
 than that year, and it maybe safer to put it a year earlier, in 552 B.C., 
 which would make him seventeen when he brought the Argive troops 
 to aid his father at Pallene. Hippias and Hipparchus were lads 
 (verjvtai, Herod. I. 61) at the time of the marriage with the daughter 
 of Megacles ; and if that took place at the beginning of the second 
 tyranny (551 B.C.), Hippias, the elder, can hardly have been born later 
 than 567 B.C. (this would make him seventy-seven at Marathon, which 
 suits well enough with Herodotus' narrative, VI. 107). Hipparchus' 
 birth may then be placed about 565 B. c, which would make him 
 thirteen years older than Thessalus ; and a much smaller interval 
 would not suit Aristotle's phrase. Hipparchus was consequently over 
 fifty at the time of his murder. Thessalus was about thirty-eight at 
 the same time, which perhaps favours the view that he, and not Hip- 
 parchus, was responsible for the circumstances which led to the 
 conspiracy. 
 
 9. a<p' ov Ka\ iruw|3i) k.t.X. : in the first edition the opinion was expressed 
 that, in face of the direct testimony of Thucydides, it seemed impos- 
 sible to refer the relative to its natural antecedent, Thessalus (or his 
 character, it being perfectly immaterial whether it be taken as mascu- 
 line or neuter) ; and consequently it was suggested that the words 
 6erraXos . . . vfipio-rfis were parenthetical. But such a treatment of the 
 
CH. 18.] A0HNAK2N nOAITElA. 59 
 
 iravTcov tg>v kukcov. ipaoSeh yap tov 'ApfxoSlov 10 
 /cat Sia/jLapraucou rrjs irpos avTOV (pcXia?, ov /caret^e 
 ttjv opyrjv aXX' kv re tols aAAot? ivecr^p-alvero 
 iTLK\j)\ais, /cat to TeXevrouov p.eXXovcrav avrov rrjv 
 d8eX<prjv Kaur](pope2i> Uavadrjvaioi? i^KcojXvcrev Xoi- 
 8op-qaa$ ti tov 'Kpp.68iov a>s fiaXaKov ovra, o0ev 15 
 o-vvefirj irapo^vvQivTa tov ' Kpp.6htov /cat tov 
 
 13. iri«p5s : so rightly read by K-W. ; Richards and H-L. rb mnpir, after 
 ivtari^aivi rb m«p6v of 1st ed. 16. Trapo£vv8evTa: H-L. irapo£vv8evTas, 
 
 but space forbids. 
 
 Greek seems unjustifiable. It is certainly strange that no mention is 
 made of Thessalus in the narrative of the conspiracy ; but in any case 
 it is evident that Hippias, and not the perpetrator of the outrage, was 
 the primary object of the murderers. Among the fragments of Hera- 
 clides n-cpl rroXiTei'aj 'A.6i)vaiav (preserved in a Vatican MS., cf. Rose, 
 Frag. 611, ed. 1886), a work which was evidently an epitome of 
 Aristotle, is the following summary of this passage, but so confused 
 as to lend no assistance beyond showing that the clause referring to 
 Thessalus is an authentic part of the text. Uucrlo-Tparos Ay erij rvpav- 
 VTjfTas yrjpaaas aneddvev. lirnap-xps 6 vibs HeitriaTptiTOV 7ratSta>5^ff r)v Ka\ 
 epariKOS Ka\ <pi\6p.ovaos, 3e<T(TaX6s Se vemrepos Kal dpacris. tovtov rvpav- 
 voxivra jxr) bvvr}8eVTa (or -f y) dvcXeli/ "inirapxov aneKreive (or -av) tov A8ek(pbv 
 avrov. 'liririas Se TTiKporara ervpavvei. xa\ tov irepl 6crTpaKi.o-p.ov vopov 
 eicnjyijiTaro, or iriBrj 8ia tovs Tvpavviavras. Kai ciWoi re o>o-TpaKio-8r)o-av 
 Kal Edvdmiros Kal 'Apiorei'S^r. 
 
 Whether the narrative of Thucydides or of Aristotle is the 
 more probable is another question. Neither had first-hand know- 
 ledge of the events in question. Thucydides wrote a century after the 
 events recorded, Aristotle nearly two centuries. Thucydides evidently 
 believedhimself to have special knowledge on the subject and speaks with 
 authority, and the authority of Thucydides is no light matter. On the 
 other hand, M. Weil has pointed out that in the introductory section 
 of his work, which was evidently written later than the rest, he silently 
 corrects his previous narrative in at least one point (cf. note on 1. 20) ; 
 and in the apparently gratuitous mention of Thessalus (I. 20) M. Weil 
 thinks there may be an indication that he had discovered his error 
 in another. As Hipparchus was the person killed, it is quite natural 
 that tradition after the event should suppose him to have been the 
 culpable party. Aristotle silently, but somewhat pointedly, corrects 
 several of the details of Thucydides' narrative in the sixth book ; so it 
 is not impossible that he also differed from him as to the person whose 
 conduct provoked the conspiracy. 
 
60 API2T0TEA0TS [CH. 18. 
 
 ' ApicToyeLTOva irpamiv tt)v irpa^LV fxera 7toXitcov 
 7roXXa>v. rj8r] 8e ^7rapaTrjjpovvT€s eV anpoiroXei 3 
 rols YlavadiqvaLOLS 'lirrriav {krvyyavtv yap ovros 
 
 20 p.ev [Sle^op-evos, 6 5' 'linrap^os airocrTeXXcav ttjv 
 irop/irriv), ISovres Tiva tcov kolvcovovvtcov tt)$ irpa- 
 \q\ea>s (piXavQ panrcos kvrvyyavovTa r<S 'iTnrla kcu 
 vo/AiaavTes p.rjvv€LV, (3ovX6p.evol ri hpacrai irpo rrjs 
 crvXXrjyjrecos, Karafiavres /cat irpoe^avacrTavres tcov 
 
 25 [aAAajj'J tov p.ev "lirirapyov 8iaK[oo-]p.ovvTa ttjv 
 irop.Tnjv irapa to AecoKopeiov airtKTeivav, ttjv 8' 
 oXr/v iXvp.rjva.vTO irpafyv avTcov 5' 6 p.\v 'App.6- 4 
 
 17. /lira itoXiTuv iroWwv • the first four letters of woKitZv are doubtful. 
 K-W. fUTa avvu(&6')To:v (ov) iroWaiv, after J. B. Mayor ; H-L. /ict' [aWojv 
 ou] iroKKav, et alii alia. 20. pkv dexonivos : so rightly read by K-W., 
 
 H-L. 25. dWaf. K-W. [Ireptw], but K-W 2 . [aKKaiv]. 26. 
 
 irapa : H-L. in pi. rrjv 8' : so K-W., apparently rightly, H-L. [a rqv], 1st 
 
 ed. \rtjV yXv ovv~\. 27. 8' : K-W. yap, against MS. 
 
 17. ttoXitw: Thucydides (VI. 56) expressly says that the conspirators 
 were not many in number, rjo-av 8e ov iroXKol oi ^wofiapoKores dcn^aAeias 
 evena. If the reading is right, it is an intentionally pointed correction 
 of Thucydides. 
 
 18. iv axptmaKu : this differs from the account of Thucydides, who says 
 that Hippias was in the Ceramicus, organising the procession, when 
 Harmodius and Aristogeiton were alarmed by seeing one of their 
 confederates talking to him. The account of Thucydides is more in 
 detail than that of Aristotle, and particularises that the two murderers, 
 on being thus alarmed, rushed inside the gates till they met Hippar- 
 chus. It is moreover not likely that any of those who were going to 
 take part in the procession would be in the Acropolis while the 
 procession had not yet started. Aristotle's account is, however, also 
 consistent with itself, in saying that they came down from the Acropolis 
 before they found Hipparchus. 
 
 20. o S' ''limapxos AirooTiWav tt)v irop.irr)v. this again is not in accord- 
 ance with Thucydides' account in VI. 55, where he says it was 
 Hippias who was arranging the procession ; but it agrees with I. 20, tu 
 \irirapx<£ mpnvxovTts . . . iropurrjv 8taKoap.ovvTi. 
 
 26. irapa to Ataxopciov : the exact phrase of Thucydides in VI. 55, 
 which shows Arnold's conjecture irepi (from I. 20, here repeated by van 
 Leeuwen) to be unnecessary. 
 
CH. 1 8.] A0HNAIJ2N nOAITEIA. 61 
 
 8to? evdecos ireXevrrjcreu inrb tcov 8\opv(po\pcov, 6 
 8' ' ApioTo[yejiTcov varepov crvXXr](p8ei? kcu 7roXvv 
 Xpovov atKicr0€L9. KaTrjyoprjcrev 8" kv \r\aZs dvdy- 30 
 
 K(U9 TToXXcOV Ol KCU [ttj] (f)V<T€l TCOV €7rL(j)aVCOV KCU 
 
 (piXoL rols Tvpdvvoi? rjcrav. ov [yap ilSvvavro 
 Tvapayj)r]pa Xafielv ov8ev lyyos ttjs rrpd^ecos, dXX' 
 Xeyopevo? Xoyo? cos 6 'l7nrlas ocTrocrTrjcras chrb 
 tcov ottXcov tovs iropirevovTas icpcopacre tovs to. 35 
 ey^eipiSia kypvTas ovk dXr]0r]s zcttiv ov yap 
 e7rep.7rov t6(tc) ped' orrXcov, dXX' vaTepov tovto KaTe- 
 
 5 crKevacrev 6 8rjpos. KaTrjyopei 8e tcov tov Tvpavvov 
 (piXcov, cos p.€v ol SrjpoTLKoi cpacriv, e7rtTr]8es iva 
 do~efir)o~aiev dpa kcu yivoivTO dcrOevels dveXovres 40 
 tovs dvaiTiovs kcu cpiXovs iavTcov, cbs 8' evioi 
 Xeyovcriv, ov)fi. irXaTTopevos dXXa tov? crvveiSoTas 
 
 6 ip,T]W€v. /cat reAoy cos ovk rjSvvaTO iravTa ttoicov 
 dwoOavitv, iirayyeiXapevos cos dXXovs prjvvcrcov 
 
 36. aXrjfrris : MS. a\r]9e;. There is a stroke in the margin opposite this 
 line, as though to call attention to something questionable in it. 37. intiurov 
 ran : so Rutherford, Blass, H-L., K.-W., etc. ; MS. firejuirocTO. 40. 
 
 daeffrjamev : H-L. atrc@T]<jfiav. uaSfvas : written above the line, over ave- 
 \6vtcs. The first a is strangely formed, half the is obliterated, and the two 
 following letters might admit of other interpretations. H-L. kvayas, after 
 Richards, Rutherford, Gennadios, Kontos, Hude, reading the MS. ayevvas, as 
 in 1st ed. 43. JjSwqto : H-L. iSvuaro. 
 
 29. JroXiv xpoj/ov oIkiitBiis : Thucydides' ov paSicos Sieredrj. 
 
 34. 6 Xeyo/iivos \6yos k.t.X. : this is the story given by Thucydides. 
 In favour of his version it is to be noticed that if this fact be false 
 the reason which he gives for the selection of the occasion of the 
 Panathenaea for the attempt, namely, that then people could appear in 
 arms without attracting suspicion, falls to the ground. On the other 
 hand it is perhaps unlikely that the tyrants should have allowed the 
 populace to carry arms on any occasion whatever ; and the conspirators 
 might still select a time for their attempt when a great number of 
 people would be collected together from all parts of Attica. More- 
 over Aristotle would hardly have made a direct assertion as to the 
 later origin of the practice of carrying arms at this festival unless he 
 had been sure of the facts. 
 
6a API2T0TEA0TS [CH. 18. 
 
 45 7To\\ov? /cat 7T€L(ras avTco tov 'lirirlav Sovvai ttjv 
 Se^idv Trio-Teas' yapiv, to? tXafiev oveiSlcra? on r<p 
 (povel tov d8eX(pov ttjv Se^idv SeScoKe ovrco irapto- 
 £vve tov 'iTnriav waff viro r^y opyrj? ov naT€U)(€v 
 eavTov dXXa airao-ap-evos ttjv p.ayaipav 8ie(j)0eipev 
 
 50 avTov. 
 
 19. Mera 8e tccvto, avvefiaivev ttoXXw rpa\v- 
 Ttpav elvai tt]v Tvpa.vvi.Sa.' /cat yap Sia to Tip-copeiv 
 rep d8eX(p<5 Kal 81a to 7ToXXov? avrjprjKevai /cat 
 iK/3ej3\r)Kevai irao-iv r/v airLOTOs /cat iriKpos. krei 2 
 5 8e TerdpTto fiaXicrTa p.era tov 'l7nrap^ov davarov, 
 eVet KaKtos ei-^ev Ta iv tco dcrTei, ttjv M.ovvi)(iav 
 iTre^eiprjcre Tei^l^eiv, a>? e'/cet p.e6i8pva6p.evos. iv 
 tovtols 8' a)v i£e7reo~ev vtto KXeopievov? tov Aa/ce- 
 8aip.ovitov /SacrtAeW, ■\prjap.a>v yiyvop.evtov del toIs 
 
 10 AaKcocri KaTaAveiv tt)v TvpavviSa 81a ToidvS* a[iTiav~\. 
 
 ol (pvydSes, cov 01 'AXicfiecoviSai 7rpoeiaTr]Keaav, 3 
 
 avTOt /j.€v Si' aiiTwv ovk eSvvavTO Tronqo-aadai ttjv 
 
 [Col. 8.] KadoSov, aAA' atet irpoo-eirTaioV ev re yap toIs 
 
 aXXois oh hrpaTTOV 8iea(j)aXXovTO, /cat Tei\icravTes 
 
 45. auT<p : H-L. avrw. 46. After on, ra5e\ is written in MS., but 
 
 struck out. 47. toG aSe\<pov : MS. raSeXcpov, which K-W. retain. 4S. 
 
 KaTc?x* v '■ ^IS. at first Kareaxev, but corrected. XIX. 2. Tipwpeiv : K-W. 
 
 rtpcopuiv, against MS. 3. rw d5e\<pw : TaSeKcptui, MS., K-W. KaiSidro: 
 
 bracketed by K-W. XIX. 4. mnpos : MS. iraT , which can *tand for 
 
 nothing but maros, and must be a slip of the copyist : m/cpos is sufficiently near 
 to explain the blunder. 6. kcucuis : MS. at first ev nanaii, but corrected. 
 
 Movvixiav : MS. povvvxiav. 7- (net: eiteiae, J. B. Mayor, 
 
 Sidgwick, H-L. 8. Aaicetiaip.ovioiv : so apparently MS., as read by 
 
 K-W 2 . ; H-L. gave the same reading as correction of Aaice5o.ip.ovos, which was 
 believed to be the MS. reading by themselves, K-W., and 1st ed. 9. 
 
 yiyvope vwv : lslS.yivop.evwv. 12. iovvavTo : MS. rjdvvavro, cf. Meisterhans, 
 
 p. 134- 
 
 XIX. 6. 1-171/ Mowi^iav iTrex*'wr* Tfix'f f " / : this circumstance is not 
 mentioned in the extant historians. For the spelling of the name, 
 cf. Meisterhans, p. 23. 
 
CH. 19.] A0HNAIQN nOAITEIA. 63 
 
 ev rfj x<£pa AeL\j/v8pi.ov to virep TldpvrjOo?, eh b 15 
 (rvvefjf)\d6v rives tcov en tov aarecos, e^eiroXiopK-q- 
 0rjo~av inro tS>v rvpavvcov, odev vcrrepov p.era ravrrjv 
 tt)v o~vp.(j)opav f/Sov ev toIs (tkoXlois aler 
 
 alal Aeixjiv^pLov Trpo&a)o m drcupov, 
 
 otous avSpas dircoXecras p-d-^ecrdai, 2 ° 
 
 ayaOovs re /cat evirar piha<;, 
 
 ol tot eSeL^av olcov iraripcov ecrav. 
 
 4 dirorvyyavovres ovv ev a7r[a]<ri Toh olXXols ep.ia6co- 
 cravTO tov ev AeXfpol? vecov oit<o8op.eiv odev eviro- 
 
 15. AeupvSpiov : MS. XitpvSpiov, and so also in 1. 19. 17. /leTa: K-W. 
 
 eh, from Etym. Mag. 361. 33, but the phrase there (au6Xiov eh avrovt pSero) 
 is not a verbal quotation. 18. aiei: H-L. delete, K-W. bracket, as a 
 
 dittography. 21. «<u fiirarpiSas : so also in Athenaeus, Suidas, and 
 
 Etym. Mag. Tyrrell na£ (iiraTptSav, metri gratia, Bury ayaSovs, koAous, 
 tvncLTpidas. 22. ot tot' : Etym. Mag. ottoV. 
 
 15. Aeiif/iSpwu : there is a reference to this passage in Schol. 
 Aristoph. Lysist. 666, Aeixj/idpioii' xapiov rfjs 'Attiktjs nep\ rrjv Xlapvr\6ov 
 els avvrfKdov rives rmv e< tov aareos, as (prjctv ' ' Apio~TOreXr)s ev 'Adrfvaiaiv 
 noXireiq (Rose, Frag. 356). The passage of the same scholiast (1. 
 665) on XvKOTToSes, referring to Aristotle as using this name for the 
 bodyguard of the tyrants, which Rose includes under the same number, 
 is evidently from some other work. The scholiast (1. 1 1 53) further 
 refers to Aristotle as his authority for the summary which he gives of 
 the expulsion of the Pisistratidae through the agency of the Spartans, 
 in which one or two phrases are verbally quoted from the present 
 passage (Rose, Frag. 357). 
 
 19. alai Aeii/fuSpiov : this song is also quoted by Athenaeus (XV. 695, 
 scol. 22), and in Etym. Mag. s. v. Art Aei\jru8pia p.a\r}- The compiler 
 of the latter work seems, from other phrases used by him (e.g. fav ol 
 ' AXKp.cuasvio'ai irpoeo-rriKecrav), to have had the work of Aristotle before 
 him. 
 
 24. 56ev evTToprjaav xpip-arav : H-L. and K-W. place the comma before 
 these words, not after them, and the latter mark a lacuna after xPW<* Ta:v > 
 to be supplied with words to the effect of koI aveneitrav rrpi Hvdiav 
 awepyelv iavrols. H-L. believe the passage seriously corrupt. But 
 (1) the Alcmeonidae did not derive their wealth from the Delphic con- 
 tract, which, on the contrary, they partly executed at their own expense 
 (Herod. V. 62) ; (2) the phrase odev einroprjo-av xpv^ Ta>v plainly corres- 
 ponds to Herodotus' ola be xpiparav ev ij/covres (id.). It therefore seems 
 simpler to understand odev as=a<£' fay. 
 
64 API2T0TEA0YS [CH. 19. 
 
 25 prjaav yj>T]p.aTa>v, rrpos ttjv to>v Aolkcducov ftSoiqdeiav. 
 rj 8e Uvdla 7rpoe(j)€p€v alel roty AaKe8aLp.ovi.oif 
 yjpr\o-T7)pia^op.ivois eXevOepovv ras 'A0r]vas, els 
 tovO' ecos TrpovTpexjse tovs ILirapTiaTas, Kanrep 
 ovtoov £evcov avrois to>v Ueiaio'TpaTiScoV crvve- 
 
 30 j3aXXero 8e ovk eXarTco p.olpav tt\s 6pp,rjs tols 
 AoLKcocriv 7) irpos tovs 'Apyelovs toIs Yleio-icrTpaTi8ais 
 VTvapypvaa (piXia. to p,ev ovv Trpcorov 'Ay^i-P-oXov 5 
 aiveo-TeCXav Kara OaXarrav eyovra crrpaTiav. tjttt]- 
 [tfeVjroy 5' avrov /cat reXevT-qcravTos 81a to Kiveav 
 
 35 fiorjdfjarai tov QerraXov eyovra \1Xi0vs hnrels, 
 Trpoaopyio-QevTes tu> yevopevco YiXeop.evqv e£e- 
 Trep.\j/av tov fiacriXea cttoXov eyovra p.ei^co Kara. yrjv, 
 by eire\ tovs rcov QeTraX&v iirire'is evLKr/crev kcoXv- 
 ovras avrov els tt\v 'Attlktjv wapcevai, KaraKXeiaas 
 
 4° tov 'IiTTTLav els to KaXovpevov HeXapyiKov Tel^os 
 eiroXiopKei pera. tcov 'Adr/valcov. 7rpocrKadr]p.evov 6 
 
 27. cis Toi6' 'eus : so Blass, followed by Ferrini, H-L., K-W. ; IIS. eis tout 
 evdeais ; eh b (or tore) TeKevrSiaa, Poste. 29. avve@a\\eTo : H-L. 
 
 avveHaKero, after Richards. 35. QtrraXov : MS. 6eaaa\ov, retained 
 
 by K-W., and so 1. 38 ; cf. Meisterhans, p. 77. x'^ ovs: MS. x«^«ro. 3<5. 
 
 TrpoaopyiaSivres : H-L. irapopyiaBivres, after Naber. 39. KaTax\eicras : 
 
 K.-W. and H-L. KaraxK^aas, but cf. Meisterhans, pp. 28-30. 
 
 29. o-wefiaWeTo 8e k.t.X. : this certainly helps to explain the action of 
 the Spartans in expelling the Pisistratidae, but there is no reason to 
 doubt that the reiterated command of the Delphic oracle had a great 
 influence over them in the matter. 
 
 32. ' Piyxif-oKov : in Herodotus (V. 63) the name is given as 'Ay^i- 
 fiokios, but in the note of the scholiast on Aristophanes, referred to 
 above, the Ravenna MS. reads 'Ayx'M W- 
 
 38. Kakiovras avrov els tt)V 'Attikijv irapievai : SO Herodotus (V. 64), 
 ea&aXovo-i els ttjv 'Atukiji/ ^aprjv. 
 
 40. t6 Kakoifievov HeXapyiKov rei\os : the form IleXapyiKoV is confirmed 
 by the scholiast on Aristophanes, while ne\aoyu<6v is used in the 
 parallel passage in Herodotus (V. 64) and in Thuc. II. 17. 
 
CH. 19.] A0HNAII2N nOAITEIA. 65 
 
 avrov crvveTTtcrev VTreijiovra? aXavai tovs tcov 
 FLeicricrTpaTidoov vlels' a>v \T](j)devTcov o/xoXoylav eVt 
 rfj tu>v irai&av (TCOTrjpia 7roir](rap.ei>oi kcu to. iavrcov 
 ev irevO' rj/iepai? iKKop.icrdiJ.evoi wapeScoKav rrjv ctKpo- 45 
 ttoXiv rol<! A.6rjvouoi.s eVt 'ApiraKTidov ap^ovros, 
 Karaa^ovres rr)v rvpavvlha p,era ttju tou irarpos 
 TeXevrrjv err] p.aXio-Ta. eVra/cai5e/ca, ra Se o-vp.ira.VTa 
 crvv ois 6 7raT7]p rjp^ev ivo? 8eiv TrevTrjKovra. 
 
 42. lwe£i6vTas : so Wyse, K-W., H-L. ; MS. cirefiopras. 43. Xlfiaiarpa- 
 
 tiSSiv : MS. iriaiaTpwrtSaiv. 46. 'ApiraKriSou : a letter (apparently w) has 
 
 been struck out before the name, and the t (which may perhaps be itI is an 
 addition above the line. 49. Seiv : so J. E. B. Mayor, Sidgwick, K-W. ; 
 
 MS. Set, as in 27, 9, which H-L. retain, holding that otherwise deovra would 
 be necessary. 
 
 42. viregiovras : this is restored in place of the MS. reading i-rre^iovras, 
 as being more in accordance with the narrative of Herodotus, which 
 Aristotle evidently follows in this part of this work, vneKTiBefievoi yap 
 i£a> Ttjs Xtopy* °l TaiSer rav neio-tarpaTiSeW r\k<ncrav (V. 65). iire£wvras 
 would mean that they were taken in an attempt to force their way out 
 by a sally. 
 
 46. cm 'ApnaKrlSov apxovros : the name is a new one in the list of 
 archons, and must be placed in the year 511 B. C. The expulsion of the 
 Pisistratidae occurred in the fourth year of Hippias' sole rule (Thuc. VI. 
 59, navBels iv rm rerapra), which began in 514 B.C. It therefore falls in 
 the official year 511-10 B.C. This harmonises with the statement 
 below that the archonship of Isagoras, which was certainly in 508 B.C., 
 was in the fourth year after the expulsion. The only statement which 
 is not strictly in accordance with it is that of Thucydides (/. c.) that 
 Hippias fought at Marathon in the twentieth year after his expulsion. It 
 was actually twenty years and a few months afterwards ; but there is 
 no reason to press the round number of Thucydides to the full extent 
 of literal accuracy. 
 
 49. ivbs Siiv TrevTTjKovTa : the scholiast on Aristoph. Wasps, 502, 
 quotes Aristotle as saying that the tyranny lasted forty-one years (Rose, 
 Frag. 358), but probably K-W. are right in correcting hto eWa in 
 that place. The forty-nine years named by Aristotle of course repre- 
 sent the total period from the first tyranny of Pisistratus to the expul- 
 sion of his sons, ignoring the periods of exile ; while the thirty-six years 
 which Herodotus assigns (V. 65) include only the years of actual rule. 
 It may be noticed that the latter total supports the period of nineteen 
 years of government given to Pisistratus in the present work, as against 
 the seventeen mentioned in the Politics {cf. note on ch. 14, 1. 25). 
 
 F 
 
66 API2T0TEA0T2 [CH. 20. 
 
 20. KaTaXvdeia-rjs 8e rrjs TvpavvlSos icrTaala^ov 
 Trpos dXX\riX~\ovs 'laayopas 6 TeicrdvSpov, (plXos a>v 
 tcov Tvpdvvcov, kcu KXeLcrOevrjs tov yevovs cov tcov 
 'AXKfJLecoviScou. rjTTr]fj.evos 8e tolls eTO.Lpela.LS 6 
 
 5 KXeLcrdevrjs TrpoarjydyeTO tov 8rjp.ov, olwoSlSovs tco 
 irXrjdeL tt)v iroXLTeiav. 6 8e 'laayopas e7nAet7ro- 2 
 fievos TTJ Svvdpei ttoXlv e7TLKaXeo~ap,evos tov KAeo- 
 p-evrjv, ovTa eavTco jjevov, o-vveireLcrev iXavveiv to 
 dyos, 8id to tovs 'AXKp.ecovl8as 8oKelv elvaL tcov 
 
 10 evaycov. inre^eXdovTOS Se tov KXeicr0evovs /tier' 3 
 oXiycov, f]yr}XaT€L tcov 'AO-qvalcov iirTaKocrlas oiKias' 
 TavTa 8e 8lo.it pa^dpevos ttjv p.ev fiovXrjv eireLpaTO 
 KUTaXveiv, 'laayopav 8e Kal TpLaKoaiovs tcov (plXcov 
 p.€T avTov Kvplovs Ka0Lo~TavaL ttjs TroXecos. TT)S 8e 
 
 15 flovXrjs dvTLCTTaarjs Kal crvva&poicrOevTos tov ttXt)- 
 dovs, oi p.ev irepl tov KXeop.evrjv Kal 'laayopav 
 Karecpvyov els ttjv aKpoTroXiV 6 8e 8rjp.os 8vo p.ev 
 rjpLepas TrpocrKaBe^o/xevos e7roXi6pKei, rfj 8e TpiTr] 
 YiXeopevrjv p.ev Kal tovs p.eT avTov iravTas dcpUcrav 
 
 20 virocnr6v8ovs, Y^XeLcrOevr] 8e Kal tovs dXXovs (pv- 
 ydSas pLeTeirepj^ravTO. KaTaa\6vTos 8e tov 8r]p.ov Ta 4 
 
 XX. 2. TeiaavSpov : MS. TiaavBpov. 4. 'AXic/namSun/ : MS. aX«- 
 
 lifoviSav. TjTTTinevos : Blass, H-L., K-W. ^TTili^evos, from Herod. V. 
 
 66. 6. emhairdfievos : a.TroKenr6ixtvos , Richards, Kontos, H-L., both here 
 
 and in 27, 23 and 34, 28; but such repeated instances seem to confirm one 
 another as indicating the usage of the writer. 14. /«t' aliroi : MS. 
 
 I? Ton, i.e. fiera tov. 19. a<p'uoav : dcpetaav K-W. 20. KXttoBivr] : 
 
 MS. -vtjv, cf. 22. 1. 4. 
 
 XX. I. earaa-iaCov npos aX\ij\ovs k.t.X. : in this account of the rise, 
 expulsion, and recall of Cleisthenes Aristotle follows Herodotus (V. 66, 
 69, 70, 72) closely and sometimes almost verbally. 
 
 19. navras afyUaav viro<rir6v8ovs : from the account of Herodotus it 
 appears that this applies only to the Lacedaemonian force with 
 Cleomenes, as the Athenians who were in the Acropolis were all put to 
 death, with the exception of Isagoras. 
 
CH. 21.] A0HNALQN nOAITEIA. 67 
 
 irpayixara KXeurdevr]? rjyep.cov rjv kcll tov Srjfiov 
 TrpoarTOLTris. aiTKHTOLTOi yap o-%e8ov kyivovro rrjs 
 €kI3o\t}? tcdv Tvpavucov oi 'AXKpecovlSaL, kou aTaaid- 
 5 Qovres to. 7roXXa diereXfaav. £'tl 8e Trporepov twv 25 
 'AXKp.ecoviSau K.r]8cov iwedero tois rvpavvoLS' 810 kou 
 fjBov koX eiy tovtov kv rol? ctkoXiols' 
 
 ey^et ko\ KtjScovi, SiaKove, fir/h' iinXijOov, 
 el -)(pr) tois ayaBois avhpaaiv oivo^oziv. 
 
 2 1 . Aia p.eu ovv ravras ras alrlas iiricrTevev 6 
 Srjpos tw KAe£<r#eW£. Tore 8e tov irX-qOovs irpo- 
 eo-TTjKcos eret TerapTco fiera ttjv tcou Tvpavvav kclto.- 
 
 24. (TTaata^ovTes : H-L. avTiffTaffiafavTes. 26. ' AkKjitcwiScui' : MS. a\K- 
 
 peoviSwi/. XXI. I. imorcuev : so at first in the MS., but altered to 
 
 eiriarevov. Cf. 35, 25, where the MS. has i<p' oh ex m P 0V 4 *6\is. It is pos- 
 sible that 6 Srjiios is a gloss which had been incorporated in the MS. from 
 which this was copied, the verb having been altered to correspond with it, 
 while in revision another MS. may have been used. K-W. bracket o 
 
 Sij^jos, and so Rutherford and Bury. 
 
 26. KijoW : of this person and his attempt to expel the tyrants 
 nothing seems to be known, but it must be one of the various attacks 
 which the exiles are said to have made upon the Pisistratidae in the 
 later years of the reign of Hippias (supr. ch. 19), among which was the 
 disastrous occupation of Leipsydrium. It is not clear whether rav 
 'AXxfieaviSav is to be taken as a partitive genitive after KijoW or as 
 dependent on irporepov, whether, that is, Cedon was an Alcmeonid or 
 not. Reinach takes the former view, Kaibel and Kiessling, Poland, 
 Zuretti and Ferrini the latter. 
 
 28. eyx" k-tA. : quoted by Athenaeus (XV. 695, scol. 21), where, 
 however, the reading of the second line is el 817 xpy ayaBoU. 
 
 XXI. 3. eV« Terdprco . . . ori 'l<rayopov ap^ovros : the archonship of 
 Isagoras is fixed by Dion. Hal. (Ant. I. 74, V. 1) as occurring in 508 B. C. 
 The Parian marble places it seventeen years before the battle of Mara- 
 thon, but in this case it must be in error. As it is clear from Dionysius 
 that the archonship of Isagoras was in an Olympic year, it must be that 
 which began in July, 508 B. c. This is the fourth official year after 
 the expulsion of the Pisistratidae, which occurred (as appears from 
 ch. 19) in the official year 511-10 B. C, seemingly in the early part of 
 5 10 B. C. 
 
 The note of time in this passage shows that the constitution of 
 
 F 2 
 
68 AP1ST0TEA0T2 [CH. ai. 
 
 Xvcriv eVt 'laayopov apypvros, irpcoTov pev aw- 2 
 5 eWt/xe irdvTOS els Se<a (pvXa? avrl twv rerrapcou, 
 avap.el^ai fiovXopevos ottcos ptTaa-ywai irXeiovs ttjs 
 iroXLTeias' o9ev tXiyOrj kcll to pr\ (pvXoKpiveiv 
 LCol. 9.] 7T|0oy tovs i^erd^eiv ra yevrj fSovXopevovs. eireira 3 
 rrju fiovXrjv TrevTa.Koo-i\ovs\ avri TerpaKOcrlcov /c[arje- 
 10 arrjaeu, 7revTrjK0VTa e£ iicd(rT7]s (pvXrj?' Tore 
 
 4. (TiweVfijue : so Newman, Kontos, Gertz, H-L. (cf. 41, io> ; MS. ovv aitiju, 
 K-W. oui' crvviveifie, marking a lacuna after apxovros ; tvet/jie alone Blass, 
 SUvetfie Wyse. 6. dra/icf^ac MS. avajxi^ai. (Meisterhans, p. 144). 
 
 Cleisthenes was not drawn up until after the expulsion of Cleomenes 
 and Isagoras. This would have been probable a priori, as there was 
 not time to have introduced such extensive constitutional changes 
 before the Spartan invasion ; but the order in which the occurrences 
 are mentioned by Herodotus has misled some historians into supposing 
 the contrary. 
 
 4. After apxovros K-W. mark a lacuna, believing that Aristotle must 
 have made some direct reference to the fact that Cleisthenes introduced 
 a large number of new citizens ; cf. Pol. III. 2, p. I275 b 36 woWois 
 
 e(f)v\eTev(re ££vovs Kai 8ov\ovs fieroiKOvs. 
 
 7. to fifj <t>v\oKpivelv : the meaning of this phrase apparently is that 
 since the <pv\ai after the reforms of Cleisthenes no longer bore any 
 relation to the yew/, it was useless to enter on an examination of the 
 tribes for the purpose of reviewing the lists of the yivq. Cleisthenes 
 wished to break up the old tribal division for political purposes, so as 
 to do away with all the old aristocratic traditions and associations 
 which no doubt stood in the way of the lower classes when they 
 wished to take part in public life. Therefore, while retaining the 
 name (pv\ai, he made his new tribes of a number to which the 
 number of the old tribes bore no integral proportion, so that it was 
 not possible to form the new ones out of any of the existing sub- 
 divisions of the old. A number of persons were admitted to the new 
 tribes who had not been members of the old, and these were not 
 necessarily entered on the rolls of any of the y^vrj. Formerly, on any 
 review of the citizen-roll, it was no doubt usual to go through it tribe 
 by tribe, following all the subdivisions of the old patriarchal system. 
 Now the tribe-roll had no relation to that of the yivt\, and consequently 
 those persons who wished to examine the latter would have nothing 
 to do with distinctions of tribes. The phrase seems, from the way 
 in which Aristotle introduces it, to have become a proverbial one, 
 perhaps for making useless distinctions ; and this, rather than any 
 
CH. 21.] A0HNAII2N nOAITEIA. 69 
 
 TyJVaJi' eKarov. 8ta. tovto 8e ovk et? &»[<$e]/ca 
 0uAa? (rvveTatjeis, 07r[a)? a]ur<£ fir) avp-fiaivri p.epi£eii> 
 Kara Ta$ Trpovirap^ovaas rpiTTvs' rjcrav yap eV 8 
 (pvXcov 8a>8eKa rpiTTVts, Sxtt ov urviAiTMrTZV (av) 
 4 avap.Lo-ye.crda.1 to 7rXrj0os. Sievei/xe 8e /cat tt)v \copav 15 
 Kara 8rjp.ovs TpiaKovra. p.epr), 8sku p.ev tcov 7repl to 
 aaTV, 8£kcl 8e ttjs TrapaXias, 8e<a 8e ttjs fjLeaoyelov, 
 koli TavTas iirovofiacras TpiTTvs tuXripao-ev Tpels etf 
 tyjv (pvXrjv iKacrTrjv, oiras kKacrTJ) pL€Teyrj 7rdvTeov 
 tS>v tottcov kcu 8rjp.0Ta9 €Troir)o-ev aXXrjXaiv tovs 20 
 oikovvtcls kv e/cacrra) twv 8r]p.coi> } iva fir] waTpoOev 
 irpocrayoptvovTes i^Xey^cocnv tovs veo7roXiTas, 
 
 13. Kara: MS. at first lrpos, but corrected. 14. avvtvntTiv : MS. ap- 
 
 parently o'tirenrTtv : ovviTmniv av Hude, K-W., ovk av ovvemiTTtv Richards, 
 H-L. ; but the omission is more easily explained if av immediately preceded 
 avanioytoBai. 
 
 stricter sense, may be its meaning in Thuc. VI. 18, where it is to be 
 preferred to the otherwise unknown (pikoKpiveiv. 
 
 15. Sie'veipe &e Kal ttjv )(aipav Kara 817/iour Tpiaxovra p-^prj ' this passage 
 does nothing to clear up the difficulty as to the number of the demes 
 which arises from the words of Herodotus (V. 69). It merely explains 
 how the local sub-division of the tribes was managed so as to secure 
 that the territories of each should be scattered over the whole of Attica. 
 The fact that the tribes were so sub-divided has of course been well 
 known, not, however, from any direct statement by Herodotus or other 
 ancient author, but from the fact that the various demes of the 
 several tribes are found in different parts of the country. It appears 
 from the present passage that each tribe had three sub-divisions, one 
 in each of the three districts into which Attica had formerly been 
 divided. We are not told how many demes there were in each trittys ; 
 but if the text of Herodotus is correct in saying that there were ten in 
 each tribe, it follows that they must have been unevenly distributed 
 among the trittyes ; and this must anyhow have been the case as the 
 number of the demes gradually increased up to the total of 174, 
 to which we know it had attained in the third century B. C. (Polemo ap. 
 Strabo, IX. I, p. 396). The demes composing each trittys appear to 
 have been contiguous. 
 
 22. e^eXe'yxacii' rovs veowoXiras : Cleisthenes introduced a large 
 number of new citizens by the enfranchisement of emancipated slaves 
 
70 API2T0TEA0T2 [CH. 21. 
 
 aXXa tcov 8-qp.cov avayopevcocriv' oOev /cat /caA[oi)]- 
 criv 'A&rjvaioi crcpas avrovs tcov Srjpcov. KarecrTrjcre 5 
 ; <5e /cat 8r]fj.ap-)(ov? ttjv avrrjv e^ovras eiripLeXeiav 
 row irpoTepov vavicpapoi?' /cat yap rouy 8rjp.ous 
 <xvt\ tcov vavKpapicov e7ro[r}crev. irpoar^yopevae 8e 
 tcov Sr/ficav tovs p.ev chro tcov [Y]o7r[a>i'], tovs Se chro 
 tcov KTLcravTcov ov yap airavTts virrjpyov ert toIs 
 
 23. After Kai K-W. insert vvv. 25. emficketav : MS. empLe\iav. 29. 
 airavTfs imjpxov in : H-L. airaaiv iirrjpxiv bvopara, after Bnry ; Berl. Pap. 
 anavTes vTrijpxov kv. 
 
 and resident aliens, and he made their reception into the community 
 easier by altering the official mode of designation. If described by 
 their father's name alone, the new citizens who, so to speak, 'had no 
 father,' would be easily distinguished from the older citizens, who were 
 proud of their family pedigrees ; but by adding the name of the deme 
 as part of the necessary description a novelty was introduced into the 
 designation of all alike, and the fact of a man having a deme would 
 be sufficient proof of his being a citizen, which in the case of those 
 newly admitted to the franchise would not be obvious from the 
 unfamiliar and sometimes foreign name of his father. 
 
 24. KaT£<TTt](T( 8e Kal Srj/idpxovs . . • enoujtrev : quoted by Harpocration 
 (S. V. vavKpapwa) as from 'AptororeXiff kv 'ABrjvaiav irokiTelq, and he 
 refers to the same passage s.v. Sij/iap^os (Rose, Frag. 359). The 
 second Berlin fragment (Blass, Hermes XV, Diels, Berl. Acad. 1885) 
 also begins at the same place, with the exception of the single word 
 'hdr)vdioi. standing in the preceding line ; and it was through the 
 identity of the remains of the first sentence with the quotation in 
 Harpocration that Bergk (Rhein. Mus. 1881, p. 91) first proved the 
 Berlin fragments to belong to Aristotle's work. The fragment now in 
 question includes twenty-five lines, but only twelve or fourteen letters 
 in each are visible. The first word legible is 'Adiji/aux, as mentioned 
 above : the last which can be identified are [(pu]Xijr eiedoTj/r. This 
 passage is also quoted by a scholiast on Aristophanes (Clouds, 37), 
 but we do not know whether he quoted first hand (Rose, ed. 1886, 
 Frag. 397). 
 
 29. ov yap anavTcs vtttjpxov en toU tottois : the sense apparently is 
 that not all the demes still corresponded to localities possessing 
 names, and it is an explanation of the last clause of the preceding 
 sentence. In the redistribution (and probably increase in the number) 
 of the demes some of them were assigned to places which had no 
 particular names, and to these names were given airb tS>v KTio-avrav. 
 This gives a good sense, though rather strangely expressed, so that the 
 
CH. 22.J A0HNAIGN nOAITEIA. 71 
 
 6 T07TOL?. ra 8e yevr] kcu ray (pparpiois /cat ray 30 
 itpcocrvvas eiaaev eyeiv e/cacrrouy Kara ra iraTpia. 
 raiy 5e 0uAaiy e7roir](rev €7rcovvfi[ov9] e'/c rail' TrpoKpi- 
 devroov eKarou apyqy^Twv ovs aveiXev 77 Yivdia Se<a. 
 22. Tourcoi/ 5e yevo/ievcov 8rjp.oTiK(OTepa 7roA[u r^y 
 2]oAcai>oy iyevero rj TroXiTtia' /cat yap avvi^t] tov? 
 pey 2dAa)i>oy vofiovs atyaviaai ttjv rvpavviba Sia to 
 p.rj y^prjo-doiL, kcuvovs 8' aAAouy Oelvai tov KXeiadevr) 
 
 30. (pparpias: MS. tparpias. 32. eiraivvfiovs : so the Berl. 
 
 Pap. XXII. 4. Kaipoi/s : so apparently MS., partly confirmed by 
 
 Berl. Pap. {xpaaBai nai , . .) ; K.-W. read MS. as «ai rour, but emend it 
 to kcuvovs ; H-L. [voftjovs. 
 
 alteration made by H-L. (after Bury) is unnecessary. Mr. J. B. Mayor 
 adopts the suggestion (made in the first edition) to read anacnv, in 
 which case the phrase explains the first clause of the preceding sen- 
 tence, ' for the founders were not in all cases still known.' 
 
 30. to Se yevt] k.tX. : Cauer (p. 46) quotes this passage as contradict- 
 ing Pol. VII (VI). 4, p. I3l9 b 19, which runs as follows : en Se Kai ra 
 roiavra KaTacrKevao-fiara xprjcriua npbs tt]V SrjfioKpariav, ols KXcicrBev^s re 
 'A6rjvrj<Tiv exPW aT0 ^ovXa/ievos ai^rjcrai TrjV 8r]p.oKpariav, Kai irepi Kvprjvrjv 
 01 tov Srjpov KaBiCTTavres. (pvXai re yap erepai irovqTeai irkeiovs Kal (pparpiat 
 Kal ra to>v idiav iepav crvvaKTeov els 6\iya Kal Koivd, Kal wavra (Tocpicrreov 
 07TG)? av on [id\io~Ta dvap.i\6Sto't ndvres ciXXjjXoip, at de o~vv7]8eiai bia£evx~ 
 6coo-lv al irporepov. This passage is a useful commentary on the present 
 account of Cleisthenes' reforms, but it does not necessarily contradict 
 it. Unless we suppose that the reforms of Cyrene were exactly the 
 same as Cleisthenes', the second clause would naturally refer to them, 
 as the first unquestionably does to the Athenian legislation. Meyer's 
 explanation (p. 52 ff.), that the phrase in the Politics is justified by the 
 fact that Cleisthenes probably introduced new religious rites for the 
 <j>parpiai created for the new citizens, is unsatisfactory, as the phrase 
 clearly implies a reduction in the number of such rites, not an increase. 
 Cleisthenes did not disturb the existing (pparpiat, nor their rites, but 
 merely created new ones ; and his breaking up of the old associations 
 was sufficiently accomplished by the re-arrangement of the tribes and 
 demes, upon which the political life of Athens rested. 
 
 33. oiis ave'CKev 17 livBla : the share which the Delphic oracle had in 
 choosing the names of the ten Cleisthenean tribes is mentioned in 
 the Etym. Mag. p. 369, 16, ravra Se ra SiKa ovojiara dnopots (K-W. 
 corr. curb p) 6 Ilidtos e"i\ero, and Lex. Demosth. Patm. (p. 15, ed. Sakk.), 
 roirovs yap it; bvopdrav eKarbv 6 debs e£e\egaTO (Rose, Frag. 429, and ed. 
 1886, Frag. 469) . 
 
72 API2TOTEAOT2 [CH. 22. 
 
 S CTTOva^ofievov rod 7rXr/dov9, eV oh iredrj k<u o wept 
 rod oo-Tpa.Kicrp.ov vofxos. irpcorov p.ev ovu are 2 
 f TrefjLWTcp f p-era ravrr^v ttjv Karaarao-LV i<j)' 'Epp,ov- 
 Kpeovros apxovros rfj fiovXfj rols irevTCLKOo-iots rov 
 opKov iiroirjo-av ov ert kcu vvv bp.vvovcnv eTreira 
 
 10 tov? 0-Tparrjyovs ypovvTO Kara (f)v\d?, it; eKao-T7]S 
 (pvXrjS eua, ttjs 8e aTrao-rjs arpancts -qyep-cov rjv 6 
 ■jroXepapyps. erei 8e p-era ravra ScoSeKarcp vlkt}- 3 
 cravTts ttjv ev M.apada>vL p-o-xrjv eVt Qaivnnrov 
 apxovTOS, SiaXnrovTes err] 8vo p.era ttjv vlktjv, 
 
 7. 'EppovxpeovTos : "EppoxpeovTos, K-W„ H-L., Kontos. There is a division 
 of lines after (ppov-, and it is possible that the scribe thought the word 
 ended there, and accordingly added an v to the original 'Epp-o-. 
 
 XXII. 7. i<j> 'EpfiovKpcovTos apxovros : the dates here given absolutely 
 refuse to harmonise. The reforms of Cleisthenes have been above 
 assigned to the archonship of Isagoras in 508 B. C. The year denoted 
 by erei irip-Trra /xera ravrqv rfjv Karao-rao-iv would therefore naturally be 
 504 B.C. But in the first place that year is already appropriated by the 
 name of Acestorides, and, secondly, in the next sentence it is said that 
 the battle of Marathon occurred in the twelfth year afterwards. The 
 date of Marathon being unquestionably 490 B.C., this places the archon- 
 ship of Hermoucreon in 501 B.C., for which year no name occurs 
 in the extant lists. We must therefore suppose either that the reforms 
 of Cleisthenes extended over three years, which is improbable, or that 
 Aristotle has omitted some necessary note of time (so Keil, taking 
 eVeiTa in 1. 9. to cover a space of three years), or that ircpm-cp is a 
 mistake for dy&oa (e for ?;') ; the latter solution is perhaps the most 
 probable, and is approved by H-L. 
 
 10. roils o-Tparqyovs : it has generally been stated {e.g. by Grote) that 
 the office of a-TpaTtjyos waa created by Cleisthenes, but it has already 
 been seen in ch. 4 that it was at least as old as the time of Draco. Cleis- 
 thenes did not even, as it now appears, increase their number to ten 
 nor make them the chief officers of the state. Under his constitution 
 the archons, who were elected directly by the assembly (cf. below, note 
 on 1. 27), were still the chief magistrates of the state ; and the ten 
 strategi were only elected at the date here indicated as subordinates 
 to the polemarch. 
 
CH. 22.] A0HNAIi2N nOAITEIA. 73 
 
 dappovvTO? rjSrj tov 8r)p.ov, tot€ Trparov ixprjcravTO 15 
 tS vofico tco wept tov oo-Tpa.Kicrp.6v, 0? eTedr] 81a ttjv 
 v7ro\frlav tg>v iv tolls Swa-ixecriv, otl Yl.ticrio-Tpa.Tos 
 Br/paycoyos /cat crTpar-qyos u>v Tvpavvos KareoTr]' 
 4 /cat TTparos wcrTpaKLaOr) tcdv iiceivov avyyevcov 
 
 16. rbv dirrpaKiapov : K-W. alter to tov ooTpaKiapov. 17. on : MS. 
 ore, K-W. 6 yap. TYuoiaT paros : MS. matarpaTos. 
 
 17. on Ilfio-lo-TpaTos k.t.'X. i MS. oTf, which makes nonsense of the 
 passage. It has just been said that the law of ostracism was passed 
 by Cleisthenes. Cf. also the quotation from Harpocration below, in 
 which this sentence is repeated with slight variation. The law was 
 passed in consequence of the lesson taught by the career of Pisistratus, 
 and was aimed especially at the supporters of his house who still 
 remained in Athens. It was not put into force, however, owing 
 (according to Aristotle) to the usual leniency of the democracy (and 
 in respect of this testimony it may be remembered that Aristotle is 
 not by any means an extreme admirer of democracy) ; but when the 
 Persian invasion and the attempt to betray Athens immediately after 
 the battle of Marathon showed that there was still much danger to 
 be expected from the partisans of Hippias, it was natural that strong 
 measures should be adopted and the leading adherents of the tyranny 
 expelled. The only wonder is that two years were allowed to elapse 
 after Marathon before the first ostracism ; but probably in the first 
 satisfaction with the victory it was thought that nothing further would 
 be attempted against Greece, and it was only when it was known 
 that Darius was making preparations for another and more formidable 
 invasion, that precautions were taken by ostracising Hipparchus and 
 other members of the same party. 
 
 19. trparos wo-Tpanio-Br] . . ."imrapxos: cf. Harpocration, s.v."Imrap)(os, 
 aXXos Se e<TTiv "\mrap)(os 6 Xdppov, 3>s <pr)at AvKovpyos iv tu Kara AeaKpd- 
 tous' fffpl 8e tovtov 'AvSponav iv rij (3' (prftrlv on o-uyyej'ijr pev rjv Heiirio-- 
 rptxTov tov Tvpdvvov Kai irparos it-aorpaKlcrdr], tov irepi tov oo-rpaKto-pov pd/zon 
 toti irpaTov TcBivros Sia tt/v Ijroyjriav rayv 7rep! Heuriorparov, on Sr/payayot 
 £>v Kai OTparqybs irvpdvvrio-ev. As a matter of fact the Hipparchus 
 mentioned by Lycurgus (Contr. Leocr. p. 164) is not the son of Charmus, 
 but of Timarchus. The words on . . . iTvpdvvrjo-ev are so nearly identical 
 with those of Aristotle that the one author must have drawn from the 
 other. The date of Androtion is doubtful, but it appears more probable 
 that he lived somewhat later than Aristotle, quite at the close of thefourth 
 century. (A writer in the New York Nation of May 7th says that this 
 uncertainty is not justifiable, and that Androtion cannot have been 
 other than the opponent of Demosthenes [Or. 22] ; M. Weil, in the 
 
74 API2T0TEA0TS [CH. 22. 
 
 20 Xinrap-^Qs XapfJ-ov KoXXvrevs, 8c' ov kolI fiaXiaTa 
 tov vop.ov edrjKev 6 KXeL(r0evr)s, e^eXaaac fiovXo- 
 fievos avTov. ol yap 'Adrjvaioi tovs tcov rvpavvav 
 (j)iXovs, oaoc p.7] (Twe^fxapTavov iv tolls rapayals, 
 eicou oIkclv ttjv ttoXlv, xpa>p.€voi rfj elcodvla. rod 8r]p.ov 
 
 25 7rpaoT7)TL' av r]yep.a>v kcu trpo(TTa.Tr\s rjv linrapyos. 
 evdi/9 8e tw varepco erec eVi TeXeaivov apyovros 5 
 eKvafievaav roii? kvvia ap^ovras Kara. (pvXa? e'/c rav 
 
 20. KoXAwtcvs : MS. KoAuTTO/r. 23. awcfanaprravov : MS. awefa- 
 
 fmpravov, H-L. avvegafiapravoiev, after Poste ; and so K-W 2 , who also omit 
 iv, 26. iaripa : K.-W. vcrrepov, against MS. 
 
 Journal des Savants, p. 203, finds confirmation in the present treatise 
 for the view that this person was not the historian, who was later 
 than Aristotle.) In that case, and supposing the sentence to be part 
 of the quotation from Androtion and not an explanatory addition by 
 Harpocration, it would show that Aristotle's work was publicly known 
 in the generation immediately succeeding his own. There are, how- 
 ever, so many elements of doubt about the matter that it is unsafe to 
 draw any positive conclusion. 
 
 20. KoXXutcus : Plutarch (Nic. 11), who also mentions Hipparchus 
 as the first victim of ostracism, describes him as XoXapyevs. 
 
 25. Tjyefimv : the reverse of the second Berlin fragment (cf. Hermes 
 XV. 376) begins here. It consists of parts of twenty-five lines, ending 
 with the word rpiypeis ; but the remains are too small for any informa- 
 tion of value to be extracted from them. 
 
 26. eVi TeXto-iVou ap^avTos : this will be in 487 B. C, one of the three 
 years after 496 B.C. (the others being 486 and 481 B. C.) for which no 
 archon's name appears in our lists. 
 
 27. eKvdfievcrav Toir ivvia apxovras k.t.\. : this passage must be com- 
 pared with the account of the system of election introduced by Solon 
 (ch. 8, KkripcoTas k.t.X.). It appears that in this year (487 B. C.) the 
 Athenians reverted, with some modification, to the system which Solon 
 had established, and which had been abrogated by the establishment 
 of the tyranny ; that is, they appointed the archons by lot from a 
 number of candidates who had been selected by the tribes in free 
 election. The statement which follows, ol Si irparepoi navres %o-av 
 alperoi, must apply to the period between the expulsion of the tyrants 
 and the time now being spoken of, and it shows that Cleisthenes did 
 not apply the use of the lot to the election of archons, but had them 
 freely elected, presumably by the Ecclesia. We therefore have the 
 
CH. 22.] A0HNAI.QN nOAITEIA. 75 
 
 TrpoKptOevTcov vtto twv 8rjfj.0Ta>v irevTaKocriaiv rore 
 
 28. tuiv Stj/iotuv TtivraKoaiav : H-L. Tou Sripov viVTaKoaio\i.thi\iva»i \ after J. 
 W. Headlam's tou Siy/xou ktc tojv trevraKoaiOfieSiftvajv ; Weil, TTevTeKateiKoaTw 
 eVei for irivTaxoataiv toil tote ; so Blass, K-W,, H-L. ; MS. tou, 
 
 which might conceivably stand, but is hardly probable. 
 
 following stages in the history of the method of election to this office : 
 
 (1) prior to Draco, the archons were nominated by the Areopagus ; 
 
 (2) under the Draconian constitution they were elected by the ecclesia ; 
 
 (3) under the Solonian constitution, so far as it was not disturbed by 
 internal troubles and revolutions, they were chosen by lot from forty 
 candidates selected by the four tribes ; (4) under the constitution of 
 Cleisthenes (perhaps continuing the usage under the tyrants) they 
 were directly elected by the people in the ecclesia ; (5) after 487 B. C. 
 they were appointed by lot from 100 (or 500, see below) candidates 
 selected by the ten tribes ; (6) at some later period (see ch. 8) the 
 process of the lot was adopted also in the preliminary selection by 
 the tribes. 
 
 One point remains to be settled, namely the number of candidates 
 selected by the tribes under the arrangement of 487 B. C. It is here 
 given as 500, i. e. fifty from each tribe ; but on the other hand it is 
 distinctly stated in ch. 8 that each tribe chose ten candidates, so that 
 the total would be 100. It is true that Aristotle is there speaking of the 
 practice in his own time, while here he is describing that of the fifth 
 century ; but it is not in the least likely that the number of persons 
 nominated by each tribe was reduced. The tendency is more likely to 
 have been the other way. It is more probable that for nevTaKoa-icov (<£') 
 we should read Uarbu (p), the confusion between the two numerals 
 being very easy, and perhaps to be paralleled from Thuc. II. 7. Mr. 
 J. W. Headlam proposes to read iiro toO Sij/xou in. twv iriVTaKotjioptbip.va>v, 
 but the qualification is not in question here, and so extensive a de- 
 parture from the MS. requires further justification. 
 
 It follows from the present passage that the polemarch Callimachus 
 at Marathon was elected and not chosen by lot. This is the view which 
 has always been preferable on grounds of common sense, and it is only 
 the authority of Herodotus which has made it doubtful. As is stated 
 by Aristotle just above, the polemarch was still the commander-in- 
 chief, and the strategi were, technically at any rate, his subordinates. 
 In this capacity he gave his vote last, just as is the practice in a 
 modern council of war. 
 
 28. vtto ram drjpoTwv : this, if literally interpreted, is in contradiction 
 with the passage in ch. 62, which says at 3e xX^pural apx<" Trporcpov p.ev 
 
 rja-av al p.h fier ivvia apxovrav i< ttjs (pv\t)s SXrjs KXrjpovfievm, at 8 iv 
 Qrjcre'ui) KXrjpovp.evai SirjpovvTO els roiis 8fip.ovs. This implies that the 
 preliminary selection of the candidates for the archonship was made 
 by the whole tribe, not by the separate demes. It is true that Sr//xdrai 
 
76 API2T0TEA0TS [CH. 22. 
 
 fi€Ta rrjv rvpavvlha irparov, (oi 8e Trporepoi iravrts 
 30 rjaav alperotj' kgu cocrrpaKLaOr] Meya/cA^y l7nro- 
 KpaTOvs 'AXcoTreKrjdev. iirl p.ev oitv err] y rovs rav 6 
 TvpdvvGov (plXov? axTTpaKL^ov, §>v yapiv 6 vop.os 
 iredrj, p.era 8e ravra ra reraprco eret. kcu rcov 
 aXXcov ei tls Sokolt] p.el£cov elvcu p.edi(TTavTO' Ka\ 
 35 TrpwTOS dxTTpaKicrdr) tG>v aircodev rrjs rvpavvidos 
 *E,6.vQnnros 6 'Kpitypovos. erei Se rpirco p.era ravra -. 
 Nt/co5?7/iou ap^ovros, a>y kfyavi] ra p.eraXXa ra kv 
 
 37. NiKo877/iou : MS. vino/j.riSovs, which K-W. and H-L. retain ; but the 
 Berlin fragment has Nixo5t;/jou, and this form is confirmed by Dionysius. 
 
 may simply stand for the members of the tribe, ail of whom were 
 necessarily members of a deme ; but it would be rather a misleading 
 use in this connection. It may be that Aristotle has made a mistake, 
 and that the ncvTaKocrimp discussed above is part of the same mistake ; 
 for the demes did actually elect the 500 members of the povXr], as 
 appears from the continuation of the passage in ch. 62 just quoted. 
 The fact which remains certain is that the use of the lot was, in some 
 manner or another, introduced at this date for the election of the archons. 
 30. MeyaieXijs'l7nroKpdrovs: this would be the grandson of the Megacles 
 who was the opponent of Pisistratus, and the nephew of Cleisthenes. 
 It is consequently surprising to find him among the persons ostracised 
 as friends of the tyrants. The banishment of a Megacles, who was the 
 maternal grandfather of Alcibiades, is mentioned by Lysias (Contr. Ale. 
 I. 39), but it has been supposed that this was the son of Cleisthenes, 
 who bore the same name. An ostrakon has, however, been found 
 bearing the name MeyaxXijf ['iTrn-oJKpdrous 'A\ameKridev (Jahrb. d. Arch. 
 Inst. 1887, p. 161, Classical Review, V. 277), which is presumably to 
 be referred to this occasion and confirms the statement of Aristotle. 
 
 36. SavBmnos 6 'Aptypovos : this ostracism of Xanthippus is not else- 
 where mentioned in literature, except in the extract from Heraclides 
 quoted above, in the note on ch. 18, 1. 9 ; but an ostrakon was found 
 in the pre-Persian stratum of the Acropolis in 1886, bearing the words 
 Sav6iirjros 'Aplcppovos, which has been taken to be a genuine remnant 
 from the ostracism of Xanthippus (//. cc. in last note). Like Aristides 
 he must have returned at the time of the second Persian war, as he 
 was archon in 479 B.C. and commanded the Athenians at Mycale and 
 at thesiege of Sestos. 
 
 37. NiKoS^pou apxavTos : the dates are somewhat confusing here. The 
 
CH. 22.] • A0HNAII2N nOAITEIA. 77 
 
 Mapcovela kcu Trepieyevero rfj iroXei raXavra eicarov 
 
 38, 39. Berl. Pap. apparently (k rwv Ipyaiv e/eaTov raKavra, and tJ iroKti for 
 tS dri/jq) (Diels, Berl. Acad. i8Sj, K-W.). 
 
 notes of time given for the period between the Persian wars are these. 
 After Marathon 8iaXi7rdjTes 8uo ei-17 . . . tc3 varipa eVei comes the 
 archonship of Telesinus (487 b. c.) ; these three years are summarised 
 in the phrase eVi \uv oZv irr] y, and then ra Ttrapra eVei (486 B.C.) is 
 the ostracism of Xanthippus ; em di rplra p-ei-a ravra (484 B.C.) is the 
 archonship of Nicodemus ; iv rairois rois xpovois Aristides was ostra- 
 cised, and Teraprco erei he and all the other political exiles were recalled, 
 in the archonship of Hypsichides, 81a rfjv Eepl-ov a-Tpareiav, i.e. in 481 
 B.C. This seems plain and consistent enough ; but there is the diffi- 
 culty that the archonship of Nicodemus is placed by Clinton and others 
 in 483 B.C., on the authority of Dionysius. It may be that the three 
 archons Philocrates, Leostratus, and Nicodemus should be placed in the 
 years 486-484 B.C., instead of 485-483 B.C. ; but the Parian marble 
 places Philocrates five years before Marathon, and so incidentally 
 confirms Dionysius' date for Nicodemus. On the other hand it is 
 possible that Aristotle was mistaken in the year of Nicodemus ; for 
 it is noticeable that Plutarch, who, like Aristotle, records that Aris- 
 tides was recalled in view of the march of Xerxes upon Greece, says 
 that he returned in the third year after his banishment (Arist. 8). 
 If, then, Aristotle knew that the ostracism took place in the archonship 
 of Nicodemus, but believed that archonship to fall in 484 B.C., this 
 discrepancy is removed, and it is unnecessary to make any alteration in 
 the received list of archons. 
 
 Bauer's calculation is rather different. He reckons fVl . . ctt; y from 
 the year of Hipparchus' banishment, thus 488 B. C. (Hipparchus), 487 
 B. C. (Megacles), 486 B. C. (unnamed friends of tyrants). Then rerdpT-w 
 eVfi, i.e. 485 B.C., Xanthippus; erei hi TpiVfi) (483 B.C.) Nicodemus. 
 Aristides' banishment (u tovtols toU xpovois is then placed in 484 B.C., 
 and the rest follows easily, Plutarch's version being put aside. The 
 main difficulty here is the retrograde interpretation of iv tovtois rois 
 Xpovots, for as the ostracism of Aristides is taken as the basis of the 
 calculation of the next date, it is hardly credible that Aristotle should 
 intend to slip back a year from the date previously fixed, without 
 mentioning it. 
 
 As regards the exact name of the archon in question, it must be 
 noted that the MS. reads Niico^Sour, but on the other hand Dionysius 
 calls him Nicodemus, and this reading is confirmed by the Berlin 
 fragment of Aristotle. The testimony of Aristotle being thus doubtful 
 the authority of Dionysius may turn the scale. Under these circum- 
 stances it does not appear that any good purpose would be served 
 
78 API2T0TEA0T2 [CH. 22. 
 
 e'/c Tav epycov, o-v/i^ovXevovTcov tlvcov tco Srjfxcp 
 40 Siavei/xaa-daL to apyvpiov, Qe[Mio-TOKXrjs eKcoXvo-ev, 
 
 by leaving the name 'SiKo/ifjdovs in the text here, and NixoSij/iou has 
 accordingly been substituted. 
 
 to niraWa ra Zv Mapaveia: in Herodotus (VII. 144) and Plutarch 
 ( Them. 4) the mines are described as those of Laurium. Demosthenes 
 (Cantr. Pantaen. § 4, p. 967) refers to a Maroneia at which there were 
 works {epya) which seem to have been mines ; and Harpocration 
 (s. v. Mapmi/eia) states that this place was in Attica, and was distinct 
 from the Maroneia in Thrace mentioned by the same orator (Contr. 
 Polycl. § 20, p. 1213). Dr. Sandys also refers to Bekk. Anecd. (Lexica 
 Segueriana), p. 279, Mapaveia' toitos r/v tt)s 'ArriKTJr, Sirov ra fieraWa 
 evpedr). There need therefore be no doubt that Maroneia in Attica 
 was in the neighbourhood of Laurium, and that the mines referred 
 to by Aristotle are the same as those mentioned by Herodotus and 
 Plutarch. Mr. Richards (Class. Rev. V. 226) objects to e<f>avrj, on the 
 ground that Xenophon (de Vect. IV. 2) speaks of the mines as of 
 immemorial antiquity. But Xenophon does not specify Maroneia, 
 which was presumably a newly discovered and exceptionally rich 
 section of the mine district of Laurium. 
 
 38. TokavTa inarm k.tX. : this story is repeated by Polyaenus [Strateg. 
 I. 30), who evidently took it from Aristotle. The details are different 
 from, but not inconsistent with, those given by Herodotus. It is 
 evident that Grote was right in holding, as against Boeckh, that it was 
 not intended to distribute among the populace the whole sum derived 
 from the mines. Herodotus states that the proposed distribution was 
 to be at the rate of 10 drachmas a head, which would amount, according 
 to Boeckh's calculation, to 33J talents in all. 
 
 40. ee/uoT-o/eXijr : this passage does not solve the disputed question 
 as to the archonship of Themistocles. It is clear, however, that he was 
 not archon at the time of the proposal to distribute the funds avail- 
 able from the silver mines, since that occurred in the archonship of 
 Nicodemus, but that his guidance of the policy of his country in the 
 direction of ship-building was effected in his capacity as a popular 
 leader in the Ecclesia. Athenian policy was not directed by the archon 
 or by any magistrate as such, but by the Ecclesia, and therefore 
 ultimately by the leaders of the Ecclesia. On the other hand 
 Thucydides expressly says that Themistocles was in office at the time 
 when he began the fortification of the Piraeus (I. 93, inrfjpKTo S* avrov 
 nporepov ejri rf/s ckcLvov dpjfqs r)S kot inavTov 'Adrjvaiots Vfȣe). This 
 does not necessarily mean that he was archon eponymus, but the use 
 of iiti with the genitive, the almost invariable method of indicating the 
 year, favours the belief that he was. It is moreover certain that he 
 was archon (though not necessarily archon eponymus) at some 
 
CH. 22.J A0HNAI&N nOAlTEIA. 79 
 
 ov Xeycov ri ^piqaerai tol? xprjfxacriv dXXa dauelcrai 
 KeXevcou tols TrXovcrLoorarois 'AOrjvalcou eKarov e/ea- 
 (ttco raXavrov, eiV lav fx.ev dpe&Kr] to dvaXco/ia 
 ttjs iroXtcos elvou rrjv h<mavr\v, el 8e fxrj, ko- 
 
 44. tt]v Samvrjv : deleted by H-L. as a gloss, comparing Polyaenus (/. c.) 
 nb\v p\v dpiari to ■npaxOTJo'ofievov, tt) tt6\€i t6 avaXwpa Xoyiffdrji/at. 
 
 period in his career, from the fact that he appears later as a member of 
 the Areopagus (ch. 25, 1. 1 5). It is therefore not improbable that he was 
 archon eponymus at the time indicated by Thucydides. In that case 
 it may be taken as certain that his year of office falls in 482 B.C., not 
 in 481 B.C. (as Clinton puts it), both because we have another archon's 
 name mentioned below for whom the latter year is required, and 
 because it accords better with probability, since it seems likely that 
 the work of fortifying the Piraeus was undertaken in connection with 
 the building of the triremes, which was commenced in 483 B.C. At the 
 same time the fact of his holding that office is only to a very limited 
 extent a sign of appointment by the people to carry out his naval 
 policy, since the final process of election to the archonship was at this 
 time conducted by lot ; and the words of Thucydides are consistent 
 with his having held any magistracy, such, for instance, as that of 
 a-TpaTrjyos, on whom the execution of such operations might naturallyfall. 
 It may be added that the supposed archonship of Themistocles in 
 493 B. C. appears very problematical. It is not in the least likely that 
 the same person would wish to be archon twice, when it brought no 
 substantial advantages except a seat in the Areopagus. It is doubtful 
 even if re-election was legal ; it certainly was not so in later times, 
 cf. ch. 62, 1. 23. Nor is it likely that the naval policy of Themistocles, 
 indicated by the fortification of the Piraeus, began so far back as that 
 date. It appears more natural to connect it closely with the building 
 of the fleet in 483 B. c Further, it is probable that the archons had to 
 be not less than thirty years old, as was certainly the case in the time 
 of Draco (ch. 4, 1. 18). If Themistocles was archon in 493 B.C. he must 
 have been bom not later than 523 B.C., in which case he would have 
 been at least thirty-three at the time of Marathon, and could hardly 
 be called vios, as he is by Plutarch ( Them. 3). Moreover Plutarch 
 tells us that he was sixty-five at his death, which would therefore on this 
 theory fall not later than 45 8 B.C. But, as appears from ch.25 below, if the 
 story there given be accepted, his flight to Persia cannot have occurred 
 before 460 B.C., and it is probable that he lived there some years before 
 his death. These considerations cumulatively make an archonship 
 in 493 B.C. improbable. It rests on the authority, which is in itself 
 good, of Dionysius {Ant. Rom. VI. 34), but there is nothing to prove 
 that he is speaking of the same Themistocles. The father's name is 
 
80 API2TOTEAOT2 [CH. 22. 
 
 45 [U(ra<T0ai to. ^prjpLara irapa tcov 8aveLo~ap.eu(ou . 
 
 Xaficov 8' eVt tqvtois kva^y^rrriyqcraTO Tpir/pei? 
 
 eKarov, eKcurTov vav7rr]yovp.evov rwu eKaro v p.iai>, 
 
 ais kvavpLayrjo-av kv HaXaplvi irpos rovs fiapfiapov?. 
 
 d>(TTpaKL(r0r) 5' kv rovrois rots Ktupois 'Apio-reiSrjs 
 5° AvaLptd^ov. rerdprco <5' erei /careSe^avro wavras 8 
 
 rovs acrrpaKLo-p.evovs, ap)(0VTos 'Yyfn^tSov, 81a rrjv 
 
 tSeptjov (rrpareiav kou to Xonrbv wpicrav tol? 
 
 b<TTpcua{opLevois euros Tepoucrrov kou ^KvXXalov 
 
 Ka.TOLK.eiv 77 aripiovs eivai KaOdira^. 
 
 50. rerapTw : K-W. 3 alter to rp'na. 51. 'Y^ix<5°" '■ the reading is 
 somewhat doubtful. After the ip there appears to be an erasure of two or 
 three letters, over which an 1 has been written as a correction. 'T<prjxiSas 
 occurs as a Spartan name in Plut. Sol. 10, and H-L. read "Xt/a>xiBov here. It is 
 possible to read an 17 in the original writing of the MS., but this leaves two or 
 three strokes unexplained ; and the 1 of the correction is plain. 52. arpa- 
 reiav : MS. arpanav : cf. Meisterhans, p. 43. 
 
 not mentioned, and it may be another person of the same name, or 
 else Dionysius has on this occasion made a mistake. 
 
 51. apxovros 'Yij/ixidov : the name Hypsichides (if this is the correct 
 reading of it) is otherwise unknown. It is clear from the words 
 which follow that the year is 481 B. c. Plutarch (Arist. 8) says that 
 Aristides and the other exiles were recalled while Xerxes was on his 
 march through Thessaly and Boeotia. This would be in the spring 
 of 480 B. C, and therefore in the year of the archon who entered office 
 in July of 481 B.C.; Calliades, in whose archonship Salamis was 
 fought, succeeded to the post in July of 480 B. C. 
 
 From this passage it appears that Herodotus must have been wrong 
 if he intended to represent Aristides as still under sentence of ostracism 
 at the time of the battle of Salamis. The time, however, between his 
 recall and the battle was so short that the mistake, if it be one, is 
 natural ; but it is not certain that the participle e^atrrpaKicriievos means 
 more than that he had been ostracised, without necessarily implying 
 that he still was so. 
 
 53. fWos VepauTTov Ka\ SxuAXai'ou : presumably these places, which 
 stand at the extreme south of Euboea and east of Argolis respectively, 
 mark the eastern and western limits within which the ostracised person 
 was free to live, and if so he was confined within very narrow boundaries. 
 It is not certain, however, that the reading is right. Mr. Wyse has 
 conjectured £ktos for eWo'r, and this conjecture (as has been pointed 
 out by Dr. Sandys) appears to be confirmed by the Lex. Rhet. Can- 
 
CH. 23.J A0HNAII2N nOAITEIA. 81 
 
 23. Tore /lev ovv p-^XP L tovtov irporjXOev r} iroXis 
 a/xa rfj 87jp.OKpa.Tia Kara punpov av^avopevrj' fiera 
 5e ra M.r)8iKa iraXiv 'laxvarev 7) iv 'Apelco Trayco 
 fSovXrj kcu Sicpicei ttjv iroXiv, ov8ei/l Soy/xari XafSovcra 
 tt]v rjy^epo^uiav aXXa 81a to yevecrdai tt)s irepl 5 
 
 XXIII. 1. t6tc : H-L. t6, after Poste. 
 
 tabrig. s.v. oo-TpaKio-pov rpoTtos, which refers to this law with the phrase 
 /iij imfiaivovra ivrbs Tepma-rov. It is of course certain that in later times 
 ostracised persons were not confined within these limits, since we find 
 the ostracised Themistocles living in Argos (Thuc. I. 135) and the 
 ostracised Hyperbolus in Samos (Thuc. VIII. 73) ; the appearance of 
 Cimon at Tanagra (Plut. Cim. 17, Per. 10) cannot be pressed, as the 
 circumstances were exceptional. On the other hand, the point of the 
 present passages disappears if e'/tTor be read. Plutarch says that the 
 principal reason for the recall of the exiles before the second Persian 
 invasion was the fear that Aristides might attach himself to Xerxes 
 and carry with him a considerable party in Athens ; and it would 
 therefore be reasonable enough to pass a regulation which would 
 obviate the danger of a banished citizen entering into communication 
 with Persia. As regards Themistocles and Hyperbolus more than 
 one explanation is possible ; either the regulation may not have been 
 strictly observed (as would very likely be the case when the danger 
 from Persia was over), or an ostracised person who did not expect 
 to be recalled might prefer to accept drifila and live where he chose. 
 K-W. and H-L. retain ivros, as also do Kaibel and Kiessling and 
 Poland in their translations. Ferrini, Zuretti, and Reinach accept 
 
 CKTOS. 
 
 XXIII. 3. nakiv t(r\virev ij iv 'Apei'u ndyca fiov\r] : cf. Pol. VIII. (V.) 
 4, p. I3°4 a 20, fj iv 'Ape/q> nayw fiovXr} evdoKtfirjo'ao'CL iv Tins Mij8lkols e'So£e 
 GWTovuTepav jroifjcrai rfjv iroKireiav. In the same sentence the develop- 
 ment of the democracy is also attributed to the triumph of the vavriKos 
 o^Xor at Salamis. The two statements are not inconsistent. The first 
 was an immediate result, the second the consequence of a gradual 
 but sure development, which started from the same event. 
 
 5. 81a to yiviadat k.t.\. : Plutarch tells this story (Themist. 10), 
 quoting Aristotle as his authority, though he adds that Cleidemus re- 
 ported the money in question to have been produced by a device of 
 Themistocles (Rose, Frag. 360). Rose also gives (as Frag. 361) a 
 quotation from Aelian, who refers to Aristotle for a story about a dog 
 belonging to Xanthippus which swam with the escaping Athenians to 
 Salamis. Plutarch gives the same story, but if the authority is Aristotle 
 it must be in some other of his works, probably one on natural history. 
 
 G 
 
8a API2T0TEA0TS [ch. 23. 
 
 ^aXa/xlua vavp.aylas airia. tS>v yap o-TpaTr/yav 
 i£airopr)(ravT(oi> toIs irpayp.acri /cat Krjpv^avTcov 
 aco^eiv eKaarov iavrov, Troplaaaa Spayjias e/cacrra 
 oktco 8ie8a>Ke /cat eVe/3//3acrej/ els ray vavs. 81a 2 
 
 10 t<xvtt]v 8rj ttjv aWlav 7rapeya>povv avrfj tcd agiwfiari, 
 /cat eTroXiTevdrjaav 'KO-qvouoi KaXcos /cat /cara rov- 
 tovs tovs Kaipovs. o~vve/3r] yap avTols Kara tov 
 yjpovov tovtov ra re ety tov iroXtfiov ao-KrjaaL /cat 
 irapa rot? EAA^a-i^ ev8oKip,r}o-ai /cat rt]v tt\s OaXar- 
 
 15 rr}s rjyep.oviav Xafielv olkovtcov tcov AaiceSaip,ovicov. 
 rjcrav 8e irpocrTaTai rod 8-rjp.ov Kara tovtovs tovs 3 
 Kaipovs 'Apio-Te[8r)s 6 Avaip-ayov /cat Ge^icrro/cA^y 
 6 Neo/cAe'ouy, 6 p.ev to. 7roAe/ita acncaJv, 6 8e to. 
 7roAtri/ca Seivos elvai (5o/c<5y) /cat SiKaioavvr) tcov 
 
 20 /ca#' kavTov 8ia(pepet.v 810 /cat i\pcovTO rcS /Ltev 
 o-TpaTrjya, rco 5e o~vp.l3ovXa>. ttjv p,ev ovv tcov 4 
 
 8. trcyfeiv : MS. oafav : c/C Meisterhans, p. 142. 10. outJ : MS. avnji'. 
 
 auT^s Blass, H-L., aiiTijs d^tuifiart (omitting rui) Rutherford, airy tou agiuinaros 
 J. E. B. Mayor, K-W. -ijv for -?/[ is a common corruption in this MS., but if 
 that is not sufficient, Blass' correction is the simplest, as involving least 
 departure from the MS. II. mi: probably merely a copyist's mis- 
 
 take, as there is no apparent reason for the emphasis which it gives to the 
 clause. K-W. bracket it ; H-L. suggest a possible reference to ch. 33, I. 1 7, 
 but it is hardly probable. 12. kcltA : apparently rrcpi is written above as 
 
 a correction. K-W. bracket Kara ... Tof/Top. 15. atcovraiv : H-L. 
 
 ehtovruv, after Naber ; J. B. Mayor and Gennadios (kovtoiv ; but the Lacedae- 
 monians were surely not willing ^Thuc. I. 95). 18. voXkfua : Blass, Richards, 
 Thompson TtoXifWta, but Thuc. I. lS (cu iraptoKivaaavTO ra voKipia) and 
 IV. 80 (a£iovcxLv kv rots TroXepiois yeyevrjaOat- aipiaiv dpiaroi) seem to justifv 
 the retention of the MS. reading. 19. mMTind: MS. iroAc/«Ka, evidently 
 
 a clerical blunder due to TroKifiia which precedes. Sokuiv : some such 
 
 supplement is necessary. H-L. and K-\V. 2 alter cuikSiv in 1. 18 to SokSiv, 
 after Richards, Thompson, Kontos, which gives a very awkward order. 
 Possibly SokSiv a<7K(iv for &.an5iv gives an easier explanation of the corruption. 
 
 20, 21. t<» fiiv tTTparrryq, t<£ hi avfifiovXco : Mr. W. L. Newman {Class. 
 Rev. V. 161) refers to Pol. VIII. (V.) 9, p. I3oa b 1-8, where the different 
 qualities of the general and the statesman are discussed, evidently with 
 reference to Themistocles and Aristides. 
 
CH. 24.J A0HNAH2N nOAITEIA. 8 
 
 3 
 
 retxav avoLKo86fir)criv noivfj 8ia>KT](rav, Kaiirep 81a- 
 (pep6p.euoi irpos aXXrjXovs' eVt 8e tt\v cmocrTacriv 
 
 TTjV TG)V 'IcOVCOV OLTTO TTjS TCDV AaKeScUjAOVlCOV (TVfJL- 
 
 payias ' ' KpicrTei8r}s r/v 6 7rpoTpe^as, Trjprjo-as tovs 25 
 5 Aa/ccovas SiafitfiXTjpevovs 81a Yiavaaviav. 810 /cat 
 tovs (popovs ovtos f]v 6 ra^as raty woXeo-iv tovs 
 TrpwTovs eret TpLTCp pera tt]v iu ^aXapuvi vavpayiav 
 eVt Tipoadevovs ap-^ovTos, /cat tovs opKOVS copocrev 
 tols \a>(TLV axTTe tov avrov kyQpov elval /cat (piXov, 30 
 e'0' ols /cat tovs pvSpovs kv rcS 7reXayet Kadtio-av. [Col. I0 J 
 24- Mera 8e raura 6appovo-qs r)8rj rrjs iroXeas 
 
 22. avoLKoSofnjoiv : MS. avuiKobofiTjatv. 24. a-no 7-7)5 . . . avufxaxtas : 
 
 so also Blass, H-L., K-W., Ferrini ; MS. «ai Tip . . , av/i/iaxiav. 28. 
 
 UtTa. : MS. at first 5m, but corrected. 
 
 24. djro ttjs . . . a-v/ifiaxias : this alteration of the MS. reading appears 
 necessary in the interests of the sense of the passage. There is no 
 sign of an alliance having been concluded by Athens with Sparta when 
 the latter was in bad repute because of the misconduct of Pausanias, 
 which is the only sense that the MS. reading can bear. 
 
 29. em Tifioa-devovs apxovros : the list of archons, derived from Dio- 
 nysius and elsewhere, is complete from 480 to 321 B. C, and the 
 names mentioned by Aristotle only confirm it. The mention of this 
 date (478 B. C.) fixes the organisation of the Confederacy of Delos two 
 years higher than that usually assigned. This is in accordance with 
 Dem. Phil. III. § 23, p. Il6, TrpoaTaTai p.cv ip.e'ts c/36'o/iijkoi't' tTT) koi Tpla 
 tusv 'EXKrjvav e'yeveo-6e (i.e. 478-405 B.C.). The later dating apparently 
 rests on the authority of Ephorus. Thucydides (I. 94-96) gives 
 no date, but his narrative is quite in accordance with that named by 
 Aristotle. 
 
 tovs opKovs aS/xocex toIs "Iaio-iv : this is not the same treaty as that 
 mentioned by Herodotus (IX. 106), the latter having taken place in 
 479 B.C., immediately after Mycale, when Xanthippus, and not 
 Aristides, was in command of the Athenian forces. Aristides renewed 
 the treaty at the request of the Ionians at the time of which Thucydides 
 speaks (1. 95), (poiTayvres npos tovs 'Adrjvaiovs r/^lovv avrovs fjyep.6vas acpaii' 
 ycveo-dai Kara to t-vyyeves. Plutarch also (Arist. 25) mentions the 
 ceremony of casting iron into the sea on this occasion, 6" 'Apio-- 
 TfiSrjs apKiac tovs "EWrjvas nal afioaev imp to>» ' A&iwiiW, p.i8povs eft/3aX<bv 
 im rals apals el's tx\v BakaTTav, 
 
 G 2 
 
84 API2T0TEA0TS [CH. 24- 
 
 kou yj>T)p.aTU)V rjdpoia-fievcov ttoXXcov, crvvefiovXevev 
 avTiXafifidvecrdau rrjs rjyep.ovia? /cat Karafiavras e/c 
 twv aypwv oiiceiv iv ra> acrrer rpo(pr]v yap €crecr0cu 
 
 5 Tracri, rols p.£V o-Tparevo/JLevoL?, tois 8e (ppovpovcri, 
 Tois Se to, KOLva. irpaTTOvcri, dff ovtco KaTao-yj]o-ziv 
 tt/v r/yepiovlav. 7reio-0eures 8e ravra kol Xafioi'Te? 2 
 ttju 0LpxV v T0 ^s T€ (rvp.p.a\ois SecnroTLKCoTepcos 
 iXP&vTO irXr/v XiW kou Aecrfilcov ml 1ap.ia>V tov- 
 
 io tovs 5e (pvXaica? ei^pv rrjs apyris, ecSirey raf re 
 7roXiT€ias irap olvtoLs kou apyew §>v ervypv ap\ovTes. 
 KarecrTTjcrav 8e kou tois 7toXXols einropiav Tpocprj?, 3 
 axnrep 'Apio-reLdrjs ela-qy^aaro. o-vvefiaivev yap 
 
 XXIV. 2. T\9pawy.kvuv noWuiv : at first written ttoWoiv 7i8poi<riieva>v, but a 
 has been written above the former word and an a above the latter, to indicate 
 the true order. aBpoi^ojxivaiv K-W., which seems an unnecessary departure 
 from the MS. n. K-W. insert ras before irap' clvtols, but the MS. reading 
 
 appears quite possible. After apxovres K-W. add avrots eiriTpiirovTes «ai, 
 
 and mark a lacuna, in which they think the cleruchi were mentioned. 
 
 XXIV. 2. <rvv($ov\evev k.t.X. : this counsel to the people to come in 
 from the country, in order to secure the control, first of Athens, and 
 thereby of the allies of Athens, is what one would rather have expected to 
 come from Themistocles. At the same time Aristides is called 7rpoard- 
 ttjs roil brjjiov just above, and he was never the leader of the aristocratical 
 party. Moreover his conduct in reference to the Confederacy of Delos 
 shows that the imperial idea was strong in him, and, while he would 
 probably not have been a party to any unjust treatment of the allies, he 
 no doubt wished to see Athens in possession of the fiyepovia of Greece 
 by sea ; and Plutarch {Arist. 25) quotes Theophrastus as saying that 
 Aristides iv rois koivo'ls 7ro\Xd irpa^ai irpbs rr)v inrodetriv rrjs warpibos as 
 a-vxvfjs a&iKias 8eop.evr)s. The multiplication of paid offices in the state 
 is a first stage in that process of paying the democracy of Athens 
 which was carried to its full extent under Pericles, and which really 
 made the poorer classes in the community, the democracy in the 
 narrower sense of the term, the dominant power in the state. 
 
 3. fiyefiovias : cf. Pol. VIII. (V.) 4, p. 1304 s 22, 6 vavriKOS o^Xoy ■yei'd- 
 [ievos a't'rioj . . . rijf fiye/iovias 81a tt)v Kara Bakarrav buvapnv tt)v 817/io- 
 Kpariav laxvporepav inoirjcrev. 
 
CH. 24.] A0HNALQN nOAITEIA. 85 
 
 airo twv (popcov kcll tcov TeXav kgu tcov avfifia-^av 
 wXeiovs 77 8iap.vplovs avSpas Tpecpeadai. 5t/caorat 15 
 p.ev yap r/[(ra~jv e£a/ctcr;(iAtot, ro^orai 8' e^a/cdcrtot 
 /cat xiXlol, /cat irpos tovtols hnreis yiXLOi /cat 81a- 
 koctlol, fiovXr) 8e irevTaKocrioi, Kai (ppovpol veco- 
 picov irevTanocrioi, /cat wpos tovtois ev rfj iroXei 
 (ppovpol v, a.px ai 5' ev8r)p.oi p.ev els eirTaKoo-iovs 20 
 av8pas, virepopiot 8' els eVra/cocr/ous- 7jy>oy 8e tov- 
 tois eirei avveo-TrjcravTO tov ir6Xep.ov vo~Tepov 
 oirXZTai p.ev 8io~)(lXioi /cat irevTaKoo-ioi, vrjes 8e 
 (ppovpiSes e'lKocri, aXXai 8e vrjes at tovs (popovs 
 
 14. <p6pwv ; the first two letters have been blotted in the MS., and are re- 
 written above; H-L. elcHpopwv. 18. xai : K-W. bracket, but K-W 2 . 
 transfer the bracket to tt} in next line. 20. ei/Hjjpoi pkv : in the MS. the 
 word jjaav follows, but has been cancelled by a row of dots above it. a 1 . 
 eirTaicoaiovs : K-W. consider this an erroneous repetition from the preceding 
 line. 23. oirAf7-eu : MS. on\urcu. 
 
 14. It is not clear how tZ>v avppdxcuv differs from rav cpopav, as the only 
 way in which the allies gave direct financial assistance to Athens, and 
 so provided support for the Athenian populace, was by the (popos. 
 K-W. suggest that ko\ tS>v ovppaxnv should be expunged ; H-L. read 
 cla-cpopSiv for (popaw, which is a simpler correction. 
 
 15. irkeiovs f) Burpvpiovs: the numbers given (allowing 4000 men for 
 the twenty guard-ships, at the usual rate of 200 men to each ship) 
 amount in all to 19,750 persons, exclusive of the orphans and other 
 persons mentioned at the end of the list, of whom no estimate is given. 
 Aristotle's statement is therefore fully justified. This list does not, 
 however, apply to the times of Aristides, when, for instance, the dicasts 
 were not paid, but to the result of the policy which Aristides initiated. 
 H-L. consider the whole passage, to the end of the chapter, as spurious. 
 
 20. ap\a\ 8' evSrjpoi k.t.X. : it has been generally believed, and is stated 
 by Boeckh, Schbmann, and others, that the higher magistrates at 
 Athens were unpaid. But it does not appear that this rests on any 
 definite authority, and two or three passages in this treatise are in- 
 consistent with that view. Cf. ch. 62. 
 
 21. vrrepopioi : Prof. Mayor {Class. Rev. V. 121) cites Aesch. in 
 Timarch. C 21, § 47, prfii apxh" apxera prjbeplav, prjre tvBrjpov prjrc 
 
 V7T€p6plOV. 
 
 24. ai tovs (popovs ayova-ai : Boeckh {Staatsh 3 . I. 218, II. 345) considers 
 that the subject states brought their tributes to Athens themselves at 
 
86 APIST0TEA0T2 [CH. 24. 
 
 25 ayovcrai tovs cltto tov Kvafiov Stcr^'Atou? av8pa$, en 
 8e TrpvTavCiov /cat 6p<pavoi /cat 8eo-p.coTwv (pvAaices' 
 airacri yap tovtoi? oltto twv kolvwv rj Slolkijcti? r/v. 
 
 25. 'H fiev ovv Tpo(f)r) rw 8rjp.cp 81a. tovtcov 
 
 eylyvero. err] 8e eirTa. /cat 5e/ca p.aXiara p.era ra 
 
 Mr]8iKa 8iep.eivev f) TroXirela irpoecrTcaTmv tcov 
 
 'ApeoTrayiTcov, Kaiirep {mocptpop-evrj Kara. p,iK.pov. 
 
 5 av^avop.ivov 8e tov TrXrj0ov9 yevo/xevo? tov 8r]p.ov 
 
 I Col. 11.] Trpoo~Ta.T7}s '^(piakTrjs o 1o(p(ovi8ov, /cat 8okS>v 
 
 27. StoiKT]<ris: H-L. SiaatTrjcns. XXV. 2. hyiyvero : MS. eyivcro. 6. 
 
 rat : K-W. and H-L. suspect that this word should be deleted. 
 
 the time of the Dionysia in the city, and that the dpyvpo\6yoi were only 
 sent to collect special sums, such as arrears or fines. From this passage 
 of Aristotle it appears that this was not always the case, and that the 
 tribute was collected by certain vessels appointed for the purpose. 
 This statement, however, relates to the arrangements in time of war, 
 when it would clearly not be safe for the allied states to be sending 
 their contributions separately and without protection ; and as regards 
 times of peace it is quite likely that Boeckh's view is correct. It 
 appears that the ships charged with the duty in time of war were 
 ten in number (according to the usual estimate of a trireme's crew), 
 two for each of the five tribute-districts of the Athenian empire, and 
 were manned by 2000 persons appointed by lot. The construction of 
 tovs dno tov Kvdfjiov 8to-\i\iovs avSpas is not clear, but apparently a 
 suitable word must be supplied from ayovoat to govern it, or, as 
 Rutherford suggests, o-vXKeyovo-ai has fallen out before ciyovo-m. K-W. 
 mark a lacuna between Syovo-ai and tovs. Blass (followed by Ferrini) 
 substitutes (ppovpovs for (popovs, but it does not appear in what the duty 
 of such a squadron consisted. H-L. suggest pto-docpopovs. 
 
 26. TrpvTavuov : this presumably stands for all the persons who for 
 various reasons were maintained at the public expense in the Prytaneum. 
 
 XXV. 2. err) 8e cnra Kcii Sexa /idXiora pera ra MrjSixd : this presumably 
 covers the whole period up to the archonship of Conon, mentioned just 
 below, which belongs to the year 462 B.C. In that case Aristotle 
 reckons the end of the Persian war as 478 B. C, the date of the Con- 
 federacy of Delos. 
 
 6. Sotpavi&ov : the second letter appears to have been written first 
 as <b, but is corrected to o, which form is confirmed by Aelian ( Var. 
 Hist. II. 43, III. 17, XI. 9). With this word the tenth column of 
 the MS. breaks off, the rest of the column and the whole of another 
 
CH. 25.] A0HNA1GN nOAITEIA. 87 
 
 a.8copoS6K7]T09 elvcu kcu Slkcuo? wpos tt)v TroXireiav, 
 
 2 €7re0€TO Tjj fiovXfj. KCU TTpotTOV flCV OLVeiXeV 7ToX- 
 
 Xovs twv 'ApeoTrayircov, aycovas iirSd^pcov 7repl 
 rcov SicpKrjpevcov kirtiTa rrjs fiovXr/s eVi Y^ovavos 10 
 apyovros airavra irepieiXtro tc\ k-KiQ^ra hi &v tjv rj 
 ttjs 7roXiTelas tyvXanT], kou to. pFev t~\ol? irevra- 
 Kocnois, ra Se tco Srjfia) kcu toIs BiKacrTrjpiois 
 
 3 ctireSaiKev. eirparre fie ravra ctvvcut'iov yt.vop.ivov 
 
 II. m piei\f to : so K-W., Richards ; MS. nepieiXt, H-L. irapeihiTo. 14. 
 
 yevofxevov : H-L. yiyvoficvov. 
 
 column being occupied by writing of a different description, after which 
 the text of the Aristotle is resumed. A description and text of the 
 alien matter is given in Appendix II. 
 
 9. dyavas eiricpfpav : so Plutarch speaks of Ephialtes (Pericles 10), 
 <$io(5epbv ovra Tois iXiyapxiKuis, xal irepi tcls tvBvvas Ka\ 8idi|fir raj/ tov 
 bqixov ahiKoivrav dirapairnTov. Cf. Ael. Var. Hist. XI. 9. 
 
 10. eVi Kdi'iBj'or apxovros : this fixes for the first time a doubtful date in 
 Athenian history, though it has been known that the overthrow of the 
 Areopagus must have occurred about 460 B. C. From the whole of the 
 present passage it is clear that Pericles had nothing to do, as a leader at 
 any rate, with the attack on the Areopagus. Aristotle mentions him 
 below (ch. 27) as taking away some of the privileges of the Areopagus, 
 but this was apparently at a later time and a much less important 
 affair, though it may justify the retention of his name in the Politics 
 (II. 12), where it has been suspected of being a corrupt insertion in the 
 text. This part of Aristotle's treatise does much to clear up an obscure 
 period in the history of Athens, and to assign events to precise dates 
 and authors where before we only knew of their bare occurrence. 
 Among other things it is clear that the preeminence of Pericles dates 
 from a later time than has generally been assumed. 
 
 1 4. o-waiTLov yevo/ievov ©e/xioTo/cXe'ovr : the mention of Themistocles 
 in this connection revolutionises the history of the later part of his 
 career, and raises several chronological difficulties. We know from 
 Thucydides (I. 135-138) that he was eventually ostracised, and that 
 while living in banishment he was charged with Medism on certain 
 evidence which was found at Sparta in connection with the condemna- 
 tion and death of Pausanias ; on which occurred his flight to Persia, 
 where he arrived in the reign of Artaxerxes and died some time after- 
 wards. No dates or precise indications of time are given by Thucydides 
 or any other early authority, but it has been usual to place the ostra- 
 cism in 471 B.C., in accordance with Diodorus, and the flight to 
 
88 API2T0TEA0TS [CH. 25. 
 
 '5 QefiHTToicXeovs, oy r\v fiev tcov 'ApeoTrayiTcov, e/jLeXXe 
 
 Persia about 466 B.C.; the latter date being fixed by the statement 
 of Thucydides that Themistocles, during his flight, narrowly escaped 
 capture by the Athenian fleet besieging Naxos. The siege of Naxos 
 preceded the battle of the Eurymedon, which is fixed with practical 
 certainty for 466 B. C. Xerxes died in 465 B.C., and Thucydides states 
 that Themistocles on his arrival in Persia found Artaxerxes ve oxtti flacri- 
 XeiovTa. The present passage, on the other hand, states that he was still 
 in Athens in 462 B.C. He was then expecting a trial on the charge of 
 Medism. This cannot be the charge which was made after the dis- 
 covery of his complicity with Pausanias, since that took place while 
 he was living in banishment ; but if the trial ever took place at all, 
 and was not altogether averted by his proceedings against the 
 Areopagus, it must be the earlier one, in which he secured an ac- 
 quittal (Diod. XI. 54, cf. Grote, ed. 1S70, vol. V. p. 136). His ostracism 
 cannot then well have occurred before 461 B. C, and his flight to 
 Persia may be placed approximately in 460 B.C. Artaxerxes would 
 then have been on the throne about five years, which is not incon- 
 sistent with Thucydides' phrase vtattri Paaikeiovra. The fifth year 
 of a king who ruled for forty might well be spoken of as in the 
 beginning of the reign. But the difficulty raised by Thucydides 1 
 reference to the siege of Naxos is not so easy to explain, and we 
 are practically reduced to two alternatives. Either the story of 
 Themistocles' having been nearly carried into the middle of the 
 Athenians is wrongly attached to the siege of Naxos, and should be 
 connected instead with some other operations about 460 B. c. ; or two 
 inconsistent accounts of the later years of Themistocles were current, 
 of which one was adopted by Thucydides, the other by Aristotle, 
 a hundred years later. In favour of the date of Thucydides is the 
 fact that he was writing so much nearer to the events recorded, and 
 that it appears to harmonise better with the chronology of the later 
 historians and chronologists. On the other hand, Aristotle's story is 
 detailed and characteristic, and it is at least as difficult to understand 
 how it became current if it is false, as to explain how it was omitted 
 by other authorities if it is true. Bauer, who makes the statement of 
 Aristotle as to Themistocles' presence in Athens in 462 B. C. the corner- 
 stone for the chronology of the period, also accepts Thucydides' reference 
 to the siege of Naxos. The result is a general lowering of the accepted 
 dates, placing the siege of Naxos and battle of Eurymedon in 460 B. C, 
 the beginning of the Messenian revolt and the defeat of the Athenians 
 at Drabescus in 459 B. C, the Athenian expedition to Egypt in 456 B. C, 
 its failure and the end of the Messenian revolt in 450 B. C, Cimon's 
 expedition to Cyprus and the death of Themistocles in 448 B. c The 
 contrary indications in Diodorus, Eusebius, &c, are rejected as due 
 to a single false authority, probably Ephorus. There is not space to 
 
CH. 25.] A0HNAIGN nOAITEIA. 89 
 
 8e Kpivecrdai Mr)8io-p.ov. /3ovX6p.evos 8e KaraXvOr}- 
 vai ttjv ftovXrjv 6 Ge/nto-ro/cA^y irpo? p.ev tov 'E^uctA- 
 7-972/ eXeyev on crvvapird^eiv olvtov 77 fiovXrj fieXXei, 
 irpos 8e tov? ' Kpeoiray'iTas otl 8el£ei nvas o-vviora- 
 
 examine Bauer's ingenious theory here, but it may be observed that 
 it involves altering the text of Thucydides in IV. 102, 3 (22nd year for 
 29th). As to the date of the death of Themistocles, it is not very 
 material and cannot be exactly determined. Plutarch, however, tells 
 us that he was sixty-five when he died and that he was a young man 
 (j/c'os a>v (ti, c. 3) at the time of Marathon. If then his birth be placed 
 in 515 B. C. (and 520 B. c. would be the earliest date of which Plutarch's 
 phrase could reasonably admit), his death would fall about 450 B. C. 
 The narratives of Thucydides and Plutarch imply that he lived for 
 some years in Persia, but this would allow a sufficient margin for any 
 purpose ; and Plutarch's account of his death is too apocryphal for us 
 to attach much weight to the connection in time which he indicates 
 between it and the Athenian expedition under Cimon at the time of 
 the second Egyptian revolt. 
 
 It is strange that Plutarch, who was certainly acquainted with the 
 'Adtjvaiav TtoKireia, should not have mentioned the part taken by 
 Themistocles in the overthrow of the Areopagus ; and his total omission 
 to refer to the story, whether he believed it to be true or false, can hardly 
 be explained except on the theory that in actually writing his Lives he 
 used the notes and extracts he had previously made, without having the 
 complete work before him. This would also explain the difficulties 
 raised by his account of Draco and Solon. The behaviour of Themis- 
 tocles, as indicated by Aristotle, with his ingenious intrigue whereby he 
 continued to be able to represent himself as serving either side until the 
 last moment, is entirely in accordance with his character as we know it 
 from the rest of his life, and the story has all the appearance of truth. 
 Though Plutarch does not mention it, there is, however, one extant 
 reference to the story, in the argument to the Areopagitica of Isocrates, 
 (contained in Dindorf s ed. of the Scholia to Aeschines and Isocrates, 
 p. ill), which explains the original loss of power by the Areopagus thus, 
 'E^iaAnjs Tis Kal Gf/iiaroicXijf xpeatjTovvTes rjj wdXet xprjfiaTa Kal ei'Sdrer on 
 iav 8iKa<rda>o~iv [qu. biKaaexriv ?] 01 'Apeoiraylrai, jravras airo&a<rov<ri, 
 Ka.Ta\v<rat alrovs cVf itrav ttjv ttoXiv, oxlnas tluos p.cWovros KpiBrjvat. 6 yap 
 ' \pi(TTOTikr]s X/yei iv rrj TroXireia to>v 'Adqvalav on Kal 6 Be/iiaToieXJjs ainor 
 fiv p,)} iravra 8iicd£eiv tovs 'Apeon-ayiVas - 8r)dev pev as Si' avroiis tovto 
 ■jTowvvres, to 8* akrjdes Sia ToOro iravra KaTao-Kevd^ovres. tira oi Adrjvaloi 
 a<rp.eva>s aKovaavres rrjs Toiavrrjs <Tvp.l3ov\fis KareXvo-av avrovs. (Part of 
 this quotation is given by Rose as Frag. 366.) This passage has, 
 however, been ignored by the historians. 
 
90 API2T0TEA0T2 [CH. 25. 
 
 10 fiivovs eVt KaraXvaeL tt)s 7roAtreta? . dyaycov 8e 
 Tovs dcpaipedevTa? rrjs fiovXfjs ov SieTpifiev o 
 'EcpidXTT)?, Xva Sel^rj r[ov\s a.dpoi£ojxivovs, 8ie- 
 Ae'yero fierd cnrovSrjs avTols. 6 8' E^taAr^p fas 4 
 el8ei> KaTarrXayeis K<zdi£ei povoytTtav eVt tov fico/iov. 
 
 25 Oayfxaa-dvTfav fie irdvTcav to yeyov\os] /cat fiera 
 ravTOL a-vvaOpourdeicnqs ttJ? fiovXrjs twv 7rei>ra- 
 Koaicav Karrjyopovv tcov ' Apeo7rayira>v o r 'E0t- 
 o.Xtt]s /cat (6) QepufTTOKXrjs, /cat ttolXlv iv rw 8r]p,q> 
 tov avTov Tpoirov, ecas irtpitiXovTO clvtwv ttjv 8vvap.1v. 
 
 30 /cat dvrjpedrj fie /cat 6 'E^taAr^y 8oXo(povr)8e\s p.eT 
 ov ttoXvv yjpovov 81 'Apto-To8iKov [rjov Tavaypaiov. 
 rj p.ev ovv Tfav ' KpeoirayiTCDV /3ovXt] tovtov tov 
 TpoTrov a.TT€o-Tepr]6r) Trjs eVt/zeAetay. 
 
 26. Mera 8e TavTa avveficuvev dvUaOai p.dXXov 
 tt\v iroXiTt'iav fita fovs irpoQvpxas SrjpaycoyovvTas. 
 Kara yap tovs icaipovs tovtovs arvveirto-e p.r]8' 
 
 21. dcp aipe6(vras : H-L. eQaipeSivTas, K-\X.atpe8evTas (suggested in 1st ed.), 
 Poland kgcupeOevTas, Richards aipeOivras itiro. ov : H-L. of. 28. 6 : 
 
 added by K-W., Kontos, H-L. 29. vepiiihovTo : MS. irepeiKovro, H-L. 
 
 ■naptikovTo. 30. K-W. suppose a hiatus after the first tcai, not (J> filv 
 
 @efu(TTOK\fjs ....). H-L. omit it, after J. B. Mayor and Blass. XXVI. 1. 
 
 avUadai : MS. aveito&at. 
 
 21. tovs d<f>atpe6evTas t!js /3ovXijj : this must be taken in the unusual 
 sense of 'the persons selected for the purpose by the Areopagus.' 
 Mr. W. L. Newman {Classical Review, V. 164) quotes in illustration 
 Arist. H. A. VI. 22, 576 b 23, &pa S' ovk dcpatpctrat oideuia TtTaypivr) tov 
 ox.eveo-6ai kA o^veiv. Themistocles undertook to lead a deputation 
 from the Areopagus to the house of Ephialtes, in order to show them 
 the conspirators assembled there ; but on arriving near the place he 
 let himself be seen talking ostentatiously with them, and Ephialtes, 
 who had been previously warned, made his escape to sanctuary. It is 
 possible we should read alpedevras, and this is adopted by K-W. 
 
 31. fit' 'Apio-rofiiKov roO Tavaypaiov : this statement is quoted by 
 Plutarch (Pericl. 10) as from Aristotle, 'E<pidXr7;v p.h ovv . . . em&ov- 
 \evaavTes oi e^Opol fit 'Aptorofiixou tov Tavaypaiov Kpv(pal<os dvetXov, a)s 
 'AptoTOT«Xi)r elprjKev (Rose, Frag. 367). 
 
CH. 26.] A0HNAIX2N riOAITEIA. 91 
 
 r/ye/xova eyeiv T °vs eVtet/ceerrepoi;?, dXX' avTcov 
 TrpoecrTavai Kificova tov M.lXtlo.8ov, vearepov oura 5 
 /cat irpos ttjv ttoXlv 6\^e 7rpoaeX06vTa, irpos 8e 
 tovtols ecpdapdai tovs 7roXXovs Kara 7r6Xep.oV rrjs 
 yap o~TpaTeias yiyvop.evr]s kv toZs tots \povois e'/c 
 KaraXoyov, kcu (TTpaTrjyav i^ia^rjap.ei'cov arreipaiv 
 p.ev tov TroXep.elv Tipxop.€vcoi/ 8e 81a, tcls ira.TpiK.as 10 
 86£as, alei o~vve(3aii>ev tcov e^iovTcov ava. 810-yiX'iovs 
 77 Tpio")(iXiovs ajroXXvadat, [eolcrre avaXlo-Keadai 
 2 tovs e7r1.eiK.eis /cat tov drj/xov /cat tcov eviropcov. Ta 
 
 4. fifepova : there has been some blunder in writing this word in the MS., 
 and the first three letters are very doubtful. 5. veu/Tepov : K-W. suggest 
 
 vaiBporepov doubtfully, and so Kontos, approved by van Henverden ; Weil 
 tviuirepov. 8. ytyvopivijs : MS. yivo/ievrjf. 11. Siaxi\iovs : MS. 
 
 XXVI. 5. vearepov ovra : if Cimon took part in the battle of Salamis 
 and accompanied Aristides on the naval expedition which resulted in the 
 establishment of the Confederacy of Delos, as Plutarch tells us (Cim. 
 5, 6), he cannot have been less than about thirty-five at the time of the 
 overthrow of the Areopagus by Ephialtes. At the same time we know 
 that he took no part in politics in early life, and though his great 
 victory at the Eurymedon was won in 466 B. C, it is quite intelligible 
 that he was not of much weight as a political leader in the con- 
 troversies of this time, and that the aristocratical party was therefore 
 practically without a head. Moreover Plutarch's authority is not 
 above suspicion in his narratives of the early performances of his 
 heroes, as has been seen in the case of Pisistratus. It hardly seems 
 reasonable, however, to speak of the victor of the Eurymedon as 
 veisrepos, however inexperienced he might be in politics, and it is 
 possible that the text is corrupt. 
 
 II. ava SurxiKiovs r\ Tpio-xiX'tovs : cf. Pol. VIII. (V.) 3, p. 1303" 8, 
 Ktii iv 'Adrjvais otv^ovvtcov Trfffl ol yviipipol eXaTTOvs iytvovro ma to ck 
 KaraXoyov o-Tparfi>€o~dai {mo tov AaKatviKov 7r6X.ep.ov, and Isocr. De Pace, 
 § 87, p. 176, where, after enumerating the great disasters which had 
 from time to time befallen Athens in connection with her maritime 
 aspirations, he proceeds ras Se Kara Bixa Kal wivre Kal nXeiovs Tovrav 
 anoXXvpevas (rptripeis) Kal tovs Kara xiXiovs <a\ Skt^iXi'ous aTroOvrjO-Kovras 
 tls av i%ap\.8p.i)o~eiev ; ttXtjv iv i)V toxito tcov iyKVKXiav, Ta<f>as rroie'tv Kaa 
 eKacrrov tov iviavrov, k.t.X. 
 
93 API2T0TEA0T2 [CH. 2,6. 
 
 p.ev ovv aXXa iravra bicoKovv ov% bpoicos /cat irpo- 
 15 repou rols vopois Trpoae^ovre?, ttjv 8e tcov ivvia 
 apyovrtov atpdaiv ovk inivovv, dXX' e/cra irei pera 
 tov 'E0taAroi> Oolvcltov eyvcotrav /cat e'/c ^evyircov 
 irpoKpivecrOai tqvs KXrjpcoaopevov? tcov ivvea ap- 
 \6vtcov, /cat irpcoTos rjp^v it; clvtcov M f ^trifle t St??. 
 20 ol 8e irpo tovtov Travres if; hnricov /cat Trevraicocno- 
 pe8ip,vcov rjaav, ol (5e> (evyurai ray iyKvuXiovs 
 rjp-xpv, et p-q tl irapecopoLTO tcov iv rot? vopois. erei 3 
 
 14. Ferrini, following Wyse, omits oux» but the change does not appear to 
 improve the sense. 16. \ttivovv : MS. zksivovv. dU' : H-L. dAV ij, after 
 Blass. 21. oi Si (evjiTcu : MS. om. Si. 22. toiv ev rois vo/iois : before 
 
 these words the MS. originally had the phrase vn6 toiv lr\\mv, but it has been 
 erased, not accidentally smudged, as H-L. believe; H-L. retain the words, 
 after Paton, who thinks the correction erroneous. 
 
 16. €)cra eWi tura top 'Efaakrov duvarov. as the final victory of Ephialtes 
 over the Areopagus occurred in 462 B.C. (cf. supr.),a.nA. the archonship 
 of Mnesitheides falls in 457 B.C., it follows that the murder of Ephialtes 
 must have taken place in the same year as the former event. 
 
 17. Kal €K {j-vyirSiv : it is practically certain that originally only the 
 pentacosiomedimni were eligible to the archonship (cf. supr., note on 
 ch. 7, 1. 13), but it has generally been supposed, on the authority 
 of Plutarch (Arist. 22), that after the Persian wars the archonship was 
 thrown open to all classes without distinction. The more precise 
 statements of Aristotle must overrule the account of Plutarch, and it 
 must be taken for certain that the ^vyirai were not admitted to this 
 office until the date here named, and that the thetes were never 
 legally qualified for it at all, though in practice they were admitted in 
 the time of Aristotle and probably much earlier (cf. ch. 7, 11. 34-36). 
 There is no direct evidence to show when the iWeir became eligible, 
 but it may very likely have been at the time indicated by Plutarch, 
 when there also must have been an admission of the lower classes 
 to some of the inferior magistracies, which Plutarch confused with the 
 archonship. 
 
 21. 7-ds iyKvKkiovs : i.e. the inferior magistracies. 
 
 22. ei jxri n iraptaparo : this seems to mean that although only 
 members of the first two classes were legally eligible to the archon- 
 ship, yet occasionally persons not so qualified were allowed to slip in ; 
 just as in later times persons not possessing even the qualification of 
 a feuymjs were elected archons by a notorious legal fiction. It is 
 possible that the phrase tiro tS>v Si'hiwv, which has been erased in the 
 
CH. 27.] A0HNAIJ2N IIOAITEIA. 93 
 
 8e 7r€fM7rra> p.efa ravra eVi XvcriKparovs apyovros ol 
 Tpianovra Sikclo-tou KaTecrTrjo-av ttolXlv ol KaXov/xtvoi 
 4 Kara SrjfMovs' /cat rpira /xera tovtov eVt 'AvtiSotov 25 
 81a to irXrjOos to>v woXctcov, UepticXeov? ehrovTos, 
 eyvwcrav p.rj /xere'xetv tt}? 7roXecos 09 av p.rj e£ afKpoiv 
 daroLV rj yeyovcos. 
 
 27. Mera 8e ravra rrpos to 8r]p.aya>y€LV iXdovro? 
 
 25. pera tovtov : so corrected in the MS., as K-W. have pointed out, from 
 li(T avTov, which H-L. give, after 1st ed. J. E. B. Mayor proposes to add erei 
 after tovtov. 28. 17 : MS. ijv. 
 
 MS. after these words, should stand, in which case it indicates that 
 the preliminary selection of candidates for the archonship was held 
 by the demes. Cf. note on ch. 22, 1. 28. 
 
 23. e'jrl Avo-iKparovs apxovros: i.e. 453 B.C. 
 
 01 TpiamvTa &iK.ao-Tai : cf. ch. S3, 1. I. These officials were judges of 
 assize for local cases, and were established by Pisistratus (ch. 16, 
 1. 16). 
 
 25. eV< 'AitiSotoi; : i.e. 451 B.C. 
 
 XXVII. I. Mera hi ravra npbs to b*T)p,aya>yeiv {K6ovtos HepixXeovs: it 
 is noticeable that Aristotle does not consider Pericles to have been a 
 leader in the democratic party till about 450 B.C., but he must have 
 been taking a considerable share in politics much earlier. The date 
 of his accusation of Cimon, which Aristotle mentions as his first im- 
 portant public appearance, is not fixed. Plutarch states that Cimon 
 was brought to trial on a charge of bribery after his return from the 
 reduction of Thasos, and that Pericles was the most active of his 
 prosecutors (Cm. 14). This would put the date in 463 B.C. (457 B.C. 
 Bauer), which is quite possible. Pericles was then young (vios av), and it 
 was his first prominent act in public life ; and though he no doubt sup- 
 ported Ephialtes and Themistocles in their attack on the Areopagus, he 
 could not be called a leader of his party till several years later. At 
 the same time it must be observed that Aristotle proceeds in the next 
 chapter to say that he established the system of payment for services in 
 the law-courts avTiSrip.ayaya>v vpbs rrjv Ki/xtavos einropiav. Cimon died in 
 449 B.C., so that this important step, which shows Pericles as a leader 
 of the people, must have occurred several years before that date. We 
 know that he was commander of an expedition in the Crissaean Gulf 
 in 454 B.C. (Thuc. I. ill), and it will not be going far wrong to date 
 the ascendancy of Pericles in Athens from a year or two before that 
 date. The murder of Ephialtes and banishment of Themistocles left 
 the way clear for him. 
 
94 API2T0TEA0T2 [CH. 27. 
 
 HepucXeovs, /cat irpatrov ev8oKLp-qaavTos ore Karrj- 
 yoprjcre rd? evQvvas Kipcovos arpaTTjyovvTOs veos 
 a>v, 8r)p.oTiKcorepav eri avvefir) yeveadau ttjv ttoXi- 
 
 5 relav kou yap tcdv ' Apeo7rayircov evict TrapeiXero, 
 /cat paXicrTa irpovrpe^rev tt]v ttoXlv eVt ttjv vavriKrjv 
 8vvap.Lv, e£ rjs crvvefirj dapprjcravray tovs 7roXXoi>s 
 airacrav rrjv iroXiTeiav paXXov dyeiv eh avrovs. 
 pera 8e ttjv ev ^aXapivi vavpayj.av evos 8elv irevrrj- 2 
 
 10 kocttw erei eVt IIt>#oi5c6/}[oi/] apyovTos 6 irpos IleAo- 
 Trovvrjcriovs evea-rrj iroXepos, ev a> /cara/cAetcr#et? 6 
 Srjpo? ev rS aaTei /cat avvedicrde\s ev reus (TTpaTeiais 
 pio-do(j)opeiv, rd pev eKcov ra 8e glkcov 7rporjpelro 
 T7]v woXLTeiav Sioiicelv avros. eiroirjae 8e kou p.i<rQo- 3 
 
 15 (popa rd 8iKa<TTrjpia Hepi/cXr}? irpcoros, dvriSrjpayco- 
 ycov irpos tj]v Klpcovos eviropiav. 6 yap Kipxov, aire 
 
 XXVII. 2. vpaiTov ; MS. irpairov. 4. cti : wrongly altered to eiri in 
 
 MS. 5. TiapuKtro: K-W. ireptti\fTO ; cf. 25, 11. II, 29. 9. Sefi/ : MS. 
 
 Sei, which H-L. retain; cf. 19, 1. 49. 11. ivicnr] : H-L. owioTt], but cf. 5, 
 
 11. 12, 25 ; 17, 1. 19 ; 41, 1. 3, in all of which places H-L. substitute or suggest 
 <rvv. KaraKXeiadtis : MS. KaraKktaOeis. 1 2 . aTpareiais : MS. arpariais. 
 
 5. t£>v ' ApeorrayiTaiv evia -napeikeTo : this may mean either that Pericles 
 assisted to some extent in Ephialtes' proceedings for stripping the 
 Areopagus of its power, or that he carried the same movement further 
 after the death of Ephialtes. In either case it is consistent with his 
 not having taken a leading part in the great struggle. 
 
 9. ivbs 8eiK nevTr)KO(TTa ?t« : the date of the outbreak of the Pelopon- 
 nesian war is of course as well fixed as any date in Greek history. 
 Pythodorus was archon in 432 B.C., which is the 49th year after 
 Salamis, and Thucydides (II. 2) tells us that he had only four months 
 of his archonship still to run at the time of the Theban attack on 
 Plataea, which fixes the date in the spring of 43 1 B. C. 
 
 14- fVoi'^af 8f xat iwr8o(pnpa ra SiKaaTrjpia IlepiKXijj nparos : this con- 
 firms the passage in the Politics (II. 12), ra 8e SiKaa-rripia p.itr0o<f>6pa 
 Kare(TTr](re IlepLKXrjs. Cf. Plat. Gorg. 515 E (cited by Prof. Mayor, Class. 
 Rev. V, I2l), Tavri yap cya>ye aKOva, UeptKhia irfTtoir/Kevm 'A8r)valovs 
 apyovs Kai b(i\ovs xai XdXour Ka\ (pihapyvpovs, els p.i<rdo(popiav irparov 
 KarauTTjaavTa. 
 
CH. 27.] A0HNAI12N nOAITEIA. 
 
 95 
 
 rvpavvLKr/v e;(c»i> overlap, irpajrov p.\v ras kolvcls 
 XrjTovpylas iXyrovpyei Xaprnpas, en-etra t5>v Sijfio- 
 To>v erpecpe 7roXXovf i^ijp yap tw fiovXop.evcp 
 ActKcaScov naff €Ka.aTT]u Tr]v rjp.ipav iXdovrt Trap' 20 
 avrov e'xeiu to. p.erpia, %tl 8e rot. ^apia iravra 
 a.(j)paKTa rjv, ottcos i£fj r<5 j3ovXopevq> rrjs bircopas 
 4 ccTroXaveiv. irpos 8r) ravTrjv ttju voprjytav im- 
 X€nrop.€uos 6 UepiKXr}? rrj ovcrla, avp.fiovXtvcra.vTos 
 avTw Aap.(Qi>iSov tov Olrjdev (os iSoKeL-rav ttoXXcov 25 
 
 19. iroMovs : the MS. originally had rom before this, but the article is 
 erased. Paton would restore it. 22. itf : MS. cfrv. Cf. t\v for 771, 26, 
 I. 28. 23. 47riAfnro/«i'os : H-L. airoXeiiro/xevos, after Richards and Kontos ; 
 cf. 20, 1. 6. 25. os: MS. o»s. TToWaiv : H-L., Wyse, Gennadios, Poland 
 noKiriKaiv, reading MS. as iro^i/unr (as 1st ed.). 
 
 18. \rjTovpyias iXrjToipyei. : this spelling is supported by inscriptions 
 of the fourth century (C. I. A. II. add. 554, b, 14; 557, 5, 6 ; 172, 4). 
 On the other hand KwraKkeurBeLs above (1. 11) is rightly spelt with «, 
 since with k\tjs and its compounds the later spelling is established by 
 about 3S0 B. C. Cf Meisterhans, pp. 28-30. 
 
 20. hataadSip : Plutarch (Cim. 10) quotes Aristotle (though without 
 specifying the precise work) as authority for this fact, in opposition to 
 the story that Cimon kept open house for the whole of the poorer 
 population of Athens (Rose, Frag. 363). Cf. also Per. 9, which re- 
 produces the substance of the present passage. 
 
 24. o-vpfiovkevo-avros k.t.X. : quoted by Plutarch (Per. 9), rporerai 
 wpos Tr)v ran Srjfioaiaiv diai>opr)v, <ru/i/3ouXeuo-avToj aira Aafiaiiidov tov 
 Olrjdev, i>s 'Apiorore'Xijr lo-roprjKev (Rose, Frag. 365). 
 
 25. AapioviSov tov Olfjdev : it has been proposed by Mr. Wyse 
 (following Oncken on Plut. Per. 9) to prefix Aapavos, on the strength 
 of Plut. Per. 4, Nic. 6, Arist. I, where Damon the musician is 
 spoken of as Pericles' adviser ; but it would be flying in the face of all 
 rational criticism to alter the text, when not only is the article after 
 AafiavLSov irregular if Aapavos precedes (as Mr. Wyse himself admits), 
 but also Plutarch himself, though elsewhere speaking of Adpav, here, 
 in avowedly quoting Aristotle, has AapaviSr/s. This is clear evidence 
 that Aristotle spoke of Damonides and not of Damon, and the only 
 question is what bearing this has on the passages in Plutarch where 
 Damon is mentioned. Plutarch (Per. 4) says that Damon's music was 
 a mere blind, and that he was a cunning sophist who associated with 
 Pericles Kadjirtp affKr/Tji to>v ttoKitikoiv aXe inri/y Kai di(ido~Ka\os ; in spite 
 of which he was found out and ostracised i>s peyaKoitpiyp,a>v kcu <ptko- 
 
96 APISTOTEAOTS [CH. 27. 
 
 eicnjyrjTTjs elvai r<S TlepLKXei, 810 kcu aaTpaKicrav 
 clvtov vcrrepou), eVet rot? iSlois rjTTaro, 8i86vai tois 
 troXXol? to. avrav, KaTeo~K€vao~e pia6o(popav toIs 
 BiKacTTats' d(fr' wv alTia>VTai rives X ef / )<H ytvzadai, 
 
 30 KXrjpovpeucov £iripeX£>s del pdXXou rav rvyovToav 
 77 tcou ewieiKwv dvdpanrcov. rjp£a.TO 8e fierd ravra 5 
 kcu to SeKa^eiv, irpcorov KaraSel^avros 'Avvtov p.era 
 rr\v ev HvXa> arparriyLav. Kpivopevos yap viro 
 tlvcou 81a to d.Tro(3aXelv IIuAoi', 8eKacras to 8iko.o-tt]- 
 
 35 piov dwecpvyev. 
 
 28. Ewy peu ovv Hepi/cXf}? irpoeio-TJ)K.ei tov 
 Srjpov fieXTLca tol koto, ttjv iroXiTeiav rjv, TeXevTTj- 
 cravTOs 8e HepiKXeovs ttoXv %eip(o. irpwTOv yap 2 
 TOTe 7rpoaTaTT]v eXaj3eu 6 Srjpos ovk ev8oKip,ovvTa 
 5 irapa toIs eirieiKeo-iV ev 8e tol? irpoTepov \p6vois 
 del SieTeXovv 01 eirLeiKels SrjpayayovvTe? . e£ dpyrjs 
 p.ev yap /cat irpaTOS eyeveTO irpoo~TaTr]s tov Srjpov 
 
 29. SutaoTois : H-L. $tKaoTT)piois, after Blass and Richards, to justify xeipai 
 which follows. Siv : H-L. ov, after Richards. X*'P a '■ K-W. x e 'P ovs - 
 
 Rutherford, J. B. Mayor, Ferrini and Bury insert ra Kara rf/v iroMreiav or 
 equivalent phrases, but it is not easy to explain such an omission, and the 
 sense of the passage is clear as it stands. 32. 'Avvtov : MS. au- 
 
 tou. XXVIII. 2. 0f\Tiai: MS. 0eA.r«ai. 4. eiSoKifiouvTa : MS. 
 
 evdoKi/jLovpevovTa, with -vtol written above as a correction ; the letters -ncvovra, 
 which should have been struck out, remain uncancelled. 
 
 rvpawos, or (Arist. i) on ro (ppovflv e'SoKft tls eivai ircpiTTor. This does 
 not sound very probable as history, and it is not unreasonable to 
 suppose that Plutarch confused two persons, Damon the son of 
 Pamonides, apparently of the deme "Oa (so Wyse, quoting Steph. 
 Byz. s. v. "Oa, Aapuuv AapaviSov "Oa8ev), and Damonides of the deme 
 Oit]. The former was a musician, the latter a politician, and Plutarch 
 has transferred to the former a portion of the attributes of the latter. 
 Cf. also Gomperz, Deutsche Rundschau, May 1891, p. 232. 
 32. Karadeii-avTos 'Avvtov k.t.X. : this passage is referred to by Har- 
 
 pocration (s. V. SeKafov), 'Apto~roT£\r]S 8' iv 'Adjjvaiav ffoAtrf la "Avvtov 
 (prjTi KaTa8fl£ai to Se/cdfeii/ ra SiKao-Tijpia (Rose, Frag. 371). 
 XXVIII. 7. npoo-raTTjs tov Stj/jlov : the way in which Aristotle uses this 
 
CH. 28.] A0HNAW2N nOAITEIA. 97 
 
 ^oXcov, Sevrepo? 8e Yleio-io-rparos, ra>v evyevav 
 kou yvcopifjicov KaraXvOeicrr]? 8e rrjs Tvpa.vvi8os 
 KXeicrdevr}?, tov yevovs a>v t&v 'AXKfiea>vi8mv, kou 10 
 tovto) p.ev ovSeis rjv a.vTio~Tao~iG>TT]s as k^eirzaov 
 01 Trepl rov 'Icrayopav. p.era 8e ravra tov p.ev 
 Srjpou 7rpoei(TTr]K€i fZavOiiriros, rcov 8e yvcopipicov 
 M.i\Tia8r]s' areira Ge^ucrro /cAt}? kou ' ApiareiSr]^ 
 fj.era 8e tovtovs 'E0iaAr?7y p.ei> tov 8r)fiov, K.lp,a>v 15 
 8' MtArtaSou rav evrropoyv elra TlepiKXfj? plv 
 tov Srj/xov, QovkvSlSt)? 8e tG>v erepcou, K7]8ecrTr]s a>v 
 K.ip.coi>o$. UepiKXeov? 8e TeXevTiqaavTos tgsv p.€v 
 i-rricpavau TrpoeicrTrjKei. Nt/a'ay, eV 2iKeA/a reXev- 
 T7]<ras, tov 8e Stj/jlov KA.ecoi' 6 KAeai^eVou, by Sonet 20 
 p.aXtara Sioxjideipai rov 8rjpov tous 6pp.cu?, kou 
 Trparos eVt rov /3?7/xaroy aveicpaye kou iXoi8opr]o-aTO 
 
 8. iwv ivytvwv Kal yvaipipaiv : bracketed by K-"\Y. ; H-L. (after Richards) 
 insert &v after ti-yivaiv, 10. ' WicuwvthSiv : MS. a^K/ieovtSaiv. 20. 
 
 KKtaivtTov : MS. K\ai€verov. 
 
 title shows that it had become a technical phrase indicating a definite 
 position, but it does not support the view of those who hold it to have 
 been an office to which there was a regular appointment. The most that 
 it proves is that the popular party in the assembly recognised one 
 individual as its especial leader at any given time, and that he was 
 accepted by the world at large as the representative of that party for 
 the time being. The fact that Solon and Pisistratus and Cleisthenes 
 are spoken of in precisely the same way as Cleon and Cleophon is 
 enough to prove this ; and it may further be noticed that Miltiades, 
 Cimon, and Thucydides are represented as holding exactly the same 
 position in reference to the eSVro/xn or yvapifioi as their rivals have in 
 reference to the Sij^os. 
 
 8. 7w tiyevStv xoi yvapifiav : these words are bracketed by K-W., 
 presumably as having been added by some one who thought Pisistratus 
 was represented as the head of the opposite party to Solon. If they 
 are genuine they emphasise the fact stated in the preceding sentence, 
 by pointing out that both Solon and Pisistratus, though rrpoo-Tarai. tov 
 Sfjfiov, belonged to the upper classes. 
 
 H 
 
98 API2T0TEA0T2 [CH. 28. 
 
 /cat Trepi^wadfievos idyjfMrjyoprja-e, tcou aXXcou kv 
 
 Koafico Xeyoprcov. eira fxera tovtovs t£>v /xev 
 
 25 erepcov Q-qpa/xevr]? 6 Ayvoovos, tov 8e 8r]p.ov KAeo- 
 
 (j)a>v 6 Xvpoiroios, os K.OU ttjv BicofteXlav eTToptae 
 
 26. 5tco$e\lav : MS. Sia$o\iav. 
 
 23. fffpifuo-a/if vos : the scholiast to Lucian (Tim. 30) refers to 
 Aristotle for this fact, 'ApiOToreXr/s Be leal Trepi£axrdp,€voi> avrov Xe'yei 
 8r)priyoprjcrai, eh ttjv dpao-VTrjTa avrov aito&KamTav. This is given by 
 Neumann in his edition of the fragments (Frag. 33), but Rose adopts 
 another reading of the passage, which assigns Aristotle's authority 
 instead to a statement that Cleon obstructed the making of peace 
 with Sparta (Frag. 368). The scholiast to Aeschines (Dindorf, p. 14) 
 uses nearly the same words, Xeyerai Se KXeW 6 hr)fj.aycaybs Trapafias to e'£ 
 eBovs tr^r/p-a nepi^axrapevos $t)p.r)yopr\a , ai. 
 
 26. ttjv ftia>l3e\iav : this cannot refer either to the payment for 
 attendance at the ecclesia, which we know from ch. 41 to have been 
 instituted by Agyrrhius and Heracleides, nor to that for service in 
 the courts, which it is certain from Aristophanes had been raised 
 to three obols long before the time of Cleophon (Knights, 51, 
 255 ; Wasps, 609, 684, 690). The SuofieXia par excellence was the 
 same as the theoricon, the payment to the populace of the price 
 of admission to the theatre. This, however, is generally assigned 
 to Pericles, on the authority of Plutarch (Pericl. 9) and Ulpian (on 
 Demosthenes' Olynth. I). The authority nevertheless is not con- 
 vincing. Plutarch speaks somewhat generally (deapiKois ko.1 SiraoriKoij 
 Xr/Zi/jao-iw aKXms re p.io-6o(popais Kal x.opjjyiais (TvvdeKacras to 7rX^os), and 
 his accuracy is not to be trusted in such details ; in fact, in the same 
 chapter he speaks of Pericles as the chief agent in the overthrow of the 
 Areopagus. It therefore seems best to take the word here in its 
 natural sense, and to suppose that the diobelia was first established by 
 Cleophon and augmented by Callicrates to three obols. There are, 
 however, still some difficulties to be explained. It is evident from 
 Demosthenes that the price of seats at the theatre continued to 
 be two obols (de Cor. p. 234, iv roiv Svoln o/3o\o£v iBeitpovv &v), and 
 it may therefore appear impossible that the theoricon should have 
 been augmented. But we gather from Ulpian (/. c.) and Harpo- 
 cration (s. v. deapixa, quoting Philinus) that the money thus distributed 
 was intended to provide not only a seat in the theatre, but also a meal 
 to celebrate the holiday. It therefore appears that the ground on 
 which the extension of the theoricon was made was that of helping the 
 citizens to enjoy the great festivals thoroughly. 
 
 A further problem is suggested by the mention of the name of 
 Callicrates. There was a proverb current at Athens,in-fp to KaKXixparovs, 
 
CH. 28.J A0HNA112N nOAITEIA. 99 
 
 TrpatTos' /cat yjpovov fiev Tiva 8l€81Soto, fiera 8e 
 ravra KareXvcre YLaWiKpdrr]? Tlaiaviev? wpcoTos 
 virocr)(oiJLevo$ kiridrjcrziv irpos toiv hvoiv bfioXoiv 
 aXXov oftoXov. tovtcou pev odv ap.(j)OTepa>v Oavarov 3° 
 Kareyvcocrav vo-repou' ticoOev yap, kolv i£a7ra.Tr}6rj 
 to irXrjOos, varepov paaelv tovs tl irpoayayovTas 
 
 4 7roielv avrovs rau prj KaXcos iyovrcav. airo 8e 
 KAeo0<5j>roy 17^77 Sie8e%oi>TO crvve^cos ttjv drjpayco- 
 yiav 01 /JLaXicrra ftovXopevoi 8pao~vveo-0cu /cat X a P^~ 35 
 Qio-Qai tols 7roAAoty 7r/)o? to. irapavTLKa fiXeiroirres. 
 
 5 8okovo-l 8e fieXTMTTOL yeyovevai tg>v 'A6t]U7]o-i 
 
 27. SieSi'SoTo : so Wyse, Richards, K-W., H-L., Ferrini. MS. SieStSov. 31. 
 nav : H-L. iav. 32. TrpoayayovTas : it is not clear whether this or irpocr- 
 
 aya-j6vras (1st ed.) is the MS. reading. There is no a visible, but there is a 
 wide space between the o and the a. 36. rd : H-L. to, after Kontos 
 
 and Gennadios. 37. 8e : so corrected in MS. from 8 cu. 'AStjvtjoi : 
 
 MS. aBi\vr\iat., cf. Meisterhans, p. 114. 
 
 used in the case of anything exceeding all reasonable measure ; and 
 Zenobius (VI. 29) quotes in illustration of it from the present treatise, 
 'ApioroTcXijr St <j>T]<riv ev rfj 'Adyvaicov jroXiTfia KaXXoc/jdnji' riva. irparov 
 to>v SiKao-rSiv tovs fu<r6ovs els imepftoXrjv av^qaai, odfv teal rf/v 7rapoip.iav 
 
 elprjo-dai (Rose, Frag. 422). No such passage occurs in the treatise as 
 it stands at present, and the coincidence of the name Callicrates may 
 suggest that this is the place referred to. But, if so, it is certain that 
 Zenobius completely misunderstood it, since it is unquestionable, as 
 shown above, that the pay of the dicasts had been raised to three 
 obols long before the time of Callicrates, and there would moreover 
 have been no great absurdity in proposing to raise their stipend from 
 two to three obols. As, however, it appears from the words of Zenobius 
 that Aristotle actually quoted the proverb in question, it seems certain 
 that his reference, if correct, is to some passage contained in the 
 mutilated portion of the MS. It should be noted, as Dr. Sandys has 
 pointed out, that another version is given in Zenobius, Photius, and 
 Suidas of the origin of the proverb, derived from Clearchus, who states 
 that it arose in Carystus and was applied to excessive wealth. This, 
 however, does not affect the citation from Aristotle, who is represented 
 as having assigned it an Athenian origin, and as having explained it 
 from Athenian politics. 
 
 28. KareXvcre : not ' abolished the theoricon,' but ' overthrew Cleo- 
 phon,' sc. by outbidding him. 
 
 H 3 
 
ioo API2TOTEAOT2 [CH. 28. 
 
 TroXiTevaafievcov p.era rovs dp^aiovs Nt/c/a? /cat 
 QovKvBiBrjs /cat Qrjpapevr}?' /cat wepl pev Nt/ctou 
 
 4° /cat QovkvSlSov irdvres cryeftov bpoXoyovaiv avBpas 
 yeyovevai ov povov kclXovs Ka.ya.60vs aXXa /cat 
 7toXitlkovs /cat ttj TToXei wacrri irarpLKCos \pa>pevovs, 
 7re/)t Se Q-qpapevovs fita to avp/3rjvaL kox avrov 
 rapa^coSeis ras iroXiTeias dp<pLal3r]rr]aLS rrjs Kplaecos 
 
 45 e'ort. fio/cet p.ivroi rots prj wapepycos anrofyaivo- 
 pivois ov\ cocrirep avrov Siaf3aXXovo-i iraaas ras 
 iroXirelas KaraXveiv, aXXa irdo-as Trpodyeiv ecos 
 prjSev 7rapavop.olev, as Svvapevos iroXLreveaOai Kara 
 iraaas, oirep icrrlv ayaOov ttoX'ltov epyov, irapavo- 
 
 50 povaais fie ov crvy^copau aXX' aTre^davopevos. 
 
 29. "Ecoy pev ovv lo-oppowa ra irpaypara Kara 
 rov TroXep-ov tjv Sie^vXarTOv] rrjv 8r}p.0Kpariav. 
 eVet fie perd ttjv iv 2t/ceAta yevopevrjv o~vp(popa.v 
 
 1 38. iroXiTevaaptvaiv : MS. iroXfiTevffa/iwaiv. 42. iraTpinibs : over this word 
 in the MS. ica\ais has been written ; but the parallel passage in Plutarch 
 (Nic. 2) has the phrase iraTpucty Ixovt*? eivoiav, and koKois was no doubt 
 intended as an explanation of a somewhat uncommon word, not as a correction. 
 
 ' 44. TdpaxaiSeis : K-W. supply ehai after this word, H-L. after iroAiTEi'as, follow- 
 ing Richards. 45. fiivroi : MS. /xev, but there is no corresponding Se, and 
 the omission of toi is easily explained by the following tois. K-W. omit rofs, 
 simply altering the MS. pievTots into fiivrot, but the retention of the article 
 seems preferable. XXIX. 1. laoppona : MS. taopowa. Cf. 30, 1. 42, 
 vpopr)Ouaav, and see Meisterhans, pp. 72, 73. irpaypaTa : om. H-L. 3. 
 ov/xfopav : so Richards, K-W., H-L. ; MS. Sicupopav. 5ia<p6opav would be a 
 simpler correction, but is a less probable word. 
 
 38. NiKt'nr <w. BovKvbibr)s kol 0rjpapcvt]s : this passage is referred to by 
 Plutarch (Nic. 2), i'veo-Tiv ovv irepl Niki'ov Tiparov elwi'iv yiypa(pcv ' ' hpur- 
 Torekrjs, oti rpets iyevovro /3e\rtoT0i rav ttoKitoiv koX TrarpiK^v t^ovres evvotav 
 Ka\ (pihiav irpos tov 8rjfiov, NiKias 6 'NtKrjpaTOV Kai ©oweufii'o'ijr 6 MfXrjo-iov Kai 
 
 &rjpap:€vrjs "Ayviai/os (Rose, Frag. 369). This judgment shows with 
 some clearness the political prepossessions of Aristotle ; but his 
 statement that nearly everyone was of one mind as to the merits of 
 Nicias and Thucydides is somewhat noticeable. As to Theramenes, it 
 is clear from Aristotle's own defence of him here that he was simply an 
 Opportunist with aristocratical sympathies. 
 
CH. 29.J A0HNAIGN nOAlTEIA. 101 
 
 la-xypoTara ra rcov AaKeSaifiovlav iyevero 81a rrjv 
 irpos fiaaiXea avp-payjiav, 7)vayK.aa6r}(rav p-e^rao-Tr/- 5 
 <ra\vTes ttjv 8r)p.0Kpa.Tiav Karaarrjaai rrjv eVt rcov 
 
 TtTpaKOCTKDV 7T0XlT€LaV, €LTr6[l>To]? TOV p.£V WpO TOV 
 
 y\>rj<p[(rp.aTO? Xoyov Mr]Xo(3lov, ttjv 8e yvcoprjv ypd- 
 \j/ai>TO? HvdoScopov to[v HoXvtjjXJov, fjcdXicrra 8e 
 (rviweicrdevTCDV rav iroXXwv 81a to vop,[£ei.v fiacriXea. 10 
 JjnaAAoji' eauroty avp.iroXep.r)o-eiv idv 81 oXlycov 
 2 TroiT](rcovTaL rrjv TroXiTeiav. r/v 8e to \]/rj(picrp,a tov [Col. 12.] 
 HvdoScopov tolovSc tov Srjpov eXeaOat p.eTa tcov 
 7rpovTrap)(6vTcov Sena irpofiovXav aXXovs eiKocri e'/c 
 
 4. laxvplnara : J. B. Mayor, Blass, H-L., K-W. Icrxvporepa. 5. /ucTao-nj- 
 aavris : H-L. peTa0a\6vrts, after Hultsch ; K-W. mvricravTtt, believing the first 
 letters to be ue, which is not impossible. 9. TIo\v£tj\ov : so Poland, followed 
 by H-L., from Diog. Laert. IX. 8, § 5, Tiv06Sapos noA.uf17A.ot1, tfc ray reTpanooitw. 
 K-W. 'ETrif^Aou. It is doubtful whether the remains in the MS. suit these ; K-W. 
 believe £ to be legible, H-L. and K-W. 2 ftA. 11. paXKov : so J. B. Mayor, 
 followed by K-W. ; peWmv Marchant, Sclttov H-L., aopevov 1st ed., but the 
 remains in the MS. rather support fiaWov. 
 
 XXIX. 8. M>jXoi3iou : probably the same as the Melobius who was 
 afterwards one of the Thirty ; he was one of the party sent to arrest 
 Lysias and Polemarchus (Lysias contr. Erat. § 13, p. 121). 
 
 IO. o-vpneio-devrav k.t.X. : cf. Pol. VIII. (V.) 4, p. I304 b 12, olov ejri rwv 
 TfTpaKOtriav tov Sqpov i£rjKaTT)o-av, (pao-Kovrcs rbv fiaaikea xpijpaTa jrape'|f iv 
 npos tov irokcpov. 
 
 13. to>v irpovnapxovTav hinairpofiovkav : Thucydides (VIII. 67) speaks 
 often persons being elected as o-vyypacpels avroKp&Topes, but says nothing 
 of the additional twenty mentioned by Aristotle. The latter is, however, 
 supported by Philochorus and Androtion, as appears from Harpocration 
 (s. v. o-vyypa(pels), who after quoting the words of Thucydides adds rjaav 
 5e oi pev ndvTes o~vyypa<p€ls X 01 Tore alpedevTes, KciQa (prjo-iv 'AvftpoTLcnv Te 
 Ka\ $iKuxopos, eKarepos iv 777 'AtiSiSi' 6 Se &0VKv8i8rjs toiv X ipvrjpovivoc 
 povav tS>v 7rpo/3ov\av. From Aristotle's account it would appear that 
 there was an existing board of ten n-pd^ouXoi, which was probably 
 the continuation of that which was first appointed after the news of the 
 Sicilian disaster (Thuc. VIII. 1) ; and to this twenty additional mem- 
 bers were elected for the special purpose on hand. That Thucydides 
 and Aristotle are speaking of the same body is clear from their accounts 
 of the work done by it, as well as from the words of Harpocration. 
 
ioa API2T0TEA0T2 [CH. 29. 
 
 15 tcov inrep rerrapaKOUTa errj yeyovoTcov, o'lTives op,o- 
 acLVTes r) p.rjv crvyypa^rtLv a av r/ycovTCU /3eArtcrTa 
 elvai rfj woXei crvyypayj/ova-i, irepl ttjs crcoTrjpias' 
 e^elvai 8e /cat tcov aXXcov tco /3ovXop.evcp ypacpeiv, 
 iv i£ airavTcov aipavrai to apicrTOv. K.XeiTO(pcov <5e 3 
 
 20 ra p.ev aXXa Ka.0a.7rep YlvdoScopo? e'mev, TrpocravaQrj- 
 Trjcrai 8e tovs alpedevras eypa\jsev /cat tovs irarpiovs 
 vop.ovs ovs K.Xeitrdevr)s edrjKev otc Kadt,o~TTj tt)v 
 8rjp.0KpaTiav, ottcos aKovaavres /cat tovtcov fiovXev- 
 crcovTai to apio~Tov, coy ov 8r)p.0TiKT)v aXXa irapa- 
 
 2 5 TrXrjcrlav ovcrav ttjv K.XeicrOevovs TroXiTeLav ttj 
 ^oXcovos. ol <5' alpedevTes irpcoTov p.ev eypayj/av 4 
 eirdvayKes elvai tovs irpvTaveis airavTa Ta Xeyop.eva 
 irep\ ttJs crcoTrjpias e7n\jrr](pi^eiv, eweiTa tols tcov 
 irapavopicov ypacpas /cat Tas elcrayyeXias /cat ras 
 
 30 Trpoo-KXrjo-eis dvelXov, oircos av 01 eOeXovTes 'AOrjvaicov 
 crvp,f3ovXevcocri wepl tcov ivpoKeip.evcov iav 8e tis 
 tovtcov \dpiv tj fyjp.Lol rj 7rpocrKaXrJTai 7] eitrayr) els 
 SiKacrTrjpLOv, evSeifjiv avTov elvai /cat chraycoyiqv irpos 
 tovs o~TpaT7)yovs, tovs 8e o~TpaTrjyovs irapa8ovvai 
 
 1 7. avyypaij/ov&i : Rutherford and H-L. avp0ov\evoovot. 1 9. to dpiorov : 
 there is a single stroke following to in the MS., which looks as if the copyist 
 had begun to write top, but had seen that it was wrong before completing 
 the word. H-L. erroneously refer this remark to 1. 24, where to apiarov 
 recurs. 23. otto;? . . . fiovkevaaivTai : K-W. insert av after o-rrtus, H-L. read 
 
 Qovhtvaovrai ; cf. 1. 30, and Meisterhans, p. 212. 30. TrpoaKKr/aus : so 
 
 Wyse, Blass, K-W., H-L.; MS. TrpoK\Tjaus. 32. us: MS. 7 (is, a very 
 
 intelligible clerical error. H-L. els t6. 
 
 26. nparov p.ev eypa-tyav k.t.X. : this is substantially the same as the 
 briefer summary of Thucydides (VIII. 67), that the avyypafaU pro- 
 posed nothing except that any Athenian might suggest anything 
 he liked without fear of penalties (e£elvai uev 'Adrjvaicp avSpi elirelv 
 yvui/irjv fjv av tis j3oi\r}Tai' fjv hi tis tov elirovra r) ypa\jrr]Tai irapavoficov r\ 
 aXXoj to) Tp6n<p j3XaT^j7j p.cyd\as Capias iiridetrav). 
 
CH. 30.] A0HNAII2N nOAITEIA. 103 
 
 5 rols evSeKcc Oa.va.Tcp frfjLiacrai. p.erd Se ravra rr)v 35 
 rroXireiav Sieraijav rovSe (rov) rpoirov' ra p.ev XPV~ 
 p.ara (to.) Trpocriovra p.rj i^eivai aXXocre 8a7ravTJcrat r) 
 eh rov woXepov, ra? 8' ap-fca? ap.lcr0ov? apyeiv anraaas 
 €co? av 7roAe/ioy r), ttXtjv ra>v ivvea ap^ovrcov kox 
 ra>v 7rpvravecov 01 av wcriv rovrovs 8e (bepeiv rpeis 40 
 ofioXovs eKacrrov rrjs r/fiepas. rr)v 8' aXXrjv 7roXi- 
 relav €7riTpe-^ai iracriv ' 'Adrjvalcov rols Svvarcoraroi? 
 /cat rols <T(Dp.acriv Ka\ rols yjpr]p.acTiv Xyrovpyelv p.r) 
 kXarrov 77 irevTaKicrxiXLois ecos av iroXep.os r)' 
 Kvpiovs 8' eivai rovrovs /cat crvvdrjKas avvTiOecrBai 45 
 irpos ovs av ideXcocriv eXecrdai 8e Kai rrjs (pvXr)s 
 eKacrrrjs 5e/ca avSpas vwep rerrapanovra err] yeyo- 
 voras, oirives KaraXe^ovai rovs TrevraKio-yiXiovs 
 bpocravres Kaff lepcov reXelcov. 
 
 30. Ot p.ev ovv alpedevres ravra o-vveypayjsav. 
 Kvpco&evrcov 8e rovrcov etXovro cr(j)cov avrav ol 
 
 36. tov : cf. 7, 1- 10. xpr^fiara raL vpofftovra : MS. om. t&, an omission easily 
 explained. Richards and H-L. omit xPVI' aTa as an adscript. 42. mow : 
 
 J. B. Mayor, K-W., H-L., Newman -naaav. 44. irevTam<rx'*'o<s ■ altered 
 
 in MS. to irtvTaKioxi^uw , the corrector either having overlooked the fact that 77 
 precedes, or else having omitted to cancel it. K-W. take the latter view. 
 46. 8c Kai : H-L. 5' !«. 
 
 36. Ta fiev xpij/iai-a k.t.X. : cf. Thucydides (VIII. 65), Xo'-yoy tc . . . 
 irpoeipyaoro avrols as ovre p.ia8o(popr)Ttov tit) nXXour tj tovs aTpaTevoficvovs, 
 ovre fi€$€KTeov T&v irpayiiarasv 7rXeL00"ii> t\ 7repraKio"XiXioiff, Kai tovtois ot av 
 fj.a\i<TTa rols Tf xpi\iM(Ti Kai rols <ra>pao-tv a>(pc\elv oloi re Sxjiv. 
 
 XXX. 2. eiKovro a-(pS)V avra>v 01 7T€1To:kio"yOuoi tovs avaypatyovras : this 
 statement, which is confirmed below (01 \mb tS>v nevTaKio-xtKioov aipede'vres), 
 seems to be in direct contradiction to the assertion in ch. 32, 1. 15 that 
 the 5000 Xo'yoj p.6vou ^pedrjo-av, with which Thucydides agrees (VIII. 92). 
 Probably the body that elected the 100 commissioners here spoken 
 of was of the same kind as that which took over the government after 
 the fall of the Four Hundred, which consisted of all who could furnish 
 arms (Thuc. VIII. 97), though it was nominally Five Thousand. 
 The same may have been the case now. All who could bear arms 
 
104 APIST0TEA0T2 [CH. 30. 
 
 TrevTCLKicrxiXioi tov? avcaypa^rovTas ttjv TroXiTtiav 
 eKarbv avSpas. oi 8' alpedevres dveypa\j/av /cat 
 5 i^r/veyKav ra.Be. fiovXevetv p.ev kolt iviavrov rovs 2 
 inrep rpiaKovra, err] yeyovoras avev p.icr6o(popas' 
 rovrcov 8' elvai rovs crrparrjyovs /cat robs evvea 
 apyovras /cat rov lepop.vrip.ova /cat rovs ra^iapyovs 
 /cat 'nnrapyovs /cat (pvXapyovs /cat apyovras els ra 
 10 (ppovpia /cat raplas ra>v lepcov yj>r]p.a.Tcov rfj 6[ew\ 
 
 were provisionally entitled the Five Thousand until a body of that 
 exact number had been drawn up by the board of 100 which was to 
 be appointed for that purpose. It is clear that the Five Thousand 
 contemplated by the complete constitution planned by the leaders of 
 the revolution were not to be an indefinite body including all persons 
 who could bear arms, but were to be limited to the number mentioned ; 
 for in Thuc. VIII. 86 the envoys from the Four Hundred tell the 
 army in Samos that they will all be members of the Five Thousand 
 in turn. This body would have required to be carefully drawn up, 
 and till that could be done it seems that all qualified persons were 
 provisionally considered to belong to it, and that they elected the 
 hundred persons here spoken of, who drew up complete schemes 
 alike for the present administration of Athens and for its future 
 constitution. The alternative is to suppose that the 100 commis- 
 sioners just mentioned drew up a provisional list of the Five Thousand, 
 who thereupon nominated another 100 commissioners to revise the 
 constitution. The Five Thousand would then be only a provisional 
 body, which would require re-election when the constitution was 
 finally drawn up on an authoritative basis. Compare the Convention 
 appointed in 1689 to bridge over the constitutional interregnum 
 between the abdication of James II and the authoritative accession of 
 William and Mary. 
 
 7. tovtuv : H-L. following Nicklin {Class. Rev. V. 22S) suggest that 
 this may refer to tovs virep rpiaKovra err] yeyovoras, not, as at first si^ht 
 appears natural, to the members of the Council. This is possible, 
 but one would have expected xal before tow : moreover, if these officials 
 were not members of the Council, the express exclusion of the helleno- 
 tamiae in 1. 17 becomes meaningless. Probably they were members, 
 forming an ex officio addition to the group whose turn it was to form 
 the Council for the year (cf. 1. 19 ff.). 
 
 10. rapias rdv Upav xPIP-araiv ttj 8e<5 Kai rols a\\ois Seois : cf. Boeckh, 
 Staatsh? I. 195 ff., bk. II. 7, with Fraenkel's notes. Every temple at 
 
CH. 30.] AGHNAIflN nOAlTEIA. 105 
 
 kcu rots aXXois deols 8eKa /cat iWrjvoTafxia? /cat 
 tcov aXXcov ocrioov yjprip.araiv cmavTd>v eiKocnv ol 
 SLa^eipiovcriv /cat Uporroiovs /cat eVt/AeA^ras" 5e/ca 
 i/carepovs' aipeladcu 8e iravras tovtovs e/c irpoKpi- 
 tcov, e'/c ra>v del ftovXevovrcov 7rXeiov$ TrpoKpivovras, 1; 
 ras 8' a'AAa? apyas airao-as KXrjpcoras eivai /cat pr] 
 e/c tyjs fiovXrjs' roil? 8e iXXr)voTap,[a? ol av 81a- 
 3 xeipi{fi}(ri ra yprjp,aTa p.rj o-vp-fiovXeveiv. fiovXas 
 
 17. av: MS. (av. 
 
 Athens had its own treasurers, those of the temple of Athena being far 
 the most important ; but in 435 B.C. the various treasurers, with the 
 exception of those of Athena, were united in a single board under the 
 title of Ta/u'ai Ttov nWtov 6e(&v. 
 
 11. iWrjvoTanias : K-W. consider this passage corrupt, and Richards 
 proposes to read rafilas, presumably omitting the following «u. Cer- 
 tainly there is something questionable about the word, since the 
 hellenotamiae are expressly excluded from the Council in 1. 17. 
 
 Kai rav aWav aa'uav xp^fiarav eiKoinv : Boeckh (/. c.) considers the 
 public money to have been in the keeping of the raplai i-ijj 8(ov, but 
 the present passage, showing that there were to be different treasurers 
 for the sacred and the secular treasures under the constitution of the 
 Four Hundred, affords a very strong presumption that the same was 
 the case ordinarily. 
 
 1 5. Trkdovs irpoKplvovras : that is, the Council was to nominate out 
 of its own members a number of candidates for each office, greater 
 than the number of offices to be filled (but how much greater we 
 are not told), and from these the magistrates were to be finally 
 elected. 
 
 17. eW-qvoTapias : it is presumably to this passage that Harpocration 
 (s. v.) refers, when he says, on ap^ij tis rjv ol eAXiporapiai, 01 &cx«ipif<>y 
 ra xP'lH- aTa t Ka ' 'ApiOTOTeXijs 817X01 iv rr) 'Adqvaiav iroKirda (Rose, Frag. 
 362). There is no fuller description of them in the second part of the 
 work, because the office did not exist in Aristotle's own day. It does 
 not appear whether a distinction is intended to be drawn between 
 those hellenotamiae who actually had the handling of the funds and 
 the rest of the board ; but as the duty of the whole board would 
 naturally be described as 8tax«pi'f«" ra xp"7P-ai-n, it is not clear in what 
 the distinction would consist. 
 
 18. 0ov\as Se TToirjo-at rirrapas k.t.X. : the arrangement of the fiovkai is 
 not very clearly expressed, but it seems to be as follows. All persons 
 
106 API2T0TEA0T2 [ch. 30. 
 
 5e iroirjcraL rirrapas e'/c T-qs rjXLK.ias ttjs eiprjfjLevrjs 
 20 els 70// Xonrov yjpovov, /cat tovtcov to Xa%ov fiepos 
 fiovXeveiv, vei/xai 8e /cat tovs dXXovs irpos rrjv 
 Xrj^iv €Ka.aTT]v. tovs 8' Ikotov ctv8pas 8t.ave7p.aL 
 (rtyas re avrovs /cat tovs dXXovs reTTapa pepr] cos 
 io-aiTara /cat SiaKXrjpcocrai, /cat els kviavTOV (fiov- 
 25 Xeveiv) . fiovXeveiv 8e y av Soktj avTols apicrTct 4 
 e^eiv irepl re tcov yjpr)p.a.Tcov ; ottcos av crcoa 17 /cat ety 
 to 8eov dvaXicTKrjTai, /cat wep\ tcov ciXXcov cos av 
 8vvcovTai dpicTTa' kciv tl deXcocnv fiovXevcraadai 
 fieTci irXeiovcov, eireicrKaXeiv e/cacrroi' eVeicr/cA^roy ov 
 3° av iOeXy tcov e'/c ttjs avTrjs ^At/ctay' rap cf e8pas 
 Troteiv ttjs fiovXrjs /cara wevOrjpepov iav pr\ SecovTai 
 irXeiovcov. icXrjpovv 8e ttjv /3ovXt]v tovs ivvea cip^ov- 
 Tas, tcls 8e yeipoTovias Kplvetv irevTe tovs Xa^ovTas 
 e'/c ttjs fiovXfjs, /cat e'/c tovtcov eva KXypovcrdai Kad 
 
 21. Qovkeveiv : MS. Sov\eufiv. 24. 0ovKcveiv : not in MS., but the 
 
 omission is easily intelligible ; K-W. @ov\(veiv (tous \axovras. vpaTTtiv) Se, 
 H-L. 0ov\evco8<u (after Richards), omitting Be. 28. ndv : MS. (av. J. B. 
 
 Mayor, K-W., H-L. iav Si. 29. indaKKrjTov : MS. cireiae/tA.ijToi', corrected 
 
 tO fTT€lff€KKkrjTOV. 3I. TT€v9i] pf pOV '. MS. TTev67]pAp€pOV. 
 
 (that is, presumably, all who belonged to the Five Thousand) over the 
 age of thirty were to be divided into four groups, each acting in turn 
 as the Council, with the addition of the ex officio members mentioned 
 in 1. 7 ff. The suggestion in the first edition that there were to be 
 four councils, each of a hundred persons, carved out of the original 
 Four Hundred, is shown to be erroneous by the fact that the candidates 
 for the offices enumerated above were to be selected from the Council 
 for the year ; and as these officials amount to more than a hundred, 
 the candidates can hardly have been less than twice that number. 
 
 29. eVeicTKXi/rov : the word is unknown to the lexicographers, but so 
 also is eTrfi<TKa\e'iv. 
 
 31. TTevdrj/jtepov : the meaning must be 'once every five days.' The 
 j3ov\rj under the democracy sat every day except on festivals (n-Xijc iav 
 Tit aipeatpos jj, ch. 43). 
 
CH. 31.J A0HNAI12N nOAlTEIA. 107 
 
 5 kKacrrr]V rjfJLepav tov e.7rp\rrj(piovvTa. KXrjpovv 8e 35 
 tovs XayovTas irivTe tovs eOeXovTas Trpoo-eXOelv 
 evavTiov ttjs fiovXrjs, TrpcoTov p.ev lepcov, SevTepov 8e 
 K-qpv^LV, Tpirov Trpeo-fieiais, reraprov to>v aXXcov' rot, 
 8e tov 7roXep.ov otclv 8erj dKXrjpcorl TrpoaayayovTas 
 
 6 tovs (TTpanqyovs yjpT]\xaTi{eo~da.i. tov 8e p.rj Iovtol els 4° 
 
 TO /3ovX6VT7]pLOV TtiSV ftovXeVOVTCOV TTf]V &pO.V TT)V 
 
 TrpopprjOelaav 6<peiXeiv 8payjir)v ttjs rjp.epas eKacrT-qs, 
 eav p.7] evpicrKopLevos a(peo~iv Trjs j3ovXrjs dirfj. 
 
 31. TavTrjv p.ev ovv els tov p.eXXovTa xpovov [Col. 13.] 
 dveypayjrav ttjv iroXtTeiav, ev 8e tco irapovTi Kaipw 
 
 38. Trpeapdeus : MS. irpfa0eiai, which might stand as the dat. sing., but the 
 plural is more natural, and cf. 43, 1. 37. 42. irpoppqStiaav : MS. irpoprj- 
 
 Oeiaav. Cf. note on iaoppowa, 29, 1. 1. 43. evptaie6p.evos : H-L. eiipo/ievos, 
 
 after Tyrrell and Richards. 
 
 37. Upav . . KTjpvgtv . . irpeo-fielats . . twv a\\a>v : the change of case is 
 remarkable, but it is evidently the official phrase, cf. ch. 43, 11. 36, 37, 
 and Aesch. in Timarch. § 23, irpojeiporovew KeXeiei tovs wpoeSpovs irepX 
 Upmv tS>v TTarpiav Ka\ Kr/pv^i Kal 7rpecr/3ei'ai? (tat oaiav. The order of 
 business is probably that usually adopted in the /301A17 under the 
 democracy. In the ecclesia, as appears from ch. 43, 1. 20 ff., different 
 subjects were assigned to each of the four ordinary meetings of that 
 body in each prytany. 
 
 XXXI. 1. TavTiiv p.ev ovv: the handwriting of the MS. changes here, 
 and the new hand continues as far as the middle of the 20th column. 
 This hand is a much larger uncial than the first, and not semi-cursive, 
 as that is {vid. Introduction) ; it is clearly the hand of a scribe, though a 
 somewhat uneducated one. Mistakes, which have hitherto been rare, 
 become not unfrequent, and several forms of mis-spelling are chronic. 
 As it would be tedious to note each case as it occurs the chief classes 
 of them may be mentioned here. The single letter 1 often takes the 
 place of the diphthong ei, especially in the preposition els ; e.g. to-iovra, 
 n-Xiov, iXrjxytav. On the other hand ei appears for t, as in iroXeiriKav, 
 UtraKeiveiv. The 1 ascript is often omitted, and v appears instead of 7 
 before y and k. These mis-spellings, as well as the actual mistakes 
 which occur from time to time, are generally corrected in the hand of 
 the writer of the first part of the MS. ; and it seems probable, as 
 suggested in the Introduction, that the first part was written by a 
 
108 API2T0TEA0T2 [CH. 31. 
 
 TijvSe' fiovXeveiv p.ev TeTpanocriovs Kara ra irarpia, 
 TerrapaKovra e'£ e/cacrn?? (pvXrjs, e'/c irpoKp'ncov [ojvs 
 
 5 av eXcovTai oi (pvXerai tcov virep rpiaKovra err) 
 yeyovoTcov. tqvtovs 8e tcls re apyas KaTacrTrjcrai 
 /cat 7r€pl tov bpKOV bvTiva xpr) bp.6crai ypa^/at, (/cat) 
 Trep\ tcov vopcov /cat tcov €vdv\y~\cov /cat tcov aXXcov 
 irpaTTELV fj av rjycovTai [crvpjcpepeiv. tols 8e vopois 2 
 
 10 01 av Tedcocnv irep\ tcov ttoXltikcov xprjcrOai, /cat 
 p.rj i^eivai peraiciveiv p.rjS' irepov? decrdai. tcov 
 8e o-Tparrjycov to vvv elvai ttjv aipeaiv i£ aircivTcov 
 iroielcrOai tcov wevTaKicrxiXlcov, tt]v 8e ftovXrjv 
 eTreiSav KaTacrTfj iroLrjcracrav ifjeTacnv cnrXcov eXe- 
 
 15 cr#at fie/ca av8pas /cat ypapp.aTea tovtols, tovs 
 8e alpeOevTas apyeuv tov eicriovTa iviavTov avTO- 
 
 7. xal ire/)! tuv vopaiv : MS. om. kcu, an error due probably to the similarity 
 of the termination of ypatf/ai, which precedes it. 10. av: MS. ear. 14. 
 
 KaraoTTf : MS. KaTaffTr/txr/i. ottXoiv : MS. ottXois, but the phrase with 
 
 the genitive seems invariable. Otherwise (ev) ottAois is an easier correction. 
 Wyse, and so K-W., Blass, H-L. >; 16. eiadvra : H-L. h£wvra. 
 
 scholar who desired to possess a copy of Aristotle's work, while the 
 second part was copied by a scribe under his revision. Finally it may 
 be noticed that there are no abbreviations in this hand, and that the 
 columns are much narrower. Blunders of the scribe which are cor- 
 rected by the reviser are not mentioned in the notes, any more than 
 the habitual mis-spellings above mentioned. 
 
 3. Kara ra rrarpia : a phrase generally indicating the Solonian con- 
 stitution ; but cf. 34, 1. 23 ff. 
 
 4. our av eXtui/rat oi cpvXirai : this differs from Thucydides, who says 
 (VIII. 67) that the Four Hundred were elected by a process of 
 co-optation ; five irpoeSpoi, elected by the Ecclesia at Colonus, were to 
 choose a hundred persons, who were each to nominate three others. 
 The nearest approach to a reconciliation between the two accounts is 
 to suppose that the method of selection among the candidates (np6- 
 xpiroi) named by the tribes (which is not here specified) was one of 
 co-optation by the original hundred commissioners ; but the method 
 of appointing the hundred (whether there were two such bodies or 
 one, cf. note on 30, 1. 2) cannot well be reconciled with Thucydides. 
 
 16. ela-wvra : the conjecture of H-L, i^ovra, seems unnecessary. It 
 
CH. 32.] A0HNAII2N nOAITEIA. 109 
 
 Kparopas, kcu av ri SeoovTai. o-vpifiovXevea-dai /xera 
 rrj? fiovXfj?. iXeadai 8e kou farirapypv tva kou 
 3 (pvXapxov? 8eKa' to 8e Xonrov ttjv ouptcriv Troieio-dai 
 rovTcov T-qv ftovXr/v Kara to, yeypap.p,eva. raiv 8" 20 
 aXXeov ap^av ttXtjv ttjs /3ovXf)s kcu tcov arparrj-yav 
 p.r] i^eivai prjre tovtols pLrjre ctXXcp p,T)8ev\ TrXiov rj 
 aira^ ciptjcu ttjv avrrjv o\pyj]v. els 8e rbv dXXov 
 Xpovov, iva vepaqOaxTLV oi rerpaKocrioi ely ret? reV- 
 rapas Xrjtjeis, orav f rots acrTOis f yiyvrjTou pLera to>v 25 
 aXXeov fiovXeveiv 8iav€ip.avTcov olvtovs oi £kcctov 
 ccvSpes. 
 
 32. Ot p.€V OVV €KCtTOV 01 VTTO TWV TT€VTaKlO")(l.- 
 
 19. to Se \oitt6v: MS. to Se to Xoiiroi/. <* 21. 77X771/ : MS. npiv. Cf. 37, 
 
 1. 18 ; 39, 1. 10. 22. -nXiov : MS. ir\eiov, cf. Meisterhans, p. 120. 25. 
 
 cuttm; : H-L. a L u]Tofj, after Tyrrell. 27. avBpfs : MS. avSdptis. 
 
 was now less than • two months to the close of the year, and that 
 period would be occupied by the generals chosen e£ airavrav tS>v irevTa- 
 xio-XiXiW. During that time the ftovkr] would be constituted and the 
 review of arms made, and the generals thereon appointed would enter 
 office with the new year. 
 
 18. "■mvapxov era : ordinarily there were two hipparchs (cf. ch. 61, 
 
 I.23). 
 
 23. its Se to SXXov xpwov k.t.X. : this sentence is certainly obscure 
 and possibly corrupt. The difficulty lies in the clause orav . . . 0ou- 
 Xeueiv. K-W. explain rfiv aXXtDV as tmi/ iv Sd/jw, but (3ov\evnv is a 
 technical word, and the Athenians with the fleet would not become 
 members of the jSouXi; on their return, and there would be no occasion 
 to await their return before arranging the subdivision of the Four 
 Hundred among the four councils. The process spoken of is probably 
 the same as that described in ch. 30, 11. 22-24, T0 ^ s $' """"ov avSpas 
 diaveifiai (T<pas re avroiis kcu toiis aXKovsreTTapa p-eprj k.t.X., and ra>v aXXtuj/ 
 here are then the same as tovs aXXour there, viz. the remainder of the 
 persons over thirty years of age out of whom the Councils were to be 
 formed, toie aarols must therefore represent the Four Hundred, and 
 (if the words be not entirely expunged as a mistaken addition by a 
 gloss-writer) should perhaps be altered to airols, ' when the time 
 comes for them to join in council with the rest.' But this explanation 
 cannot be called certain. 
 
no API2T0TEA0T2 [CH. 32. 
 
 Xixav alpedeures ravrrju dveypaxj/av ttjv iroXiTeLav. 
 iiriKvpcoOevTaiv 8e tovtcov vtto tov 7r\r]0ovs, eTTLyj/rjcpL- 
 (tolvtos 'Apio-TO/JLaxov, rj p.ev fiovXr] (77) em KaXXiov 
 
 5 Trp\v 8ia(3ovXevcrcu KareXvOj] p.r]vos QapyTjXicovos 
 TerpdSt, eVt Se/ca, oi 8e rerpaKocrioi elafjcrav ivarrj 
 (pOlvovros QapyrfXicovos' e'Sei 8e rrjv dXrj-^vlav rw 
 Kvdpxo fiovXrjv eicrievat. 8 eVt Sena "2icLpo(popicovo$. 
 r) p.ev ovv oXiyap^ia tovtov ko.t€<ttt) tov rpoirov 2 
 
 10 eVt KaXXiov p.ev ap^ovTos, erecriv 8' varepov rrjs 
 
 tS>v Tvpdvvav Ik^oXtjs pLaXiara enarov, airicov 
 
 p.dXi<TTa. yevop.eucov Yletaav8pov kgu AisTKpoovTos 
 
 /cat Qr]pa.p,ivovs, av8pa>v /cat yeyevr}p.tvcov ev /cat 
 
 [Col. 14.] crvvecreL /cat yvcofiy Sokovvtcdv 8ia(j)6peiv. yevop-evrjs 3 
 
 15 8e tclvtt]s rrjs 7roAtreta? oi p.ev TrevTa.KLo~)(iXioL Xoyco 
 p.6vov rjpiOrjo-av, ol 8e TerpaKoaLOL p.era tcou 5e/ca 
 
 XXXII. 4. 77 firl KaWiov : 17 is added by Rutherford, Blass, H-L., K-W. 
 6. dafjoav: MS. eiarjieoav. ? 7. eSci : MS. en. II. paXiaTa : H-L. om., as 
 a false repetition from the next line; but the omission converts a true 
 statement into a false one. 1 2. UeiaavSpov : MS. neriaavSpov, with an 
 
 € added above the ct. 16. rjpiSrjaav : written twice in MS., but the 
 
 repetition is cancelled by a row of dots above it. In the first instance it has 
 been wrongly corrected, in the scribe's own hand, to eptj&rfaav. oi : MS. 0. 
 
 XXXII. 5- i^vot 9apyrj\ia>vos rerpaSi «rt Sexa : this, as appears from 
 what follows, was exactly a month before the completion of the Council's 
 year of office, Thargelion (May) being the month immediately pre- 
 ceding Scirophorion (June), which was the last of the Athenian civil 
 year. Callias' year of office began in July 412 B.C., and was now 
 within a month of its termination. 
 
 12. n«<rdv8pou k.t.X. : the enumeration of these three leaders is 
 parallel with that in Thucydides (VIII. 68), but the latter names 
 Phrynichus instead of Theramenes ; and to judge from the general 
 character of Theramenes it is probable that he was not so much an 
 originator of this revolution as one of the first to recognise that it was 
 impending and to adapt himself to it so as to secure for himself a 
 prominent position under the new re'gime. 
 
 16. tS>v 8e'ica tS>v airoKpaTopav : the generals mentioned in the pre- 
 ceding chapter. 
 
CH. S3-] A0HNAU2N nOAITEIA. in 
 
 tcov avTOKparopcov elcreXOovTes els to fiovXevTripiov 
 r)PX 0V T V S TroXecos, /ecu wpos AaKe8aip.oviov? irpecr- 
 f3evarap.evoi KareXvouro rov iv6Xep.ov i(j) ols eKarepot 
 Tvyyavovcriv eypvTes. oi>x vTranovyaaivTcov 8' eneivcov 20 
 el p.r] kou ttjv aLpxqv rrj? [tfjaAarrTjy acp-qaovcriv, 
 ovtcos airecmrjcrav . 
 
 33. M^ray p.ev olv \crcos rerrapas 8iep.eivev rj 
 tcov TerpaKoo-Lcov iroXiTeia, kcu rjp^ev e£ avTcov 
 MvacriXoxos 8ip.rivov em Qeoiropjirov apypvros, 
 (oy) rjpqe tovs eiriXolirovs 8e<a pJqvas. ^rnqdevres 
 8e rfj rrepl 'Yiperpiau vavp.ayj.a /c[eu] rrjs Eu/3cu'ay 5 
 airo(TTao-T}S 0A77? irXrjv 'Q,peov, yaXeircos eveyKovres 
 eiri rfj crvp.(popa p-aXicrra tcov 7rpoyeyevrjp.evcov (jrXelco 
 yap 4k ttjs Eu/3cuay 77 rrjs 'Arrt/c^y ervyyavov 
 cb(peXovp.evoi) KareXvaav tovs TeTpaKocrcovs kcu to, 
 Trpa.yp.aTa TrapeScoKav tols 7revTaKicr\iXiois toIs e/c 10 
 tcov otvXcov, yj/r](pLo-ap.ei'OL p.rj8ep.iav apyj]v eivat 
 
 18. fjpxov: K-W. ypxiiv te, after Hude. 20. Tvyxavovaiv : the first three 
 
 letters end a line in the MS., and at the beginning of the next two superfluous 
 letters, apparently \e or te, have been inserted before the x- inraKOvaavrav : 
 H-L. iwaicov[6]vTaiv, thinking that the lacuna will only hold one letter, which 
 is doubtful. XXXIII. 3. MvaaiXoxos : MS. at first pvaaLfmxos, but 
 
 corrected. K-W. MvyaiKoxos. 4. os : not in MS., but the omission is easily 
 explained by the similarity of the termination of apxyvros which precedes. 
 H-L. 6 5'. 6. 'Clpeov : MS. apiov. 
 
 XXXIII. I. Mjji/ar . . . Thrapas : the Four Hundred came into 
 power rather less than two months before the end of the archonship 
 of Callias, and their rule consequently extended over rather more 
 than two months of the following year (May-Sept. 41 1 B. c). Mnasi- 
 lochus was the archon eponymus of their election ; but Theopompus 
 being elected on the re-establishment of the democracy the year was 
 subsequently known by his name. Harpocration (s. v. rerpaxdo-toi) 
 refers to Aristotle's 'XBrjvalav TroXircia as his authority for the duration 
 of the rule of the Four Hundred (Rose, Frag. 372). 
 
 3. Mi/ao-iXoxos : Mnasilochus or Mnesilochus is probably the same as 
 the person of that name who was subsequently a member of the Thirty 
 (Xen. Hell. II. 3. 2). 
 
H3 API2T0TEA0T2 [CH. 33. 
 
 fj.Lado(j)6pov. alricoTaroL 8' iyevovro rrjs Kara- 2 
 Xvcreats 'Api<TTOKpd.Tr]s /cat Qrjpajxeurjs, ov avvape- 
 (TKOp-eVOl Toh V7T0 Tcov TeTpaKoaiwu yLyvopLevoLS' 
 15 awavTa. yap 81 avrcov eirparTOv, ov8ev eVara- 
 (pepovre? toi? ■jrtvTO.K.icryjXloLs. SoKovai 8e kccXcos 
 TroXiTevOrjvai Kara tqvtovs tovs Kcupovs, iroXepLOV re 
 
 KdOeCTTCOTOS KOU €K TWV OTrXcOV TT]S TToXl.T€iaS OVO~7]S- 
 
 34. Tovtovs p.ev ovv a(pe[Xero tt\v iroXvreiav 
 
 8rjp.os 81a Tayovs' erei 5' if386p.a> p.era ttjv tcou 
 
 TerpaKoaiMV KaraXvcnu, eVi KaAA/ou tov 'Ayye- 
 
 Xrjdev apxpvTOs, yevop-evqs ttjs kv 'Apyivovcrais 
 
 5 vavp.ayjias, Trparov p.ev tovs 8eKa arpaTrjyovs tovs 
 
 12. iua6o<popov : so J. B. Mayor, Rutherford, Fraenkel, H-L., K-W. ; IIS. 
 /wrBocpopwv. 14. yryvoiicvois : MS. yevomvois, corr. to yiv-. XXXIV. 3. 
 KariXvaiv : K-W. Karaaraaiv, but K-W. 2 restore xarakvaiv, and substitute 
 sKTco for 4j35o/*g; in 1. 2. 
 
 13. ' Apioro/cpaTTjs Kai Oripapcvr)! : cf. Thuc. VIII. 89. 
 
 16. doKovai Se Ka\a>s no\i.T€vQi]vai Kara tovtovs tovs Kaipous ' this must 
 undoubtedly be an intentional repetition of the comment of Thucydides 
 (VIII. 97) in which the same judgment is expressed at greater length. 
 
 XXXIV. 2. 8m raxovs: as has been suggested in the Introduction, 
 the abolition of the government by the nominal Five Thousand and 
 the re-establishment of the full democracy probably took place after 
 the victory of Cyzicus in 410 B. C, which both restored the confidence 
 of the people and allowed the fleet, the embodiment of the most 
 advanced democratic sentiments of the time, to return to Athens. 
 
 eVet S' i@86pm : this must be a mistake. The archonship of Theo- 
 pompus, in which the Four Hundred were overthrown, was in 411- 
 410 B.C., and the archonship of Callias in 406-405 B. C. The latter was 
 therefore in the sixth year after the dissolution of the Four Hundred, 
 not the seventh. The calculation was probably made by inadvertence 
 from the establishment of the Four Hundred, which was in the official 
 year 412-411 B. C. K-W. alter KaraKvcriv to Karao-rao-iv, but the custom 
 of this treatise is to reckon a date from the last fixed point, not from 
 an earlier one ; and it seems more probable that a mistake was made 
 in the number. 
 
 5. tovs 8cxa o-Tparriyovs : Aristotle certainly appears to be inaccurate 
 here. Two of the ten generals, Conon and Leon, were not included in 
 the accusation, the former having been blockaded in Mytilene during 
 
CH. 34-J A0HNALQN nOAITEIA. 113 
 
 rfj vaviiayia vikcovtcl? crvvefir) KpiOrjvaL {xlo. X €l P°" 
 Tovia ttolvtcils, tovs fxev ovSe o-vvvavp.ayr\o-avTas, 
 tovs 5' eV aXXorplas vecos acodivTas, e^airaTrjdtvTos 
 tov Stj/mov 81a tovs wapopylcravTas' eireiTa /3ouAo- 
 p.ivcov AaKeScup-ovlcov i< AeKeXelas airiivai kou e (f)' 10 
 ols kyovcriv eKarepoi elprjvrjv ayeiv, tvioi p.eu eo-rrov- 
 Ba^ov, to Be 7rXrjdos ov^vir-qKovo-ev itja.7ra.TT]6evTes [Col. 1 5. 
 vto K.\€o(pa>vTos, os eKwXvae yeveadcu ttju elprjvrjv 
 
 XXXIV. 8. i^airarqBivTos : MS. e(aiTaTrj0evTes. 10. amivtu: soBlass, 
 
 K-W., H-L., etc. ; MS. avitvat, but the scholiast on Aristophanes who quotes 
 the passage (see note on 1. 13) gives amivat, which is also the more probable 
 word. koL : K-W. transpose after exirepot, in accordance with the scholiast, 
 but the MS. order is more natural. 11. tKwrtpoi tiprpnpi; MS. ipijvqv (Hare- 
 
 poi, an inversion which is more likely to be due to the scribe than the author. 
 Gomperz eiprjvrjv dyftv (.Kartpoi. I 2. l£aira.T-q9ivT& : Rutherford i^avaTr]Biv. 
 
 the battle, while of the latter we hear nothing in connection with either 
 the battle or the trial. Of the remaining eight, two, Protomachus and 
 Aristogenes, declined to come to Athens to stand their trial ; and 
 consequently only six of the whole ten were tried and executed. 
 Professor Gomperz, however, points out that the same phrase is used 
 by Plato, only some ten years after the event (Afiol. 32 B), ore iptts tovs 
 Sena o-TpaTrjyovs . . . cjiov\eo-9e dBpoas npivuv, and possibly there was 
 something in the form of the indictment which justifies the phrase. 
 Cf. also [Plat.] Axioch. 368 D (as quoted by Stobaeus, 98, 75), nov hi 
 (re8vT]Kao-i) rrpcirjv ol 8«<z aTparrjyoi, and Aelian V. H. III. 17, ovk eV- 
 ^7]<^>to~ev 'AdTjvaLoLS ('2aiKpaTr]s) tov tu>v btKa. o~TpaTT]ycov ddvaTov. 
 
 6. veiporovia: the decision to try all the generals collectively was 
 taken by x«porovia, but the actual vote which condemned them was by 
 ballot (Xen. Hell. I. 7. 34). 
 
 7. tovs peu oiSe o-vvvavp-ax^o-avras : it is difficult to understand this, as 
 Xenophon expressly names eight of the generals (all except Conon and 
 Leon) as having been present at the battle, and indicates their respec- 
 tive positions in the Athenian line. Unless Leon was included in the 
 accusation, of which there is no sign in any other authority (except 
 the passages quoted in the note on 1. 5), the statement of Aristotle 
 seems to be an unwarranted exaggeration due to his evident dislike (or 
 that of the authorities on whom he relied) of the proceedings in refer- 
 ence to the generals. His other statement, that some of the generals 
 themselves had to be saved, instead of being in a position to save 
 others, is possible enough. 
 
 13. vjto KXio<pS>vTos : this passage is cited by the scholiast on Aristo- 
 phanes (Frogs, 1 53 2 )» <*>* 'ApicrTOTfXrjs 4>1o-i, juera tt)v iv 'Apyivoutrair va.vp.a- 
 
 I 
 
114 API2T0TEA0TS [CH. 34. 
 
 eXOcov els ttjv iicKXr]o~Lav p-edvcov kou Ocopaica evSe- 
 15 8vkcds, ov (paaKcov emTptyeiv iav (jltj Tracras atyiaxri 
 AaKeBoufAovioi tols TroXeis. ov yj>r\<ja.\ievoi 8e 2 
 KaXas Tore rols irpdypLauriA, fier ov ttoXvu yjpovov 
 eyvcoo-av ttjv afiap^riavj. rep yap varepov erei 
 eV 'AXe^iov ap^ovros T)Tvyr)o~av ttjv ev Aiyos 
 20 7roTap,OL$ vavp.ayiav, i£ rjs o-vvefir] Kvpiov yevop.evov 
 ttjs 7roXecos Avo~av8pov KaraarrjaaL rovs rpiaKOvra 
 TpoTrco roiooBe. ttjs elprjvTqs yevop.€vr]9 avrols e<f) 3 
 d> re 7roXiTevcrovTai ttjv irarpiov TroXireiav, 01 p.ev 
 8r)p.oTLKol 8iao-a>£eii> eirzipaiVTO rov 8r\p.ov, tcov 8e 
 
 15. aipiuiai : K-W., H-L. bpuot, from the scholiast. 24. Bicunofav : 
 
 MS. Siaaafav, corrected to 6iaaaff€iv (and so 1st ed.) ; the correction may 
 perhaps stand, iretpdaBai being treated as if it were a verb of hoping ; but it is 
 hardly probable. J. B. Mayor and Wyse Siaaaiaat ( introducing a hiatus), Blass, 
 H-L., K-W., Btaomfrtv. 
 
 Xiav Aamhaipoviuv fiovKopevav Ik Ae/eeXfiar irrtevai e$' oit c^ovo-iv ixarcpoi 
 Kai elprjvr^v ayeiv, iir\ rov KaXXtov, K\eo<pS>v ejmcre rov Sijpov p-r/ irpooSegaadai 
 eKdav els rfjv €KK\rjcriav pedveov Kal 8a>paiea iv&eUvKuis, oi (pdo-Kav tmTpeyfreiv 
 iav p-r] Tracras axpaxri ras iroXtis ol AaKeBaipovioi (Rose, Frag. yjo). Grote 
 doubts the truth of this application for peace by the Lacedaemonians, 
 believing the story to be a confusion with the proposals which Diodorus 
 states to have been made after the battle of Cyzicus. But it is by no 
 means improbable that the Lacedaemonians should have been willing 
 to propose a peace after so severe a defeat as Arginusae, — a defeat 
 irreparable except through the help of Persia, which they did not at the 
 time possess ; especially as peace on the terms proposed would leave 
 Athens stripped of nearly the whole of her maritime empire. Neither 
 Xenophon nor Diodorus mentions any negotiations at this time ; but 
 Xenophon does not mention any after Cyzicus either. Grote suspected 
 the scholiast to have mis-quoted Aristotle, but the case is altered by 
 the discovery of the complete text of the latter ; and if there is any 
 confusion as to the real date of the Lacedaemonian proposals, it is 
 more likely to be on the part of Diodorus than of Aristotle. 
 
 19. eir 'A\c£i.ov apxovros : 405-404 B. C. 
 
 23. tt)v irarpiov iroKireiav : this was a sufficiently vague term, in- 
 dicating generally the constitution of Solon ; but as the virtue of the 
 constitution depended on its working, it was possible for moderate 
 democrats, extreme oligarchs, and moderate aristocrats alike to hope 
 
CH. 35-] A0HNALQN nOAITEIA. 115 
 
 yvoapipmv ol [lev ev rals iroupeious b'vres kcu tcov 25 
 (f>vya8cov ol fxera rrjv elprjvrjv KareXOovres oXiyap-^ias 
 €Tredvp,ovv, ol b* ev eTcupela p.ev ovSepua o~vyKa.de- 
 o-to>t€s [ajAAcoy 8e SoKovvTes oiSevos eTnXelireo~9ai. 
 
 T&V TToXlTWV T7]l> TTOTpLOV TToXlTeiav iftfjTOVW §>v r\v 
 
 p.ev kcu 'kpylvos kcu ^Kvvtos kcu KXeirocpav /cat 30 
 <bopp.icrios kcu erepoi 7roXXol, irpoeio-TrjKu 8e /mAtcra 
 QrjpafMevT]?. AvcravSpov 8e irpocrQepevov tois 0X1- 
 yctpyiKols KarcnrXayeh 6 8rjp.os rjuayKctadr] x et P°~ 
 Toveiv T-qv oXiyapxiav. eypa\fse 8e to y\rq(pio~pa 
 ApaKovTiSrjs 'A<pi8va.los. 35 
 
 35- Ol p.ev ovv TpiaKovTa tovtov tov Tpoirov 
 KaTeo-Tiqcrav erri HvdoScopov ap%ovTos. yevop.evoi 8e 
 Kvpioi ttjs TroXecos Ta p,eu aXXa tc\ 86^avTa irep\ 
 ttjs TroXiTeLas 7rapecopcov, irevTaKocriovs 8e /3ouAeuray 
 Kat Ta? aXXa? ap^as KaTacrTrjcravTes eK irpoKpiTcav 5 
 
 26. oKiyapxias : MS. o\iyapxtav. 28. im\ehea9ai : possibly by iotacism 
 
 for i-mXt-niaBm. H-L. airo\tiiif<T$ai, after Richards, Gennadios, Hultsch, 
 Kontos ; cf. 20, L 6. 29. ejftrow : so MS., not \tf\Kwv, as H-L. read 
 
 doubtfully. 30. "Avvtos : MS. clwvtos. VLktiTotpuv : MS. kKito- 
 
 (pav. XXXV. 2. KariaTrjaav : MS. KaTtarijae. 
 
 that it would be modelled according to their views. Diodorus (XIV. 3) 
 describes the arguments of the opposing parties at some length, and 
 says that the point was decided by Lysander declaring for an 
 oligarchy. 
 
 30. 'Apxivos : subsequently one of the exiles who joined Thrasybulus 
 in his occupation of Phyle (Demosth. contr. Timocr. p. 742) ; cf. ch. 40. 
 Anytus was another of the same number (Xen. Hell. II. 3. 44). Clei- 
 tophon may be the same as the person of that name mentioned in 
 connection with the establishment of the Four Hundred. 
 
 35. ApaKovn8ris: Dracontides is mentioned by Aristophanes ( Wasps, 
 157), where the scholiast refers to the present passage of Aristotle (Rose, 
 Frag. 373). He was himself one of the Thirty (Xen. Hell. II. 3. 2). 
 
 XXXV. 2. nri Xlv8o8a>pov apxovros: the year 404-403 B.C. ; but the 
 name of Pythodorus was subsequently expunged from the records, and 
 the year was known as the year of Anarchy. 
 
 I 2 
 
ii(5 API2T0TEA0T2 [CH. 35. 
 
 e'/c tcdv ^iXlcou, /cat irpocreXofievoi o~(f)laiv avrols tov 
 IleipateW apypvTas 5e/ca /cat roi> SecrficoTrjpiov 
 (pvXaica? evSeKa /cat p,ao~Tiyo(p6pov? rpia^Kjocrlovs 
 v7rr)peTas Karel^ov ttjv ttoXlv 81 iavrcov. to p.ev 2 
 
 10 ovv 7rpa>rov /xerpioL tol? ttoXitgus \vj a ' a l v ] Kai 
 irpaereiroiovvTO 8ioiK.eiv rrjv irarpLOV 7ro[AtTjetaf, 
 /cat rovs t 'E^taArou /cat ' Appear pdrov vojxovs 
 tovs ire pi ra>v ' Apeo7rayiTai> Ka6eiXov efj 'Apelov 
 \7rdyovj /cat tg>v ^oXcovos 0eo-p.a>v 00-01 8iap.(pio~- 
 
 15 j3r)T[r)o~]eis etyov, /cat to Kvpos i)v kv toIs St/cacrratf 
 /c[are]Aucra^, a>r eiravopOovvTes /cat Trotoyj/r^y] avap.- 
 
 [Col. 16.] <plO-fir)TT]TOV TTjV 7ToXtT€iaV, olo[l>J 7T€pl TOV SoVVCLL 
 
 6. Ik tojv x l ^tav : K-W. suggest TrevTOKiax^oiv, H-L. read e« twi/ irevTa- 
 Ktaxitiav. 9. lavruv : H-L. afl7w after J. B. Mayor. II. Sux/rer? : 
 
 K-W., H-L., Kontos, Gertz 5i6iiciiv, comparing 13,1. 22; but Sioixeiv is suitable 
 in sense here, and cf. 27, 1. 14. 14. Sian(pi(T0-r]Trioeis : MS. Staiu^i(0^n]afts. 
 
 So again, 1. 16, MS. ai/a^i^BijnjToi'. Meisterhans (pp. 6S, 70) notes this inter- 
 change of ( and a as occurring in inscriptions after 329 B.C.; e.g. lf/rjQtfra, 
 C. I. A. II. 468, 16. 17. After otov K-W. insert tov. 
 
 6. f'x riv ^tXiisv: there is no other mention of a body of 1000, and it is 
 possible that the phrase is merely epexegetic of « TrpoKplrmv, indicating 
 that a list of 1000 persons was at first drawn up from which the 500 
 members of the council were finally selected. Mr. Xewman {Class. Rev. 
 V. 164) suggests that it may mean the Knights, quoting Aristoph. 
 Knights 225, dW tlaiv imrfjs avBpes ayadol x^ lol i an d Philochorus, frag. 
 100 (Hesych. s. v. Unrrjs). But it cannot mean that the n-poKpii-oi were 
 selected from a body of 1000 persons, since the irpo'xptrot from whom 
 a Council of 500 was to be chosen would hardly be themselves less than 
 1000 in number. H-L. read « tS>v irivTciKio-xiXioi; but we know of no 
 body of 5000 existing at this time, unless it was again taken as mean- 
 ing all persons capable of furnishing arms. 
 
 12. Kal 'ApxeorpaTou : there appears to be no mention elsewhere of 
 these laws affecting the Areopagus, but probably Archestratus was 
 one of the supporters of Ephialtes and some of the laws curtailing 
 the power of the Areopagus stood in his name. 
 
 15. to Kvpos t)v iv toIs Swao-rais : this has been mentioned above 
 (ch. 9, 1. 6 ff.) as the foundation of the whole power of the democracy, 
 and it is therefore natural that it should be one of the first things 
 abolished by the oligarchy. 
 
 17. irtpl tov Sovvai to. iavrov k.t.X. : the law of Solon relative to testa- 
 
CH. 35-] A0HNAII2N nOAITElA. 117 
 
 to. iavTOv <p av iOeXrj KvpLov rronjcravTes KaOarra^, 
 ray 8e Trpoaovaas BvaKoXlas, lav /jltj p.avmv rj 
 yrjpwv r] yvvaiKi 7n66fievos, acpelXov 07rcos pr] 77 20 
 tols crvKOCpdvTCUs e(f)o8os' 6/zotW Se tovt eSpcov /cat 
 3 eVt rcov aXXcov. /car' ap^as p.ev ovv ravr Ittolovv 
 kcu rovs (TVKCXpavTa? kcu tovs tco 8r)p.a> Trpos \apLv 
 bp.iXovvTa$ irapa to $£Xtmttov kcu KaK.07rpayp.ovas 
 
 iS. After av H-L. insert tij. voirjaavres : K-W. 'movr\aav. The sentence 
 does not appear to require alteration. 19. iav /n) k.t.X. : in [Dem.] contr. 
 
 Steph. II. § 14, p. 1 1 33, these provisions are given as av pi) jmvmv ^ yrjpws fj 
 (pappatcaiv 7j voaov eve/fa, ^ yvvaiKi irtiBoiitvos. Accordingly Blass and Wyse 
 have proposed to read yqpas (fcVe/m) here, and H-L., Poland and others would 
 even add t) tpap/iixaiv rj voaov. This is hardly a justifiable way to treat a text, 
 and Mr. Robinson Ellis's suggestion that rf has fallen out is much simpler and 
 more probable ; but the quotation in Demosthenes suggests that a verb may not 
 be necessary. If it be restored it should follow \1av1u1v or "fflpSiv. 20. 
 
 mSo/ifvos : Wyse and Poland neiSo/ievos, from [Dem.] /. c. 24. «oi is 
 
 bracketed by K-W. 
 
 mentary dispositions made it lawful for a man who had no legitimate 
 children to dispose- of his property in whatever way he chose, provided 
 that he was of sound mind at the time and was not subject to undue 
 influence. It is mentioned by Plutarch {Sol. 21) and quoted in 
 [Dem.] contr. Steph. II. § 14, p. 1133, and is repeatedly referred toby 
 the orators (e.g. Dem. inLefit. § 102, p. 488, contr. Olymfi. § 56, p. 1 183; 
 Isaeus de Menecl. hered., passii?t, de Philoct. hered. § 10, p. 57). The 
 change introduced by the oligarchs simply consisted in abolishing the 
 provisions against mental incapacity and undue influence, which, 
 though reasonable enough in themselves, had been abused and had 
 given rise to much avKo^avria. An instance of this may be found 
 in the case of the will of Menecles on which Isaeus composed the 
 speech mentioned above. It is clear that this is the meaning of the 
 sentence, and not that the oligarchs removed all restrictions on testa- 
 mentary dispositions except those relating to mental incapacity and 
 undue influence, partly because Aristotle could not speak of so revo- 
 lutionary a change in the law of property as merely an amendment 
 to remove certain difficulties or obscurities, and partly because it 
 does not appear how such an alteration would have limited the 
 opportunities of the <rvKo<j)dvTris. The law which required a man who 
 had legitimate children to leave the bulk of his property among 
 them remained intact ; and it is clear from the allusions in the orators 
 that even the amendment which the oligarchs actually introduced was 
 repealed when the democracy was re-established. 
 
n8 API2T0TEA0TS [CH. 35. 
 
 25 ovras kcu irovrjpovs avypovv, i(p' oh t\aipov t] 7roAty 
 yiyvofievois, rjyovfxevot tov ^eXrlarov x a P lv tolciv 
 avrovs. eVei 8e ttjv ttoXlv iyKparecrTepov ecr^ov, 4 
 ovSevos airtiyovTO tcov ttoXltcov, dXX aireKT€Lvav 
 tov? kcu reus ovtricus kcu tco yevei kcu tol? agicop,a.criv 
 
 30 7rpo€X OVTa ?) inreijaipovfievoL re tov (pofiov ko.i 
 (3ovXop.evoi ray oicrias 8iap7rd£eiV /cat ypovov 
 SicnrecrovTO? fipayeos ovk e'Aarrou? dvrjprjKecrav rj 
 yiXiovs ir£VTO.KO(rLov$. 
 
 36. Ovtcds 8e rfjs iroXecos v7ro(f)€pop.evr]S' Qrjpct- 
 pevrjs dyavaKTCov eVt roty yiyvop.evois rrj? p.ev 
 ao-eXyeias clvtoIs irapyvei Travcraadai, p.eTa8ovvcu 8e 
 tcov Trpayp.a.Tcov roty /3eArt'crroty. ol 8e irpcoTOv 
 5 ivavTicoOevres, eVet Siecnraprjcrav ol Xoyot irpos to 
 irXrjOos /cat Trpos tov Qrjpap.evr)v oi/ceta)? €i\ov ol 
 ttoXXol, (pofir/OevTe? p.r] 7rpoo-TaTT)? yevop-evos tov 
 8r]p.ov KctTaXvcrr) ttjv SwaaTeiav KctTaXeyovcriv tcov 
 ttoXltcov TpicryiXLovs a>y /*era5axroi>re? ttjs 7roAtretay. 
 
 10 Qrjpap.£vT)s 8e ttolXiv kiriTip.q kcu tovtols, irp&Tov 2 
 
 25. exatpov : Sidgwick, Rutherford, K-W. correct to Zx a 'P ev > Dut &e plural 
 participle fiyov/itvoi seems to confirm the plural verb. Possibly 77 irdXis is an 
 adscript, but the theory of adscripts is dangerous, especially in the case of 
 so early a MS. as this. 28. a-niitTtivav : Blass, Kontos, H-L., K-W. drre- 
 
 ktcivov. XXXVI. 2. yiyvofiievois : MS. yif-. 4. -npwrov : MS. 
 
 TrpuToi. 9. TpiffX'^'oui : MS. SiaxtMovs, which must be a mere clerical 
 
 blunder, as the writer goes on at once to speak of the number as 3000, without 
 comment. 
 
 30. ine£aipovp.cvoi re toi> <f>6j3ov : i. e. removing their own apprehen- 
 sions, by destroying those whom they had most reason to fear. 
 
 33. xtXiovr TTfvraKoa-iovs : cf. Isocr. Areop. § 67 (cited by Mr. New- 
 man), irtvTaKoolovs p.iv /cm \i\lovs ra>v noKirav aicpiTovs airticreivav. 
 
 XXXVI. 10. irparov fiev k.t.X.: cf. Xen. Hell. II. 3. 19, which contains 
 the substance of the same criticisms and almost the same words. The 
 latter part is indeed an almost verbal quotation from Theramenes, whose 
 words are given by Xenophon, 6pa> eyeuye Svo 17/ias ra evavTiaraTa 
 irpdrrovTas, fiiaiav re tijv dpxrjf Kai fjTrova t£>v dpxoficvav KaTatrKeva&ntvovs, 
 
CH. 37.J A0HNALQN nOAITEIA. 119 
 
 /lev on fiovXo/xevoi /MeraSovvat roty eVtetAcecrt Tpicr- 
 \iXlols fiouots fieraSiSoao-i, cos iv tovtco tco irXrjOei 
 777$- dpeTrjs cbpicrfievrjs, eireiff otl Svo ra kvavTicoTara. 
 moiovcnv, filcuov re rrjv a.pxv v KaL ™ v a.pyop,evcov 
 tjttco KaracrKeva^ovTes. oi 8e tovtcov [lev cbXiycopt]- 15 
 aa.v, tov 8e KaraXoyov tcov TpicryCXlcov woXvv p.ev 
 XfAvov vrrepefiaXXovTo kou irap olvtoIs e<pvXa.TTOv 
 tov? iyvcoafievovs, ore 8e kou 8o£eiev avrols e/ccpepeiv 
 roiy pev etjrjXeKpov tcov yeypapp.evcov, tov? 5' 
 av7eveypa<pov tcov e^coOev. 20 
 
 37. 'H5?7 8e tov ^eip-wvos evecrTcoTOS, KaTctXa- 
 fioiTos QpaorvfiovXov peToc. tcov (pvydScov QvXrjv, 
 kcl, Kara ttjv crTpaTiav tjv e^-qyayov oi TpLctKovra 
 kckco? cvKoyap-qtravTes, eyvcocrav tcov p.lv aXXcov tcl 
 
 15 KaTaoKtva(ovTes : MS. at first neTa<TK(va(ovT(f, but corrected, and the 
 corr;ction is confirmed by the quotation from Xenophon in the note below on 
 1. D. 1J. iirepefiaXXovTO : MS. tmepPaWovTO. It). ytypap\p\ivaiv : 
 
 K-V., H-L. kyyeypaftpivav. XXXVII. 3. icai is bracketed by K-W. arpa- 
 
 nav: K-W. arparuav, against MS. and without comment. of Tpiaxovra : 
 
 H-L del., after Richards. 
 
 X?XVII. 4. eyvao-av k.t.X.: this somewhat alters the order of events 
 as ve gather it from Xenophon. The latter first narrates the disarming 
 of tie people and the execution of Theramenes, and then says that 
 afterthis (f'x fie roirov, II. 4. 2) Thrasybulus made his descent on Phyle. 
 Acccrding to Aristotle the disarmament and the execution of Thera- 
 men;s were in consequence of the advance and first success of 
 Thnsybulus. There is time in the chronology of the period for 
 eithir order of events ; the only difference is that we must allow a 
 longer time for the stay of Thrasybulus at Phyle than is usually given 
 in tte histories. In this there is, however, no difficulty, especially as we 
 know that the forces of the exiles grew from seventy to 1000 before they 
 began their march from Phyle to Athens. They probably remained 
 for ."wo or three of the winter months at Phyle and then advanced. 
 Thi date of the occupation of Munychia can be fixed within narrow 
 limts from the speech of Cleocritus the herald after the fight in which 
 Crtias was killed (Xen. Hell. II. 4. 21), where he says that the Thirty 
 hal killed in eight months almost more than the Peloponnesians in ten 
 years. Athens surrendered on the 16th of Munychion (April), and 
 
120 AP1ST0TEA0TS [CH. 37. 
 
 5 oirXa 7rape\ecrdou, Qrjpap-evrjv Se Sia(f)0€ipa.i TovSe 
 
 (tov) TpoTrov. vop,ovs elo-qveyKav ei? rrjv fiovXrjv Svo 
 
 [Col. 17.] KeXevovres eiviyeipoTOvelv , oav 6 pXv el? avroKparopaf 
 
 eiroUi. roii? TpictKOVTa tcov ttoXltcov cnroKreZvai tovs 
 
 fxrj rod KaraXoyov p.eriyovra.5 tcov t picryCXtcov , 6 S 
 
 IO eTCpO? €K(oXv€ KOLVCOVelv TTjS TTapOVCTTJS TToXlTtLUS 
 
 ocroi Tvyyavovariv to ev 'HeTicovela Telyos /cara- 
 <rKa.\[/avTes rj rot? rerpaKocrloLS ivavTiov tl ivpa^avies 
 T) rols KaracKevda-aac tt/v irporepav bXiyapyiav aJ^vj 
 ervyyavev afACporepcov KeKoivcovrjKco? 6 Q-qpajxevrjs, 
 15 aiare avveficuvev eiriKvpcoOevTcov tcov voficov e£co re 
 yiyvecrQcu tt)s iroXiTeias clvtov /cat tovs TpiaKoira 
 Kvpiovs eivai. OavctTovvTCts. dvcLLpeOevTOS Se ©^a- 2 
 
 5. impe\ia8tu : IIS. napieaBai ; an € has been written in correction abovethe 
 first 1, but the K is omitted. 6. rov : cf. 7, 1. 10. 13. t) : lv\Y. 
 bracket, H-L. remove this word. 1 7. Bavarovvras : H-L. Bavarovv, ifter 
 Lacon, Keil, and Poland ; Kontos justifies the participle from Thuc. V. 34, 
 Plat Laws p. 878 E, Polyb. III. 85, 2 et alibi, and inscriptions. 
 
 the Thirty were probably established about the beginning of the 
 following month. Eight full months would bring us to Gamdion 
 (January), about which point we may place the defeat of the Thiry at 
 Munychia by Thrasybulus. The government of the Ten, wiich 
 followed, and the intervention of the Spartans occupied several mcnths 
 more, and the democracy was restored about the following Atgust, 
 after sixteen months intermission. 
 
 6. vojiovs el<T7)veyKav k.t.X. : as to the first of these two laws AriSotle 
 agrees with Xenophon (Hell. II. 3. 51), but as to the second the two 
 accounts differ fundamentally. If Aristotle is right as to the passiig of 
 the second law, the well-known dramatic scene depicted by Xenojhon 
 must disappear. At best it can only be supposed that Critias, inrtead 
 of striking out the name of Theramenes from the list of the jooo 
 proposed the second law as described by Aristotle and forced it cown 
 the throat of the council by threat of armed force. This is possiblt. as 
 the law is in itself so obviously aimed at Theramenes that it is dimiult 
 to suppose that he would have remained in Athens after seeing thi it 
 was likely to be passed ; but if it is the case the narrative of Xenoplon 
 will require so many alterations in detail as to show that it is largely 
 imaginary. 
 
CH. 38.] A0HNAK2N nOAITEIA. 121 
 
 ptvovs to. re oirXa irapeiXovTO ttolvtchv irXr/v rav 
 rpLaxiXLcov, kcu eV Tols aXXots ttoXv 7r/Joy ajxorrjTa 
 kcu TrovTjplav eVe'&xraz/. wpicr^eLS (8e) 7rep.\jravTe? ei? 20 
 Aa.Ke8aip.ova tov re Qrjpap.ivovs Karrjyopovu /cat 
 fiorjOeiv avroh rjtjiovw &i> aKovcravres 01 AaiceSai- 
 P-ovlol KaAAi/3toz> ouire<TT€iXav app.ocrTr]v /cat o-rpa- 
 TLcaTas a»y iirTaKoo-iovs, 01 ttjv aKpoiroXiv iXdovres 
 icppovpovu. 25 
 
 38. Mera 8e ravra KaraXafiovrcov t£>v airo <t>v\rj? 
 ttjv M.ovvi-)(iav /cat viKrjcrduTcov p.a\rj tovs p,€ra twv 
 rpiaKovra fiorjOrjaauTas, ewava^wprjo-avTes p-era, to[iA 
 klv8vvov 01 e'/c tov ao-Tecos kcu crvvaQ poio-Qivres el? 
 ttjv ayopav rfj vo-repala. tovs p.ev rpiaKovra /care'- 5 
 Xvcrav, aipovvrai 8e 8eKa tcov ttoXltcov avroKpdropas 
 eVt rr\v [tov TroJXep.ov KaTaXvcriv. oi 8e irapaXa- 
 
 20. St : not in MS., added by J. B. Mayor, Blass, Hude, H-L. ; K-W. 
 mark a lacuna before irpe'cr/Seis, and van Leeuwen thinks the sentence belongs 
 to the end of ch. 36. 22. airoTs: K-W. clvtoTs. XXXVIII. 2. Mowi- 
 
 Xtav : MS. fiovvvxiav, and so 1. 20 ; cf. 19, 1. 6. 4. <nva0pour6ivTts : MS. 
 
 apparently ovvaoopoiaOtVTts. 
 
 18. to. re 07rXa napeiXovTo : Xenophon (II. 3. 20) represents this as 
 having taken place before the death of Theramenes. 
 
 23. KaWlfiiov aneo-Ttikav : this is in very marked contradiction to 
 Xenophon, who places the sending of a Spartan garrison quite early in 
 the rule of the Thirty. In this point Xenophon's account (with which 
 Diodorus agrees, XIV. 4) seems more probable than that of Aristotle, 
 as it would hardly have been possible for the Thirty to have carried on 
 their Reign of Terror without an armed force at their backs, whereas 
 Aristotle represents it as having occurred while the whole body of 
 Athenians was still in possession of weapons. 
 
 XXXVIII. 7. oifie TrapaKafiovTesK.TX. : Aristotle gives a fuller account 
 than Xenophon of the proceedings of the Ten, which makes it easy to 
 understand why they were eventually excluded from the amnesty (see 
 ch. 39, 1. 28). As a matter of fact their rule extended over nearly half 
 the total time occupied by the anarchy. Lysias {contr. Eratosth. 
 §§ 55-62) describes their proceedings in terms which fully confirm 
 Aristotle, but he does not mention the second board of Ten, which 
 eventually put an end to the civil war (see below). 
 
122 API2T0TEA0TS [CH. 38. 
 
 fiovres ttjv apyj)v e '0' 0LS H- €V ypeOrjarav ovk eirpaTTOv, 
 e'[7ry)eo-/3ei/]o-[az/] 8' els Aa.Ke8alp.ova fiorjdeiav pera- 
 
 lOTre^fiTTop^evoL /cat ^pr/paTa 8avei£6p.evoi. yaXeTrcos 2 
 8e [<pe~\p6vTC0v eVt tovtols tcov ev rfj 7roXiTeia, 
 (po\$ovp.ev\oi prj KaTaXvdcocriv tt)s apxV? KaL fiov- 
 XopevoL /car[a7rA^]at tovs aXXovs {pirep eyevero), 
 (TvWafiovTes [A\r)pdpeTov ovSevos bvra Sevrepov 
 
 15 tcov ttoXltcov chreKTeivav, /cat to, irpayp-ara /3e/3atW 
 ei^pv, trvvaycovi^opevov KaAAt/3/ou re Ka\ tcov IleAo- 
 irovvqcricov tcov irapovTcov /cat wpos tov\ tolW evicov 
 tcov ev toIs hnrevcTL' tovtcov yap Tives paXicrTa tcov 
 toXitcov etnrov8a£ov p.rj KareXOelv tovs chro QvXrjs. 
 
 20 cos 8' ol tov Ileipaiea /cat ttjv Wlovviyj-av eypvTes 3 
 airoo-TavTQS atravTOS tov 8rjpov irpos avTrjv eVe- 
 KpaTovv tco woXepco, TOTe KUTaXvcravTes tovs 5e'/ca 
 tovs irpcoTovs aipeOivTas, aXXovs elXovTO Se'/ca 
 tovs t3eXTiaT0vs eivai SoKOvvras, e(p' cov avvefirj 
 
 25 /cat ray SiaXvcreis yevetrOai /cat KaTeXOeiv tov 8rj- 
 
 [Col. 18.] y ' v a f ' 
 
 pov, trvvaycovi^opevcov Kai irpouvp.ovp.evcov tovtcov. 
 
 TrpoeicrTrjKecrav 8 1 avTcov paXiara 'Vlvcov re 6 
 
 ", ; >■ 8. i(p' : MS. ev. g. cirptafievoav ; H-L. eirf/jjf/av, thinking the space 
 
 not sufficient for the longer word. 10. Savfi(6/jifvoL : MS. davifainevoi. 
 
 The same spelling recurs in 6, 1. II, 52, 1. 16, but in 9, 1. 4 and 16, 1. 7 the 
 diphthong is used. 13. After 0ov\6pi.evoi the phrase pi) . . . fiovKoyavoi 
 
 has been repeated in the MS., but the repetition is cancelled. 14. Ar;/ja- 
 
 perov : so K-W., H-L., after Blass. 16. avvayavi^o/iivov : H-L. awayam- 
 
 £o/j.evuv, thinking the termination uncertain in the MS. Ile\tmovvT)eicov : 
 
 MS. irt\<movvt]aav. 21. amavTos: so rightly read by Blass ; 1st ed., K-W., 
 
 H-L. ttoctos. avT-qv : Blass, Kontos, Hude, H-L., K-W. airovs. 
 
 23. SXXour (1\ovto beiea : Xenophon makes no mention of this second 
 board of Ten, who were apparently members of the moderate aristo- 
 cratical party. 
 
 27. 'Pivav. this person is mentioned incidentally by Isocrates {in 
 Callim. § 6, p. 372) as fls t£>v Sena yevopevos, but Isocrates clearly 
 knows of only one board of Ten, as he refers to them just before as the 
 
CH. 39-J A0HNAIJ2N nOAITEIA. 123 
 
 Tlaiaviev? /cat $ai/AAoy 6 'Ax^pSovcrios' ovtoi 
 yap irplv 77 Uavcraviav t atyiKecrOai 8ie7rep^iTOVT\o 
 irpos tovs iv Htipaiel, /cat d(j)iKOfJi€vov (rvvecnrov- 30 
 4 Saaav ttjv Kadodov. eVt Tripas yap rjyaye tt)v 
 elprjvrjv /cat ray StaAucrety Ylavcravlas 6 t&v Aa/ce- 
 8aip.ovicov fiao-iXevs /lera. tcov 5e'/ca StaAAa/craSi/ 
 Twv vcrrepov d(j)iKop.ivcov e'/c Aa/cecW/iofoy, ouy 
 auroy icnrovSacrev iXdelv. oi 8e 7re[/Jt] tov 'Plvcova 35 
 5ta re Tiqv zvvoiav tt/v ety tov 8[rjfj.ov] iirrjviOiqaav, 
 /cat Aa/3ofrey T77f eVtfie'Aetaz/ eV oXiyap^ia to.? ev- 
 dvva? e8oo~av [e']i> Srj/JLoicpaTia, /cat ouSety ovSev 
 eVe/caAe<xe[f au|roty oure t<dv iv aaTei fieivdvTcov 
 ovTe tcov e'/c Tleipaieco? KaTeXdovTcov, dXXa. Sid TavTa 40 
 /cat o-TpaTrjyos evOvs ypiOrj 'Vivcov. 
 
 39. 'EyeVoiro 5' at SiaXvcrei? eV Eu/cAet5ov 
 ap-^pvTOS Kara ray avv6r]Kas racr<5e. rouy fiovXo- 
 fievovs 'Adrjvaicov tcov iv acrTei fieivavTcov i^oiKeiv 
 e^eti/ 'EAeucrtra eVtrt/xoi/y ovTas /cat Kvpiovs /cat 
 avTOKpctTopas e'[au]rc3i/ /cat Ta avTcov Kapwov- 5 
 
 28. 'Axc/>Souffios : MS. o^fpSous wot. The emendation is Mr. By- 
 water's. 29. 77 : H-L. del., inserting re here, after Richards. te : 
 J. B. Mayor, H-L. del., K-W. bracket. K-W. insert t« after Steiri/nrovTO. 
 Tt is required in the clause, and it is not clear how it could have been trans- 
 ferred to its present position from any other. 30. atyaconivov : MS. acpi/cvo- 
 /ievovs. 32. tlavaavias : H-L. del. Richards removes 6 . . . 0aat\fvs as 
 a gloss. Neither change seems necessary. XXXIX. 3. 'A9qvaiaa> : 
 written above the line, over the words which follow. It may be a mere 
 explanation, and not part of the text ; but it would be rather unnecessary as 
 such, and probably belongs to the text. Cf. 27, 1. 19 t«u jSouAo/itVaj AowiaSSi', 
 29, 1. 30 oi efo'Aoires 'ABrjvaiwv, which indicate that the proper place for 
 insertion here is after &ov\oiiivovs. K-W. bracket, H-L. remove it. 5. 
 kavraiv : so K-W. and Jackson, H-L. and Poland airirroiv. 1st ed. I [ttJ iraa\iv, 
 but the termination rav is fairly certain. 
 
 successors of the Thirty (vpx " /"" 7°P °' &* Ka °' 1 h*™ T0 ^ s TpiaKovra 
 KaTa<rrdvTes). 
 
 33. tS>v Sera StaWanTav : Xenophon (Hell. II. 4. 38) gives the number 
 of Spartan commissioners as fifteen. 
 
 XXXIX. 1. in Eiiikeldov apxovros : i.e. late in the summer of 403 B.C. 
 
134 API2T0TEA0YS [CH. 39. 
 
 p.evovs. to <5' lepov eivai kolvov ap.(pOTepa>v, eiri- 2 
 p.eXelo~6ai Se K.r/pvKas /cat Eu/xoA7rt5a? Kara ra 
 -rroLTpia. p.7] e'^etrat Se p-rjre tols '"EXevcnvodev els 
 to olcttv fir/re toIs e'/c tov aaTecos 'EXevo~ivaSe levai 
 
 10 7t\tjv fxvaTrjploLS eKarepovs. crwTeXelv Se airo tcov 
 TrpocnovTcov els to avfipa^iKov KaOawep tovs aXXovs 
 'ABrjvalovs. eav Se TLves tcov chnovTcov oiKiav 3 
 Xap,fiavcocnv 'HXevcrlvi, o-vpireldeiv tov neKTrjpevov 
 eav 8e p.rj avfjLJ3alvcocnv ciXXtjXols TiprjTas eXecrOai 
 
 15 Tpels eKarepov, /cat rjuriv av ovtol Ta^cocriv Tiprjv 
 Xap.$civeiv. 'JZXevcrivicov Se avvoiKelv ovs av ovtol 
 ftovXcovTai. ttjv 8' chroypacprjv elvcu toIs (3ovXo- 4 
 p.evois eijoiKeiv, tols fiev eiri8[T]fijova-iv a(p' fjs 
 av opocrcocriv tovs opKovs SjY/cJa r]p.epcov, ttjv 8" 
 
 20 e^0LK7]crLV e'iKOo~L, to?s 8' a.TToSrjpovo'iv eTreiSav eiri- 
 
 Srjixrjcracnv /cara raura. firj iijeivat Se ap^eiv 5 
 
 prjSeplav apyj]v tcov ev tco cio-tcl tov 'EAeuo-tyt 
 
 KaTOiKOVVTa irplv av a.7roypa(pr]TaL iraXiv ev tco 
 
 [Col. 19.] aaret KaTOiKelv. tols Se SUas tov (povov eivai 
 
 15. eKarepov: MS. cuaTepav, corr. Bun - , Richards, K-W., H-L. 17. 
 
 fiovKcavTai : MS. @ov\ovTai. 19. ofwaoiaiv : MS. ofjuoaaicriv. St/ca : so 
 
 read by K-W., H-L. ; 1st ed. Si" [2<rr~a. MS. uncertain, but if Si' were right it 
 should be repeated with cticoai. 23. airoypa<pr]Tai : MS. at first airoyparjsqTai 
 
 (which K-W. and H-L. retain), but apparently corrected. 24. <povov : so 
 
 corrected in the MS. from ttovov. 
 
 10. Tr\r)v iiv(TTT\piois inarepovs : in the margin there is a note, evidently 
 referring to this passage, 8' eio\v iv ??■«. The phrase in the text would 
 naturally be understood to refer to the Eleusinia alone, nor is it 
 probable that anything more is intended. What are the four mysteries 
 of which the commentator was thinking is another matter. A. 
 Mommsen (Heortologie der Athener, p. 467) enumerates five, the 
 greater and lesser Eleusinia, Thesmophoria, Arrephoria, and Helene- 
 phoria. Of these the last may be omitted, as the least important. 
 Or 5" may be a mistake for Sio. 
 
CH. 40.J A0HNAIX2N nOAlTEIA. 125 
 
 Kara to. Traxpia, e't tis riva t avToytipa e/cricret 25 
 6 lepcoo-as t- ™z/ 5e TrapeXrjXvOoTcov firjSeul 7rpos 
 /xrjSeva p.vT}<jiKa.Ktlv k(~fivai, ttXtjv rrpos tovs rpid- 
 Kovra koX tovs 8ena kcu tovs evSeica kcu tovs tov 
 Tleipaieoos ap^avTas, p.r)8e wpos tovtovs eav 8i8a>criv 
 evdwas. evdvvas 8e Sovvcu tovs /xev iv Tleipaiel 30 
 api^avTas ii> rots iv Ueipcuei, tovs 8' iv tco aoret 
 iv toIs to. TL/irj/xaTa 7rapexofiivois. el8' ovtcos ii^oiKtiv 
 tovs eOeXovTas. to. 8e yjprjjxaTa a iSavelcravTO (is 
 tov TroXe/Aov eKciTepovs chroSovvcu ^copis. 
 
 40. Fevo/xevcov 8e tolovtoov tcov BiaXvcrecov, kcu 
 (jiofiov/xevcov bcroi /xera tcov TpiciKOVTa crvve7roXi- 
 p.r]aau, kcu iroXXwv fiev iirLvoovvTa>v iijoiKtiv ctva- 
 
 25. auToxEipn exTiaei Upuiaas : so MS., the letters « being a correction 
 of what may have been or (z*. e. 6 rpaam) ; K-W. read them oia, H-L. 
 arj. 1st ed. avroxeipl (aireKrovfvy (KTiaei Upwaas, K-W., H-L. avToxeipiq 
 ixTfivtv i} irpaaev. 33. rotis : MS. tovs 5e. XL. 3. (iiv Imvooiv- 
 
 twv : H-L. imvoovvTwv p.kv, after Blass. 
 
 28. kcu tovs SeKa : Xenophon {Hell. II. 4. 38) does not name the Ten 
 among the persons excluded from the amnesty, mentioning only the 
 Thirty, the Eleven, and the Ten who had ruled in Piraeus. It is 
 probably some confusion between the latter body and the successors 
 of the Thirty in Athens that has caused the omission in Xenophon's 
 list. 
 
 32. iv toIs to. Tijir^fiaTa ^ape^o/iei/oiy : this is the reading of the M S., but 
 it appears to be corrupt. It can, however, be emended by inserting 
 iv ra ao-Tfi after rots ; the omission of the phrase is easily explained by 
 its occurrence almost immediately before. Then if iv toIs k.t.X. indicates 
 the body before whom the accounts were to be rendered (and Dr. 
 Sandys has pointed out that this is the proper meaning), the sense is 
 simply that the magistrates of Piraeus were to render their accounts 
 before the citizens rated in Piraeus, and the magistrates of the city 
 before those rated in the city. Each magistrate would appear before 
 a jury of the inhabitants of the district which he had administered. 
 
 elff ovras : this refers to the whole of the terms which have just been 
 set forth as regulating the retirement to Eleusis of those who so 
 desired. 
 
126 APISTOTEAOTS [CH. 40. 
 
 fiaWofievcoi/ fie ttjv avaypa(prjv ely ras eo-\aTas 
 5 yfiepa?, cnrep dwdaaiv 7roteiv airavres, 'Kpylvos 
 o~vvi8cov to irXrjdos /cat fiovXop.evos Karao-yeiv av- 
 tovs ixpelXe ras vitoXolttovs r)p.epas ttjs chroypacpf)?, 
 axTTe avvavayKacrOrjvai. p.eveiv iroXXovs aKovras ecos 
 iddpprjo-av. /cat fio/cet tovto re 7roAtreua"acr#at 2 
 
 10 kclXcos 'Kpylvos, /cat /xera ravra ypatyap,evos to 
 y\rrj<pLo-p,a to Qpao~v/3ovXov irapavop.a>v, iv a> iiere- 
 fi/fiou Trjs "iroXiTeias irao-i roty e'/c IIet/>aie<»y avy- 
 Ka.TeX8ovo~i, oav evioi (pavepco? rjcrav SovXoi" /cat 
 Tpbrov eVet tls rjp^aTO tcov KaTeXrjXvOoTCDv p.vr]cn- 
 
 13 KdKelv, awayayav tovtov eVt rrjv fiovXr/v kcu 7reta"ap 
 aKpvrov airoKTHvai, Xiycov otl vvv 8el£ovo~iv el 
 fiovXovTcu tt)v 8rjp,0KpaTiai> o-q>£eiv kcu toIs opKois 
 kp.p.£vc.w acpevTas p.ev yap tovtov TrpoTpvfyt.iv /cat 
 tovs aXXovs, eav 8" dveXcocnv TrapaSeiyp-a Troirjauv 
 
 20 aircLcriv. oirep /cat avveirecrev' airoOavovTos yap 
 oufiety 7rco7rore varepov epLvrjo-LKaKTjcrev . dXXa Sokov- 3 
 o~iv /caAAtcrra Stj /cat 7roAtrt/c©rara diravTcov /cat I8ia 
 
 4. avaypacjiTiv : Jackson, Wyse, H-L., K-W. aito-ypatp^v , but there does not 
 seem to be any reason why the word should not have been varied, and ava- 
 ypcupj; is perfectly satisfactory in sense. 17. eryfeii' : MS. oafav. 18. 
 
 tovtov : there is an erasure in the MS. in the middle of this word, the scribe 
 having apparently written tovtov at first. 2 2. leal iSio : corrected in the 
 
 MS. from KaiSia. 
 
 XL. 5. 'Apxivos: this particular action of Archinus is not recorded 
 elsewhere, but emphatic testimony is bome to his character by the orators. 
 Isocrates (in Callim. § 2, p. 371) speaks of a law of his to prevent 
 o-vKofyavTia after the amnesty, of which his prosecution of a breach of 
 the amnesty mentioned below appears to be the corollary; and 
 Aeschines (contr. Ctes. § 196, p. 82) mentions him as having prosecuted 
 Thrasybulus for an illegal proposition to crown one of his friends. 
 He is also said by Suidas to have been the person who advised the 
 adoption of the Ionic alphabet in public documents in the archonship 
 of Eucleides. 
 
CH. 41. J A0HNAIQN nOAITEIA. 127 
 
 /cat Koivfj -^p-qcraaOaL reus Trpoyeyevrjp.tvat.s crvfMpo- 
 pous' ov yap p.6vov tcls 7repl twv irpoTepcav alrlas 
 e^Xei\j/av aXXa kcu Ta'xprjp.a.Ta Aa.Ke8aip.oviois, a 25 
 ol rpiaKovra irpos tov 7roXep.ov eXafioir, a.ir(8oo-av 
 Koivfj, neXevovacov tcov (tvuOtjkcov eKarepovs airo- 
 
 8l86v(U )(a>pls TOVS T €K TOV a.(7T€Cl)S KCU TOVS €/C TOV 
 
 Ueipcueco?, r/yovp-evoi tovto irpcoTOv apyziv 8elv tt)s 
 6p.ouolas' iv 8e tolls aXXais Tr6Xeo~iv ov% olov en 3° 
 7rpoo-Ti6eacriv tcov oiiceiaov ol 8T]p.0KpaT7]0-avT€s, aXXa 
 4 kou tt]v \copav avaSacTTOv iroLovcnv. SieXvdrjcrav [Col. 20.] 
 8e kcu Trpos tovs kv 'EAeua-iw [e^oij/c^craj/ra? erei 
 Tp'iTco fierce tt)v i^oUrjaiu, eVi ^Seuaijverov ap- 
 %ovtos. 35 
 
 41. TaOra p.lv ovv if tois vo-Te[po]v crvve^rj 
 yeviaOcu Koupois, tot€ 8e Kvpios 6 8rjp.os yevop-evos 
 to>v 7rpayp,a.Ta>v iveaT-qaaTO ttjv \yvv\ ovcrav ttoXi- 
 T€tai>, eVt HvdoSaipov p.ev apypvTos, \8\okovvtos 8e 
 
 28. aarews : the first two letters are repeated in the MS., at the end of one 
 line and the beginning of the next. 29. Sttv : corrected in the MS. from 
 
 Stv. 30. ?ti : K-W. emirpooTtBeaaiv, J. B. Mayor on, removing olov as 
 
 post-Aristotelean. 31. Stj iwKparrio-avTes : Hude, K-W., H-L. liijiiuu Kfa- 
 
 TrjaavTts. 33. eV : added above tie line, and perhaps would be better away ; 
 cf. Cobet ( Far. Lectt. pp. 30, 201), who would remove the preposition in all 
 such cases where it appears in MSS. H-L. cancel it. 
 
 31. 7rpoo-Ti6eao-iv tUv oUtiav: i.e. not only do they not make any 
 superfluous contributions to public ends out of their own pockets, but 
 on the contrary they make a redistribution of the property of the 
 defeated oligarchs among themselves. 
 
 33. em Tpi'ra; 401 B.C. Xenophon (Hell. II. 4.43) says merely 
 vo-repco xP° v fi an ^ tne ^ a13 ^ overthrow of the Thirty at Eleusis has been 
 generally supposed to have followed within a few months after the re- 
 establishment of the democracy. 
 
 XLI. 4. eVi Uv8ohi>pov : Aristotle has already stated (ch. 39, 1. 1) that 
 the convention by which the democracy was restored took place in the 
 year of Eucleides, and this certainly seems to have been the case. The 
 Piraeus was no doubt re-occupied in the archonship of Pythodorus, but 
 nothing was done towards re-establishing the democratic constitution 
 
128 APIST0TEA0T2 [ch. 41. 
 
 5 SiKalcos tov 8r/fj.ov XafieLU rr\v [e£ou<r/Jav 8ia to 
 TTOirjaaa-dai ttjv KaOoBov 8l avrov tov Srjfiou. rjv 2 
 8e tcov fjLeTafioXcov ivSeKaTJ] to\v cx.pijdp.ov avrrj. 
 TrpcoTT] i±ev yap iyevero [77 KjaraoTaav? tcov e£ 
 apXV? 'Icovo? Kou tcov p.ef clvtov crvvotKicravTcov 
 10 Tore yap irpcoTov els ray TeTTapas 0-vvevep.rjdrjcrav 
 (pvXas Kol tovs (pvAofiacriXea? KaTecrTrjaav . SeuTepa 
 8e ko.1 trpcoTT) p,era TavTT][v] €\ovcra 7roXtTeias tol^lv 
 
 XLI. 5. l£oveiav : H.-L npoaraaiav. 6. rbv Sijpov : bracketed by 
 
 K-W. 8. 77 mraaraois raiv : MS. Kararaais. H-L. ruiv uara- 
 
 araaewv, doubtfully, with no nominative article. 9. avvowiaavroiv : 
 
 Blass avvoucqaavrav, from frag. 343 ; and K-W. and H-L. give -xtjit- as 
 the MS. reading, but apparently wrongly. avvoixi^nv is used here as in 
 15, 1. 7 and Thuc. I. 24, VI. 5. 10. rerrapas: MS. naaapas, but else- 
 
 where the form in rr is used. II. <pv\o@aoi\eas : so K-W., H-L., 
 
 apparently rightly. 12. jUeTa ravrrjv ix ovaa iroKtreias ra(iv : MS. 
 
 apparently fiera ravra (corr. to tjv) tx ovaai [1 del.) noktreiav ra£iv. The 
 scribe began to write the final u of ravra, but seems to have altered it to 
 an 7] while writing. 1st ed. nerd ravra i(ix ovaa i H*Tex 0WIa J- B. Mayor, 
 irapex°vaa Wyse, Rutherford, Karkxovaa Blass, udos «x ou<ra Poste ; but the 
 lacuna will not admit of any of these. noKireias ra£iv Wyse, iroKirdav raf is 
 Rutherford, purpiav riv ix ovaa rroKtreias ra(tv H-L., but the MS. will not 
 admit of this. K-W. ptrd ravra . . ix ovaa foAjra'as ra£ iv. 
 
 till the following year, and the archonship of Eucleides was always 
 taken as the date of the regeneration of Athens. 
 
 SoKoivros Se k.t.a. : as the text stands, the only sense to be extracted 
 from the passage is that the subsequent extension of the democracy 
 (which is enlarged on below) was justified by the fact of its having 
 secured its own re-establishment, without the open help of any other 
 nation, and in the face of the opposition of a powerful party at Sparta. 
 It may, however, be doubted whether the text is not corrupt. The 
 repetition of Si;/xou . . . Sij/j-ov is awkward and unnatural, and it is 
 possible that the former word has taken the place of a proper name by 
 a scribe's error ; in which case the mutilated word given in the text as 
 egovo-lav should perhaps be altered to npoo-rao-iav (which is adopted by 
 H-L.), and avrov would be read instead of avrov. If this is correct, the 
 name to be substituted for Brjfiov would presumably be that of Thrasy- 
 bulus. K-W. bracket rbv Srjp.ov, and mark a lacuna after apxovros, 
 considering that originally there was some mention of the anathema 
 under which the name of Pythodorus was placed. 
 
 11. devripa fie Kal nparrj : the enumeration of the eleven fura^o\ai 
 begins here, the constitution of Ion being taken as the original estab- 
 lishment and not a ^era/SoXi}. 
 
CH. 41.J A0HNALQN nOAITEFA. 129 
 
 77 €7T£ GT/creo)? yevop.evr), fiiKpov Trapeyickivovcra Tr)s 
 0acrtXLKrJ9. p.era 8e ravrrju r) eVt ApaKovro?, kv fj 
 kol vofiovs aviypa^rav irpwrov. rpirrj 8' 77 piera 15 
 T7)v aTacriv r) eVt ^oXcovos, a(j) 77? apxV ^Vr 10 ' 
 upaTLas iyeuero. Teraprr] 8' r) eVi UeiaiarpaTov 
 TvpavvLS. TrepTTTrj 8' r) /xera (rr)v) rap Tvpdvvav 
 KaraXvcriv r) KXeurOevovs, Sr/p-oriKcorepa ttjs 2o- 
 Xcovos. eKTT] 8' r) p.eTa ra MTjStKa, tt)s e£ 'Apeiov 20 
 wayov flovXrjs eTnaTarovarj^. ifiSopr/ 8e kou pera 
 TavTTjv r)v ' ' ApicrTei8r}s p.ev vir£8ei^ev, ^(pidXrr/s 5' 
 e7r€TeXe(r€v KaraXvcras ttjv 'ApeoTraylrLu /SovXrjv 
 
 17. Tlti.nioTpa.Tov : MS. naiarpaTou. 18. T-qv : om. MS. 21. Se 
 
 kcu : J. B. Mayor, K-W., H-L. Si i). 
 
 13. lUKpov TrapeyxXlvovo-a rqs £WtXiK>)j : Aristotle's fuller account of 
 Theseus is lost with the beginning of the MS., but Plutarch refers 
 to him as saying that Theseus was the first to turn towards the people 
 ( T/ies. 25, Trparos aiT£K\ive Ttpbs tov o^Xoi», a>s 'A/HcrroreXr/s <pl(ri, Rose, 
 Frag. 346). 
 
 22. Tfv 'ApiareiSrjs p.ev virebaf-tv : Aristides is mentioned as sketching 
 out the lines which Ephialtes followed, because he initiated the process 
 of admitting the lower orders to a share in political life, which Ephialtes 
 carried to a further stage by the overthrow of the aristocratic strong- 
 hold in the Areopagus. It is of course not the case that Aristides is 
 here represented as the colleague of Ephialtes in the reforms carried by 
 the latter, as Riihl (Rheinisches Museum, XLVI. 432) appears to under- 
 stand the passage. It is noticeable that Aristides is named and not 
 Themistocles, and that wherever he is mentioned in this work the 
 view taken of him is as more of a democratic reformer than is usual in 
 modern histories, with the exception of Holm. In point of fact Aristides 
 is far more important a person in reference to constitutional history 
 than Themistocles. No constitutional alteration is ascribed to the 
 latter except a share (subordinate, and for purely personal reasons) 
 in the attack on the Areopagus, whereas Aristides certainly did 
 something to give effect to the development of the democracy which 
 was made inevitable by the Persian wars. 
 
 'E^ioXttjj S' fVereXeo-fx : it is remarkable that Aristotle regards 
 Ephialtes, and not Pericles, as the founder of the thorough-going 
 democracy of Athens. Pericles is not here named, and his reforms in 
 the direction of extending the powers of the law-courts, and the 
 
 K 
 
130 API2T0TEA0T2 [CH. 41. 
 
 iv fj 7r\ei(TTa (tvv£$t) ttjv ttoXlv Sia tov? 8r]pa- 
 
 25 ycoyovs afiaprdveiv 81a ttjv 7-77? OaXarri]? ap^r/v. 
 
 oySoT} <5' [^1 t5>v TerpoLKoaLcov Kardo-Tacn?, /cat pera 
 
 TavTTjv kva.TT] 8e \8\qpoKpaTLa irdXiv. SeKarr] 8 rj 
 
 Tav TpioLKovra /cat rj tcov <5e/ca rvpavvis. ivSe/carr) 
 
 8' T) pera ttjv diro <$>vXtjs kou e/c Ueipoueco? KadoSov, 
 
 3° a(j)' rj? Siayeyewqrai p-^XP L T V S v ^ v aeL TrpoatTTiXap,- 
 
 fiavovaa too irXrjdei ttjv ifjovcrtav. drravTav yap 
 
 avTos avrov ireiro'njKev 8rjpo? Kvpiov /cat iravra 
 
 Stot/cetrat yj/rjcpla-paaiv /cat Siicao-Trjploi?, iu oW 6 
 
 8rjpos icmv 6 KpaTWV /cat yap a[t rjrjs fiovXrjs 
 
 35 Kpiaeis els top Srjpop eX^XvOaaiv. /cat tovto 
 
 25. did : H-L. prefix xai, K-W. and Poste suspect a larger lacuna. Richards 
 Kara, for did. QaKdrT-qs : MS. Oa\a\aTTT]S. 26. 07607; : MS. 075077V. 
 
 KardoTaois : MS. xaraaraaiv, and after xa a snperflous repetition of the letters 
 T0.0- has been erased. 27. 5c: K-W. bracket, H-L. omit, after Blass, 
 
 etc. ; cf. I. 21, €@$6pr] di xai fierd ravTrjv. 28. 77 : K-W. bracket. 30. 
 
 ■rijs : H-L. rod. 
 
 institution of pay for service in them, are apparently classed with the 
 other attempts of the demagogues to bid for the popular support by a 
 free use of the public funds ; while his naval policy (which is a charac- 
 teristic expressly ascribed to him in ch. 27) is held to be the great cause 
 of the fall of Athens. Aristotle unquestionably did not hold the high 
 opinion of the statesmanship of Pericles which has been accepted in 
 modern times, mainly, no doubt, on the strong testimony of Thucydides. 
 
 24. rqv ttoXiv : the third hand begins here. It is not so set as the 
 second hand, but much larger and more straggling than the first ; and 
 it contains several blunders. In several cases, where a word has been 
 badly written, it is re- written above in the corrector's hand. 
 
 32. navra dioiKelrai ■^Tjcjiicrnaaiv : cf. Pol. VI. (IV.) 4, p. 1292 a 34, Sktt 
 e'iirep tort 8qfioKparia fii'a ran noKireiSiv, (pavepuv as fj Toiairrj Karuarains, 
 4v r t yjrrirpLVfLaai ndvTa SioiKeiTat. 
 
 35. Kai tovto k.tX. : Dr. Cauer interprets this as a general com- 
 mendation of the unlimited democracy, and argues therefrom that 
 this treatise cannot be the work of the Aristotle of the Politics ; but 
 there is no reason to apply the remark to anything except the trans- 
 ference of the jurisdiction of the Council to the Ecclesia, and as 
 the Council was quite as much a democratic body as the Ecclesia there 
 is nothing in this comment inconsistent with the views of Aristotle. 
 
CH. 41. J AQHNAIQN FTOAITEIA. 131 
 
 SoKovai iroitiv op6a>s' ev8ia(pdopa>Tepoi yap oX'iyoi 
 3 tg>v iroXXav daiv /c[ai] nepSei k[cu] yapta-iv. pucrOo- 
 (popou 8' €KKkrj(riav to p.ev irpwrov airiyvaxrav 
 iroielv ov crvXXeyopievcov 8' et? 7-771/ eKKXrjaiav, 
 aXXa 7roXXa o~o(jii£op.evcov to>v TrpvTavecov, oiroas 4° 
 
 7TpOO-LO-TrJTCU TO TrXrjOoS TTpOS T7)V eTTLKVpOHO'LV T7]S [Col. 21,] 
 
 XeipoTovlas, irpatTOv peu 'Ayvppios ofioXov eiropicrzv, 
 peTa 8e tovtov 'Hpa.KXei8r)s 6 KXa£op.evios 6 
 
 36. i\iyoi : MS. oKiyov. K-W. and H-L. prefix of. 38. exaKijaiav : 
 
 K-W. prefix T17V. 40. ao<pi£oixevaiv : so Blass, K-W., and so apparently 
 
 MS. ; 1st ed. and H-L. rjnjtpifaiilvw, the latter adding p6v<av. H-L. think 
 na'nrep necessary with ao^oythav, but ak\a is quite sound : ' they did not 
 come to the Ecclesia, but the prytanes had to try all sorts of devices to obtain 
 a quorum, and so Agyrrhius ' etc. 
 
 On the contrary, as Prof. O. Crusius has pointed out (Philologus, L. 
 p. 175), it corresponds exactly with the opinion expressed in Pol. III. 
 15, p. 1286 a 28, Kao eva p.ev omv (rvufiaWopevos 6(Ttmtovv to-tns xeipatv' 
 aXX' early rj jrdXtj ec TroXXSy . . . dia tovto kcu Kplvei a/ietvov 0^X09 rroXXa 
 rj eir ootutovv. en fiaWov aSia(pdopov to ttoXv' KaQdirep vSap to TrXeioy, 
 ovto> Ka\ to TrkrjBos ran oXiyav a8ia<f>dopa)Tepov. 
 
 42. 'Ayippws : Agyrrhius flourished in the early part of the fourth 
 century and was orpaTi/ydr in 389 B.C. It is clear from Aristophanes 
 that the payment for attendance at the Ecclesia had been raised to 
 three obols shortly before the performance of the Ecclesiazusae in 392 
 B.C. ; and as the original establishment of the payment was the work 
 of the same person who raised it to three obols, it is clear that it cannot 
 have taken place much, if at all, before the end of the fifth century. 
 H-L. suggest that possibly Aristotle may be speaking merely of a 
 revival of the payment after the fall of the oligarchy ; but seeing that 
 no mention has been made of the iuo-86s UK\r)o-iao-Ti<6s hitherto the 
 form of expression here, as they themselves admit, would in that case 
 be extraordinarily misleading. Boeckh therefore is wrong in supposing 
 that the payment of one obol began either in the latter part of the 
 government of Pericles or soon afterwards, and also that the payment 
 rose at once from one to three obols, without passing through the inter- 
 mediate stage of two obols. The two obol payment, however, probably 
 lasted only a very short time, and the point is not of importance except 
 that Boeckh uses the supposed fact that the payment for the Ecclesia 
 was never two obols, as an argument that the payment of the judges 
 likewise rose at once from one to three obols. 
 
 43. 'HpaxXeioi^s 6 KXafo/xe'yios : mentioned in Plat. Ion, 541 D, as a 
 
 K 2 
 
132 API2T0TEA0T2 [CH. 41. 
 
 fiacnXev? eiriKa.Xovp.evos SicofioXov, iraXiv 8' 'Ayvp- 
 
 45 pios Tpiw/3oXov. 
 
 42. "E^et 8' ?; i>uj/ KardaTao-LS Trjs 7roXiTei.a.? 
 Tov8e tov rpoirov. p.eTe-)(ovcnv pev ttjs TroXiTeia? 
 oi i£ ap(poTepcov yeyovore? do-Ta>v. eyypa(pov[raLj 
 8' el? tov? 8r]p,0Ta? oKTCoKalBeKa err] yeyovoTe?' brav 
 5 5' eyypd(pcovTai SiayjrrjCpL^ovTai irepl avrcov 0p.60-a.vTe? 
 oi 8r]p.oTaL, irpwTov p.ev el Bokovctc yeyovevai rrjv 
 rjXiKiav ttjv e/c tov vop.ov, Kav p.rj Bo^coctl direpypvTai 
 ttolXlv els Tral8a^s, 8~\evTepov 8' el eXevdepo? eaTi kcu 
 yeyove Kara [rolwy vop.ovs. eireiT av p.ev eTru^rq- 
 
 10 (plaoovTai p.rj elvai eXevOepov, 6 p.ev efynqcriv el? to 
 
 XLII. 4. oKTUKalSena trr\ : corrected in the MS. from oKraiKaiSexaeTfis. 5. 
 5' kyypacf>aivTai : MS. Se -ypa(pavTai, corr. Blass, H-L., K-W., etc. 9. 
 
 em\frt]<j>iaa)vTat : airofrjipiaavTai, Blass, Wyse, K-W., H-L. 
 
 foreigner who had held office at Athens. Cf. Aelian, V. H. XIV. 5, 
 Athen. XI. 506 A. 
 
 XLII. I. *E^ei 8' 17 vvv nardo-rao-is : here the second part of the 
 treatise may be said to begin. The first part is a sketch of the consti- 
 tutional history of Athens ; the second is a description of the various 
 details of the constitution as ultimately developed, and is mainly 
 occupied with an enumeration of the several magistracies in existence 
 and an account of their respective duties. This portion of the work 
 has been a quarry from which the many ancient compilers of lexicons 
 have drawn their materials. Pollux, Harpocration, Suidas, Hesychius, 
 Photius, and several others embody a large number of fragments, 
 sometimes with acknowledgment and sometimes without, of this part 
 of Aristotle's treatise, and in many cases they enable us to supply 
 gaps which have been caused by the unfortunately mutilated condition 
 of the MS. 
 
 5. 8ui\j/rirpl(ovTai : this passage is referred to by the scholiast on 
 Aristophanes' Wasps 578, 'ApKTTorAijs 8e <pri<nv oti \^>jep<u 01 eyypacpa- 
 fievoi SoKi/iufoirai, vearfpoi pr/ irtov ir) eiev (Rose, Frag. 427). The 
 scholiast proceeds, ?<ra>s 8' av Trcpi toiv xpivofievav naiBav eh roiis yvfiviKoiis 
 dycbvas Xeyei" ouy air iv 8iKa<TTripla> Kpivo/xevav a\\' iiro tG>i> irpeafivrepav I 
 
 but here the subject of \eyci must be Aristophanes, not Aristotle. 
 
 9. cmTJrritpia-mvTai : if this reading be retained, it is a use of the verb 
 which is only paralleled in late authors, e.g. Diod. 19, 61 ; Dion. H. 6, 
 71, 84 (quoted in L. and S.). 
 
CH. 42.] A0HNAII2N nOAITEIA. 133 
 
 SiKacrTTjpiov, oi 8e 8r]p.0Tai KaTrjyopovs aipovvrai 
 irevre lavppas Ic, avrcov, Kav p.ev p.rj 86£rj St[/catJ<»f 
 iyypd(p[ecrjdai 7rco\ei tovtov 77 ttoXls' edv 8e viKrjarj 
 
 2 tois [SrflpoTcus lirdvayK.es eyypdtyerai. pLerd 8e 
 ravra 8oKip.a£ei tovs iyypa(pevras rj fiovXrj, kolv tls 15 
 5o£[?7 lAecorepos o/crco/catSe/ca era>v elvai ^rjpLioi [rouly 
 SrjpLOTas tovs kyypatyavTas. eirav 8e 5o/ci/ia[o"#]c3- 
 (Tiv oi e<pr)f3oi, avXXeyevTes oi irarepes avTwv 
 Kara. (pvXas bp.6cravTes aipovvrai Tpeis e/c tcov (j)v- 
 Xerav tcov inrep rerrapaKovra err) yeyovorcov ovs av 20 
 r/ycovTai fieXrlo-rovs eivai /cat eTTLTrjSeioTaTOvs eVt- 
 pLeXelcr8ai rav icprjjSoov, e/c 8e tovtcov 6 8rjp.os eva 
 Tr/[s (pjvXrjs eKaarTjs xeipoTovel croxppovio-TTjv /cat 
 Koo-p.rjTrjv e/c tcov aXXcov 'Adrjvalav eVt iravra. 
 
 3 <rvXXaj36vTes 8' ovtol tovs icprjfiovs, Trp&rov p.ev ra 25 
 iepix irepirjXdov, eh' els Yleipaiea iropevovrai /cat 
 (hpovpovcnv oi p.ev ttjv ^Aovvi^iav oi 8e rqv aKT-qv. 
 yeipoWoveT^ 8e /cat TraiSoTplfias avrols 8vo /cat 
 SiSacrKaXovs, [otjrti'e? birXop.ayelv /cat ro^eveiv /cat 
 dicovTi^eiv /c[at] KaTaTrdXrrjv deptevat 8i8ao-K0VO~iv. 30 
 8l8oocri 8e /cat eis rpo[(prjv] tois p.ev aaxppovicrTals 
 
 14. iyypcvptTcu : H-L. iyypaipfiv, but the adverbial use of kiravayices is quite 
 established. 17. luav : H-L. krreilav. 20. TeTrapaicovTa : MS. reTTapa- 
 
 koto. 24. KOfffHjTTJy : so apparently MS., as read by Paton, K-W., H-L. ; 
 
 1st ed. [Imp.' t\-qTTjv. iravTa &v\XaB6vT(s : so apparently MS., though irdi/Tas 
 (K-W.) is no't impossible. H-L. iravras irapa.\a.&6vTes, against the traces in the 
 MS. 27. Mouvixiar : MS. povvvxiav. 29. oi'Tiva : K-W. T[eV]T[a]- 
 
 pas (of), but the MS. is practically certain. 30. K aTairaX.Tr)v : MS. Kara- 
 
 tt(\tt)v i^not -TraKrqv, as H-L. affirm ) corrected from KaTijv. Cf. Meisterhans. 
 p. 12. diSdaxovaiv : SiSagovotv H-L., following Rutherford. 
 
 27. ttjv anrr]V. this was the name given to the peninsula which 
 incloses the harbour of Piraeus on the east and south ; cf ch. 61, 1. 9, 
 and Wachsmuth, Die Stadt A then, I. 316. 
 
134 API2T0TEA0T2 [CH. 42. 
 
 hpa-^fxrjv ix'iav eKacrTcp, tois 5' i(j)r](3ot,9 rerrapa? 
 6(3oXovs eKacTTa' to. 8e rcov (pvXercov tcdv avrov 
 Xa/xfldvcDv 6 acotypovKTTrjs evcao-roy dyopa^ei ra eVt- 
 
 35 T7]8et.a Traaiv els to kolvov {crvcrcnTovcn yap Kara 
 
 (pvXds), kcu tcov aXXcov eiripeXeiTcu ttclvtcov. kcu 4 
 
 tou p.eu Trp&rov eviavrov ovtco? Siayovcrf rou 8 
 
 varepov, iicKXrjcrias iu tco Bearpco yevo/Aevri?, diro- 
 
 | Col. 22.] SeL^d/xeuoL tco Srjpco rd. irep\ rag rdfjei? kcu XafiovTes 
 
 40 acnriSa kcu 86pv wapa rrjs iroXeas irepnroXovcn rrjv 
 \copav kcu Siarplfiovcriv kv toIs (pvXaKTrjpiois. 
 (ppovpovcri 8e rd 8vo err], -)(Xa.p.v8a? e\ovT€5, kcu c 
 dreXels eiari irdvTcoV kcu 5/[/cr;Jj/ our[eJ 8i86acriv 
 ovre Xa.p.fidvovo-Lv, tva /jltj 7rp[6(f)]acris fj rod dirievcu, 
 
 45 irXrjv irep\ KXr/pov kcu eViKA^yooi/j, kolv tlvl 
 Kara to yevos iepacrvvr) yevrjTcu. Siet^eXdovTcov 
 
 32, bpaxfi-qv piiav : MS. (a. 36. hiri[xe\ttTai : MS. em^e^rai. 37. 
 
 rov 5' varepov : toV bevnpov eviavrov Harpocration, followed by K-W. 38. 
 
 jivoiiivrjs : badly written in MS., and almost equally badly re-written. airo- 
 Bei£af>i€VOL : H-L. emSeigafj.evot. 39. ra : om. Harp. 40. ttjs 
 
 lroKeais : tou Srjfiov Harp. 44. rrpo^aais rj rod a-mivai : so excellently 
 
 read by Blass. 46. Upaavvrj : MS. lepoovvq. 8ic£e\.86vTaiv : H-L. fatkB-. 
 
 32. Spaxprjv fiiav : the same sum is also named as the pay of the 
 Sophronistae in Lex. Seg. p. 301, and Photius (s. v. o-mtppovto-Tai). Cf. 
 Boeckh (Staatsh. 3 I. 304, bk. II. 16). 
 
 38. eKK\rjo-ias . . . cpv^aKrrjfiiois : this passage is quoted by Harpocra- 
 tion (s.v. irepinokos) as from Aristotle's 'Adrivaiav iroXncia (Rose, Frag. 
 428). Harpocration continues, irapaTrjprjTcov ovv on 6 fiev 'Apicn-orfXr/s 
 eva <j>rio-iv iviavrbv iv roir irepmokois yiyve<r6ai tovs e(p!j/3our, 6 8i AiV^iV^s 
 Svo' Kal Tava tia tovto ii!ep.vr]<i6r) rov 7rpdyfiaros 6 pfjrap, Rairrep ndvrav 
 risv i<pf)f$a>v i^ dvayKrjs ■nepiiroXovvTav, on airos &vo en) ye'yoKfj/ iv 7-nir 
 irepnroAois' Sio Km fiaprvpav i8rj\a>o-ev airo. Aeschines (de Fals. Leg. 
 p. 50 § 178) probably, however, uses the term ■nepi-noXos loosely to 
 cover the two years during which the ephebi cppovpovai (11. 27, 42). 
 
 42. xXn/iuSaf : the chlamys was the distinctive garment of the ephebi, 
 and is often referred to as such ; e.g. the epitaph of Meleager on a 
 youth whom his mother AicTnKai&eKeTav eo-roKio-ev \\afiiSi (Anth. Pal. 
 VII. 468). C/Liddell and Scott, s.v. 
 
CH. 43-] A0HNALQN nOAITEIA. 135 
 
 Se tcou Svelv £ra>v rjSrj fiera ra>v aXXcov e'urlv. ra 
 fjLcv ovv Trc.pi tt\v ra>v ttoXit&v iyypacprjv nal roil? 
 i(prjf3ovs tovtov e'xet tov rpoirov. 
 
 43- Tar 8' a.p%a$ ras irepi rrju eyKVKXiou SiotKrj- 
 o~lv (macros ttoiovo~i KX-qpwras, ttXtjv rafiiov arrpa- 
 
 TIC0TLKCOV K(XL TCOV iwl TO OeCOpiKOV KOLl TOV TCQV 
 
 icpr)va>v eTrip.€Xt]Tov . TavTas Se %eipoTovovo~i.v, koi 
 ol xeipoTOvrjdevres ap^ovcriv e'/c Ylava6r}vaia>v els 5 
 
 XLIII.V2. k\tj paras : MS. TTkrjpajTas. rafiiov OTpaTiwrinuv : Richards 
 
 toC rap.iov tuiv aTpaTicuTiiiaiv, but it is hardly likely that two articles so close 
 together would have dropped out accidentally. 4. ttprp/wv : H-L. koivwv. 
 
 after Headlam. 
 
 XLIII. 3. ran eV! to BeapiKov : this passage and that in ch. 47, 1. 12 
 are decisive against the belief of Fraenkel (note to Boeckh's Staats- 
 haushaltung, 3rd ed. I. 225) and Gilbert (I. 230) that there was only 
 one officer em to Beapmov for each year. 
 
 tov t5>v Kpr]vS>i> fVi/ifX^ToO : this title only occurs elsewhere in Pol. 
 VII. (VI.) 8, p. 1321 b 26, in a passage of general application, and has 
 not been known hitherto as the name of an Athenian officer. It 
 is presumably identical with that of fViordrqr vBdrav, which Plutarch 
 mentions as having been held by Themistocles [Them. 31). Pollux 
 (VIII. 112) speaks of a Kprjvo(pvKaKi.ov apxn, but does not say whether 
 it consisted of a single officer or of a board. Athens was very scantily 
 supplied with fresh water, and therefore the superintendence of the 
 aqueducts and reservoirs was a matter of great importance, which 
 could not be entrusted to an officer appointed by lot. Photius and 
 Hesychius mention Kprjvocpvkaices, who were probably the subordinates 
 of the Kpr)v£>v inip.ekT}TT]s. Headlam, however, followed by H-L., would 
 substitute koivSiv for Kprjvwv, believing that the officer 6 em 777 dwiKrjo-ei 
 is mentioned. But if that post existed officially at this date, it is in- 
 credible that it should be passed over with so casual a mention ; and 
 (unless there is really a lacuna before ch. 61, q. v.) Keil must be right 
 in holding that the title is of later date than Lycurgus. Moreover 
 H-L. further weaken their case by noting that the word Tap-Las should 
 have been used, not eVif«X?;TJjr, and propose to delete eVijucX^toO. To 
 delete em/ieXTjToi and alter Kprjvaiii is hardly a justifiable way of treating 
 the text. 
 
 5. apxovo-iv eie Hava8i)vaiaiv : the Panathenaic festival was at the end 
 of Hecatombaeon, the first month of the Attic year. The magistrates 
 elected by lot presumably came into office on the first of that month. 
 
Ig6 APIST0TEA0T2 [CH. 43- 
 
 UavaOrjvcua. -^eipoTOvovcrL 8e /cat ras irpos tov 
 iroXep.ov airaaas. fiovXr) 8e KXrjpovrai (p, v airo 2 
 (pvXrjs eKaaTTjs. TrpvTavevei 8' ev p.epei rcov (f>vXa>i> 
 eKacrTT] Ka6" ri av Xa\axriv, at pev irparai rer- 
 10 Tapes e£ /cat X r)p.epa$ eKaarrj, at 8e 9 at vcrrepai 
 irevTe /cat X i)pepas eKacrTT]' Kara creXrjvrjv yap 
 ayovaiv tov eviavrov. 61 he TrpvTavevovTes avTav 3 
 irparrov p.ev o'vcto'itovo'lv ev Tjj 66Xa>, Xap./3avovTe? 
 apyvpiov irapa Tr)s iroXew?, eireiTa avvayovaLV /cat 
 
 14. Koi : the reiding is not clear, the letters visible more resembling ei, but 
 xai is usually written in a very irregular manner in this hand. H-L. read els 
 (as 1st ed.) and cancel it. 
 
 The archons certainly did so ; as appears, for instance, from Antiphon 
 De Choreut. § 44, p. 146. 
 
 Ik U.avadrjva'iav eh navadfjvma : this phrase, as appears from official 
 inscriptions (C. I. A. I. 32, 117 ff., 273), indicates a four-year period, 
 from one great Panathenaea to the next. This contradicts Boeckh's 
 view that the officials eVi to BeapiKov were annual, and if the date of one 
 of these officials is indicated by reference to an archon (Aeschin. contr. 
 Ctes. § 24, Vit. X. Orat., Lycurg. § 27), it no doubt refers to the year 
 of his election, there being no other means of stating his date. 
 
 8. npvrave in k.t.X. : Harpocration (s. v. TrpvTaveia), after stating the 
 number of days in each prytany, adds, SieiXeKrai 8e nepl tovtchv 'Apio-- 
 Torekrjs iv rfi 'ABrjvaiav TroXirciq. The scholiast to Plato's Laws (p. 459) 
 appears to have drawn from this passage of Aristotle, and he uses 
 almost the exact phrase, Kara o-eX{]vrjv yap dyovo-i tov iviavrov, which 
 occurs below. Cf. Rose, Frag. 393. 
 
 9. ai p.ev nparai. k.t.X. : this statement as to the number of days in 
 each prytany is repeated by Photius, but it is at variance with an 
 inscription quoted by Clinton (Fast Hell. II. 345) which contains an 
 account of moneys expended in the archonship of Glaucippus (410 
 B.C.) ; for explicit mention is made there of a thirty-sixth day in the 
 eighth, ninth, and tenth prytanies, which would show that at that date 
 the last four prytanies, and not the first four, were the longest. The 
 statement of Aristotle is, however, equally explicit, and it only remains 
 to conclude that a change was made at some time between 410 B.C. 
 and the middle of the following century, of which Aristotle is speaking. 
 
 14- avvdyovo-iv . . exaoTi); : Harpocration (s. v. nvpia eVxX 170-10.) quotes 
 this passage, naming the 'AtfqvmW rroXirela as his authority (Rose. 
 Frag. 395 j. Pollux (VIII. 95, 96) gives a summary of the rest of the 
 
CH. 43.] AGHNAIiiN nOAITEIA. 137 
 
 ttjv fiovXrjv Kol tov 8f)p,ov' ttjv p.ev ovv fiovXrjv oaai 15 
 rjfiepcu, irXrjv iav tls a^eai/Ao? 17, tov 8e Sr/pov 
 T€Tpa.K.is ttjs TrpvTaveias tKao-Tris. kcu ocr[a] Set 
 XprjfiaTi^eLV ttjp fiovXrjv, /cat tl kv i/cdo-Ty rfj rjfiepa, 
 
 4 /cat o tl ov Kadrjicei ovtol 7rpoypa(povo~i. Trpoypacfiovai 
 8e /cat Tas eK/cA^crta? ovtol, plav pev Kvpiav, kv 20 
 fj Set Tas apyas kinyeipoToveLv el 8okovo-l kclXco? 
 apye.Lv, /cat irepX o-'ltov /cat irep\ (pvXaKrj? ttjs xwpas 
 yj)r]ixaTL^eLv, /cat tols eicrayyeXla? kv TavTrj Trj r\p.kpa. 
 tovs fiovXopevovs iroieio-daL, /cat to.? airoypatyas tcov 
 Sr]p.€VOfxevcov dvayiyvcoaKeiv, /cat tcls A^etf t£>v kXtj- 25 
 pcov /cat t&v kiTLKX-qpaiv dvayiyva>o-K€LV, [o7to]? prjSeva 
 
 5 Aa^?j p.rj8ev eprjfxov yevopevov. eVt [5e] ttjs e/cr^y 
 TrpvTaveias irpos rotp elpr)p.evoL? /cat 7repl ttjs oarTpaKo- 
 
 15. ovv : om. Harp., H-L., K-W., but cf. Poet. 22, 1458" 25, and other 
 instances of similar use of p.iv oHv in Index Aristotelicas, p. 540 b (cited by- 
 Newman). 16. iav : MS. svav. iS. x/"7/" IT '!,* e "' : MS. x/W- 
 rifei. 19. ti ou koStjkh : the 4th and 5th letters are doubtful ; K-W. 
 read KaSeifei ( = «a9if«) and restore oirov KaSlfctv, and this is perhaps the 
 best solution. 25, 26. avayiyvwaiceiv i dh / : MS. avfryivcuffKeii/. K-W. 
 bracket the repetition in 1. 26. 28. tlpy/iivon : MS. rjpTjpfvots. 
 
 chapter and the beginning of the next, generally using Aristotle's 
 words, though without naming him as his authority (Frag. 394). 
 
 15. oo-ai fi/itpai : this phrase, instead of the adverb oarjpipai, does not 
 seem to occur before Themistius (L. and S.) ; but, as has been pointed 
 out by Mr. J. B. Mayor, it facilitates the following tk, and it is retained 
 by K-W. and H-L. 
 
 19. KaBi'jKei : if the reading is correct, the meaning is 'what subjects 
 are not suitable.' 
 
 wpoypdcpova-i. 8e k.t.X. : Harpocration, after the passage quoted 
 just above (cf. note on 1. 14) proceeds, npoypd<povcri S<f, (pTia-l, /cnl 
 Kvpiav i<KKr]o-Lav, iv rj Set ras dp^as dno^eipoTOvslv 01 Sokoihti p.r\ Ka\a>s 
 ap\uv, kcu. isepi (pvXaKrjs 8e ttjs papas' Kai rds eiVayyeX/ar ev Tavrrj rrj 
 fip-ipa tovs j3ouAoneVour irouloBai (prjo-i Kai rd e|i/r, which is a slightly 
 paraphrased version of the present passage (Rose, Frag. 395). The 
 Lex. rhet. Cantabrig. also refers to Aristotle, j. v. nvpia e'lcxXqaia, and 
 quotes the greater part of this passage, including the mention of the 
 otrrpaKcxpopia below (Rose, Frag. 396), though not with verbal exactness. 
 
138 API2T0TEA0T2 [CH. 43. 
 
 (poplas kiriyziporoviav hihoacriv el <5o/cet ttolclv rj fir], 
 
 30 /cat (rvKO(pavTa)v TrpoftoXa? tcov ' KOrjvaicov kou tow pe- 
 
 tolkcou pe\pi T P L ^> V eKarep^cov, kolv rij? virocryopevos 
 
 tl pr) TTOLrjcrrj too 8rjpco. erepav 8e rah iKeTripiaLS, 6 
 
 iv rj dels 6 fiovXopevos iK€Tr\piav £>v av /3ovXr]Tai 
 
 I Col. 23.J Ka l 18'lcov Kai Srjpoalav SiaXe^ercu wpos rov Brjpov. 
 
 35 al 8e 8vo irepl rCav aXXcov elalv, iv aty KeXevovcriv ol 
 
 29. emxttpoTOviav : so also the MS. of the Lex. rhet. Cantabrig., but the 
 editors of the latter have unanimously altered it to irpoxupoToviav, whence 
 K-W. introduce the latter reading here ' e lex. Cant.' The MS. of Aristotle 
 confirms the MS. of the Lexicon, and illustrates the danger of conjectural 
 emendation. 32. ti pA] : the original scribe appears to have written 
 Tipai or eipat, which the corrector has altered to ti /irj or TipTii. In any 
 case, however, the former must be the true reading. tripav Be : H-L. 
 iripa S' im'i, but the space will not admit it. and the other reading seems 
 traceable in the MS. 33. 6: MS. ov. Sivav: K-W. prefix irepi, which 
 the space will not admit of ; H-L. v, i. e. bnip, which the space will admit, 
 but there is no trace of writing on it. 34. SiaAe'^erai : MS. SiaSeffrai, 
 H-L. 8tah4y€Tai. 
 
 30. avKo(f>avTav npofioXas : this form of procedure against avKo(pavTai 
 is mentioned by Aeschines (De Fals. Leg. § 153, p. 47), rS>v avicocfiavToiv 
 as KaKoipyav Brjpocriq TtpofioXas noiovpeSa, and Pollux (VIII. 46), npofioXal 
 8e rj&av Kal al rfjs <TVKO(paVTias ypatpai. No mention, however, seems to 
 be made anywhere of the limitation here described of the number of 
 such complaints that could be heard at one sitting of the ecclesia. Cf. 
 Schomann De comitiis Atheniensium, p. 232 seq. 
 
 31. kov tic k.t.X. : this law is mentioned by Demosthenes (in Lept. 
 § IOO, p. 487)) ' 0Tl 8« SrjTrov vojxos vp.lv, edv Tit vrroa , X'>pev6t ti t'ov 8rjp.ov 
 f) tt)v fiovXr)v rj biKaaTr)piov i£a7raTT]o-r], Ta ka-xara 7racr^fii/ : cf. [Dem.] in 
 Timoth. § 67, p. I204, vopav ovtoiv, iav Tit t'ov Srjpov VKocrxopevot e'fn7ra- 
 Trjnrjj elg-ayyeXiav elvai wcpl iwtov. 
 
 33. 6 /3ou\o/iei<of : the paraphrase of the present passage given 
 by Pollux (VIII. 96) runs, r) 8e SevTe'pa eVicXijo-ia uvelrai toI? ISovXo- 
 pe'voit, LKeTTjpiav 8epevois, Xeyeiv dSias mpi re T&v ISiav Kal tS>v &rjpo- 
 triav. 
 
 35. al Be 8uo k.t.X. : according to Pollux (I.e.) the third ecclesia in 
 each prytany was assigned to the hearing of heralds and embassies, 
 and the fourth to Upa Kal oaia. But this subdivision is not stated by 
 Aristotle, and is inconsistent with the passage in Aesch. I. 23 (in 
 Timarch. p. 4), iwttSav t'ov Kaddpcriov ircpicvex@ii "<»' Kr)pv£ Tat irarpiovs 
 ivxas evt-rjTai, irpoxeipoTOvetv KeXeici tovs irpoe&povs Ttepl Upa>v rav iraTpiav 
 Kal Kr)pv£i Kal 7rpe(r/3eiair Kai oa-iwv. 
 
CH. 44.] A0HNAIGN nOAITEIA. 139 
 
 vofioi rpla jxev lepwv ^prjpaTL^eiv, rpla Se Krjpv^iv /cat 
 -irpea-fielais, rpla 8' bcricov. ■yjpiqp.a.Ti^pvcnv cT evlore 
 kcu avev irpo^iporovias. irpoaepyovTcu 8e kcu ol 
 K-qpvKts kcu ol 7rp€o~@et.? rot? irpvTOLvecrLV irparov, kcu 
 ol ras £wi<TT6\as (pepovres tovtols diroSiSoacri. 40 
 
 44- Ecrrt 8' €7no"7"ar77? t5>v Trpvravecou els 6 
 Xa^coV ovtos 8' kiricrrar^i vvktol /cat r)p,epav, /cat 
 ovk €cttlv ovt€ 7rXeico yjpovov ovre 8\s rov avrov 
 yev£o-8ai. TrjpcL 8' ovtos tols re /cAety tols toov lepuv 
 kv o\s ra yjnqp-ar iarlu /cat ypdp.p.ara rfj iroXet, /cat 5 
 tt]v 8r\p.oo-iav o-<ppayl8a, kcu p.kv€iv dvajKolov kv rfj 
 
 doXcO TOVTOV kaTlV KCU TpiTTVV TWV TTpVTaVeOOV TjU 
 
 2 hv ovtos KeXevy. /cat e7rei.8av crvva.yaycao'LV ol 
 irpvTavtis TTju fiovXrjv 77 rov 8rjpov ovtos KXrjpoi 
 irpoi8povs kvvea, eva e/c rrjs (ftvXrjs eKaaTrjs 7rXrjv 10 
 
 36. rpia fie : MS. at first rpiai 5e, but corrected. 37. Tpia 5' baiaiv : 
 
 over these words the corrector has written avpauooiav, a quite unintelligible 
 correction, perhaps taken from a different MS., which had been thus cor- 
 rupted. XLIV. 4. kKus: so MS., not xhrji, as 1st ed. and H-L. ; cf. 
 Meisterhans, p. 28. 5. ypaptfiara : K-W. and H-L. prefix to, but perhaps 
 Xp7ifuiTa nal ypd.p.p.ara are taken as one phrase. 7. tovtov : K-W. add r, 
 
 36. rpia fiiv k.t.X. : there is nothing in any other author to explain this 
 passage, but it may be interpreted by comparison with the pi\pi rpiav 
 tKaripav above. Apparently only three motions or proposals with 
 reference to each of these subjects were allowed in each prytany. 
 
 XLIV. I. erna-Tarris: Harpocration (s.V.) says, 8vo elo-'iv 01 Ka8i<TTafievoL 
 im.CTTa.Tai, pev (K irpvTavenv KXr/poipevos, 6 de ex Ta>v wpoiSpav, &v eK&Tepos 
 Tiva &LoUr)(nv Sioi/cfi bcbrjKa>K(v 6 'ApiOTOTe'Arjs iv 'ti.8rivaia>v TroXireia. 
 Suidas (s.v. imo-Tarris) and Eustathius (in Odyss. XVII. 455) give 
 summaries of the present chapter, mostly in Aristotle's words, but 
 without mentioning him. Cf. Rose, Frag. 397. 
 
 10. irpoibpovs : Harpocration (s. v.) refers to this passage, but mis- 
 quotes its purport. He says, iicK-qpovvTo t£>v irpv-raveav xad' iKaa-rrjv 
 irpvraveiav, eif e£ iKao-rrjs (pvXris nXrjv Tfji TTpvTavevovcrrjs, oirtves ra irept 
 ras eVocXijoiar StcoKovv. ixaKovvTO hi irpothpoi, eVeiSiyjrfp nporjBptvov to>v 
 SKKaiv diravTwv . . on 8' 6 naXovpevos eVtoraTr;? (cXijpoi avrovs, eiptjKev 
 'Apto-TorfX?;r (v 'hOrivaiav jroXire/a (Rose, Frag. 398). His error is in 
 stating that the proedri were elected for the prytany, whereas Aristotle 
 
Ho API2T0TEA0T2 [CH. 44. 
 
 ttjs 7rpvTavevovcrr]s, /cat iraXuv i< tovtcou eiricrTaTrjv 
 
 (who is correctly followed by Pollux and Photius) says that they were 
 appointed afresh for each meeting of the Council or Ecclesia. The 
 present passage confirms the now generally accepted view that the 
 proedri were quite distinct from the prytanes, and that the author of 
 the second argument to Demosthenes contr. Androt. is wrong in affirm- 
 ing that there was a second body of proedri, consisting of ten members 
 of the irpvTaveiovcra <j>v\fi, which executed the office of the prytanes for 
 seven days. The existence of this second kind of proedri was 
 accepted by Schomann and Meier in their earlier writings, but was 
 given up subsequently by these writers ; and it is now generally 
 recognised that the unknown author of the document just referred to 
 was wrong. There is no doubt that at one time the prytanes presided 
 over the meetings of the Ecclesia. This is established by the speech 
 of Nicias in Thuc. VI. 14, in which the Prytanis is expressly- 
 addressed as having the duty of putting a question to the vote in the 
 Ecclesia, and by the case of the generals after Arginusae, when 
 Socrates refused to put to the vote the proposal to try them collectively. 
 In the latter case Socrates (or Plato for him) represents himself as 
 a member of the irpvTaveiowa <pv\r] (Plat. Apol. p. 32), and Xenophon 
 (Mem. I. 1. 18) calls him i-maraT-qs. Thucydides, Plato, and Xenophon 
 are contemporary authorities, and their evidence is perfectly clear : 
 and it must be taken as established that in the fifth century the 
 prytanes presided over the meetings of the Ecclesia (and probably 
 therefore of the Council too) ; but there is no sign of any division into 
 sections of ten, nor is the title of proedri applied to them. When we 
 pass to the fourth century the situation is changed. The proedri are 
 repeatedly mentioned in the orators as the officials who put questions 
 to the vote and otherwise acted as presidents, but it is now beyond 
 question that they were not a section of the prytanes, but were the 
 distinct body mentioned by Aristotle. Cf. Caillemer, ap. Daremberg 
 and Saglio, art. Boule. Whether the division of the fifty prytanes 
 into sections of ten ever existed may be doubtful ; but it may be 
 taken for certain that they were never called proedri. In the fifth 
 century the prytanes, under their ima-raT^s, presided at the Council 
 and Ecclesia ; in the fourth the proedri were instituted, appointed on 
 each occasion from the other nine tribes, and the presidential duties 
 were transferred to them and their ema-TaTrjs. Passages in which the 
 prytanes are spoken of in connection with the business of the Ecclesia 
 (Schomann, De Com. Ath., 1819, 89, 90 F) are to be explained by 
 observing that it was they that drew up the programme of business for 
 each meeting, which they handed to the proedri for execution. A 
 final proof that they did not themselves preside may be seen in the 
 fact that the cViordrf/s of the prytanes, together with one-third of his 
 colleagues, was forbidden to leave the Tholus during his day of office, 
 
CH. 44.J A0HNAI-QN ITOAITEIA. 141 
 
 3 eva, kou 7rapa8i8co(ri to Trpoypafi/xa uvtoIs' oi 8e 
 TrapaAafiovre? ttjs t €VKoap,ia? eiripLtAovvTcu, kou 
 V7rep &v 8el yj>rjp.aTL^€iv TrpoTiOiacriv, kou to.? X €l P°~ 
 rovias Kptvovcriv, kou tol dXXa iravra Slolkovctlv 15 
 /cat tov r a(f)€iua.i Kvpioi eicriv. kou kincnaTr\craL 
 p-eu ovk e^eariv ttXcov rj aira£ kv tS kviavTw, 
 TrpoeSpeveiv 8" e^eaTiv aira^ eiri ttjs 7rpvTaveia? 
 
 4 eKaa-TTjs. ttolovctl Be kou apyaipecrla^ arparrj-ycov 
 Kai iinrap'Xfov kou tcov aXXcov tcov irpos tov iroXep-ov 20 
 apXpiv kv Tjj kKKX-rjcria, kol6' tl av too 8rjp.a> SoKrj' 
 
 TTOLOVCTL 8 OL p.€Ta TT)V 9 TTpVTCLVeVOVTeS k(j)' &V OLV 
 
 12. irpoypanfta : Trpay/ia Suidas, clearly a corruption. 14. TspoTiBkaav : 
 
 the corrector has added 8« «ot above the line, apparently to be inserted before 
 wpoTiBeacrtv ; but 5ef has occurred already, and «ai is incompatible with the 
 construction, which the corrector must have misunderstood. K-W., however, 
 insert Bti here instead of before xi"ll ulT K e "'- !?■ T ° : K-W. add t'. 16. 
 
 t should perhaps be struck out, with Blass and Richards ; K-W. bracket 
 it ; H-L. substitute H)v iKuKTjaiav, after Rutherford. 17. irXtov : MS. 
 
 irKeiov. 19. apxatpeaias : MS. Seitapxaiptatas, but the word is unknown, 
 
 and it is perhaps better, with Dr. Sandys, to consider the 5e« as a corrupt 
 repetition of Se «<u. 22. ixera tt\v : MS. p.na ra tipi, by dittography. 
 
 and therefore could not have appeared in the Ecclesia. The prytanes 
 had considerable administrative duties, notably the preparation of 
 business to be submitted to the Ecclesia ; but with the actual manage- 
 ment of meetings they had, in the fourth century, nothing to do. 
 
 12. npoypafifia: the npoypafipia is of course the order of business 
 which was to come before the Ecclesia. 
 
 22. oi ftera rr]v r TrpvravevovTes : this statement as to the date of the 
 election of the strategi is new. It has long been recognised that the 
 author of the argument to Demosthenes contr. Androt. is wrong in 
 saying that all elections took place in the last four days of the year 
 [cf. Schomann, De Com. Ath. pp. 322-326) ; but nothing positive has 
 been known on the subject. It has been conjectured (e.g. by Kohler, 
 Monatsber. d. Akad. d. Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1866, p. 343) that 
 the apxat-peo-La took place in the ninth prytany ; but the present passage 
 shows that it was in the first prytany after the sixth in which the 
 omens were favourable. The earliest date on which the elections 
 could fall (the prytanies being presumably calculated from the 14th of 
 Scirophorion, on which day, as appears from 32, 1. 8, the new Council 
 came into office) would consequently be in the month Gamelion. The 
 fact that the date varied in different years may account for the other- 
 
142 API2T0TEA0TS [CH. 44- 
 
 eva-rjfiia yevrjTcu. 8ei 8k irpofiovXevp.a yevecrdou Kai 
 wepi tovtcov. 
 
 45. 'H 8k fHovXr) irporepov pXv r\v Kvpla /cat 
 yj>r\p.ao~iv fo/xicocrai /cat Srjcrat. /cat mroKTelvcu. /cat 
 h.v<Tip.ayov avrrjs ayayovar)? as tov 8rjp.i.ov KaOrj- 
 fiev.ov rjSr) peXXouTa anoOurjcrKeLV Evp-^XiSi]? o 
 
 5 ' AXco7reKrjdev acpelXero, ov (j)acrKcou 8eii> avev <5t/ca<r- 
 TTjpLOV yvcoaecos ovSeua ra>i> ttoXitcov airoOvrjaKeiv' 
 /cat Kptaecos kv Siicacrnjpicp yevopavrjs 6 fiev Avcrl- 
 pa^os anrk(pvyev /cat k-rrcovvp-lav kayev 6 airo tov 
 Tvirdvov, 6 8k Srjpos a(peiXeTO rrjs ftovXrjs to Oava- 
 
 10 tovv /cat Selv /cat yj>r]p,ao~i fafuovv, Kai vop.ov k'deTO 
 av tlvos aSiKeiv rj fiovXr) KCtTayva 77 {j]p.ia>o-r), tols 
 KaTayvcoaeis /cat tols eVt^/xtcocret? eicrdyeiv tovs 
 
 23. ytvioQaj. : K-W. ytveaSai. XLV. 2. K-W. mark a lacuna after 
 
 AmucTuvat. 4. AiroBvyo/cttv : MS. amBvqoKtiv, and so 1. 6. EifiT]KiSr)s : 
 
 MS. ev/ni\et8ris. 5. 'A\uireKTJ9ev : MS. aKa>we$rjicev. 7. SixaOTrjpiw : K-W. 
 
 prefix ra, though they allow the omission in 46, 1. 13 and pj, 1. 9. 12. 
 
 emfaiuuaas : H-L. faiuuocis, after Wyse; but the fact that the compound is a 
 air. A«7. does not seem a sufficient ground for departing from the MS. 
 
 wise rather remarkable silence on the part of all ancient authorities on 
 the subject. The date given in C. I. A. II. 416, on which Gilbert and 
 Busolt rely, is now seen to refer only to the year in question (the exact 
 date is doubtful). In that year the apxaipeoiai were held Kara tijv 
 pavreiav on the 20th day of the 10th prytany, in the month Munychion. 
 XLV. 1. povKri : this summary jurisdiction of the Council in early 
 times does not seem to be mentioned elsewhere, nor yet the story 
 which Aristotle relates of its suppression. Unfortunately it is impossible 
 to date this incident exactly, as neither of the persons mentioned, 
 Lysimachus and Eumelides, is otherwise known. One person of the 
 name of Lysimachus who might suit chronologically is the son of 
 Aristides, who is mentioned by Plutarch (Arist. 27) and Demosthenes 
 (in Lept. § 115, p. 491) ; another is the person who is mentioned in Xen. 
 Hell. II. 4. 8 as a hipparch in the service of the Thirty. The latter 
 may very probably be the person intended, as his share in the 
 proceedings of the Thirty might easily bring him into trouble ; but 
 it was not an uncommon name, and we cannot be certain upon the 
 subject. 
 
CH. 46.] A0HNAII2N nOAITEIA. . 143 
 
 decrpoderas els to SiKao-Tr/piov, /cat 6 ti av oi 
 
 2 StKacrTcu \jtri(f)lcroovTai tovto Kvpiov elvcu. Kpivei 
 8e tols apyas rj fiovXrj tols nXe'iaras, p.dXia& oerat IS 
 XPW ara 8iayeipi£ov(riv' ov Kvpla 8" 77 Kpicris, dXX' ^ Co1 ' 24 ' 
 i(peo-ipos els to SiKaaT-rjpLov. e^ecrTi 8e /cat toIs 
 IBuotcus elcrayyeXXeiv r/v av fiovAcovTcu tcov apyav 
 
 pr] yprjadai toIs vopois' exeats 8e /cat tovtols ioriv 
 els to 8iKao-T7}piov eav avTav rj fiovXr) Karayvw. 20 
 
 3 8oKip.aQi 8e /cat tovs (SovXevrds tovs tov vaTepov 
 eviavTov fiovXevcrovTas /cat tovs evvea apyov- 
 Tas. kcll wpoTepov p,ev r)v a7roSoKip.d(rcu Kvpia, 
 vvv 8e tovtols ecpeais eo-Tiv els to 8iK.ao~Tr)pi,ov. 
 
 4 tovtchv pev ovv dicvpos eo~Tiv r) fiovXr}. TrpofiovXevei. 25 
 §' els tov 8r)pov, /cat ovk e^eaTiv ov8ev currpoftov- 
 XevTov ov8 tl av prj Trpoypa^rcocnv oi TrpvTaveis 
 ij/rjCpio-ao-dai r» 8rjpa>' /car' ai)To\ yap TavTa evo\6s 
 eaTLV 6 viKYjo-as ypa(j)fj Trapavopcov. 
 
 46. 'E7ri/-teAetrat 8e /cat tcov TreiroL7]p.ivcov Tpu-qpcov 
 /cat tcov atcevcbv /cat tcov vecocroiKoov, /cat TroieiTai 
 Kaivas TpiT}pei.s rj TeTpr/peis, biroTepas av 6 Srjpos 
 
 1 7. €<p(OtiM>s : a letter appears to have been written and cancelled between 
 the first c and <p ; it does not seem to be ir' k<peaiitos, as H-L. read. 24. 
 
 tovtois: K-\Y. prefix icai. 28. /car aira: Kara, H-L., after Kontos. 
 
 XLVI. 3. Kaivas: MS. Kaivas Be : Kaivas has been at first miswritten, and is 
 followed by a blot ; probably the scribe made a blunder, and the corrector 
 omitted to cancel the Se. 
 
 XLVI. 1. tS>v TTe7roirjij.eva>v Tpi-qpav : the speech of Demosthenes 
 against Androtion turns on the duty of the Council to superintend ship- 
 building, and on the law, which Aristotle proceeds to mention, that 
 unless this duty was fulfilled the Council was not to receive the 
 customary donation (duped) of a golden crown. 
 
 3. rj Terpijpeir : Mr. Cecil Torr has pointed out {Athenaeum, Feb. 7, 
 1 891) that this statement gives a clue to the date of the composition of 
 the treatise, as it must plainly have been written after the Athenians 
 began to buiJd quadriremes, and before they began to build quinque- 
 
144 AP12T0TEA0T2 [CH. 46. 
 
 XeipoTOprjar), /cat aKevr) tolvtcus /cat veaiaoiKovs. 
 
 5 \€ipoTovel 8' a/j^tre'/croj'a? 6 Srjfxos eVt rap i/aOy 
 
 ai> 8e /u.77 jrapadaxriv i^eipyacrfieva ravra rfj vea 
 
 ffovXfj, ttjv Scopeav ovk eariv avToi? Xafieiv. €7tl 
 
 [Col. 25.] yap Trjs vartpov ftovXfjs Xa/xftavovcnv. iroieiTai 
 
 8e to.9 rpcypeis, 5e'/ca avBpas i£ d^7rdvrcovj eXojxivrj 
 
 10 Tpir)po7roiov9. i^erd^eL 8e /cat rd olKoSopLrj/xaTa 2 
 
 to. Srj/xocria iravra, kolv ti? a.8iKelv avrfj 86(jr) tw re 
 
 dr/fACD tovtov \a7r\o(paii>ei /cat Karayvovcra 7rapa.8i8a>(ri 
 
 8iKa.(TT7)pia>. 
 
 9. airavToiv : K-W. a[v-7w], Wayte eavrTjs. 12. ttarayvovffa : K-W. 
 /rara-yi'oPToy. 13. dacacT7Tjpiat : H-L. prefix 7-<£, after Gennadios and 
 Naber, though they omit it in 45, 1. 7, and 55, 1. 9. 
 
 remes. The annual lists of the fleet are missing for some years 
 before 330-329 B.C., but in that year (C. I. A. II. 807 b. 67-79) it in- 
 cludes eighteen quadriremes. The first quinqueremes (seven in 
 number) appear in the list for 325-324 B.C. (C. I. A. II. 809 d. 62-92), 
 which fixes an inferior date before which the treatise must have been 
 written. 
 
 6. irapaBSxriv : the subject of this would naturally be taken to be ol 
 apXtreKToves, but in the light of the speech of Demosthenes it appears 
 that it is really meant to apply to the Council. 
 
 8. 7roieiT<u 8e k.t.X. : here begins the third roll of the papyrus, written 
 in what has been described as the fourth hand. The first column 
 of this section of the papyrus is headed y ropos. This division of the 
 papyrus has been mentioned and explained in the Introduction. 
 
 10. rpirjpoTi-oiois : Pollux (I. 84) mentions the namesof these function- 
 aries, and Demosthenes (contr. Androt. § 17, p. 59S) refers to the raplas 
 twv TpiTjpmroi.011/, and in such a way as to show that they were subordinate 
 to the Council, aKovco 8 avrbv toioutov eptlv Tiva eV vpiv Xnyop, as ov)( 17 
 /3ouX?7 yeyovev atria tov firj TreiroLTJa'dai ras pavs, tl\\ twv rpiY)poiToiutv 
 rapias airohpcis iS^ero e^tov ivevff fjpiTahavTa. Aeschines {contr. Ctes. § 30, 
 p. 58) appears to speak of them when he includes the officers whose 
 duty it was rpi^peis vavnr\yeiu6a\. as among the magistrates ovs al <pv\a\ 
 Kat al rpiTTves Kal 01 Srjpoi e£ iavroiv alpovvrat rci drjpoatn xprjpara 
 SiaxetpLCeiv, but it is not clear how this is to be reconciled with 
 Aristotle, unless it merely implies that the Council were obliged to 
 choose one from each tribe, possibly from candidates nominated by 
 the tribes. This view makes airavTav preferable as a supplement in 
 1. 9, in spite of the close subordination of this commjttee to the 
 
CH. 47.J A0HNALQN nOAITEIA. 145 
 
 47- ^vv8ioik€l 8e /cat reds aXXais appals ra 
 7rAe«rra. irpcoTov p.ev yap ol rap-iai ttjs 'AOrjvas etcrt 
 fxev 8eKa, /cA^poOrat] 8' eh e/c ttjs (pvXrjs, e/c irevTa — - 
 Koo~iop.e8lp.vcov Kara, tov ^oXcovos voplov — en yap 6 
 
 Vj6p.OS KVpiOS kfTTIV , 0.pX H ^ ° XayCOV KOLV TTOLVV 5 
 
 -revrjs ~). -rapaXap,^a.vov[a-L 8e rjo re ayaXp,a ttjs 
 'AOrjva? /cat ras vlica? /cat tov aXXov Koap-ov /cat ra 
 2 x/ J [ 7 ?A tar J a kvavTiov ttjs fiovXr)?. eireiff ol -rcoXrjTal 
 I p.ev eicri, KXrjpovTai 3' el? e'/c ttjs (J)[vXt)S' picrj- 
 dovcn 8e ra p.Lo~6a>p,aTa iravra /cat ra p.eraXXa 10 
 ttcoXovcti, /cat to. reXrj [p.eTci t\ov rap-iov tcov o~Tparuo- 
 tikcqv /cat tcdv eVt to Oecopinov ypr/p.evcov kvavTiov 
 ttjs \JSovXris\ KaTaKvpovo-iv otco av r] fiovXrj x eL P°~ 
 
 XLVII. 3. eh Ik ttjs <pv\rjs : Bury proposes to add l/ciffTi/r, Wyse to alter 
 kx ttjs into If exaaTTis. The former is, of course, palaeographically easiest, but 
 the phrase is perfectly intelligible without alteration, and recurs in 1. 9. 
 
 Council evident from Demosthenes and from the present passage. 
 Moreover kindred commissions such as the eViordrm raiv Br]po<ria>i> 
 epymv and the airoo-roXels were apparently elected <•'£ anavTasv (Gilbert, 
 Staatsalt. I. 349, 250). 
 
 XLVII. 2. 01 rapXai rrjs 'Adrjvas : cf. note on ch. 30, 1. IO. 
 
 4. Kara tov SoXwror vopov : cf. ch. 8, 1. 8. 
 
 5. ap^ei 8' 6 \axa>v Kav ndvv Trevrji g : for a similar legal fiction com- 
 pare ch. 7, 1. 34. 
 
 6. 7rapa\apl3avov<ri . . . |3ou\jjf : quoted by Harpocration s. v. racial, 
 as from Aristotle's 'A.8T)valav -roXiTeia (Rose, Frag. 402). 
 
 8. iru\r)Tai : Harpocration refers to the 'A6rjvaia>v noKtreia as contain- 
 ing an account of these officials, but his own description is not verbally 
 taken from this source (Rose, Frag. 401). The description of Pollux 
 (VIII. 99) has some points in common, but not all. 
 
 11. tov rajilov toiv o-TpananKcbv : this officer is considered by 
 Fraenkel (note on Boeckh's Staatsh 3 . I. 222) to have been first ap- 
 pointed in 347 B. C, after the fall of Olynthus. Another duty of the 
 same officer is mentioned in the following chapter of the present 
 treatise, viz. a share in the management of the games at the Pana- 
 thenaic festival. 
 
 L 
 
146 APIST0TEA0T2 [CH. 47- 
 
 Tovrjcrrj' /cat to. "KpaQevra /xeraXXa [ocraj ipyacrifia, 
 
 15 to. els rpia err) ireirpapeva, /cat ra crvyK.exa>p7]p.evaTa 
 els . e '[rrj] Treirpapeva. /cat ray ovcrias tcov eg 'Apeiov 
 wdyov (pevyovrcov /cat tcov [6(f)ei\ijT<5v ev\avTiov 
 rrjy] fiovXr/s ttcoXovctiv, KaraKvpovcri 8' oi ap^ovres' 
 kuI tol reXr} rot. els eviavr^ovj ireTrpapeva avaypa- 
 
 20 yfravres els XeXevKcopeva ypap.pa.Teia tov re irpiapevov 
 /cat [ocrou] av TrpirjTcu rfj fiovXfj 7ra.pa8186a.cr1u. am- 3 
 ypdcpovcnv 8e ^m/ny p.ev ous 8ei Kara Trpv^rjavelav 
 eKacrTrjv KarafiaXXeiv els 8eica ypafiparela, -^copls 5' 
 ovs reTAet to€] eviavTov, ypappareiov Kara tttjv 
 
 25 KaTafioXrjv eKacrTrjv TroirjcravTes, \a>p\s 8' ovs [«rt] 
 rrjs evd.TT]s irpvTaveias. dvaypacpovcn 8e /cat ra ^mpia 
 /cat ray ot/a'ay [to. drroy pacpjevra /cat irpaOevra ev tco 
 8iKacrT7jpLcp' /cat yap ravff ovtol 7ra>X\ovcriv. ecrrtX 
 8e tcov pev oIkloov ev i ejecriv dvayKt] rrjv Tiprjv 
 
 30 airoSovvai, tcov 8e ^apiaou ev 5e/ca" KarafiaXXovcriv 
 8e ravra eVt rrjs ivaT-qs TrpvTaveias. et(r[0e]/)ei 4 
 8\ /cat 6 fiacriXevs ray p.icr0c6cjeis tcov (Te}p.eva>v 
 dvaypd-tyas ev ypappaTeVLois XeXevKjcopevois. ecrrt 
 
 14. peraWa offa Ipydffipta : H-L ei kpydfftfia, but 
 
 /iiraWa is certain, and the letters given as ei are « (K-W. a) and a badly 
 formed p or 7, 'which have been erased. K-W. give ra t for o<ra, but it does 
 not appear possible to read this in the MS. If, however, rd avyKex^PV^ 1 " 1 is 
 another class of mines, rd t would be a probable supplement. 16. irr] : 
 
 this word is preceded by a numeral, the horizontal stroke above it being quite 
 visible ; but the numeral itself is doubtful. It most resembles 7, and if to 
 avyKixwp-qp-tva refers to something distinct from rd iiiraWa. this may probably 
 be the right reading. H-L. [eis dei]. 17. 6<pei\(Tuiv : the reading is very 
 
 doubtful. K-W. [i( i<pf\rwv, H-L. [dri/xon>], after Sandys, but the MS. will not 
 admit of that. 2 1 . Saov : diroaov Tyrrell (to whom the restoration of the 
 
 preceding words is partly due), H-L. ; but there is not room for so many letters 
 in the lacuna. 24. re\fi tou : K-W. rpis toS, which is not impossible ; 
 
 H-L. irpb reAous, 1st ed. TtKovvros. 27. airoy patpevra : so H-L., Wyse, 
 
 K-W. 28. fan S^ : H-L. mi, but the letter visible is 5', not «'. 31. 
 
 (iatptpu : H-L. [TrapafiifiaxTt] after Paton. 32. TifavSiv: MS. pifvaiv, 
 
 corrected by Wyse. quoting [Dem.] 43. § 58, p. 1069, tois nil avoSiSuvras rdr 
 fuoBi/oeis twv Tiy,ivuv. 33. The supplement is due to Dr. Jackson. 
 
CH. 48.] A0HNAII2N nOAITEIA. 147 
 
 fie /cat rovrcov 77 fiev fiicrOaxris els err] 5e/ca, 
 /cara/3aAAerat 8' eVi rrjs [#] irpvraveias' 8lo /cat 35 
 TrXelara ^pr/fiara eVt ravrrjs avXXeyeraL rrjs 7T/0u[ra]- 
 
 5 veias. elatyeperai p.ev ovv els rrjv fiovXrjv ra ypap.- 
 fj.ar\eVyx. rds KarafioXas apayeypafj.fj.eva, rrfpel 8' 6 
 8r)fj.6crios' orav 5' r) yjirffidrviv KarafioXr) irapa- 
 8i8coai rols a7ro5e/crat? avrd ravra Kade\Xaivj airVo 4° 
 r<£vj eirurrvXlxov 5>v ev ravrrj rfj rjfiepa Set to. XPV" 
 fiara Karaj3XT)[0riv]ai [/cat a^raXei(^dr\vac to. 5' 
 aXXa airoKeLTai. ya>p\$ tva p.rj Trpoe£aX[ei(pdfjj. 
 
 48. [EtcrtJ 5' a7ro5e/crat 5e/ca, KeKXrjptofievoi Kara. 
 (pvXas' ovroi 8e irapaXafiovres to. [ypalpLfxareia 
 aTraXe'Mpovcri ra Karaj3aXX6fJ.eva yjprjfxara evavriov 
 \rr\s fiovXijs] ev ra fiovXevrrjpicp, /cat iraXiv a.Tro8i- 
 Soaaiv to. ypafifiareia PrcS 8rj]fto<riq>' kolv ris e'A- 5 
 XLirrj KarafioXrjv evrevOev yeypairrai, /cat 8i7rX[ovv 
 a\vdyKr] to [e'AAjet0#ei' KarafidXXeiv r) 8e8ecrdai, 
 /cat ravra el(nrpd\rreiv r) /3oJuAr) /cat 8r)crai [/cu/jjta 
 
 2 /caret rovs vofiovs ecrrlv. rfj p,ev odv irporepaia 
 8ej(ovrai rd xp[rjfj.araj /cat fiepii^ovcri rals dpyals, rfj 10 
 
 38. After "tpafinaTcia there is a letter (? two) which appears to be * ; 
 if so the scribe must have inserted mi by mistake. K-W. to, H-L. 
 TtavTuv, for which there is not nearly room. 40. KaS(\aiv ami : 
 
 so H-L. ; K-W. Ka0e\[un>~\ ix, but the K is uncertain and i« very question- 
 able. 41. 8(1 : om. H-L., and K-W. accept it doubtfully ; but 
 it seems clear in MS. 42. Hard^K-rjO^vai tcai ; H-L. KaraQ\_\fj6€VTa 
 def\. aira\(i(pBTjvai : MS. aira\(aprjvai. 43. Trpof^aXtufSri : H-L. irpoe- 
 (a[kei<f>7]Tai]. XLVIII. 6. ivreuOiv ytypaTrrai : H-L., K-W. ivravS' iyyi- 
 ypamai. Siir\ovv : so K-W., H-L. ; the MS. is rather doubtful. 1st ed. 81' 
 ijv [aWiav «ai], for which there is not room. 
 
 43. npoe£a\fi(t>djj : irpoegakftyeiv is not elsewhere found, but it is a 
 perfectly natural compound, and egaXeicpetv is in common use ; e.g., of 
 this very process of cancelling debts, et-aKcupovrav, C. I. A. I. 32, 11. 
 
 XLVIII. 2. irapakafiovTes . . . . 6 , 7/fioo'io> : quoted from the 'ABrjmiav 
 jroXcTei'a by Harpocration, s. v. diroSem-ai (Rose, Frag. 400). 
 
 L 1 
 
148 AP12T0TEA0T2 [CH. 48. 
 
 8' iHrrepaia tov re p.epLo~/j.ov elcrfcpepovJcrL ypa^avTts 
 kv aaviSi kolI KaTaXeyovaiv kv rS> fiovXevTrjpiw, Kai 
 Tv\poTi6C\acriv kv rfj fiovXfj et t'ls riva oiSev aSiKOvura 
 7repl tov pLepioywv 77 ap^ovTa rj lSlcottjv, kcu yvcop.as 
 
 15 CTTvtyr)(pi(^ovcriv kav t'ls tl 8oKrj ol[8lk€lv. KjXrjpovo-i 3 
 8e Kai Xoyurras k£ avTcov ol fiovXevrai SeKa tovs 
 Xoyiovpiivovs t^cus appals kcltcx. ttjv irpvTaveiav 
 €Ka(TTr]v. KXrjpovcrL 8e Kai evdvvovs, eva ttjs (pvXrjs 4 
 €Kao-TT)?, Kai irapihpovs /3 e/cacrrcp twv evOvvcov, ois 
 
 20 avayKaZov kaTi Tals a\yopyils Kara, tov kira>vvp.ov tov 
 
 ttjs (pvXrjs eKao-Trjs Ka0r}o~dai, Kav tls ftovTXrjTaL^ tivi 
 
 to>v Tas evdvvas €v tco SiKao-TTjplco 8e8a>KOTO>V €VT0S 
 
 > y rnjiepav a(pj fjs e'ScoKe Tas evOvvas evdvvav, av t 
 
 \8iav av re 8[rjfio<riavj, kpfiaXicrOai, ypa^ras els 
 
 25 ttlvolklov XeXevKap-evov Tovvop,a to lavTojv Kai to 
 tov (pevyovTos Kai to clSlktjp,' tl av kyKaXfj, Kai 
 Tip,r]p.a [k7TLypa(pojp.evos o tl av avTco Sokyj 8l8cdo-lv 
 
 11. ela<pipovcri : there is a slight confusion about this word, a 6 or another c 
 having apparently been written before it. 1st ed. tia ayov]ai, but eiocpepav 
 is preferable (cf. 47, 11. 31, 37); so H-L., K-W., but the latter are mis- 
 taken in believing the letters <pf to be visible in the MS. 13. irpo- 
 TiSiaaiv : this supplement has also been suggested by Dr. Sandys. 20. rats 
 ayopais : H-L. reus eiBvvais, ignoring the a which follows rats. Richards 
 TpeTs Jjptepas. tcwra', K-W., H-L. irapa, against MS. 21. f/caoTrjs : 
 H-L. 'iicaarov. 23. av r' ISiav av re or^iou'iav : the reading is due to K-W. and 
 Gertz. 25. rb airov : so supplied by Blass, Richards, H-L. ; K-W. r6 
 ts aiiTov. 27. emypa<p6iievos : so Wyse, but there is some doubt whether 
 it is compatible with the visible remains in the MS. H-L. imypa^anevos, K-W. 
 v[TToypa<l>]6fiei>os, but the v is very questionable. 
 
 16. Xoyiordi : see note on ch. 54, 1. 3. 
 
 18. evdvvovs: Photius says of this word, apxh fans. e£ eKao-rris 8e qbvXrjs 
 eva xKripovtri, roira 8e Mo napeBpovs. Harpocration, after saying that 
 the evdvvoi 8eKa tov apiBpav rjaav avBpes, nap' oij i8iSo<rav ol wpfaSevaaVTes 
 fj apgavres rj Si04Kr]<rai/Ter ti tS>v bypoaiav rat cudivas, adds SieiXcierat 
 nepl airrav 'ApiaroreXr/s iv rrj 'ABrjvalav jroXiTft'a (Rose, Frag. 405). 
 
 20. rais ayopah : the periodical meetings of the several tribes ; cf. 
 Gilbert, Staatsalt. I. 192. 
 
CH. 49.J A0HNAIGN nOAITEIA. 149 
 
 5 ra evOvva>' 6 8e Aaficov tovto kcu a\yayvovs] idu pev 
 Karayuw 7rapa8c8coo-cu to. pev 'L8iol rols SiKaaTals tols 
 /caret 8[r/povs ot] ttjv (pvXrjv ravrrju elo-dyovo-iv, ra 30 
 8e 8r)fx6ana toZs deo-poderafis dvoi]ypd(pei. ol 8e 
 decr/jLoOsTcu idv Tvapaka^cocnv ttoKlv eicrdyovaiv 
 [rrjvj evdvvav els to SLKacrTrjpiov, kcu o ti av yvaaiv 
 ol 5i/cacrr[ai tovto Kvlptov eaTi. 
 
 49* &OKipd£ei 8e kcu tovs uirirovs rj flovXq, kclv pev 
 tls koXov L\Tnrov e'xj "' KaK <£>? 8okjj rpecpeiv, frpiol tw 
 ctlto), to?? 8e prj 8vvapevois \aK0X~\0v6e1v 77 prj OeXovcri 
 peveiv avay(a>yois} ovai Tpoyov eiri ttjv yv^dOov eVi- 
 ftaWovo-i kcu 6 rjouro iradcov dSoKipos io~Ti. Sokl- 5 
 
 28. dvayvovs : so Blass, K-W., H-L., though perhaps the near neighbourhood 
 of Kara-yfw is against it. 1st ed. a[itovaas]. \xtv : bracketed by K-W. 30. 
 
 daayovaiv : K-W. 5i/ta£ov<riv, against MS., as conjectured by Richards and 
 Thompson. 31. avaypatpet : K-W. [rifiujpa 5'] vnoypa<pci, but there is 
 
 not space for this. 34. tovto xvpiov ioTi : so supplied by conjecture 
 
 by H-L. and K-W., and the MS. appears to confirm the last four letters of 
 icipiov. XLIX. 2-4. The 1st ed. and the emendations to it have erred 
 
 through a misunderstanding of the size of the lacunas in this passage, two de- 
 tached portions of papyrus having been brought too closely together. xaKov 
 'ivitov K-W. clkoKovBhv, Wyse (from Xen. Mem. III. 3, 4), which suits the 
 traces in the MS. better than [tJ/k'^w (1st ed.), whence K-W. and H-L. 
 Tpi\tiv, after Campbell. avaywyois ovai H-L. (from Xen. I.e.); MS. avayovoi, 
 with two letters, apparently \y, over va, an unintelligible attempt to correct 
 the corrupt text. yvdSov • first supplied by R. D. Hicks (from Hesych. j. v. 
 Tpvoirririov). em@a\\ovai Hicks (from Hesych. /. c.) ; it is doubtful whether it 
 is the right word, as the lacuna appears to require one with two letters less. 
 The various conjectures as to the verb based on the corrupt avayovoi (of which 
 Campbell's dvaypd(povoi was perhaps the most satisfactory) fall to the ground 
 on this reconstruction of the passage. 
 
 XLIX. 2-5. The process here described (on the understanding of 
 which the restoration of the mutilated text depends) was first explained 
 by Mr. R. D. Hicks, from Hesychius, s. v. Tpvo-Lmriov' rbv xapaierfjpa tov 
 viro ttjs f3ov\rjs iv Tals 8oKifj.aai.ais rols dSwdrois Kal TeTpv/ifievois \t£>v 
 mirav £izifiaXK6p.evov s ) Iva /iijKcrt o-rpareiavTai. . . . Tp6)(os &' rjv o fV<- 
 j3a\X6ficvos x a P aKT hp T V yvadta tS>v tmrwv. Cf. Eustath. I5I7> 8, rpv- 
 a'vKViov' ZyKav\xa Ittttov yeyripaKoros «ri rr/s yvaSov, op.oiov Tpo^f. To 
 these should be added Xen. Mem. III. 3, 4 (quoted by Mr. Wyse), 
 £av aev ovv Trap£x mvTa i °~ 0L tovs "ittttovs ol fiev ovtco KaKonoSas r] KaKoo~Ke\us 
 7) dtrdevets, ol 8e ovtcos arpoqjovs (Sore fir] hivatrBat aieoXovdeiv, ol 8e ovtois 
 avayayovs (bare fifj jxivdv ottov av o-i ra^gs. 
 
150 API2T0TEA0TS [CH. 49. 
 
 [Col. 26.] p.a£ei 5e/cat tovs Trp\o8~\p\6p.ovs, oaot av alvTrj Sokgktlv 
 
 eTTlT7]8eiOl 7Tpo8pOfJ.€V€LP elvai, KOLVTLV aTTO^eLpOTOVrjar] 
 
 KaTajSefirjKev ovtos. 8oKip.d£ei 8e /cat tovs dpiinrovs, 
 Kav tlv diro^eipoTOvrjarj TreitavTai p.ia8o(popcov ovtos. 
 
 10 tovs 8' hnveas KaraXeyovaiv oi KaraXoyeis, ovs av 6 2 
 Srjpos )(eipoTovr]crr} 8eK<z avSpas' ovs 8' av Kara- 
 Xe^coai 7rapa8i86aai tols hrirdpypis /cat (pvXdp%ois, 
 ovtol 8e 7rapaXa/36vT€9 eiacpepovai tVov~\ naraXoyov 
 eis tt]v fiovXrjv Kal tov irivaKa dvoi^avres, ev a> <ara- 
 
 15 <rearjp.aap.iva ra 6v6p.ara ra>v iiriremv earl, tovs p,ev 
 e£op.vvp.evovs T(2v irpoTepov eyyeypap.p.eva>v p.r) 8vva- 
 tovs elvai tols aa>p.aaiv iinreveiv i£aXe[(povai, tovs 
 8e KaTeiXeypevovs \jc\aXovai, Kav p.ev tis i^opoar/Tai 
 p.rj 8vvaa6ai t<£ acop.aTi iwireveiv 77 7-77 ovala. tovtov 
 
 20 dffiiaaiv, tov 8e p.r) eijop.vvp.evov 8iayeipoTovovaiv oi 
 fiovXevTa). iroTepov eTriTr/Seios eaTiv vmreveiv 77 ov. 
 Ka.vp.ev yeipoTovqawaiv , iyypdcpovaiv eis tov irivaKa, 
 
 6. 6V01 : oi 2nd ed., H-L., K-W., but the lacuna requires a longer word. 
 K-W. prefix xpivovaa, which is too long. 7. auo\fiporovr]ar) : MS. 
 
 apparently Tr[po]x"poTovrjaT]i, as below, corr. J. B. Mayor, Campbell, etc. 8. 
 a/umrovs : MS. avnnrovs, corr. W. L. Newman. 9. airoxcpoTorqaTi : MS. 
 
 npox^iporovrj(T7jL. 14. irivaKa avoifcavTts : MS. mvaicavoigavTes. 15. 
 
 KaTao-iOTjuaa/itva : after the rj the letters o-/i(ev'a ;so rightly read bv H-L.) have 
 been written and then cancelled. 16. iyieypappevaii' : MS. (vyeypap.- 
 
 paiQiv. 17. l^ake'upovai : MS. e£a\i<povoi. 18. If ojwaTjrai : MS. 
 
 t£op.7]ff7]Tai : K-W. kgopvvijTai. 
 
 6. Ttpohpojiovs : we do not hear of irpohpopoi as a distinct corps in any 
 Greek army before the time of Alexander (Arrian, An. I. 12), but they 
 may have been adopted in Greece at the same date. 
 
 8. afiinnovs : the MS. reading, avmitovs, could only be explained by 
 supplying jrpoSpd/iovs, and explaining this, not as a military corps, but 
 as civil couriers or state messengers, some of whom were mounted 
 and some unmounted. Mr. W. L. Newman's correction is, however, 
 practically certain, apmitoi, infantry interspersed among cavalry, are 
 mentioned among a Boeotian contingent in Thuc. V. 57, and in Xen. 
 Hell. VII. S, 23, where the MSS. actually have dviVnw, but a reference 
 in Harpocration {s. v. a/umroi) proves afiimrav to be the true reading. 
 
CH. 49-J A0HNAII2N IIOAITEIA. 151 
 
 3 el Se ixrj, /cat tovtov a(piacriv. ktxpivev Se wore /cat 
 to. irapaSeiyiiaTa /cat tov ireirXov 77 /3ovXrj, vvv Se 
 to 8iicao~TT]piov to Xa^ov iSoKovv yap ovtol Kara- 25 
 \apl^ecrdai ttjv Kpicriv. /cat rrjs TroLr^crecos tcov vikcov 
 /cat tcov ctOXcov tcov et? ra YlavaO-qvaia crvve7rip.eXeiTai 
 
 4 fj.era tov Tap.iov tcov CTTpaTicoTiKcov. SoKLfia^ei Se 
 /cat tov? olSwoltovs rj fiovXrf vopos yap ecmv bs 
 KeXevei tov? evTos rpicov p.vcov KeKT7)p.evovs /cat to 3° 
 crcopu 7re7T7)pa>p.evovs coare p,rj Svvacrdai /xrjSev epyov 
 ipyd^ecrdai SoKip.d^eiv p.ev ttjv fiovXr/v, SiSovai Se 
 8-qp.ocria Tpocprjv Svo ofioXov? eKao~Tcp ttjs rjpLepas' 
 
 5 /cat Tap.ias iarlv avTois KXrjpcoTos. crvvSioiicel Se /cat 
 
 34. <rvv8toiKfi : the syllable 81 is added above the line. amSioiicei . . . el-rreiv : 
 van Herwerden believes this to be a corrupt repetition from 47, 1. 1 ; but not 
 all the cases in which the Council supervised the magistrates have been 
 mentioned. 
 
 24. napabuyy-ara : this appears to mean the plans for public buildings 
 and other such matters, which had to be selected originally by the 
 Council, but as that body came to be suspected of jobbery this class of 
 business was transferred from it to a jury chosen by lot. As the latter 
 body would be chosen only for each particular occasion, there would 
 not be the opportunity of bringing private influence to bear upon it 
 before-hand which existed in the case of the Council. 
 
 tov nenXov : the peplus carried in the great Panathenaic procession 
 was woven on each occasion by a number of girls called ipyaa-rlvai, 
 under the superintendence of two maidens of superior family known as 
 apprj<p6poi. It appears from the present passage that the former must 
 have been selected by the Council and that it was a position of some 
 privilege or advantage, since the Council was accused of jobbery in its 
 appointments. 
 
 29. tovs aSwdrovs : Harpocration (s. v. abuvaroi) refers to this passage, 
 though he mis-quotes part of its purport. His words are ol ivros rpiav 
 pvaiv KeKTrjpevoL to arwpa 7T€7rr]p(opJvot. e\dpj3avov fie ovtol SoKip-aoSevres 
 vtto ttjs (SovXrjs /3 o/3o\ou? Tr)s rjpepas eKao'TTjs, rj o(3o\6v as <prjo~iv Apicr- 
 i-oreAijr iv '&.8i)vaiuv no\iTetq (Rose, Frag. 430). On the other hand the 
 Lex. Seg. (p. 200, 3) quotes Aristotle as he stands here, iSoKipafavTo fie 
 0! d&vvaTOt \mb tt)s t&v TvevraKoo-iaiv fiov\rjs Kal i\iip,$avov ttjs rjpepas, a>s 
 p,tv Avcrlas Xe'yet, ofio'Kov era, ws Se *iXd^opor, ffeWe, "ApioTOTe'Xijs Se &110 
 
15a AP12T0TEA0T2 [CH. 49. 
 
 35 raty aAAaty appals ra TrXelcrff, as eiros elireiv. ra 
 /xev ovv i>7T0 rrjs fiovXfj? 8ioiKov(j.eva ravT eariv. 
 
 50. K.XrjpovvraL 8e kcu iepcav eirio-KevaaTOU 8eKa 
 avSpes, ol \ap.f$avovTes TpictKovra p.vas irapa rcav 
 otto [5eJ /craw eTno~Keva^ovo~iv ra p-aXLcrra. 8eop.eva 
 tcdv iepav, kou, acrTvv6p.0L 5e/ca. tovtcdv 8e e \jiev^ 2 
 5 kpyovaiv iv Heipaiei, irevre 8' iv oXcrrei, /cat ray re 
 avXrjTpi8as kcu ray i^aAr/o/ay [/cat] ray Ki0apio~Tpias 
 
 OVTOL (TKOTTOVCTIV OTTCOS p.T) TtXcIOVOS 7] SveiV Spa^/lOUS 
 
 fiio-0co0r]<TOVTou, kolv irXeiovs tj]v olvttjv cnrov8aar(£>(Ti 
 Xafieiv ovtol SiaicXrjpovai kou tcS Xa\6vri p.io~6ovcnv. 
 10 kou O7rcos tcov KowpoXoycov prj8e\s eVroy i crraSicov TOV 
 rei^ovs /cara/3aAet Kowpov iirLp-eXovvTcu, kou ray 
 b8ovs kcoXvovotl KaroiKoSopeiv kou 8pv(pa,KT0v? inrep 
 t&v 68cov virepreiveiv kou o^erovs p-erecopov? els rrjv 
 b8ov eKpovv e\ov\ras\ iroieiv kcu ray 6vpi8as els 
 
 L. 5. YletpaieT : MS. weipaei. *j. Spaxjiats : the last two letters have been 
 
 blotted in writing, and are re-written above. H-L. 5voiv 8paxj*cuv, requiring a 
 genitive, K-W. Sveiv Spaxpatv, but the form Svetv is only found with plurals, 
 cf. Meisterhans, p. 162 (cited by Keil, p. 54) ; so the two words confirm one 
 another. 10. hvrbs i araSlaiv : the syllable era is written above the line, 
 and the stroke above the numeral extends over the two adjoining letters. The 
 correct reading is due to J. E. B. Mayor. 1 1. Kara^aXet : the MS. appears 
 
 to have had fcara^aXrji at first and to have been corrected. empLekovvrai : 
 MS. empteKovTuu, but the forms from impeKovpai are elsewhere used in the MS. 
 
 L. 4- acrTwofioi : Harpocration (s. v.), dexa <prj(r\v elvai tous aarvvopovs 
 'ApiaToreAijr iv ttj 'Adr/vaiav noXireia, itevre fiev iv Tleipaifi, lievre 8' iv 
 acrret. tovtois be <j>i]<ri fiekeiv irepi re rav al\r]Tpi8<ov Ka\ ^faKrpiav icai rav 
 Koirpokoyav Kal tcov toiovtiov (Rose, Frag. 408). 
 
 1 1 . Kal tcls oSoiy k.t.X. : one of the excerpts from Heraclides ire pi 
 TToXiTemr 'ABrjvaiav runs Kat to>v obav imp,e\ovvTai ojreos jir] nves avotKodo- 
 fiaxTLv auras fj 8pv<paKTovs vnepreivaxnv (Rose, ed. 1886, Frag. 6ll). 
 
 14. ras dvpi&as els rfjv 686v avoiyeiv : it is not certain whether Bvpis 
 here means 'door' or 'window.' The latter is the common meaning 
 of the word, but it is not clear what the object of the regulation would 
 be. Windows in Greek houses might certainly overlook the street, and 
 it is not in itself likely that there would be any objection to their 
 opening outwards (since they were regularly in the upper story), while 
 
CH. 51.] A0HNAIJ2N nOAITEIA. 153 
 
 ttju 6Sov avoiyeiv kcu tovs ev raty 68ols airoyiyvo- 15 
 fievovs avaipovaiv, eypvres SrjfjLoo-lov? inrrjpeTas. 
 
 5 1 • K.Xr]povvTaL Se /cat ayopavop.01, irevre p.ev eis 
 
 Uei.pai.ea., e 5' e'19 acrrv. rovrois 8e viro rcov vopxav 
 
 irpocrreraKrai ra>v <b[j>uu]i> empeXeicrOai rcavrcov owcos 
 
 2 KaOapa Kal a,Kif3Sr)Xa 7rcoXrjrai. KXrjpovvrai 8e Kal 
 
 p.erpov6jxoi, irevre p.ev els acrrv, e 8e ety Heipaiea' /cat 5 
 
 it is certain that the question of doors so opening was a subject of 
 consideration among the Greeks, and it is probable that dvpis is 
 here used in the latter sense. It has been commonly supposed that 
 the doors of Greek houses habitually opened outwards, and this is 
 supported by passages from Menander and his Latin imitators and 
 from other Greek authors. That this was the belief of the ancients 
 themselves is seen from Plutarch (Poplic. 20), where he says ray 8' 
 EWrjviKas Trporcpov ovtios e)(£iv (sc. fxrus djrayecr&u ttjv ailXfiov) dirdaas 
 Xeyovcriv airo rav Kafua^iwv hapfidvovres, on KQ7rrovtri Kal yj/n(povtri. Tas 
 avTuv dvpas evBodev ol irpoiivm /ieXXoi/rcr, oiras a[adt]<ris e£v> yivovro Toir 
 irapepxopevois t) upoeo-Tuxri Ka\ fir] KaTaXapfidvoipro irpoiovo-cus rats KkeiaidiTiv 
 els tov anvantov. There are also several passages in the grammarians 
 in which tyocpea is distinguished as being used for the knocking at the 
 door by a person coming out, and xpoiio or kotttoi for that of a person 
 going in. Bekker however (Charicles, Excurs. to 3rd Chapter) argues 
 that ylro<p£a> refers only to the noise made by a door in opening, which 
 warned the actors standing outside that some one was entering from 
 the house. That doors did in early times open outwards cannot be 
 doubted : for, apart from the present passage of Aristotle, which 
 shows that it was made the duty of a magistrate to stop the practice, 
 there is also the fact quoted by the author of the Economics (II. 4) 
 that Hippias the tyrant put a tax on doors which opened in that way. 
 Whether that measure was continued after the expulsion of the 
 Pisistratidae we do not know ; but it seems certain that at some date 
 previous to Aristotle the practice was forbidden. The interpretation of 
 the passages in the comedians is another question, which cannot be 
 fully argued here ; but while it is certain that the ancients in subse- 
 quent times believed them to speak of a knocking on the part of 
 persons going out, as a warning that the door was about to open, it 
 seems improbable that the practice of opening outwards can really 
 have existed in the times of Menander, in face of this statement of 
 Aristotle, who was one of the generation preceding the comic writer. 
 
 LI. 1. ayopavop.01 : Harpocration (s. v.) refers to this treatise for the 
 number of these officials (Rose, Frag. 409). 
 
 5. fifTpovop.01 : the MSS. of Harpocration (s.v.) read rja-av 8e top dpi6p.6v 
 
154 APIST0TEA0T2 [CH. 51. 
 
 ovtol tcqv /xerpcou kcu t&v (TTadjAcov eTrifiehovvTai irav- 
 
 TCOV 07TC0S 01 7TCoXoVVT€S yfi^CTtoVTCLl <5i/CCU0£?. TjO~aU 8e 3 
 
 Kal (riT0(pv\aK6s KkripcoToi, 7revT6 peu e2? Yleipaiea, 
 
 7reVre*5' els acrrv, vvv 8' e'Uoo-L p.ev et? aarv, 
 
 io 7revT€Kal8eKa 5' ely UeLpcuea. ovtol 8' impeXovvrai 
 
 irpaiTov p.€u bircas 6 kv ayopa alros apyos covlos ecrrai 
 
 LI. ". xP'h aavTai '■ Blass, Rutherford, H-L., K-W. xP?l <!0VTai - 8- 
 
 KXijpaiToi : K-W. add i', which is very possible. 9. ttKooi : K-W. ciV! Ti, 
 
 against MS. (which has tucoai, not etaos as given in their textual note). 
 
 it, els pen tok Tldpaia 1, e 8' els Hcttv, and as he proceeds shortly 
 afterwards to refer to this treatise of Aristotle for the description of 
 their duties, his account of their numbers might have been supposed 
 to rest on the same authority. Boeckh (Staatsh 3 . 1. 62, bk. I. 9) accepts 
 the total fifteen, which he thinks is supported, as against the ten given 
 by Photius and Lex. Seg. (p. 278), by its very uncommonness ; but he 
 reverses the sub-division, assigning ten to the city and five to the 
 Piraeus, in which reading he is followed by Rose (Frag. 412). Dindorf, 
 however, in his edition of Harpocration, corrects the text, reading rjo-av 
 8e tov apidfiov t, e' fiev (Is tov Heipaia, e' 8' els aarv. That this is the 
 right reading is proved by the text of Aristotle; and, as Dindorf shows, 
 the error could easily have arisen from the adjoining numerals 1 and 
 e being combined, an additional number being supplied afterwards for 
 the magistrates in Piraeus, in accordance with this total. 
 
 8. atTo<pi\aKes : there is the same sort of confusion about the numbers 
 here as in the case of the metronomi. The MSS. of Harpocration (s. v.), 
 who refers to this treatise as his authority, read rjo-av Se tov apid/iov 
 ie pin iv da-re 1, e 8' ev Heipaiel, where all that is necessary is to divide the 
 number I? into the two numbers t and e, which is done by Dindorf in 
 his edition. Instead of this, Boeckh (Stoats!?. I. 105, bk. I. 15) and 
 Rose (Frag. 411) retain the total Te and insert 1' after it ; in which they 
 have the partial support of Photius, who has i]<rav he tov apidixov vaKai 
 p.ev TTevreKaibeKa ev aarei, e' 8' ev Heipaiel, which they emend by inserting 
 1 before ev ao-ret. The text of Aristotle supports Dindorf s reading in 
 Harpocration, and has analogy on its side. Photius may have been 
 misled by Harpocration, and his authority is weakened by his sub- 
 sequent Statement, varepov Se X' fiev ev ao-rei, e 8' ev Heipaiel, where he 
 has the total, thirty-five, correct, but the division wrong. 
 
 11. apyos: the reading is a little doubtful. The meaning would be 
 ' unprepared corn,' in which sense the word is used by Hippocrates 
 (irvpo'i dpyol, Vet. Med. 12). The position of the adjective is unneces- 
 sarily objected to by Mr. Bury. As Dr. Jackson has pointed out, a 
 
CH. 52.] A0HNAIJ2N ITOAITEIA. 155 
 
 St/catcoy, eweid' ottcos ol re p.vXcodpol Trpos ray Tifids 
 t<ov Kpi6a>v to. a\(f)iTa 7rcoXrjo-ovo~iv /cat oi dpTorraXeu 
 irpos ray Tip.as rthv Tvvpwv tovs aprovs, /cat tov 
 o-Tadp.ov ayovras oaov av ovtol rd^coo-LV 6 yap 15 
 4 vop.os tovtovs KeXevei Tarreiv. kpnropiov 8' eVt- 
 p.eXr)Tas Se/ca KXrjpovo-iV tovtols 8e TrpoareTaKrai 
 rcov t tpjKopicov imp-eXelo-dcu, /cat tov o-'ltov tov 
 KUTaTrXiovTos els to o~itlk6v kpjiropiov to. 8vo p.epr) ' 
 tovs epjiropovs dvay /ca£eti> els to olotv Kop.t£eiv. 20 
 
 52. KaOicrTacn 8e /cat tovs evSeica icXrjpcoTovs, 
 eTrip.eXrja'op.evovs tcov iv tco 8eap.coTrjpia>, /cat tovs 
 airayop.evovs /cAeVray /cat tovs dv8pairo8io-Tds /cat 
 tovs XanroSvTas, av p.ev \bp.oXoy(o\o-L, davaTa ^77/xico- 
 
 LII. 2. kmfte\i]<7op{vovs : H-L. prefix xoiJr. 3. K\iwras : K-W 2 . prefix 
 
 (xaicovpyovs tovs re), from Etym. Mag. ; but the passage there is only a para- 
 phrase. 3, 4. toiis . . tovs : H-L. remove both articles. 4. fy/uii- 
 - aoVTas : MS. (rjiitaSijo-ovTas. 
 
 second epithet or part of a complex epithet may stand outside the 
 article and substantive, e. g. Eth. Nic. VI. 4, 2, 17 pera \6yov ?£u Trpa/c- 
 tikij erepov eo~Tt tt/s p.€Ta \6yov noirjrtKrjs e£ea>ff. 
 
 16. ipiropiov emiu\ijras . . . Kop.L£eiv : Harpocration quotes this passage 
 as from Aristotle, but with the variant 'Attikov for o-m/co'y (Rose, Frag. 
 410). The Lex. Seg. (p. 255) gives substantially the same words, but 
 has aorucov for 'Attikov. to 'Attikov ipiropiov was a name for the 
 Piraeus, and Mr. Torr prefers it, quoting Dem. pp. 917, 26; 918, 6; 
 932, 13. Dr. Sandys quotes Lex. Seg. 208, 284, 456 in support of 
 doriKov ; but there is no sufficient reason for departing from the MS. 
 
 LII. 4. 6p.o\oyS>o-i : the word is almost entirely lost in a flaw in the 
 papyrus, but can be restored with certainty from the Lex. Seg. (p. 310, 
 14), ol ei/Sexa tovs KXenras Kal Tois XanroSvTas ical di/Spa7roSioTas 6p.o\o- 
 yovvras p.ev awoKnvvvovo-iv, dvTikiyovTas 8e elo-ayovaiv els to SiKaarijpiop, 
 and Pollux (VIII. 102), oi evdeKa . . . enep.e\ovvTO to>v iv t<5 beo-p.u}Ti)pla 
 Kal aiTTjyov kXctttos dv8pcmo&to-Tas Xamo&vTas, ti piv opoXoyoiev davarao-ovres, 
 el 8e prj elo-d£ovres (is to. SiitaoT^pia k&v aXa>o-iv diroKTevovvTes. Rose (in 
 his last edition, 1886) gives these two passages as Frag. 429, though 
 Aristotle is not referred to by name in them. The Athenian admini- 
 stration of law does not seem to have held out much inducement to 
 criminals to confess. The same law is referred to by Aesch. in Tim. 
 
156 APISTOTEAOTS [CH. 52. 
 
 5 aovras, av 8' dp,<§tio~$r\r5icnv elad^ovras els to 
 §iKa.cmqpiov , kolv p.ev d-TO(f)vycoo~iv d(pr]o~ovTas, et 
 8e jjLTf rare davarcoo-ovras, /cat rd \a\iroypa(f)6fieva. 
 ^tapia /cat ot/c/a? elard^ovras els to SiKao-rr/piov, 
 kcu rd 8o£avra S\r]p.]6cria elvai 7rapa8coaovTas rols 
 
 10 -rcoArjTais, /cat rds ivSel^eis elad^ovras' /cat yap 
 ravras elo-ayovcriv ol evSeKa. eladyovai 8e ra>v 
 iv8el£ea>v rivas /cat ol 6eap.oderai. KXrjpovcrc 8e 2 
 /cat elaaycoyeas e dvSpas, ol rds ip.p.r/vovs elaayovai 
 Bikcls, 8volv (pvXalv [ej/caoroy. elcrl 8' ep.p.rjvoi 
 
 15 irpoLKos, eav ris o(j)et.Acov p.rj d-roSa, kclv tls eVt 
 8pa^p.jfj 8avei.o~ap.tvos aTroo-repfj, kolv tls iv dyopa 
 fiov\6p.evos Ipyd^eo-Qai Bavelo-Tjrai nrapd \ri\vos dcpop- 
 p-T]v, en 8' a'lKelas /cat epavLKai /cat kolvcovlkoI /cat 
 dv8pa-r68cov /cat i;7ro£uy[tW] /cat rpLr\papyLas /cat 
 
 20 Tpaire^LTLKai. ovtoi p.ev ovv ravras 8ikol£ovo-iv ep- 3 
 prjvovs elo-dy^ovjres, ol 8' d-ro8eKrai rots reXoovai? 
 
 5. av: MS. ev. 15. a-noSw: Blass, Kontos, H-L., K-W. dmjSiSui. 16. 
 
 lirl tipaxpy : H-L. vnep Spaxf^v. Iv : MS. (av. iS. kpavi/cal . . . fcotvajvi- 
 
 xai : MS. -xas . . -Has, emended by Bury, H-L., K-W. The emendation 
 seems necessary in the interests of grammar ; the scribe (or the author) must 
 have unconsciously made the words depend on a verb such as eiaayovoi or 
 dmd^ovdi. 19. rptrjpapxtas : Bury, K-W. rpnjpapxtKai. 20. TpaTre&TiKai : 
 
 so Bury, H-L., K-W. ; MS. Tpairi^iTmas. 
 
 p. l6, § II3j °' °*^ vofioL Ke\evovai tS>v Kkewrutv tovs fiev 6p:6\oyovvrai 
 6avarm fofiiovcrdai, tovs 8' apvovp.evovs Kplvccrdai, and Dem. in Timocr. 
 p. 721, § 65, Tav . . . Kaxovpyav tovs 6p.o\oyovvras ivev icpitreur KoAdfeiv 
 ot fufun KeXivovcriv. 
 
 14. epfirjvoi : the list of the classes of cases included under this head 
 (which had to be decided within a month of their commencement) is 
 much longer than those elsewhere given. Pollux (VIII. ioi), s.v. 
 e'jrayeoye ir, says rjaav 8e irpoiKos, ipavixai, f'p.iropiKai. Harpocration (s. v. 
 ep.pr)voi fii/ccu) mentions only the last two of these. Boeckh argues that 
 transactions relating to mines came under the same head, but Aristotle 
 does not mention them as such (cf. Boeckh's treatise on the silver 
 mines of Laurium, Defikschr. d. Berl. Akad. 181 5, and Staatsh? I. 64. 
 bk. I. 9). 
 
CH. 53.J AGHNAIilN nOAITEIA. 157 
 
 kcu Kara rasv reXaucov, to. fiev p-^XP L ^ e/ca Spa^fJ-av 
 ovt€s Kvpioi, to. 8" aXX' ety to SiKao-Trjpiov elcrd- . 
 yovT€s efip-rjua. 
 
 53- KAr/yoovtrt fie kcu rerrapaKOVTa, rirrapas ex 
 rrjs (pvXi}? e/caarr/?, irpos ov$ tols ctXXas fit/cay Aay%d- 
 vovaiv 01 7r/)ore/j[oi/J p.ev rjarav rpLaKovra, kcu Kara 
 8rjp.ovs irtpuovres i8iKa£ov, p.€Ta 8e tt\v eVt tg>v 
 rpiaKoura 6Xiyapxla[in TeTTapaKOVTa yeyovao-iv. 5 
 2 kcu to. p.€v p.e)(pL SeVca Bpayjxatv avroreAel? e'uri [Col. 27.] 
 [Kpiveijv, to. 8" virep tovto to Tip.T]p.a tois Smuttitgli? 
 7rapa8i86acri.v. ol 8e TrapaXafiovTes, \i\dv p.rj 8v- 
 vcovtcu StaXvcrcu, yiyvco(TKOvo~i, kolv p.ev ap.(f)OTepoi9 
 dpeo-Krj tcl yvwadivTa [/cat] ip.p.ei>a>o~iv, €\et. TeXos rj 10 
 
 22. Spaxnuiv : represented in the MS. by its symbol (. LIU. I. tctto- 
 
 p&Kovra : K-W. prefix toot. 1,2. iic rrjs <pv\rjs fKaarTjs : so at first 
 
 MS., but (pvKrjs became blotted out (apparently accidentally, from a blot in 
 the line above) and is re-written after kxaaTrjs. Hence 1st ed. i£ ixdarris 
 $v\i}s, but the other order is almost universal in this treatise. 2. dWas : 
 
 Wyse /5ms. 4. vepuovres : MS. rreptovrts, which K-W 2 - retain, 
 
 comparing Hyperid. I. 13, 6, II. 2, 12, where the MS. has the same spelling. 
 
 LIU. 1. TUTTapaKovTa: the name of these magistrates, which Aris- 
 totle omits, was Kara Sfjfiovs bucacrTai, as appears from Harpocration 
 and Pollux. Harpocration (s. v.) says n-epi t&v Kara Srjp.avs Sucao-rav, 
 as Trporepov fiev J]uav X' Ka\ Kara Br)p.ovs Trepuovres i&Ua£ov, eira iytvovro p.', 
 
 e'prjKev ' &.pi(TTOTe\j]s iv rjj iroAirei'a. Pollux (VIII. ioo) mentions the 
 ten-drachma limit, oi Se TfrrapaKovra Ttporepov p.ev rjaav rpiaKovra, oi 
 Trepuovres Kara Brjpovs ra p-ixP l Spo-X} 1 ®" 8eKa i$iKa£ov, ra 5e vnep ravra 
 biairyrais irape&ibotxav' /xera Sc rrjv rSiv rpiaKovra okiyapxinv /turn tou 
 apid/iiw tou rpiaKovra rerrapaKovra iyivovro (Rose, Frag. 4Ij)- They 
 were instituted by Pisistratus, as is recorded in,ch. 16, but apparently 
 the office fell into disuse after the fall of the tyranny and was re- 
 established in 453 B.C., as is stated in ch. 26. 
 
 2. \ayxdvowiv : Xayxdvetv hiKrjv is the phrase applied to the suitor, who 
 obtains leave to bring a suit before the proper magistrate. The subject 
 therefore which must be supplied for Xayxavova-w here is some word 
 meaning ' suitors.' 
 
 7. rois SiatTrjTaU : cf. Harpocration (s, v.), who cites Aristotle (Aey« 
 8e irepl avrav ' kpiarorekrjs iv 'Adrjvalav TroXiTeia), and Pollux (VIII. 
 126). Rose, Frag. 414. 
 
158 API2T0TEA0TS [CH. 53. 
 
 Slkt], av 5' 6 ere/joy i(f)fj tu>v avTiSiKav eiy to 
 SiKao-Trjpiov, ep.j3aX6i>Te$ ray pxtpTvpias Kai tcls 
 irpoK\r}o-et.s /cat tovs vop.ovs ety exjivovs, ^apts fJ-ev 
 ray tov Slcokovtos ^copl? 8e ray tov (pevyovTOS, Kai 
 15 tovtovs Karao-qpaqvapevoL /cat rr\v Kpicriv tov SiaiTrj- 
 tov yeypapp.evT]v ev ypap.p.aTeiw TrpoaapTrjo-avTes, 
 TrapaBcdoao-L roty 8 roty ttjv (pvXrjv tov (pevyovTO? 
 8iKa£ovcriV oi 8\ irapaXafiovTes elo-ayovcnv ety to 3 
 8iKao-Trjpiov, [ra p,ev ijvTos xiXicov ety tva /cat __ 
 
 20 OlOLKOO-lOVS, TO. O VTTep X l ™ a ? €t? eVa KCU TeT P a 
 
 Koo-iovs. ovk e^eoTrt 8' ovjre vop.ois ovtc irpo- 
 KXr/o-eai ovTe papTvpiais aXX' rj raty 7rapa tov 
 8icut7)tov \prjo-6\ai raty ety] roi»y e)(ivovs ip-fiefiXr]- 
 p.£vcus. 8ioutt)tou 5' eicrlv oty civ e^-qnocrTov eroy 4 
 25 17. tovto Se SrjXov [e']/c rcov a.p\6vT(av /cat rcoz/ 
 iTTCowpLcov. elo~l ya/> eiravvpoL 5e/ca pev 01 twv 
 (pvXcov, 8vo 8e /cat TeTTapaKOVTa 01 tcov tjXlklcdV oi 8' ^J 7 
 
 17. toTs 5 : so apparently MS., though it is far from certain ; K-W. iraA.ii', 
 H-L. ciBvs. tt\v (pvKrjv: so K-W., from 58, 1. 9; so too H-L., who also 
 
 think it to be the MS. reading, but the MS. has t(t)s) <pv\(rjs\ t^<±,v^ 
 
 13. i%lvovs : cf. Harpocration (s. v.), earl p.ev oyyos Ti fit o to. ypapiiaTe la 
 
 ra rrpus raff dUas iriQevTO fivijfiovevei tov ayyovs tovtov Kai 
 
 'ApiororeXr/r iv T77 'Adrjvaimv noXireia Kai ' Apio-TO(j>av]i Acivaujiv (Rose, 
 Frag. 415). Photius mentions their special use for holding the evi- 
 dence taken before an arbitrator when an appeal was made from him 
 to the jury-courts. 
 
 17. Toir . . . oiKafavo-tv : if the reading is right, these are presumably 
 the magistrates described at the beginning of the chapter as oi Terrapd- 
 Kovra. They are again mentioned in ch. 58, 1. 9, again in connection 
 with the htaiTTjTai. They were evidently local magistrates of first 
 instance, and acted as formal intermediaries between the SwiTiyrai and 
 the 5«aaT!jpin at Athens. 
 
 27. Suo hi Kai TeTTapaKOVTa oi tS>v TfKiKLav : the subject of these iniivvp.01 
 tS>v t)\iki£>v is obscure. Harpocration (s. v. o-rpareia iv toIs inavvpois) 
 quotes the present passage, saying t'h rjv 17 iv tols iwavvfiois o-Tpareia 
 dedrjXuKfit 'Apurrore'Xijf iv 'Adqvaiatv iroXtTcia Xc'ywv, " f tVl yap .... 
 avaypacpovrai' " Kai p.er' oXi'ya " ^pSerai Se rois i7ra>vvp.ois . . . orpaTeveo~8ai " 
 
CH. 53. J AGHNAIGN nOAITEIA. 159 
 
 tyrjfioi iyypa(f)6fiei>oi irporepov /lev ety XeXeuKco/xeva 
 ypafifiarela iueypd(f)ovTO, kou eireypd(povTO avrols 
 o t ap^cov €(j) oi) iveypa(f)7]crav /cat 6 iircovvfxos 6 30 
 
 28. eyypa<p6ftevot : MS. evypaupopevoi. 30. 6 (before iwiivvjios) : om. 
 
 Harpocration. 
 
 (11. 44-47). He also says (s. v. iiruivvpxii), Strroi dcriv oi i-iravvfiot, oi 
 p.iv 1 tov apidfiov, a<p' Z>v at (pvXai, ercpoi Se $ Kai p.', a(j> &u al rfkiKiai irpoo-a- 
 yopevovrai t£>v tto\itS>v Kad' eKatrrov eros ano iij irav fie'xP' £' (Rose, Frag. 
 429)- The Etym. Magn. says iira>vvp.oi.' dirroi elo-iv oStoi, el pev \ey6fievoi 
 rav rj\iKta)Vy Kai ettrt Suo Ka\ recrtxapaKOVTaj ot KaXovvrai Ka\ \r}£fa>v iTT&wpoC 
 oi Se Sexa, a<p fav al <pv\al rrpoo-r)yopei6ricrav, olov 'Epe^devs, k.t.X. Some 
 writers (e.g. Smith's Diet. Ant. s.v. Eponymus; Schomann, Antiqtaties 
 of Greece, Eng. Tr. p. 423) explain these forty-two eponymi to be the 
 archons under whom the men liable for military service at any given 
 time had enlisted. This, however, seems quite impossible, first from 
 the way in which these forty-two are spoken of as parallel to the ten 
 after whom the tribes were called, who were, of course, a fixed body, 
 not merely a group of names which would never be the same for two 
 years together. Further, it would be quite unnecessary to lay emphasis 
 on the number forty-two. No doubt, as all persons were liable to 
 military service from the ages of eighteen to sixty, the men on the roll 
 at any given moment could be classified under the forty-two archons of 
 the years in which they had respectively been placed on the roll ; but 
 for this it would not be necessary to say more than that each man's 
 military service was reckoned from the archon under whom he had 
 entered upon it. It seems rather that for the purposes of military 
 service a cycle of forty-two years was arranged, to each of which a 
 name was given, probably chosen, like those of the eponymi of the ten 
 tribes, from the heroes of Athenian legendary history. Thus when a 
 youth was enrolled in the lists of the tribes and became liable for 
 military service, his name was entered on a roll, with the date of the 
 year according to the archon and the name of the eponymous hero 
 from whom his military service was to be dated. For all official 
 purposes, such as the indication of what years were to be called out 
 for service on any particular occasion, these names were employed ; 
 and this system had the advantage that it could be used for indicating 
 dates in advance, to which the ordinary method of dating by the name 
 of the archon was inapplicable. This cycle of forty-two years may be 
 compared with the indiction-cycle of fifteen years in use under the 
 Byzantine empire. Each able-bodied man had to serve through a 
 complete round of these forty-two names ; and on reaching the end of 
 this cycle, i. e. when he attained the age of sixty, he then had to serve 
 one year as a StacnjiTJf or arbitrator. 
 30. o t apxuv . . . xai 6 iira>vvp.os : this phrase alone is enough to show 
 
i5o API2T0TEA0TS [_ CH - 53- 
 
 rqi 7rporepcp [eVet] SeSiaiTrjicco?, vvv 8' els crTrjXrjv 
 XaXicrju dvaypa(povTai, /cat larTarai t] o-ttjXt] wpo tov 
 /3ov\e\vTjr]plov irep\ tovs iira>vvp.ovs. tov 8e reXeu- 5 
 rcuov tcov eTTCovvp-cov XafiovTes oi yreTrjapaKovra 
 
 35 Siavepovaiv avTois Tas 8iaiTas, Kai ziriKXrjpovcriv 
 as .eKacrros SiairrjcreL' kcu avayKoiov as av eKaaTos 
 Aa^rj Sialras kK.hia.iTav. 6 yap vopos, av tis p.rj 
 yevrjTat. StaLTrjTrjs ttjs rjXiKtas avTw KaOrjKOvarjs, 
 aripov dvai KeXevei, wXrjv iav TV\rj ap^r/v apx[a>jv 
 
 40 Trivia iv eKelvcp tco iviavTw r/ a,7ro8r)p.(ov. ovtol 8' 
 (iTeXeis eicri p.6voi. ecrTiv 8e /cat eiaayyeXXeiv els 6 
 
 31. irpoTepco : K-W. irpoTepov. BeSiaiT-rjKus : Harpocration (most 
 
 MSS.) SeSeiKTtKws, which Dindorf (after Aldus) corrects to SeSijjT^Kws. Rose 
 to SiStwKrjKuis. Photius and Snidas imSeSTjiMjitais. 33. trepi : it may 
 
 be questioned whether' nepi (which is written in contracted form, jt 1 ) is not a 
 scribe's error for Ttapa (n) ; and so K-W., H-L. After these words the phrase 
 xal tov TeKevrmov has been written and cancelled, tov Si tiXivtcuov being 
 then written instead. 37. Siairas : bracketed by K-W. 40. Ttva iv : so 
 
 K-W., apparently rightly ; 1st ed. [aK\rf\v, H-L. tis iv, after Burnet. 
 
 that the archon and the eponymus cannot be the same, i. e. that the 
 eponymus is not here the same as the archon eponymus. Harpo- 
 cration gives the same reading, with the exception that the article 
 before iirawfios is absent ; and Rose consequently transposes the 
 words, reading re ap^av . . 6 e'ira>vvpos xal o k.t.X. Such an alteration 
 is, however, clearly unauthorised. 
 
 31. SeSiaiTTj/ctit : in Demosthenes (pp. 542, 902) the perfect is Se&iTjTrj- 
 Kevai, but the form given in the MS. is preserved here. 
 
 33. nep\ tovs iirmvifiovs : i. e. near the statues of the ten eponymous 
 heroes of the tribes ; cf. note on ch. 3, 1. 28, a<r]o-av k.t.A. 
 
 tw 8c Tekevrawv k.t.X. : i.e. each year the Forty take the list of those 
 who are completing the last of their forty-two years of military service, 
 and assign to them the duties as Siairijrai which they are to undertake 
 during the following year. 
 
 36. xal avayxaiov k.t.X. : cf. Pollux (VIII. 126), eVflcXt/poOvTO airoU ai 
 dlaiTatf Kai aTifiia a<pa)pLO~TO tg> fit] 8iaiTT]o~avTi ttjv einK\r]pa)8e'itTav Biairav. 
 
 41. els roiis SiaiTTfrds : i.e. an appeal could be made from the single 
 btaiTi)Ti)s to the combined board of biaiTrprai. That such an appeal 
 existed had already been inferred by Fraenkel from Dem. contr. Mid. 
 §§ 86, 87, p. 542. Harpocration {s.v. elcrayye\la) evidently draws from 
 the present passage ; aWr) 8' eloayyekia €<tt\ Kara toiv biaiTrjrwv' el yap 
 
CH. 54.] A0HNAIGN nOAITEIA. 161 
 
 tov? 8taLT7]Ta? kdv tls d8iK7]0fj viro rod Sicuttjtov, 
 kclv tlvos Karayvaxriv driixovadat KeXevovcriv oi 
 
 7 vo/jloi. exeats 8' earl /cat tovtols. xp&vrai 8e rots' 
 eircovvp.oL$ /cat wpos ras o-Tpareias, k<u otclv rjXuciav 45 
 e/C7re/i7rcoo"t irpoypafyovcriv diro tlvos ap^ovro? /cat 
 £w(Dv\yp,ov /".Je'x/n t'lvcov Set crTpareveo-Oai. 
 
 54* KA^/joucrt 8e /catracrSe to.? dpyds' o8ottolovs 
 tt€vt€, ols irpocTTeraKTai 8r)p.ocriov? kpyaras eyovcri 
 
 2 Tas 68ov? eirio-K.evd.fav /cat Aoytoray 6V/ca /cat 
 
 42. SiaiTTjras : Harp. SiKaords, followed by 1st ed. and H-L., the latter 
 thinking rois dWovs would be required. The MS. reading is justified by 
 Hardie and Gertz from Dem. ; cf. note below. 46. dird : so 
 
 Harpocration ; in the MS. the a is, by some confusion, followed by the 
 sign which commonly stands for the termination at of a verb, or, as H-L. say, 
 the symbol for Spaxurj (the two are practically identical in many cases). 47. 
 rivaii/ : tiVos Harpocration. 
 
 ns virb 8lcutt]Tov aSiKrjBeirj, e^rjv tovtov elo-ayye\\eiv irpbs tovs SiKaordr, 
 Kai aXoiis r]Tifi.ovTo, where SiKaards had already been conjecturally 
 altered by Bergk to Siairvras. 
 
 LIV. 3. Xoyicrras Sera Kal avvriyopovs : Harpocration (s. v. Xoyiorai) 
 says ap\fj tis nap' 'hBijvaiois ourto KaXovaevr/' eiVi fie top apidabv Sexa, 01 
 Tas eidvvas t5)V SicoKrjfievav exXoyifovrai iv i) fu pais rpiaKOVra orav ras ap)(as 
 airoBcbvriu oj apxovres. . . SteiXc/crai Trepl tovtwv 'Apio-roreX^r iv ttj '\8rf- 
 valav 7roXireia, evda SeiKvvrai on 8ia(pepovo-i toiv tiBvvaiv (Rose, Frag. 
 406). These Xoyioroi are not the same as those mentioned in ch. 48, 
 1. 16. The latter are members of the Council, who check the accounts 
 of the magistrates during each prytany of their term of office. At the 
 end of the term the Xoyiorai mentioned here and by Harpocration audit 
 their whole accounts and bring them before the law-court ; but even 
 if this ordeal is safely passed, the magistrate is still liable to have 
 complaint made before the eiidwoi (ch. 48, 1. 18), which may entail 
 a re-examination by the law-court. That there were two boards of 
 Xoyiorai seems to be confirmed by Pollux VIII. 99, &vo fie ijo-av, 6 p.h ttjs 
 f3ovKrjs, 6 8e rfjs fiioiKijo-ear, Xoyiorai, where two must be a mistake for 
 two boards. 
 
 The Lex. rhet. Cantabrig. p. 672, 20, s.v. Xoyiorai Kal o-wijyopoi, has 
 a quotation professing to be from Aristotle, but differing wholly from the 
 present passage; and as it is unlikely that Aristotle would have had two 
 descriptions of the same officers in this one treatise, it is probable 
 that the reference is incorrect. The passage runs thus, 'ApiororeXijr 
 
 M 
 
16a APIST0TEA0T2 [CH. 54. 
 
 o-vvrjyopovs tovtols 5e/ca, irpos ov? airavras avayK-q 
 5 tovs ray ap^as ap[£ai/7-]ay Xoyov aTreveyKeiv. ovtol 
 yap elcrt p.6voi (ot) roiy inrevdvvois Xoyityfievoi kcu 
 ray evdvvas ety to BiKao-T-qpiov eiadyovres . kclv peu 
 TLva KXeTTTOvr i£eXey£coo~i, kXotttju ol 5i/cacrrat 
 KaTayiyvcocTKOvcri koll^to yv(ocr6kvja.iroTLV€Ta.L Seica,- 
 10 ttXovv iav Se tlvol Scopa Xafioura eTriSei^coaiv /cat 
 Karayvaxriv ol ^t/caorat, Scopcou TLpacrLv, a7roTLverai 
 Se kou tovto SeicairXovv av 8' adiKelu Kwrayvwcriv, 
 ahiKLov npaxTLU, aTTOTivtrcu 8e Tovff airXovv eau 
 
 LIV. 6. of : added by J. B. Mayor, H-L., K-W. 9. narayiyvaaKovai : 
 
 MS. at first KarayivaiaKovot, but the snperflous i is cancelled by a dot above 
 it. yvwodev : K-W. KaTayvauOev. 10. emSei^wtrtv : K-W. diro- 
 
 Seigwaiv, against MS. 
 
 ev T77 'Adrjvaiaiv 7ro\irei'a ovtlvs Xeyei' \oyio~Tat Be alpovvTai BeKa, trap 
 ols 8ia\oyi£ovTai Tracrat at dpxal ra re Xr/ppaTa kol ras ytyevT}p.evas Banavas' 
 icat aXXot BeKa o~vvr)yopoi oItlvcs o~vvava.Kpivnvo~i tovtols. kol ol tcis evdvvas 
 BiBovres irapa tovtols avaKplvovTai irpatTOV, eira eLplevTaL els to SiKaoriJpioj', 
 els eva km <p' (Rose, Frag. 407). 
 
 13. dSiKiov : this class of actions is not mentioned in the extant orators 
 (Dindorf ad Harp. s. v.), but Harpocration mentions it and quotes the 
 present passage almost yerbally, though without referring to Aristotle by 
 name. His words are, eVrl Be ovopa Blktjs. dnorivvrM Be tovto dn-Xovi', 
 eav Trpb ttjs irpvTavelas diroBodrj' el Be prj, 8iirXoCv KaTa/3uXXfrai. Plu- 
 tarch (Pericl. 32) mentions it in reference to the charge brought against 
 Pericles regarding his expenditure of the public money, "Ayi/aw Be 
 tovto fiev dtpetXe tov yjrr]<pio-paTos, Kpiveo-6ai Be tt)V Blkt/v eypatyev ev 
 BtKatTTais xiXlols KaX ■jrevTaKoo'lois, etre kXotttjs kol Batpav €lt dBiKiov 
 I3ov\olt6 tis ovopdfeiv ttjv Blco^lv. It may be suggested, in passing, that 
 in the latter passage the number 1500 is a mistake for 501. The 
 numeral for I (a) is easily confounded with that for 1000 (a or a), and 
 we have several instances of courts composed of a round number of 
 hundreds with one additional member, which show that it was the 
 usual practice. Courts of 201 and 401 are mentioned in ch. 53, and 
 501 is given as the size of the court for trying this particular class of 
 cases in the extract from the Lex. rhet. Cantabrig. quoted just above. 
 It is evident that Hagnon proposed that Pericles should be tried by 
 the regular court, in place of the unusual procedure proposed by 
 Dracontides. 
 
CH. 54.J A0HNAmN nOAITEIA. 163 
 
 [777)0 rrjs] 6 wpvTaveias eKrdcrrj tis, el 8e firj, SlttXov- 
 
 3 rat* to (fie) BeKairXovv ov SittAovtou. icXrjpovo-i 15 
 fie /cat ypafifiarea tov Kara. irpvTavziav KaXovp.evov, ~7 
 bs tcov ypap.p.a.Tcov eWt Kvpios Kal to. tyrj](p[o-pM.Ta 
 ra yiyvop.eva (pvXaTTei, /cat TaXXa tvclvto. avriypa- 5» 
 0erat /cat irapaKaOrjTaL rfj fiovXfj. Trporepov p.ev ~? 
 ovv ovtos rjv yeipoTOvrjTos, /cat tovs eVfio^orarouy 20 
 /cat ino-TOTaTovs i-^eipjoTouovu' /cat yap kv rals 
 (TTrjXais irpos rals avp.p,a^[ais /cat irpo^evi^ai]? /cat ^ 
 7roAtretaty ovtos avaypatycTac vvv 8e yiyovt kXt)- 
 
 4 pcoros. KXrjpovcn fie /cat eVi roiiy vop.ovs erepov bs 
 
 14. enreiari : MS. vcricrft, cf. Meisterhans, p. 41. 15. Se : om. IIS., 
 
 through confusion with the first letters of SenauXovv. 17. ypamiaraiv : 
 
 MS. ypa/i/iareav, but it is perhaps better to alter the text in accordance with 
 Harpocration and Pollux; so Bumet, Bywater, Blass, Naber, K-W., 
 H-L. 18. yiyvo/ieva: MS. ytvoneva. 21. mororarovs : MS. appar- 
 
 ently enrioroTOToi/s, probably owing to some confusion between *ai7rioTOTaToi/s 
 and leamaTOTwrovs. 24. 'em robs vofiovs 'erepov : MS. apparently em 
 
 Tourojs v[o]p.ov erepov, which is of course a scribe's blunder ; the true reading is 
 recoverable from the passage of Pollux quoted in the note on 1. 16. 
 
 16. ypafifiarea rbv koto irpvravciav Kakoipevov : Harpocration (s. v. 
 ypaafxarevs) quotes this passage, from tS>v ypap-fidrav to f3ov\§. Pollux 
 (VIII. 98) mentions both this ypapfiarevs and the others whom Aris- 
 totle describes below, ypaaaareiis 6 tiara irpvraveiav Kkrjpaidels vno rijs 
 /3ouAt;s fVi ra ra ypd/iuara (pvhdrreiv Kal ra ^(pio-fUiTa' Kal erepos em 
 roiis vofiovs vir6 ttjs j3ov\rjs x«/50Toyoij/jei'09. ° &' v7ro T0 " 5i)fou aipedels 
 ypap.fiarevs dvayivao-nei ra re Srjam Kal rrj fiovhij (Rose, Frag. 399). 
 
 23. 7roAireiW : the meaning, as has been pointed out by Prof. Camp- 
 bell and others, no doubt is ' decrees for conferring citizenship.' 
 
 24. em robs vopovs erepov : this official is no doubt the same as the 
 second of those named by Pollux ; but it is a question whether he is 
 not also the same as the avriypa<jjeis mentioned by Pollux and Harpo- 
 cration. Pollux (I.e.) says dvriypacpevs npdrepov fiev aiperos, afi&is Se 
 KhTjparbs J]V Kal iravra dvreypd<pero napaicadrjfievos rfj f3ov\jj. The latter 
 words correspond exactly with Aristotle's description, and it seems 
 probable that Pollux has described the same official twice over. 
 Harpocration quotes Aristotle as speaking of the dvriypa(pevs rrjt 
 /3ouXrjr in this treatise, and the use of the word dvnypdtperai makes 
 it practically certain that this is the passage referred to. Aristotle, 
 however, appears not to have given him that title, but to have spoken 
 of him merely as erepos ypap,p.arevs 6s . . . dvTiypdqberai, 
 
 m a 
 
1 64 APISTOTEAOTS [CH. 54. 
 
 25 "KapaKaOryrai rfj fiovXfj, /cat avTiypoxperai /cat ovtos 
 iravras. xetporovei 8e /cat 6 8r/p.os ypap-parea tov ava- 5 
 yi>a>cr6p.£voi> avrco /cat rfj fiovXfj, /cat ovtos ovSevo? 
 icrTt, /cu[yot]oy aAAa tov avayvwvaL. KXrjpoi 8e /cat 6 
 iepo7^0lovs■ <5e'/ca, rou? eVt ra eKdvfxara K.aXovp.evovs, ~y 
 
 30 [ot] ra re |ju,ai>]reyra ie/)a Ovovcriv, kolv ri KaXXiepr)- 
 o-cu Sey KaXXiepovcri fJLera twv /laVrefaji']. KXrjpoi 7 
 8e /cat eripovs 5e/ca, tovs /car' kviavTov KaXovp,evov9, 
 01 dvaias re rirap Ovovcri [/cat r Jay 7revTeTr)pi8a? 
 airaaras 8ioikovo~iv ttXtjv YlavaOrjvaicov. e[io"t 5el 
 
 35 trevT€TripL8es, pia. [fiev r) etl? AjJAoi' (ecrrt 5e /cat eV- 
 
 28. aWi : Blass, Richards, Gennadios, H-L., K-W. alter to a\X.' fj ; but 
 Aristotle sometimes uses aWa in this sense. The Index Aristotelicus quotes Eth. 
 N. X. s, p. 1176" 22, VIII. 13, p. ii52 b 30, Rhet. II. 24, p. 1402" 27. 34. 
 eM 5« : H-L. "i [8' eia'i] ; the ( is probably right, but there is no liue 
 above it to mark it as a numeral (the appearance of a line in the facsimile 
 is due to a crack in the papyrus). The end of a mark of abbreviation is visible 
 before irevTeTTjpiSfs. 35. K-W. insert S' after irivrtrripiSes. 
 
 26. -navras : sc. vo/jlovs, which confirms the emendation lm tovs vo/iovs 
 at the beginning of the sentence. 
 
 ypafi/iaTea k.t.X. : cited almost verbally (without mentioning 
 Aristotle) in Lex. Seg. p. 226, as - Dr. Sandys has pointed out. 
 
 29. UpoTToiois: the Etym. Magn. quotes this description, as far as 
 ttKyjv Uavadrjvaiav, almost verbally, and refers to this treatise as its 
 authority, but it makes no mention of the two different boards of ten 
 of which Aristotle speaks, combining the functions of both under one 
 head (Rose, Frag. 404). 
 
 30. to tc fiavrevTa Upa 6iov<riv : the E. M. reads rri re p.avT€vpara 
 UpoBtTovcri. (one MS. UpoBlrrovcri.), but the reading of the MS. here is 
 confirmed by the Lex. Demosth. Patm. (p. 1 1, ed. Sakk.) which has 01 
 ra fie/iavTCVfiiva Upa Biovaiv. 
 
 35. irevTeTripiSes : Pollux (VIII. 107) also enumerates these festivals 
 in connection with the Uponoioi, whom he describes thus, dexa 6Wet 
 ovtoi iovov dvaias ras (vo/ufo/ie'ras Kaiy nevreTTjpiSas (SioikoOiti), 1-171/ 
 els ArjXov, tt\v iv lipavpmvi, rtjv tS>v 'HpaicKelav (MSS. 'HpaxAeiSaiz'), 
 ttjv 'E\evo-lvi (MSS. 'EXeuo-iva or 'EXeutriVaSe). The corrections (indi- 
 cated by the brackets) made by Rose are justified by the text of 
 Aristotle, though it would be preferable to insert ras before nevrc- 
 TijpiSar, which would help to explain the omission of the phrase in 
 
CH. 54.] A0HNAIJ2N nOAITEIA. 165 
 
 [re]rT7/3ty ivravda), Sevrepa 8e Bpavpcovia, rpirr] [8e 
 'HpaKXeija, TerapTT] 8e 'EAeuJVmJoc, [e] 8e H[av~\a- 
 dy]vaia.' kgutovtcov ov8ep.ia iv rw avra iyyi[yv€Tcul. 
 
 37. 'EKevaivia, § 5e : the supplements are suggested by Wyse. The abbrevia- 
 tion of the ordinal is paralleled in 47, 1. 35. The mark of a numeral is visible 
 above the lacuna. 37, 38. K.-W. "E\ev[aivia. f]d Si HavaOfivaia toutcui' 
 
 oiSefitq. H-L. ovSe rpia (as MS. reading for oiSe/tia), but apparently wrongly. 
 There seems, however, to be something between ov5e and jua. 38. iv toi 
 
 aura iyyi[yvtT<u~\ : the reading is rather doubtful. MS. at first ev rat avrai 
 ytverai, apparently, but above the beginning of the last word an addition has 
 been made in the same hand, which seems to be ai. Blass iviavrSi yivtrai 
 for iyyivtrat, and so K-W., H-L. ; cf. note below. 
 
 the archetypal MS., and to read hiwKaw for Swikovo-i. Of the four 
 festivals mentioned, that at Delos (called els AijW from its involving 
 a Beapia from Athens to the island) is the one of which the re- 
 establishment is recorded by Thucydides (III. 104). Delos being 
 subject to Athens, the Athenians took over the management of the 
 ancient Delian festival. The festival of Artemis at Brauron is men- 
 tioned by Herodotus (VI. 138), and was the occasion of the curious 
 ceremony in which the Athenian girls imitated bears and were de- 
 nominated apxToi. Of the Heracleia little is known. Harpocration (s. v.) 
 refers to Demosthenes (De Fals. Leg. §§ 86, 125, pp. 368, 379), and 
 adds noWav ovtuv t£>v Kara t!jv 'Amnf/v 'HpaKKelav, vvv av 6 Aijfiocr^ei^r 
 jLti/77jLtoi'€uot tJtol tu)v iv Mapadavi 7} Tav iv Kvixxrapyei' Tavra yap fidXiara 
 Sia Tip.ijs elxov 'Adrjvawi. That it was a festival held ordinarily outside 
 Athens is clear from the passages in Demosthenes, in which the fact of 
 its being held within the walls is mentioned as a sign of the alarm 
 caused by the fear of invasion. The festival at Eleusis, of which 
 the existence has barely been known hitherto (A. Mommsen, Heorto- 
 logie, p. 243, regards it with much suspicion), is mentioned in an in- 
 scription (cited by Wyse from 'Ecptip.. 'Apx- 1883, p. 123, /3. 46-49). This 
 inscription is actually of the year of Cephisophon, and slightly supports 
 the idea that new regulations affecting the nevTcnipides were made in 
 that year ; but it affords no clue for supplying the mutilated words in 
 
 11- 38, 39- _ 
 
 38. iv too aira iyylyverai : if this reading is correct, iv too airc3 pre- 
 sumably means 'in the same place.' It might conceivably be taken 
 to mean ' in the same year,' and this is the sense given by the re- 
 storation adopted by Blass, K-W., and H-L. ; but this is questionable 
 as a matter of fact. The Delian festival, according to the date given 
 by Thucydides (/. c), was re-established in the third year of an 
 Olympiad, which is also the year of the great Panathenaea ; but 
 Schoeffer {de Deli insidae rebus, pp. 59, 60) shows reason to suppose 
 that the date was at some later period altered to the second year. 
 
1 66 APISTOTEAOTS [CH. 54. 
 
 8e TrpoKeirai . . . , cuy eVt KyjcpicroQcovTo? 
 
 4° apxpvTOS. KXrjpovcn 8e /cat els 2aAa/xtVa apypvTa, 8 
 /cat els Uei^paijea Srjp^ap^ov, 01 rd re Aiovvaia. tyol- 
 ovcri eKarepcoOi /cat yoprjyovs KadurTacriv' ev 2aAa- 
 [/u.tVt] 5e /cat ro \ov\op.a tov apyovTOS dvaypacpeTat. 
 
 ,55. Avtcu p.ev odu al dpyaX KXr)pa>Tai re /cat 
 Kvpiat tg>v [elprflfieucov ^Trpayp,dr]cov elalv. ol 8e 
 KaXovfievoi evvea apypvres, to pev e£ a-pyjjs ov 
 rpoirov kolOLo-tclvto [ei/3]?7rat [77577' vvvj 8e KXrjpovcriv 
 5 OecrfioOera? pev e£ /cat ypa.fjLp.aTea tovtols, ert 8' 
 apyovTa /cat /3aa-t[Aea] /cat iroXepapyov, Kara pipos 
 
 39. irp6icfLTcu : there is some confusion over this word in the MS. Apparently 
 some other letter or mark of abbreviation originally followed ir, and the 
 letters po have been inserted afterwards, half above the line. H-L. [yopos 
 6c] TrpoKCLTai [nepl tovtuv riSeis], but this does not suit the remains in the MS. 
 
 The Heracleia, however, appears from the passages in Demosthenes 
 also to have fallen in the third year of the Olympiad, in the month 
 Hecatombaeon. The date of the Brauronia is unknown. 
 
 39. eVl Kij<j}tao(j)mvTos apxovros: i.e. 329 B.C. The sentence is hope- 
 lessly mutilated, partly through a lacuna in the papyrus, partly through 
 the writing having been obliterated in the middle of the column, where 
 the papyrus was folded. The letter before ais appears to be <p, or pos- 
 sibly p ; if it is the former, the word is probably ypa<pals, and the sentence 
 may have stood, roOro &e npoKtiTai ypa<pais rals eVi K. ap^oiror, the 
 meaning being that public regulations were made concerning those 
 festivals at the date mentioned. But it is impossible to restore the 
 passage with certainty. The note of time is, however, useful, as 
 showing that the IloXireiat was composed (or at any rate revised, as 
 this is clearly an incidental note which might have been added after 
 the main bulk of the work was written) in the last seven years of 
 Aristotle's life. 
 
 LV. 4. eipijrai 707 : see chapters 3, 8, 22, 26. 
 
 5. deapioBeTas . . . e'| iKaa-rrjs <pv\rjs : Schomann (Ant. of Greece, Eng. 
 Tr. p. 410), following Sauppe [De creatione arckontum), suggests that 
 the nine archons were chosen from nine of the tribes selected by lot, 
 the tenth electing none. The present passage shows that the tenth 
 was compensated by having the election of the Secretary to the 
 archons. 
 
CH. 55.] A0HNAII2N nOAITEIA. 167 
 
 2 €£ €KOCTT7)S (pvXrjS. 8oKip.d^OVTCU 8 OVTOL TTp5>TOV 
 
 fiev ei> rfj [flovXfj] roty (j), irXr/v tov ypapip-arecos, 
 ovtos 8 eV Sucao-Trjpia) p.6vov axnrep ol aXXoi ap^pv- 
 [rey] (7r[aVrey yap /cat] ol KXrjpcoTol /cat ol X €L P°~ IO 
 tovt]to\ SoKipaadevTes ap^ovaiv), ol 8" evvea [ap- 
 x]oi>rey [eV] re r?7 fiovXfj /cat ttolXlv ev St/cacrrr/ptG). 
 /cat irporepov p.ev ovk rjpx €V ovt\}v aJTro8oKip,do-eiev 
 7] flovXrj, vvv 8 e^ecrty ecrTiv ety ro SiKao-Trjpiov, /cat 
 
 3 tovto Kvpiov earn tt}s 5o/ct[/xaJcrtay. efjrelpcoTcoo-Lv 8' 15 
 oraz/ 8oKip.dtfi}o-t.v, irpa>Tov p.ev tis croi irar-qp KaXiroQev [ Co1 - 28 - 
 rcav $-qp,a>v, /cat tis irarpos Trarrjp, /cat tis p.r\TT)p, /cat 
 
 rty p.r\Tpos ivaTiqp /cat irodev tg>v Srjpxov' //.era 5e tolvto. 
 et eo~Tiv olvtco ' AiroXXav iraTp&os /cat Zew e/j/cetoy, ^"~ 
 /cat 7ro£i [rjavra ra tepa iaTiv, etra 17/Ha et eo~Tiv /cat 20 
 7rou TavTa, eireiTa yovias el ed 7rotet [/cat] ra re'A?7 
 reAet, /cat ray o-TpaTeias et eaTpdrevTai. tccvto. 5' 
 
 9. SiKaarripia : H-L. prefix Tip, but ^i 45, 1. 7> 46, 1. 13. 17- itarpos 
 
 ■naTtjp : MS. irarTj/) -narpos, but a dot and a line placed above each of the words 
 indicate that they are to be transposed. 22. Te\et; K-W. prefix el. 
 
 7. 7rpS>Tov pev K.7-.X. : a summary of the passage which follows is 
 given by Pollux (VIII. 85, 86), eKaKelro 8/ nt deapoQerav avaKpuris, el 
 'Adrjvaloi elaiv eKarepadev in rpiyovlas Kai rbv drjfiov (qu. tu>v &Tjfiav ?) 
 trodev Kai el 'A7roAXa>i/ ecmv avTols irarp^os Kai Zeiis epKeios Kai el tovs 
 yoveas ev ttoiov<ti /cat et eaTpdrevvrai virep rrjs narpiSos Kai el to Tip,rjp,a 
 eo-riv avrols (Rose, Frag. 374). There is a similar passage in the Lex. 
 rhet. Cantabrig. (p. 670, 14), in which Aristotle is referred to by name 
 (Rose, Frag. 375). 
 
 20. fjpla : cf. Dem. in Eubul. § 67, p. 1319, otWot rives elvai fiaprvpov- 
 o~iv aira ; Ttavv ye, nparov fiev ye rerrapes dveijrioi, eir aveijfiaSovs, ei6 ol ras 
 ave-drias Xafiovres aurco, eWa (ppdrepes, evr 'AiroWavos irarptoov <ai Aios 
 epKeiov yevvr)Tat, eld' oh rjpla raird, elff 01 Si/^drat k.tX. The present 
 
 passage confirms the emendation rjpia for lepd in Dinarch. contr. 
 Arist. § 18, p. 107, dvaKplvavres tovs to>u kouiwv ti fieXXoi/Ttis tStoiKeiv, tis 
 carat tov iStov Tpoirov, el yoveas ev irotei, el ras o~TpaTelas vrrep T^r ttoXoos 
 eo-Tpdrevrai, el iepa irarpaa ea-Tiv, el ra TtXij TeXei, 
 
1 68 API2T0TEA0TS [ch. 55. 
 
 dvepcoTqo-as, K^ajXei, (^rjcriv, tovtcov tovs p.apTvpas. 
 i7T€i8av 8e 7rapd(rxr}TCU tovs p-aprvpas kirepuiTq., 
 
 25 tovtov fiovXerai tls KaTTjyopelv ; kclv p.ev 77 tls 4 
 KCLT-qyopos, 8ovs Karrjyoplav kcu diroXoyLav, ovtco 
 SlScocrtv iv p.ev rfj fiovXfj ttjv emytipoToviav, iv 8t 
 t<m SiKaa-Trjpim ttjv yj/rjcpov idv 8e p.r]8eis /3ovXt)tcu 
 KCLTrjyopeiv, evdvs SiScocri ttjv ^/r}(pov' kou irporepov 
 
 30 pev ety ivefiaXXe ttjv [\f/jr)(j)ov, vvv 8' dvdyKrj Trdvras 
 earl SLayjfrjCpl^eo-Oai irep\ aircou, tva av tls wovrjpos 
 u>v d-rraXXd^rj tovs KdTrjyopovs eVt tols 8lkolo-tcus 
 y£vr\T(u tovtov d7ro8oKtp,aaai. 8oKip,ao~0€v 8e tovtov 5 
 tov Tpoirov, (3aSl£ovo-i Trpos tov XiOov i(j)' o[l>] ret 
 
 35 Top.L ko-Ttv, i(p' ov kcu ol SiaiTrjrai 6p.6cravT€s 
 
 _ . aTTo(paivovTaL tols 8lcl'ltcls kolI ol p.dpTvpes i£6p.vvvTcu 
 
 to.? p,apTvplas. dvafiavTes 8' eVt tovtov op-vvovcriv 
 
 25. /UouAerai : MS. jSovAamu. 33. 5oKtfiao6iv : Rutherford, Richards, 
 
 Blass, H-L., K-W. SoKifiaaB&res, but there is no obvious reason why the 
 final syllable should have dropped out, and the writer appears to have been 
 fond of accusatives absolute. . 34. i(j> ov : so H-L. ; 1st ed. and K-W. bcp' 2 : 
 cf. note below. 
 
 34. irpos rbv XWov. cf. Harpocration (s.v. Xidos), ioUao-i 8' 'Adrjvaloi 
 irpos tiv\ Xi8ca roils opKovs noiiiadai, as 'ApioroTt'Xi/s iv rjj 'Adrjvaxaiv 
 noXireia (Rose, Frag. 377). 
 
 i<j>' oS to. Tofii io-TLv : the correct reading of these words is due to 
 van Leeuwen (Mnemosyne, vol. XIX). In the first edition they 
 were given as v<§ a to. Tapieid (MS. rapi) iariv, on the strength of the 
 parallel passage in Pollux quoted in the following note. Van Leeu- 
 wen, however, quotes Bergk's emendation of Pollux, e'<p' oS ra To/ua 
 vos, and refers to Dem. p. 642, 18 (SpKov . . n-oujo-ei . . . o-ras eVi twv 
 Top.ia>v xairpov /an Kptov Kal raupov, k.t.X.) and Arist. Lysist. 1 86 seq. ; 
 and there can be little doubt that this correction is right. The doubtful 
 letters (e in ifi an d ° in Top.ia) are rather roughly formed, but there is 
 no doubt that they can be read as here given. 
 
 37. opviovo-iv k.t.X. : the passage in Pollux (VIII. 86) quoted above 
 
 continues, iirt)pa>Ta 8' 1; (3ouX>j, dfjiVvov &' ovtoi irpos ttj tfacnXeico aroo, eVi 
 tov Xidov vq)> a to. Tdfue'ta, crv/JicpvXd^eiv Toiic vo/iovs Rai p,r) SapoSoK^aeiv 17 
 Xpvo-ovv avbpiaiiTa anoricrai, fira evrevdev els aKponoXiv aveXdavres ajivvov 
 
CH. 56.] A0HNAIHN nOAITEIA. 169 
 
 Siicaicos ap£eii> /cat /caret tovs vofiovs, kou 8a>pa pr/ 
 
 Xrj-^reaOaL rrjs a.p^rjs eveica, kolv tl Aa/3&)crt av- 
 
 (_ Spiaura avadrjaeiv xpvcrovvTl ivrevOev 8' 6p.6(ravTe? 4° 
 
 els oLKpoiroXtv /3a8i£ov(TLV Kal ttoXlv e/cet Tama. 
 
 Op,VVOV(TL, KOU p.€Td TO.VT 61? TTjV apyj)V €L(Tep^OVTai. 
 
 56. Aapfiavovcn 8e Kal irape8povs o re ap\a>v 
 kou 6 fiaaiXev? Kal 6 TroXep.ap^os 8vo e/caa-ro? ovs 
 av ftovXryrai, Kal ovtol 5o/ct/xa£bvrat iv too 5t/cac- 
 rrjpico irplv wapeSpeveiv, Kal evdvvas StSoacriv iirav 
 
 2 irapeSpevcrooaiv. /cat 6 p.ev apyav €v6vs elaeXOeov 5 
 
 TTpCOTOV p.€V K7)pVTT€l OCTCC Tl? eL X eV 7r / 3 '" ai)TOV \ 
 
 elaeXOelv et? ttjv apyj]v, tolvt iyziv /cat Kpareiv 
 
 3 p-e^pi ^PXV S tgXovs. hveiTa yopxjyoiis Tpaya>8oi? 
 KadlaTTjai r/jet? it; airdvTcov 'A&rjvaioov tovs irXov- 
 <ruoTCLTOvs' Trporepov 8e /cat KcopxpSois KadicrTrj io 
 7reWe, vvv 8e tovtois ai (pvXcu (pepovaiv. oretra 
 
 LVI. 2. Kal 6 @aai\fvs : om. Harp. ticamos : inarcpos Harp. 3. av : 
 MS. tar. 4. i-nav ■ H-L. Itrttiav. 8. apxqs : MS. apparently apurjs. II. 
 tovtois : Wyse, K-W. tovtovs. 
 
 Tavra. Further, in the excerpts from Heraclides nepi noXirelas 'A8j)- 
 vaiav (cf. Rose, ed. 1886, Frag. 611), which was evidently an epitome 
 of Aristotle, we have the sentence eiVi fie Ka\ iwia ap^ovrcs Beo-podlrai, 
 01 SoKipaaOfvres opviovo-i otKaius ap£eiv Kal 8£>pa p'q ~Krj\JAeo-0ai rj dvopiavra 
 Xfmirovv avadrjo-eiv. 
 
 LVI. I. Aap/3dvovo m i..,irapfopevo-ao-iv: Harpocration (s.v, irapehpos) 
 quotes this passage as from Aristotle iv rjj 'ABrjvaiav iroXireia, with the 
 exception that he (or his MSS.) omits the words rai 6 fiao-ikeis (Rose, 
 Frag. 389) and gives emrepos for eKaaros. That the king archon had 
 two TtdpeSpoi as well as the archon and the polemarch is confirmed by 
 Pollux (VIII. 92). 
 
 1 1. irtvre : in the fifth century the number of competitors admitted 
 
 in comedy was three, as in tragedy ; but at the beginning of the 
 
 fourth century it was raised to five (Haigh, Attic Theatre, pp. 30, 31). 
 
 tovtois : Mr. Wyse thinks tovtovs necessary here and in 1. 17, 
 
 quoting Dem. p. 99^j 22 seq. (ovkovv . . . olaovo-l pe, av x°/"7y°" ^ yvpva- 
 
ijo API2T0TEA0T2 [CH. 56. 
 
 ■wapaXaficov roi/s xoprjyovs tovs evrjveyfievovs vtto 
 tcov (pvXcov els Aiovvcria dvSpacriv kcu iraicriv /cat 
 Ka)/i&j5o[rjs > , /cat els QapyrjXia dvBpdcriv /cat iraiaiv 
 
 15 (etcrt <5' oi fiev els Aiovvcria Kara. (pvXas, els Qap- 
 yrjXia [<5e] Bvotv (pvXaiv els' irapeyei 8' ev p^epei\ 
 eKarepa tcov (pvXcov), tovtqis ras dvTiSocreis iroiel /cat 
 rets CTKrjtyeis elcrl dyei eajv tis r) XeXrjTovpyrj^Kej v[atj 
 cpfj 7r[poJTepov ravrrju rrjv XrjTovpy\jav, rj ajreXrjs 
 
 20 etrat XeXrj^rovpyrjKcos ejrepav XrjTovpyiav /cat tcov 
 yj>6vcov aiiTCo [rrjs dreXjeias p-r) e^eXrj^Xvjdo^rcov, rj - 
 rd p\\ err] fir) yeyovevai' del yap tov tois 7rat[crtz> 
 
 16. tie : not visible in MS. (as H-L. believe), but there is a slight lacuna in 
 ■which it may have stood : otherwise it might be supposed to have been 
 omitted by the scribe (so K-W.). SuoiV : MS. Svetv, but this form is only 
 
 found with plurals, cf. Meisterhans, p. 162. 17. tovtois : H-L. to[vtov~\, 
 
 inside preceding parenthesis, after Richards (1st ed. tovtois in same position, 
 corr. K-W.). 18. tcis axi^/tis: MS. raox-q^eis ; for ras the abbreviation 
 
 for ttjs seems to have been written first, and then an a has been inserted with- 
 out tie corrector perceiving that another a was necessary. 18-22. eav 
 tis . . . yeyovevai : the supplements in the first part of this passage (to npoTepov) 
 are due to Dr. Sandys. K-W. [X]iyxi for tpfj, K(\rjTovp[yriKivai yap] for \e\ri- 
 Tovpyrjicujs, tov \povov for toiv \povoiv (avowedly against MS.), e£e\9[e?v] for 
 h£(ki)\v66Tav, and [to vop.ip!~\ for to\ /Z. In all cases the traces in the MS. 
 appear to support the reading in the text. The readings of H-L. are admitted 
 by themselves not to be in accordance with the MS. 19. XrjTovpyiav : MS. 
 at first \eirovpytav, but corrected. 
 
 (riap\ov i) earidVopa r) eav Tl tS>v aKkcov (pepaxriv ;). But tovtois here takes 
 up KoyfiaSo'is, the object (xoprjyovs) to (pepaaiv being understood without 
 difficulty. 
 
 13. av&pao-iv kou iraio-iv: these are the choruses for the dithyrambic 
 competitions, in which the tribes competed against one another. 
 
 14. Bapy!]Kia : the dithyrambic chorus for men at this festival is 
 mentioned by Lysias {De Dono § 2, p. 161), and that for boys, as well as 
 the fact that two tribes combined to provide the choruses at this 
 festival, by Antiphon {De Chor. § 11, p. 142). As to the duties of the 
 archon in respect of the Thargelia, Pollux (VIII. 89) says 6 he apxav 
 SiarifJno-i pev Aiovvcria (cai SapyijXia pera rav eVip.eXnrcoi', and the Lex. 
 rhet. Cantabrig. (p. 670, 4), e^ei he e'mp.e\eiav xoprjyoiis KciTaarfjcrcii els 
 Aiovvcrta zeal 9apyijXia, fVijueAeiTat he Kai rav els Af/Xov /cai tcov d\\a\6oTe 
 I7ep.i70fieviov 'A.6r)vrjdev xopcoi/ (Rose, Frag. 381). 
 
 22. het yap k.t.X. : Harpocration (s.v. on v6p.os) refers to this passage, 
 
 ~7 
 
CH. 56.] A0HNAH2N nOAITEIA. 171 
 
 XoprfjyovvTa inrep TeTTapd^Koujra errj yeyovevat. 
 Ka6i(TTT]cri 8e /cat ety ArjXov -^opriyov? kcu dp^Ai- 
 
 6j €Co[pOV? T jCp TplOLKOVTOpicd T<5 TOV? T)ld£oVS "ayOVTl. 25 
 
 4 iropjirav 5' eVt/zeAet[rat ttjs re] tco ' ' hcrKkrpriw 
 yiyvofxevr)? orav o'lKovpaxTi /iuJVJrat, /cat 7-77? Ato- 
 vvalwv tS>v [fjieyajXcov p.erd t5>v eKip.eX-r)TG>v, 
 ovs Trporepou p.€v 6 fi^/toy £\€ipoTOV€L fie'/ca ovras, 
 [/cat raj ety ttju Trofnrrjv dvaXcofiara Trap' avrcov 3° 
 r)i>[€yKjov, vvv 8' era ttjs (pvX^jjs e'/cefJcrrTyy KXrjpol 
 
 5 /cat 8i8a>o-iv ety ttjv Karao-Kevrjv e'/carof fivds. kiu- 
 /LteA[etrat] fie /cat r^y ety Qapy-qXia /cat rrjs ra Ait 
 tw ^corrjpi. fitot/cet fie /cat tov dydva tS>\v Aiovjv- 
 <ruov oi»roy /cat tcov QapyrjXiaiv. ioprcov fiev ovv 35 
 
 6 iTTifieXeLTCU tovtcov. ypacjial 8\() /cat filt/cat Xayyd- 
 vovtoli wpos avTov, as dvanpivas et'r' [ety fitJ/cacrr^/Jtoi' 
 etcra[yet, yojvtcov /ca/ccocrecoy {avrai 8e elaw d£rjp.iot. 
 
 24. apx'Oewpov! : so Torr, who refers to C. I. G. 158 a, 33, followed by H-L. ; 
 Fraenkel, K-W. apx^ewpov. It is uncertain whether there was more than one 
 apxiBeaipos. 26. impeKeirai : the first 1 is doubtful, and might be an e. 27. 
 •(lyvofievrjs : MS. yivo/ievrjs. p-iarai : K-W. and H-L. prefix 01. 31. 
 
 jjvf/Kov : K-W. i.vi\MaKov, apparently as MS. reading, which does not seem 
 admissible. 34. rSni : H-L. to[v tSiv], as the MS. reading, but apparently 
 
 wrongly. 35. toiv : K-W. prefix tov. 37. elr els : K-W. eis t[o], as 
 
 the MS. reading ; H-L. elr' els (to). It is difficult to be certain about the MS. 
 reading. 
 
 on vofios eaTiv vnep fi err] yev6p,evov ^opijyeiv iraitriv Al(r\lvtj9 re e'v ™ 
 Kara Tiftdpxov (prja\ Kai 'Apto-roTeXijr ev rrj 'ABr/vaiaiv jroXtreta (Rose, 
 Frag. 431). 
 
 27. orav olnovpao-t fivorat: apparently this refers to the ceremony 
 which took place in the course of the Eleusinia, on the 1 8th of Boe- 
 dromion, when the Epidauria were celebrated at the temple of 
 Asclepius, and the initiated slept in the temple. 
 
 36. ypatpai He k.t.X. : a summary of the following passage is given by 
 Pollux (VIII. 89), Sixai 8e irpos airrov \ay\dvovTai Kaxaaeas, irapavoLas, 
 €19 barrfTStv alpeiriv, imTponrjs op(pavS>i>, emrpoTTcov KarafrTaareis, Kkr)pa>v Kai 
 imKKr)pav embiKaaiai. enifieXciTai 8e Kai t3>v yvvaiKav at av (paxTiv err av&pos 
 reXevrrj Kveiv, Kai roi/s oikovs eKfUcrdot rav 6p(pava>v (Rose, Frag. 381). 
 
173 API2T0TEA0T2 [CH. 56. 
 
 tco /3ovXopevq> S[t&>/c]eii'), bpcpavcov /c[a/ca>]crea)y (clvtcli 
 4° 5' elcri Kara tcov eiriTpoircov), eTTiKXrjpov /ca/caj<xe|_<MfJ 
 (avrcu Se euri Kara Pn5j'l eKurpo-wcov /cat tcov ctvvol- 
 kovvtcov), ot/cou opcpaviicov KaKcoaecos (elcri 8e /cat 
 \avTai. Kara tcov] e7nTp6[_7rjcov), irapavolas, eav tis 
 aiTiaral riva irapavoovvTa tol [eavTOv KTrjpara 
 45 aj7roAAi;i/[at], els 8o.tt)tcov aipecriv, eav tis prj OeXrj 
 [/cjcwa [r<x ovTa vep.e<r0aij, els eTTLTpoTrrjs Karaa-racnv, 
 els eTn.TpoTrr)s 8i.a8iKao-lav, els [ipcpavcov Kara- ' 
 araa^Lv, te7r/r[/)07r]oi' avTov eyypcl\f/aif, KXrjpcov koI 
 em/cXr/pcou eVt[5t/cacrtai. e7ripeXelrjaL 8e /cat tcov 7 
 50 [opcpjavcov /cat tcov e7TLKXrjpcov /cat tcov yvvaiKcov 
 ocrat av TeXevlrrjcravTos tov avSpjos crK7)[7rTcojv- 
 Tai Kveiv /cat Kvpios icrTC tois aScKovcnv eirifiaX- 
 [Aetv r) eladyeiv eiy] to 8iKa[crTrf\piov. picrOoZ 8e 
 
 44. ra lauTOu nT-fi/mra : a shorter supplement (about 10 letters) is required. 
 H-L. T<i TrcLTpwa, after Wyse, but this is too short ; K-W. tov oikov, which is also 
 too short and moreover the a of t& is practically certain. 45. Sclttjtoiv : 
 MS. Skiitt/tw, but cf. quotations in note below. 47. eh ep<pavwv xaraaraaiv : 
 so K-W. ; the s of els is not absolutely certain. If this is right (and the 
 quotation from Harp, in the note below supports it), the following words 
 become meaningless, and are probably part of a gloss on kmrpoirr/s StaSacaaiay. 
 2nd ed. el [irKeioves T771 airijs 9ikova~\iv, H-L. [eav i:\eiovs a/ia e8ekaia\v, but 
 ei is certain in MS. H-L. also emT\poirov t~\ov airov against the MS., which 
 will not hold so much in the lacuna. Poland e[iv tij dfapiff^Tjj Se]iv, after 
 Lipsius. 48. iyypdipai: MS. evypmpm. 51. The letters -visible are 0001a), 
 not poaaTj as K-W. give them. 53. f) eiaayeiv : so Lipsius, K-\Y. ; 1st ed. 
 
 45. els SaTTirav aipecriv : Harpocration explains the phrase, and refers to 
 Aristotle as using it iv rfi 'Ad^vaiav noKireia. The Lex. rhet. Cantabrig. 
 quotes Aristotle nearly verbally, or! rav SiavepLovrav ra koivol tktiv, us 
 Api<rTOTe\j]S iv TJj ' AOqvaicov 7ro\tr£ia, StKai Xay^avovrat irpos tqv ap-)(0VTa 
 uWai tivcs Ka\ els SarrjTwv aipecriv, orav pi) 8e\i] Koiva ra ovra vepecrdai 
 (Rose, Frag. 383). 
 
 47. els e'p<pavuv KaTaarao-iv : this supplement of the lacuna seems 
 necessary in order to account for the reference of Harpocration (s.v.), 
 
 6 Se 'ApKTTOTeXrjs iv ttj ' Adrpialav ■nokvrela irpos tov ap^ovra $770-1 
 XayxaveoSat rairrjv rfjv bLurjv, tov de avaxpivovrqi elaayeiv els to diKao-Trjptov 
 {Frag. 382). 
 
CH. 57.J A0HNALQN nOAITEIA. 173 
 
 KOU TOVS o'lKOVS TCDV 6p(f)aV(OV KOU TCOV €7n^KX^pCOvj 
 
 a kcu B^aTTjjTrjs yivTjrai kou tol olttotl- 55 
 
 firjfiara Xapfidv^er kou tovs £irLTp6irovs\ iau /i[?) 
 onrojScoo-i tols iraialv tov o~itov ovtos eunrpaTTti. 
 kou 6 \jiev apycov eVi/ieAeirJat tovt^covJ. 
 
 57- [0 8ej fioxriXevs irpwTov p,ev pLvcrTrjpicov 
 €7rtp.€\ei[Tcu p.€Ta t&v eTrip.eXr]Ta)v ovs~\ 6 Srjp^os 
 XjeipoTovei, 8vo p.ev e'£ 'AOrjvatcov awavTCov, eva 
 8' [Evp.oX7ri8cov, eW] fie Ktjp^JjkcoJv. eVetra Ajo- 
 vv<ruov tg>v eVi Arjvalcp' ravra 8' eort [wop.Trrj kou 5 
 ay gov. tt]v\ p.ev ovv iropvirrjv KOivfj ircpLTrovaiv re [Col. 29.] 
 ffao-iXev? kcu ol iirtpjeXryral' tov 8e aywva 8iari- 
 drjcriv 6 /3ao-tAeu?. ridrjcri 8e kou tovs tcdv Xap.- 
 
 and H-L. ^rj/uav fj ayav, which seems too long for the lacuna. 55. Sanyrip : 
 neither K-W. nor H-L. fill the lacuna. The final r] is corrected from «. 56. xal 
 tovs eniTpoirovs : so E. H. Brooks, K-W. H-L., Sandys not ol ivirpoiroi. For 
 the double ace. cf. Dem. p. 1227, 9. lav : H-L. ol av. 57. airoSwai : 
 
 K-W. \pi]ZSiat, H-L. [djro8i]8<u<ri. 58. 6 p.\v dpxoiv : so K-W., H-L. ; 1st 
 
 ed. oItos yiiv ovv, Blass 6 pXv o%v apx<ov. LVII. 3. x e 'P°Tovti : IxtipoTovti. 
 
 Harp., though he continues the words of Aristotle as far as Kr/pvKav. 4. 
 
 Ev/ioKiriSaiv . . . Ktjpvkoiv : If Ei/iokmSuiv . . . en KrjpvKwv Harp., and so K-W., 
 H-L. 5* hyvaico : MS. \Tjvaicuv. iropnrij ko.1 dyouv : supplied 
 
 by H-L. though somewhat short for the lacuna. K-W. irofiin) xal /joiktiktjs 
 d-yaw, which is too long. 8. TtBijm : K-W., H-L., Richards, Gertz 
 
 SiaTiSrjo'i. 
 
 57. o-'vTov. Harpocration (s.v.) says <tLtos nake'irai 17 StSopevrj irpoo-ohos 
 els rpofpqv rdis yvvai^Xv 17 to'is 6p<pavois, i>s e'£ ahXav fiadeiv tan <a\ Ik 
 tov SoXgopoj a a£ovos xal i< ttjs 'ApiororeXouj 'ABqvaitnv TroXireias (Rose, 
 Frag. 384). As women and children were under the archon's special 
 care, it is tolerably certain that this is the passage referred to, but there 
 is nothing in the words of Harpocration to prove the exact wording 
 of the sentence. 
 
 LVII. 1. 'O hi /Bao-iXeis . . . KrjpvKav : quoted by Harpocration, s.v. 
 £mp.c\r)Tris tS>v nvo-Trjpiaiv (Rose, Frag: 386). 
 
 5. Aiovvo-iav rdv iwl Aqvaico : Pollux (VIII. 9°) says 6 fie /3a<ri- 
 Xeir /j,vo"rr]pLa>v Trpo£o-rr)Kt /zero rav imiJ.e\rjTS>v Kal ArjvaLav icai dya>va>v 
 t£>v eVi Xa/in'aSt, Kai to irspi ras irarpiovs Bvo-ias SioiKei (Rose, Frag. 
 385). 
 
174 API2T0TEA0T2 [CH. 57. 
 
 waScov aywvas airavTas' a>? <5 eiros enreiv K.0.1 
 
 10 ray irarpiovs OvcrLas Stot/cet ovtos iraaas. ypctipai 2 
 
 8e \ayyavovrat irpos avTov acre/3eiay, kolv rty 
 
 lepaxrvvTjs dp-Cpicr^Ty ivpos Tiva' [c5ta§t]/ca£et <5e 
 
 /cat tol? yeveo-t /cat roty lepevcn ray ap.§io~$T]Ty)o-us 
 
 ray iiTrep \ra>v yelpcov cbracray ovtos. Xayyavovrai 
 
 15 8e /cat at tov (povov St/cat 7racrat 7r/9oy tovtov, 
 
 /cat 6 irpoayopevcov e'lpyeo-dcu tcqv vop.ip.a>v ovtos 
 
 eaTiv. etcxt <5e 0oi/[oi>] St/cat /cat Tpavp.a.Tos' av 3 
 
 /u,ei> e/c irpovoias aTroKTCLvrj, iyyp\a(peTcuj iv 'Apeicp 
 
 wayco, /cat (pa.pp.aKov idv cuTroKreivr) Sovs,y /cat 
 
 20 TrvpKaias' WavWa yap rj (3ov\rj p.6va 5t/ca£ef tcdv 
 
 9. «a£: del. H-L., K-W. 12. 71710s wet: so MS. apparently; Lex. 
 Seg. 7r/>oori/iS, which might be read here also, but it does not seem appro- 
 priate. 14. ■yepSir : so Lex. Seg.; Richards Upuiv, but there seems no 
 reason to depart from the evidence on the point. 18. eyypa<peTai: MS. 
 apparently evyp- : K-W. rj rpii[a]ji, which is not absolutely impossible, H-L. 
 (tis), ypaiperai. 19. (pdppaicov : K-W. alter to (pappdnuv, after Pollux, but 
 it seems unnecessary. 
 
 10. ypacpal fie k.t.X.: the passage of Pollux just quoted gives a sum- 
 mary of the present section, dUai fie irpos alrov Xayxdvovrai avefieias Kal 
 Upwo~vvr)s ap.cpio-fir)TT)creci>s. Kal rots yivccri Kal tois tepeiicri (MSS. iepots) 
 naa-LV ovtos Sirafei, /cat toj tov (povov fit/car elf Apeiov rrdyov eio-dyei /cat 
 tov o-ricpavov dirodipevos o-iiv airots 81/cdfei. npoayopevei fie tois eV airi'a 
 d7re^ecrc^at pvo-TTjplav Kal t£>v aXXw voplpwv. fit/cd£ei fie Kai Ta? ruf dyjrvxwv 
 fiixay. The Lex. Seg. (p. 219, 14) quotes verbally from ypacpal to npos 
 tovtov, though without acknowledging the source (Rose, Frag. 385). 
 
 17. av piv e'« npovolas k.t.X. : Pollux (VIII. 117) evidently draws from 
 this passage ; "Apeioy irdyos' e'fit'/cafe fie (povov Kal rpavparos eVc npovolas Kal 
 TrvpKaias Kal cpappaKcov idv tis aTroKrelvrj 8011s. Cf. also Dem. contr. Arist. 
 § 24, p- 628, yeypanTai yap iv piv ™ vopa, ttjv j3ovXr)v fit/cd£eti< (povov Kal 
 Tpavparos ex npovoias Kal TrvpKaias Kal cpappaxav, idv Ttr dnoKTciv;) Sour. 
 
 20. rav S' aKovo-lav Kal f3ov\cvo-«os : Harpocration (s. v. irrl TiaXXahla), 
 hiKao~TT]piav io-riv ovto) KaXovpevov, cos Kal ApiCToriXrjs iv 'Adijvalav 
 iroXiTflq, iv co fiiKafoucriv i'ikovo-wv (povov Kal j3ouXeiJcrecoj 01 e'cpe'rat (Rose, 
 
 Frag. 417). The e'cpeVai are also mentioned in this connection by 
 Hesychius and Eustathius, but Aristotle does not appear to have 
 noticed them here, though the general statement in 1. 30 (if the sup- 
 plement is right) covers this passage. Pollux too (VIII. 118) does 
 
CH. 57.] A0HNATI2N ITOAITEIA. 175 
 
 8" aKovaicov /cat fiovXevcrecos Kav oIk€tt]v airoKreivri 
 tls r] /xeroLKOv 77 £evov, oi £\iri\ Ua[XXJa8ia>' kav 
 8" airoKTeivai fiev ris 6/xoXoyfj, <pfj Se Kara tovs vo- 
 fiovs, o\iov^ yuoiyov Xafiav rj kv TroXkfJico ayvorjaas 
 77 kv aOXco aycovi^ofievos, tov\to>] kiri AeX(pivla> 25 
 Blkol^ovctlv kav 8e (pevycov (pvyrjv wv a'lSeals kariv 
 alriav \JXVj owoKTeivou 77 rpcoaai Tiva, tovtco 5' 
 kv QpeaTTol Sikol^ovctlV 6 8e [onroXoyJeiTai Trpoa- 
 
 22. of im IlaXXaSia: so apparently MS. ; K-W. tovt[o> piiv lirt] n., but neither 
 is there room for this, nor are the letters tout discernible in the MS. H-L. [01 
 i(pirai M IT.], after Brooks, but the space will not admit it. 25. tovtw 
 
 Irri : K-W. ToiiT[oi] 5'[Ijt]i, but the S is not discernible, and the space would 
 not admit it. 1st ed. toiJt$i kv t£ iiri, but there is not space for iv t<2. 26. 
 
 aiSeois : in the MS. a letter has been written above the S, which is probably 
 a badly formed p, in which case the corrector has altered the rare word aldeais 
 into the more familiar atpeau, which, however, makes nonsense of the 
 passage. 27. exp airom-uvai : so read by K-W., apparently rightly ; H-L. 
 ■npoaXa^ri leretvai, after 1st ed. 28. QpearToi: MS. (ppfaTov, which K-W. 
 
 retain. 
 
 not refer to them. Harpocration also refers in another place (s. v. 
 (3ou\f vtreais) to Aristotle as stating that trials of this description took 
 place in the Palladium (Rose, Frag. 418). Prof. Mayor cites in addi- 
 tion schol. Aeschin. de Fals. Leg. § 87, ifiimCav 8' axov&lov cpovov Kal 
 j3ov\evcrea>s Kal otKiTrjv fj fiireiKov fj £tvov diroKTtivavTi (MSS. aVoKTeii/ai, 
 corr. Sauppe ; Wyse suggests <ei ns . . . dn-oKreiWie. The law itself 
 would presumably run Kav tls . . . diroKnivrj, as here, and the scholiast 
 may have quoted verbally). 
 
 25. ori AeX</ii«'o) : Harpocration (s. v.), SiKa^ovrai 5' ivravda 01 o/io\o- 
 ■youi'Tfr p,iv dneKTOvivai, SiKaias fie TreTroitjKivai tovto \iyovres, as Ai/^io- 
 aBevrjs iv t<o kot ' ApiaroKpaTovs ftrfhoi Kal ApitrroreXris iv rfj Aorjvattov 
 ■noKirda (Rose, Frag. 419). Pollux (VIII. 119), Suidas, Eustathius, 
 etc., say substantially the same. If the article oi is right in 1. 22 it 
 might perhaps be supplied here, but it is not necessary. 
 
 26. &v atSccris ianv: the corresponding phrase in Demosthenes (contr. 
 Aristocr. § 77, p. 645), where he is explaining the character of the court 
 
 iv QpeaTTOi, runs iir aKovcri(p (pova ntfpevyas, p.7]ira tSk iKftahovrav avrov 
 Tjheo-iiivav. The meaning therefore is that the party has committed 
 an involuntary homicide, but has to remain in exile during the resent- 
 ment of the relatives of the deceased. On their relenting he might 
 return (which would not be the case if the homicide was intentional, 
 under which circumstances there would not be nKeo-is), but at the time 
 supposed they have not yet relented and therefore he is still in exile. 
 
i7<5 API2T0TEA0T2 [ch. 57. 
 
 oppiaapevos iv irXolm. BiKa^ovcn <5' oi Xa^ovres 4 
 30 rapra e'0erat] 7rA7)z/ r&V eV 'Apelq> irdyoo yiyvo- 
 fievcov' elcrdyet 5' 6 fiao-iXevs Kai 8iKa£ovcn[i>~\ 
 .... at[o]t kou inraldpcoi. kou 6 fiaaiXevs orav 
 SiKa^rj irtpiaip&TOU tov o-T€(pavov. 6 Be ttjv alriav 
 €)(cou tov pev aXXov ypovov etpyercu raw iepcov kou 
 35 ovS' els ttjv dyopdv 8\J.kouov ejpfiaXelv clvtw' totc 5' 
 els to lepov e'ureXdcbv cnroXoyelTai. otolv 8e pr\ 
 el8fj tov TTOL-qo-avTOL, too 8pd.cravTL Xayyavei. SiKa^ei 
 8" 6 fiao-iXevs kou oi <pvXo(3ao~iXeis kou ray tcqv 
 a^rv\a}v kou tcov aXXcov £cpcov. 
 
 58. 'O 8e iroXepap-^os Qvei pev Ovcrias ttjv re 
 Trj 'AprepiSi rfj dyporepa kou tco '"EvvaXico, 8iaTidr)o-i 
 
 30. e<pirai : H-L. SiKaarai, after Paton. Cf. note below. 32 aioi : 
 
 H-L. ffKOTaibi, after Sandys, but this does not suit the traces in the MS. 35. 
 The correct reading of this and the two next lines is due in the first instance 
 to Wyse and Blass. Sixcuov : so van Leeuwen ; H-L., K-W. SiSorm, after 
 
 Gertz. IpfSahuv : K-W. epBaWeiv, against MS. 36. pi) : H-L. pr/8us, 
 
 but there is not room in the MS. 39. faiW : MS. £01011/. LVIII. 1. flvei 
 
 pkv : H-L. (after 1st ed.) muctrcu. tt\v tc tt) : K-W. ttj re, against MS. i. 
 'Ei/uaAjw : this name appears to have been written twice in the MS. The one 
 first written is struck out, and over that is written evva, which is also struck 
 out. H-L. read the repetition of the word as ttjv eviavoiav, but wrongly. The 
 quotation from Pollux (see note below) confirms the name 'EvvaKiy. 
 
 30. ecptTai : cf. Harpocration (s. v. e'0erai), 01 Sixafon-es ras e'<p* aipari 
 Kpi<rfis eVi UaXKaSia Kai cVl Upvraveia Kai eVi AeXcptMea Kai iv $peaTTOi 
 e'cpeVai ckoXovvto. Harpocration must almost certainly have derived 
 his statement from Aristotle, and this seems to be the only place in 
 which the word can have occurred. 
 
 33. Trepiaipeirai tov o-Te<pavov : cf. the quotation from Pollux (VIII. 
 90) given above, in note on 1. 10. 
 
 36. orav 8e pr) fiSij k.tX : cf. [Dem.] contr. Euerg. et Mnesil. § 69, 
 p. 1 1 60 (cited by Wyse), bvopairri piv /infifvi Trpoayopeveiv, to'k de&paicoo-i 
 fie Kai KTcivaa-iv, and Plato Laws p. 874 B, irpoayopeveiv toj/ (pwov Tip 
 Spdo-avri. 
 
 LVIII. 1. 'O fie TToXepapxos k.tX : Pollux (VIII. 91) paraphrases the 
 passage thus, 6 fie iroXipapxos did pev 'Apre'pSi dyporipo. Kai t<u 
 EpuaXitu, SiaTidrjO'i fie tov entTaqbiov ayava tcov *v TroXepto drrodavovrav, 
 Kai toIs Trepi 'AppoSiov ivayl^ei. dUai Sc 7rpor airov Xay^avowai peroUaiv, 
 
CH. 59.J A0HNAII2N nOAITEIA. 177 
 
 8' dywva tov iiriraipiov roty TereXevTrjKoaiu kv t<£ 
 iroXepco, /cat 'AppoSlcaJ /cat ' Apio-ToyeiTOVi)kvayLcrpaTa 
 
 2 iroiei. Sinai 8e XayyavovTai irpos avTov t'Stat p.ev at 5 
 re roty /xerot'/coty /cat roty tcroreAeVty/cat roty irpo- 
 £e'i>oty yt.yv6p.evai. /cat 5et tovtov Xafiovra /cat 81a- 
 v€ip,avTa 6V/ca p.epr], to Xa^ov eKao~Tr) rfj (pvXfj p,epos 
 irpoo-delvaL, tov? 5e ttjv (pvXrjv 5t/ca£oyray ro[ty] 
 
 3 5tatrr/raty airoSovvai. auroy 8" eicrayei 5t/cay ray re 10 
 tov aJVoo-rao-J/ou /cat dirpoo~Tao-i\ov^ /cat KXrjpcov /cat 
 iiriKXripav roty iierot/coty, /cat raAA' bcra roty 7roAtraty 
 
 6 apywv TavTa tols /xerot/coty 6 7roXep.ap-)(os. 
 
 59- Ot 5e deo~p.oBeTai irpa>Tov p,ev tov irpoypa^ai 
 
 to. SiKao-Trjpia. elai xvpioi tictiv rjp.epats 5et Suca^eiv, 
 
 [e7r]e[tra] tov Sovvai. raty dp^cus' KaQoTi yap av 
 
 2 oSrot Scoo-tv, KaTa tovto yjpwvTai. zti 8e ray 
 
 elaayyeXtas elaayyeXXovcriv ety rov 8rjp.ov /cat ray 5 
 
 3. rots rerekevrijKoaiv : the MS. prefixes *<u, but it is probably a blander, 
 though K-W. retain it. t<S : Rutherford tb, but the article is sufficiently 
 intelligible. 4. ' Apiaroyeirovi : MS. apiaroyiTovi. 5. /mp : K-W. 
 
 alter to jwvov. 7. yiyv6pevai : MS. ytvofievcu. 8. jte'pos : bracketed 
 
 by K-W. 11. tou : bracketed by K-W. LIX. 5. eloayyeWoviriv els 
 
 top 5%ioi': bracketed by K-W. ; eioayovatv Schol. Plat. Phaedr. 235 and Schol. 
 Aesch. I. 16, which Gomperz accepts ; but Pollux supports elaayyiKkovaiv. 
 
 icToreXav, irpoi-evav (Rose's addition £ivav is shown by the text of 
 Aristotle to be unnecessary), kcu bia.vep.ei to Xa^oV, iKaarn (pvXjj ti 
 pepos, to p.ev biaiTTjTais irapabibovs, elcrayuv be bUas anoo-racnov, airpu- 
 CTTarriov, KKrjpmv fieToUav (Rose, Frag: 387). 
 
 10. airos 8' euriyci : Harpocration (s. v. Trdkepapxos) quotes this 
 passage verbally, introducing it with the words ' ' Apio-rorehqs 8' ev rfj 
 'A6i]vaiav troXiTeia biegeXduv Sera bioiKel 6 wo\ep,apxos, vpbs ravrd <j»}<nv 
 " airos T€ elaayei .... 6 rro\ep.apxos." The first part, as far as eirixkripav, 
 is a<*ain quoted s. v. airooracrLov, with the difference that ovtos be stands 
 in place of airos re (Rose, Frag. 388). 
 
 LIX. 1. Ol be deciioBerai : Pollux (VIII. 87, 88) quotes the whole of 
 this passage almost verbally, as far as to yfrevbopapripta i£ 'Apeiov 
 irayov, and Harpocration (s. v. 8ecrp.oBeTai) says 6 8e ' Apiarorekr)s ev tj} 
 'A6t)vaia>v iroWefa Siepxerai oo-a oSroi 7rpdrT0v(nv (Rose, Frag. 378). 
 
 N 
 
178 API2T0TEA0T2 [CH. 59. 
 
 KOLTayeipoTOVLas kcu ray irpofioXas a7rao-a[y] eiaa- 
 yovaiv qv\tol\ kcu ypacpd? ira.pav6p.aiv /cat vop.ov p.rj 
 iiriTrjBuov Qfivai kcu TrpoedpiKrjv kcu iirccrTaTiK-qv 
 kcu crrpaTTiyciis evdvvas. etcrt 8e kcu ypacfjal irpos 3 
 
 10 avrovs &v TrapdcrTacris Tidercu, £evlas kcu Scopo^evia?, 
 au tls dcopa Soiis chrocpvyrj ttjv ^evlav, kcu ctvko- 
 (pavTias kcu Scopcov kcu -^evSeyypacprjs kcu \jsevSo- 
 /cA^retay /cat fiovXevcreco? /cat ciypa(piov kcu p.oiy€ias. 
 elcrdyovcriv 8e /cat ray So/ct/iao-[ta]y rat? ap^ais 4 
 
 15 aTrdcrcus /cat tovs dm-e^rTjCpiafxevovs vtto tg>v Stj/aotcov 
 kcu ray Karayvaxreis [r]ay e'/c ttjs fiovXr}?. elaayovcn 5 
 8e /cat St/cay tSt'ay, ipLiropiKas kcu /u.eraAAt/cay /cat 
 SovXcov, dv tls tou iXevdepov /ca/ccSy Xeyrj. kcu 
 iiriKXTqpovcri raty apycus ovtol tci SiKCtcrTrjpia ra '181a 
 
 20 /cat ra 8r)p.6crt.a' /cat ra crvp-ftoXa ra irpos ray iroXets 6 
 
 7. vopov : H-L. prefix tou, after J. B. Mayor. II. £tviav: H-L. £wias, 
 
 which seems hardly necessary. 1 2. tf/evSryypaipTJs : over the second c an 
 
 v has been written' in the MS., and the first 7, being badly formed, resembles a 
 a ; bnt the quotations in Harpocration leave no doubt as to the word in- 
 tended. 18-20. teal . . . Srjpuaia : bracketed by K-W. 19. ouroi rd : 
 so MS. apparently ; 1st ed. iravra, H-L. iravra ra. 
 
 9. flal 8e Kai yptuftai . . . £evlav : this passage is quoted in the Lex. 
 rhet. Cantabrig., being introduced by the words 'ApioroTeXijr iv rrj 
 'Adrjvaiav iroXireia (prjal irept ra>v BecrpoBeTav SiaXeyopevos. There is, how- 
 ever, an addition, for after 8apo£cvias occur the words t-evias piv Zdv ns 
 KaTJjyoprjTat £evos eivai, da>po£evias de idv tls datpa k.t.X. The repetition 
 of the words £evias and 8apo£evlas would make it easy to suppose that 
 the clause gevias . . . 8a>po£evias Be had accidentally dropped out of 
 the present MS. of Aristotle ; but Harpocration (s. vv. napdaraa-ts and 
 SapngevLa) proves that this is not the case (or else that his copy was 
 equally deficient) by twice quoting the passage exactly as it stands in 
 the text. Harpocration also (//. cc. and s. v. fiytpovia Sueao-rj/piou) quotes 
 the other classes of cases down to poixelas (Rose, Frag. 379). 
 
 20. ra crvp@o\a : it is perhaps to this passage that the Lex. Seg. 
 refers (s.V. diro <rvpji6\a>v Siiedfai), 'A8r)va.loi diro <Tvpj36\a>v (8iica(ov tols 
 virrjKoois. ovTtos ' ' Apiarore\rjs (Rose, Frag. 380). Harpocration ex- 
 plains the word crvpfioXa as tcls <rvv6i]Kas ns i\v dXAijXair a< iro\eis Bepevai 
 TaTTasiTi roil iroXiraic &(rre 8i86vai xal Xapftdveiv ra 8Uata. 
 
CH. 60.J AQHNAIGN IIOAITEIA. 179 
 
 OVTOL KVpOVCTl, KCU TCtS SlKClS TCtS 0L1T0 TWV (TVflfidXcOV 
 
 elcrayovcri, /cat tol ^/evSo/xapTvpia €*[£] 'Apelov irdyov. 
 
 7 tovs 8e Si/cacrra? KXr/povcn irdvTes ol ivvea ap- 
 Xovres, Se/caroy 5' 6 ypap.p,arevs 6 tcov &eo~p.odeTa>v } 
 tovs Trjs avTov (f)v\f)s e/cao-roy. to. p.ev ovv Trepl 25 
 tovs B dpyovras tovtov e%ei tov Tpoirov. 
 
 60. KA^poucrt 8e /cat dOXodiras 5e/ca [a~\v8pas, 
 eva Trjs (pvXrjs e/cewrnjy. ovtol 8e 8oKLp.acr0evTes 
 apxovcri TeTTap^a e'Jrr;, /cat 8lolkovctl tt)v re Tropmrjv 
 tcov YlavaOrjvaunv kcu tov dycova Trjs p.ovo~iKrjs kcu 
 tov yvp.viKov dycova kcu tt/v linroSpopilav, kcu tov 5 
 ireTrXov TTOIQVVTCU KCU TOVS dp.(j)opeis TTOIOVVTCLL fl€Ta 
 Trjs ftovXrjs, /cat to eXcuov tols dOXrjTCiis chro- 
 
 2 8i86a.o~i. crvXXeyeTcu 8e to eXcuov [a]7ro tcov p.opia>v 
 eicnrpciTTei 8e tovs Ta ^copta KeKTr/p.evovs iv ols 
 at p-opicu eicriv 6 dp^cov, Tpla r)p.iKOTvXia diro tov 10 
 crreXe^ovs e/cacrrou. irpoTepov 8' eVcoAet tov Kapirov 
 
 21. Kvpovat : H-L. Karaicvpovoi, after Wyse. 22. tf/evSo/jiapTvpia : H-L., 
 
 K-W. add ra, but if If A. tt. be taken with the verb, it is unnecessary. 23. 
 iravres: MS. mvras, which, however, has no force, while iravrcs brings out the 
 contrast between the six thesmothetae who have been the subject up to this 
 point and the whole college of nine archons. So also H-L. 23- 25. toiis 
 
 .... ZnaaTos : bracketed by K-W. LX. 1. d0A.o0eVas : the first three 
 
 letters are strangely formed in the MS. and the word rather resembles X070- 
 ff«Tar. Possibly this was the actual word written, but if so there can be no 
 question that it is a mistake for ae\o6eras, and in a hand like this a confusion 
 between a8\ and \oy is not at all impossible. 6. noiovvrai : H-L., K-W., 
 
 Gennadios remove the repetition of this word after a.n<poptTs. 8. Si to : 
 
 MS. to Sf, altered by Gennadios, Richards, Gertz, H-L., K-W. ; Hicks, K-W. 2 
 to 5' tkaiov ov\keyeTat. 10. rpia : MS. t/m, hence K-W. TptrjiuKorvMov. 
 
 LX. I. affKoBiras : cf. Pollux (VIII. 93), affkoBirai dcxa fiev eicriv, ds 
 Kara nJvAiji', SoKi/taaBei/Tcs Se apxovai Terrapa cttj, in\ ra SiaBelvai to, 
 VLava6f]vaia, tov re hovo-ikov Kai tov yvp.vi.Kbv Kai rf/v 'nnro&popiav. 
 
 7. to f\mov : the scholiast on Oed. Col. 701 refers to this passage, 
 8c 'Apio~TOTekr]S Kai ro'is vi.Kjjo~ao~i to. TlavaQfjvaia eXaiov tov i< twv fxopiwv 
 ywofiivov 8i8oo-8ai (f>r/o-iv (Rose, Frag. 345). 
 
 11. fViiXei : i.e. formerly the state managed the cultivation of the 
 
 n a 
 
x8o API2T0TEA0T2 [CII. 60. 
 
 77 ttoXis' kcu e'i rty eijopvgetev eXaiav p.oplav rj 
 Kardtjeiev, eKpivev r) e'£ 'Apelov irdyov fiovXr), /cat 
 e'i tov KOLTayvoiri, davarca tovtov efop-iovv. e£ ov 
 
 15 8e to e'Xaiov 6 to -^mpiov KeKTrjp.evos cltvotlvu, o p.ev 
 
 ' 3 °' J vop.os io-TLV, r) 8e Kpio-LS /caraAe'Aurat. to 5' eA\aiovj 
 
 e/c tov kAtiplcltos, ovk oltto tcqv aTeXe\cav, eaTi Trj 
 
 TroAec. crvXXe^a? ovv 6 ap\cov to i(p' eav\rov\ 3 
 
 yt.yvop.evov, roty Taplcus 7rap\a8[ojcoo-iv ety 'A/c/30- 
 
 20 7roXiv, /cat ovk eaTLV dvafirjvai irpoTepov els I'Apejiov 
 irayov irpXv av airav 7rapa8<S roty ra/ztaty. oi 8e 
 Tapiai tov p.\v dXXov yjpovov Trjpovcriv iv 'A/cpo- 
 iroAei, roty 8e YiavadrjvaioLS airop,eTpovo-i roty a9Xo- 
 OeTais, ol 8' adAodeTcu roty vlkSxtl to>v dycovio-Tav. 
 
 25 ecrrt yap dOXa roty p.ev tt)v p.ovo-iKr)v vlkwctlv 
 dpyvpca /cat yjjvaLa, roty 8e ttjv evav8piav dairies, 
 roty 8e tov yvp.viK.ov dyava /cat ttjv iiriro8pop.iav 
 eXaiov. 
 
 6l. XeipoTovovo~i 8e f/catf ray irpos tov ir6Xep.ov 
 
 12. fiopiav: del. H-L., Rutherford. 14. tov: om. 1st ed. ; read, ap- 
 
 parently rightly, by H-L. K-W. piv, doubtfully. 16. e\aiov: H-L. add 
 
 to. 17. ix is written in the MS. as a correction of dird. k\t)po.tos : 
 
 K-W. KTTiixaTos, which is equally possible as the MS. reading, but it is inferior 
 in sense. 26. dpyvpia koX -%pvaia\ so also H-L. ; MS. apyvpia kcu xpvaa, 
 
 K-W. dpyvpiov K01 x/>"<ra, Rutherford dpyvpd teal xpvad. 
 
 sacred olives itself and sold what was not required of the oil, whereas 
 in later times the olives were the property of private individuals, 
 subject to the obligation to furnish a certain amount of oil to the state, 
 for the purposes described. 
 
 21. Trplv av cmav irapa&w rois rap:iais : i. e. the archon could not take his 
 seat in the Areopagus, at the end of his year of office, until he had 
 paid over to the rapiai all the oil due for the year. 
 
 LXI. 1. Xeiporovovai Se icnl k.t.X.: the formula 8e xal with which this 
 chapter is introduced would naturally imply that some x el P OTOVr l T ° L 
 dp\ai had already been spoken of; and one would expect to find a 
 more marked transition from the discussion of the kXijpo>toi dpxai. 
 
CH. 61.] A0HNAIQN nOAITEIA. 181 
 
 ap-)(a$ airaaas, (TTparriyovs 8eKa, irportpov ylv 
 a(f)' (eKacrTr]?') (j)v\r}s eva, vvv 8' i£ aTravraw kcu 
 tovtovs htaroLTTOvcri rfj yeipoTOvia, tva p.ev cVt 
 
 LXI. 2. Sena : MS. 8c rat, but Aristotle invariably gives the numbers of the 
 magistrates ; and cf. the quotation from Harp, in the note below. 3. dip' 
 
 e/ca<TTT]s <[>vXt}s : MS. atp<pv\rjs. 
 
 Moreover no account is given of the officers named at the beginning 
 of ch. 43. The order there followed would suggest that the section 
 dealing with the xnporoyi;roi apxai began with an account of the three 
 officers there mentioned, and then passed on to the military officers. 
 If any mention was made in this treatise of the official eVi rfj Sioikijo-cj, 
 that too would find its place here ; but it is uncertain whether such an 
 office had been formally constituted at this date. There is thus some 
 reason for supposing that a portion of Aristotle's work has been lost 
 at this point. On the other hand it must be observed that neither 
 Harpocration nor any of the compilers who used this treatise so freely 
 has any account of the officials in question. The hypothesis of lacunas 
 is convenient but dangerous, and it is easier to suppose that a scribe 
 wrote Se Kai mechanically in place of hi. 
 
 2. oTpaTrjyois : Harpocration (s. v.) mentions Aristotle's 'Adqvalwv 
 irokirela as his authority for the fact that oi xa8' eMurrov eviavrov 
 XeipoTovovp.evoi orpariryol 8f'/ca r\<jav (Rose, Frag. 39°)- 
 
 3. vvv 8' c| anavrav : this clears up the doubt which has existed as to 
 whether the strategi were elected one from each tribe or from the 
 whole people without distinction of tribe. Plutarch (Cim. 8) speaks 
 of them as elected by the former method at the time when Cimon 
 and his colleagues sat as judges in the dramatic contest at which 
 Sophocles defeated Aeschylus (468 B. c). On the other hand Pollux 
 (VIII. 87) speaks of them as elected e'| imavTav. Both statements are 
 true, but of different periods, and Aristotle does not tell us when the 
 change was made. 
 
 4. SiaTiiTTovcri : from this passage it appears that five of the strategi 
 were assigned to special duties, while five were employed as occasion 
 might demand. The five officers with specific posts are all referred to 
 in various extant authorities, which are quoted below, but there has 
 been nothing hitherto to show that the list was exhaustive, while there 
 has been some reason to include one or two specific posts in addition 
 which it now appears did not belong to the strategi, at any rate at 
 this date. This division of posts took place between 334 and 325 B.C. 
 according to Busolt (Miiller's Handbuch d. Mass. Alterthums-Wissen- 
 schaft, IV. 162). Cf. Boeckh, Staatsh?, I. 223. 
 
 ?j/u piv eVi roils onklras : the crrparJ/yor eVl rav onkav is mentioned 
 in the decree in Demosthenes De Cor. p. 238, and again p. 265, where 
 
i8a API2T0TEA0T2 [CH. 61. 
 
 5 tovs (mXiTOLs, 09 rjyeiTcu tcov o^ttXljtcov av i^Laxri, 
 eva 5' eVi ttjv ycopav, o? (pvXa.TT€i, Kav 7roAe/i,o? ev 
 rfj x®P a ytyvrjTOU TroXefiel ovtos' 8vo 8' eVt tov 
 Ueipcuea, tov fikv els ttjv Wiovvixiav, tov 8' ely ttjv 
 olkttjv, ol ttjs XV^-V? eirifieXovvrcu /cat tcov ev Tlei- 
 
 5. oirXiVas: MS. oirXfiras. ovKnuiv : so probably MS. as given by H-L., 
 
 thoagh 5 seems to have been written first and corrected to o. K-W. -noXnuiv, as 
 emendation to S . . . tuv. 7. yiyvrjrai : MS. 71x17x01. iro\efie? : K-W. 
 
 alter to jyurai, which seems hardly justifiable. 8. MowixiW : MS. jiovvv- 
 
 XS av - 9. xi^-Vs '■ MS. apparently rj>[y]\r]s; emended by Torr, who is fol- 
 
 lowed by H-L. 1st ed. suggested <pv\aKjjs, which is adopted by K-W., deleting 
 I the following Kal ; Wardale {Class. Rev. V. 273) notes that <fiv\ijs and <j>v\anijs 
 are repeatedly confused in the MSS. of Thucydides. 
 
 he is coupled with 6 eVi t5>v hntiav. The latter, however, is not called 
 orparjjydj, and from the present passage it appears that he must have 
 been one of the hipparchi. In Phitififi. I. § 26, p. 47, Demosthenes 
 complains of the inaction of the strategi, saying that except one, 
 bv av fKTrefiyjrrjre orl tov iroXeuov {i.e. the aTpaniyos e7Tt tovs OTrXiras) 
 they all stay at home and do nothing but attend to sacrificial cere- 
 monies. Schomann (Ant. Jur. Publ. p. 252) unnecessarily mis- 
 represents this passage, as though Demosthenes had there mentioned 
 a o-Tparrjyos iiri to>v iwiriav and had coupled him with the o-Tparrjyos e'n-1 
 raw ottXwv as going to war while the rest stayed at home. The title 
 orl tovs on-Xirar appears in an early 3rd cent, inscription (C. I. A. II. 
 302), while another of the same period has «rl to. cm\a (C. I. A. II. 331). 
 In imperial times it appears from several inscriptions (C. I. G. 186, 
 189, 191, 192) that the arpaTr/yos eVi tS>v ottXgjj' was the most important 
 of the board of strategi, as his name is given with that of the archon 
 eponymus to indicate the year. 
 
 6. ha 8' orl tt\v x°>p<"> : this officer is mentioned by Plutarch (Phoc. 
 32) as arparqybs iiri. ttjs x®P as - ^ n a 3 r( ^ century inscription (C. I. A. 
 II. 331) he appears as orl tiji» x<opai\ 
 
 8. eis tt)v Mowixiav : cf. Deinarchus contr. Philocl. § 2, p. 108, 
 orpaTTjyos i(f>' vp.S>v iir\ ttjv Mowixiav Kal ra vcapia Kexe<-poTovi]p.ivos. 
 
 els ttjv anTjjv : in two inscriptions of the 3rd century or later 
 (C. I. G. 178, 179) there is mention of a orpcrnjyoE eVi T17V x°>P av T 'l v 
 irapaKlav, who is probably the officer here described as 6 els rfjv okttjv 
 rather than 6 orl tj]v xiopav. 
 
 9. x'fi-'i* '• this is a very tempting emendation, made by Mr. Torr, 
 and based partly on Thuc. VIII. 90, where Eetioneia is described as 
 xr)\ri tov Uetpatas. On this theory xv^ would be the name of the 
 north side of Piraeus, as a/mj is of the south. It must, however, be 
 noted as an objection that the name is not found in any inscription or 
 any other authority. 
 
CH. 6i.] A0HNAIGN nOAITEIA. 183 
 
 paiei' era 8' eVi ray (rvphiolpla? oy tovs re 10 
 rpi-qpap^ovs /caraAeyet kcu ras avTiSoaei? clvtois 
 iroiel kcu raf 8t.a8iKacrla? a[vT]o?:r elaayet' tovs 8' 
 aXXovs Trpos ra irapovra Trpa.yp.aTa kKTrip-irovcriv. 
 2 iiriyeipoTOvia 5' a[ujrc5i' e'crrt Kara ttjv irpvTaveiav 
 eKacrrrjv, el 8okovctlv KaX&s ap^etv kcLv riva airo- 15 
 ■)(eipoTov[rij(r(0(riv, Kplvovcnv iu tco 8iK.acrT7]pi(e>, kolv 
 p.ev a.XS, Tipxkrw tl yjyrj rradeiv r/ arroT^eio-jai, av 
 8' airo^vyrj JVaAii'] ap\ei. Kvpioi 8e eicriv orav 
 Tjy&vrai /cat Srjcral tlv draKTOvura /cat [Krjjpv^ai 
 
 12. airofs: bracketed by K-W 2 . 13. -irpaypara : added above the line 
 
 in the MS., and therefore possibly an explanatory addition to the original text ; 
 expunged by H-L. 17. a\£i: MS. oXXaii, with an w above, which may be 
 
 meant to take the place of \a. 18. ira\iv : so perhaps MS. as read by 
 
 K-W. H-L. [In]. 19. 7w': K-W. and H-L. t6v. K V pv(ai : Blass 
 
 iKKi)pv£ai, quoting Lys. III. 45, p. 100, and so H-L, K-W. ; but there is not 
 room for the preposition in the lacuna, and the remains of the first letter, 
 which are visible, distinctly suggest k. 
 
 10. em ras o-vp.p.oplas : this officer is mentioned in one of the docu- 
 ments collected by Boeckh in his Urkunden iiber das Seewesen des 
 Attischen Staates, xiv a. 215, p. 465 (C. I. A. 809 a, 209), to crrpa-njya 
 to e'nl ras 0-vp.p.opias rjprjp.i'vtp. 
 
 12. tovs S' aXXour : from the decrees in Demosthenes already quoted 
 (De Cor. pp. 238, 265) Boeckh (corrected by Fraenkel, note to Staatsh? 
 I. 223) and Schomann gather that one of the strategi was known 
 as 6 eVi TJjr Sioiieijo-fmr. The officer there spoken of is not, however, 
 actually called (jTparqyos, and there is no evidence that such an officer 
 ever existed. A arparriyos eVt t6 vuvtikov or eVi tS>v vedv is mentioned 
 in a 3rd century inscription (C. I. A. II. 331) as existing at the end of 
 the 4th century ; and the same document also refers to o-rpaTT/yoi eVi 
 t!jv irapao-KevTji' (cf. the much later C. I. A. II. 985) and eiri tovs £eVour. 
 
 14. eVix«poTOKia S' avTmv eVri k.t.X. : cf. Pollux, VIII. 87, where he in- 
 cludes among the duties of thearchons arpa-rrfyovs x^poTovelv el- anavrasv 
 Ka\ Kad' tKao-np) Trpvravflav c7repa>Tav (I Soxel Ka\£>s apxciv exao-TOs' tov 
 8' airoxeiporovr]8ivTa Kpivovat. 
 
 19. Krjpvgai : if this is the right reading (and it does not seem possible 
 to read anything else), it must apparently mean that the general could 
 publicly proclaim the name of any person misbehaving on military ser- 
 vice or expel him with ignominy from the ranks. Cf. Lys. III. 45, 
 where inKripv^ai is used, though without further definition of its meaning. 
 
1 84 API2T0TEA0TS [CH. 61. 
 
 20 /cat eirifio\r)V iwifiaXXeiV ovk elcoOacrL 5e eirifiaXXeiv. 
 yeipoTovovcri Se /cat Ta^\ia\pxpvs Sena, tva rrjs 3 
 (j)v\f}s e/cacrrTyf ovtos 8' rjyeirou rcov tyvXercav /cat 
 Xoyayovs K.adLcr\j\r)<Tiv. ytipoTovovai 8e /cat lirirap- 4 
 ypvs 8vo i£ airavTCOV ovtol 5' rjyovvTai rwv hnrtwv, 
 
 2 5 8LeX6p.\evoi\ tos 0i>Aar i e/care/aoy" Kvpioi 8e tcov 
 avT&v eiaiv mvTrep ol (rrparrjyoi Kara rcov birXiyrav. 
 eVt^etpojroi/ia 8e yiyverat tovtcov. yeiporovovo~L 8e 5 
 /cat (pvXapxpvs, eva ttjs (pvXrjs, rov 7]y\rj(ro\p.evo\y^ 
 {rcov hnrecov) axnrep ol ra^lapyoi rcov birXircov. 
 
 3° \eLpoTOvovcn 8e /cat ety Arjp.vov LTnrapxov, o? eVt- 6 
 
 26. eiVh/ Sivirep : MS. covirep (not aavep, as K-W. state) eifric oit\itSv : 
 
 MS. 07iA«itoh'. 27. yiyvfTcu: MS. -/iverai. tovtcuv: Gertz, H-L., K-W. 
 
 prefix Kai, which would certainly be natural. 28. <pvkapxovs : Sandys 
 
 prefixes SUa, K-W., H-L., Richards add it after this word, which would 
 be its proper place. It is not absolutely necessary, but it would be in accord- 
 ance with Aristotle's usage. 29. rav Imrewv : om. MS. ; cf. note 
 below. ott\ituiv : MS. oTtKenuv. 
 
 23. InTrapxovs : Harpocration quotes the 'Adrjvalav noXirela for the 
 number of these officers, and Photius says Sw> tjo-ov 01 rav Imreav fiyovvro 
 SieXopevoi Tar (pvXas eKarepos ova irevre. eVijucXijral he clcri rav Imrewv, 
 KaBdirep ol Ta£lapxoi bexa ovres, els a(j) eKaarrfS (pv\fjs, raw 6tt\itS>v 
 (Rose, Frag. 391). Rose inserts ol <pv\apxoi after hnreav as subject 
 of the second sentence, from Pollux VIII. 94, which is supported by 
 the present passage ; but probably the omission is on the part of 
 Photius himself (and not his MSS.), and he has applied to the Innapxoi 
 a phrase which Aristotle attached to the <f>i\apxot. The way in which 
 the number of the taxiarchs is mentioned appears to be intended 
 to note a difference in that respect from the hipparchs who are 
 otherwise compared with them. 
 
 28. (pvXdpxovs : Harpocration (s. v.), (piXapxos io-nv 6 Kara <pvX!]v 
 iKao-rrjv tov ImriKOv apx<i>v, vnoTeraypevos he t<b linrapx<j>, as Apio-TOTeXijs 
 e'v ttj 'A8rjvaia>v iroXireta (pr/o-i (Rose, Frag: 392). 
 
 29. twv Imreav : it seems necessary to insert these words to complete 
 the sense of the passage ; and the insertion is confirmed by Pollux 
 (VIII. 94)j °' $* (piXapxoi Sena, lis dir6 Tijs (pvXrjs t/cdori/r, tov 'nnreuiv 
 npoiaravTai, Kaddirep ol Ta£lapxoi rav ottXitoiv. 
 
 30. els Arjp.vov lirirapxav : cf Hyperides {pro Lye. col. 14), vp.els yap 
 (fie . . irpaiTov /lev (pvXapxov e'xeipoTovfjO-aTe, eirena els Arjpvov Imrapxov, 
 
CH. 62.J A0HNAII2N nOAITEIA. 185 
 
 7 yn[eA]etrai twv imreeov twv iv Arjp,va>. -^ipoTovovaL 
 8e kcu Ta.fj.iav ttjs UapaXov /cat aXXov ttjs [tov 
 
 ' Aj/XfJ.Q)VOS • 
 
 62. At 8e KXrjpcorcu d\px\a\ Trporepov p.ev rjaav 
 at p.ev per ivvea apyovTwv e[/c] ttjs (pvXrjs oXtjs 
 
 LXII. 2. per' : Gennadios, H-L. peril twv (/iV). 
 
 Kai rjp£a fiev airodi Bi' err] ra>v TrimoO' imrapx^Korcov povos. Cf. also 
 Demosthenes (Phil. I. § 27, p. 47), aXX' eh pev Arjfivov tov nap' vpwv 
 Imrapxov Be'iv irXelv. Mr. Babington misunderstood the passage in Hy- 
 perides as meaning that one of the two hipparchs mentioned above 
 was sent to Lemnos. 
 
 32. rapiav ttjs UapaXov k.t.X. : Harpocration (s. v. raplas), after men- 
 tioning the rapiai rrjs deov and quoting Aristotle's 'Adr/vaimv jroXn-e la as 
 his authority, adds eicri Be rives Ka\ twv lepav Tpir/paiv rapiai, as 6 airos 
 <pi\6o-o(p6s cprja-iv. The Lex. rhet. Cantabrig. (p. 675, 28) s. v. UdpaXos 
 xa\ 2aXapivia says, ravras ras rpirjpeis el^ov Bia iravros npos ras e-neiyovaas 
 
 mrqpeaias, i<p' ais Ka\ Tafiiai rtWs exeiporovovvro ttjs per UapaXov Kai 
 
 SaXapivias ev Tplrr] pvr/povevei OovKvBiBrjS Kai ' AptcrTOKpavrjs ev "Opvitnv, 
 ' ApitTTOTeXijs Be 'AppwviaBa Ka\ UapaXov olBe Kai Aeivap%os ev rm Kara 
 TipoKpdrovs. iiXoxopos Be ev rfj V rirrapas alras oiBe, irparas pev Bvo 
 'AppaividBa Kai UapaXov, npoayevopevas Be Ai)pr)rpidBa Kai AvTiyovi'Sa. 
 Photius (s. v. UapaXoi) mentioning the 'S.aXapivia says (according to the 
 probable correction of the passage by Rose, ed. 1886) Xeyerai Be f/ avrfj 
 Ka\ 'Appavids, while S. V. rapiai, after mentioning the rapiai rijs 'Adr/vas, 
 he proceeds fieri Be Kai hXXoi rapiai, apxovres x el P OTOV 1 T01 "" Tas <- ( P a s 
 Ka\ Brjpoo-las Tpirjpeis, 6 /lev eVi Tipi UapaXov, 6 Be em. ttjv tov Appavos. 
 Harpocration (s. v. 'Appavis) says r; tov " Appavos lepa. rpirjpr)s, and does 
 not mention the Paralus or Salaminia. Finally the Lex. Demosth. 
 Patm. (p. 1 50) and the scholiast on Demosth. p. 636 explain the name 
 'Appavids as derived from the fact that the Athenians sent sacrifices to 
 the god Ammon in it (Rose, Fragg. 402, 403, and 443 of ed. 1886). 
 From all this it appears that the two original sacred triremes were 
 the Paralus and Salaminia, and that the latter was re-named (or 
 replaced by) the Ammonias. This is not likely to have happened 
 before the time of Alexander, and the occurrence of the name here 
 is another sign of this treatise having been written in the later years 
 of the life of Aristotle. 
 
 LXII. 2. al pev p.ei' ewea apxovTav : there does not appear to be any- 
 thing to show what offices are included under this head except the 
 archons and their secretary, but presumably all the various boards 
 of ten would fall into this class. 
 
1 86 API2T0TEA0T2 [ch. 62. 
 
 KXrjpov/xevai, al 8' kv Qrjaeia) KXrjpovpevaL Sijipovvro 
 els tovs 8rjii[o~\v?' iireL^rj 8' eiraXovv 01 8rjp.oi, kcu 
 5 tclvtccs €K ttjs (pvXrjs oXrjs KXrjpovcn ttXtjv fiovXevTCDis 
 kcu (bpovpav tovtovs 8' els tovs Srqporjas ottoSl- 
 86a.cn. p.Lcrdo(j)opovai 8e irp&rov \jjlcv 6 8i]p.osj tolls 2 
 
 3. StypowTo : Gertz, H-L. prefix of. 
 
 3. a! 5' iv eijo-f io> K\rjpoi/j.€vai : that this phrase means ' the officers 
 who are now elected by lot in the Theseum ' appears not only from 
 the tense of the participle but from a passage in Aeschines {contr. Ctes. 
 § x 3> P- 55)> m which all magistracies (opx al ) are divided into those 
 as 01 6ta\io6krai aiTOKhrjpovcriv Iv ra Qrjtreia, and those as 6 Or/fios c"<o6e 
 Xeiparoveiv iv dp^aipttriatr. The elections of the archons and their 
 secretary, which had never been committed to the demes, were held 
 in some place which does not seem to be recorded anywhere ; while 
 those which were originally entrusted to the demes were, when they 
 were taken out of their hands, held in the Theseum. 
 
 Sirjpovvro els tovs 8fiiiovs : i. e. the election was committed to the 
 several demes, until these bodies proved themselves too corrupt. 
 What offices are included under this head we cannot tell, but they 
 can only have been of very minor importance. The very numerous 
 boards of ten, of which one representative was taken from each tribe, 
 can only have been elected by the tribes collectively ; unless we are to 
 suppose a process of preliminary selection of candidates by the demes 
 to have taken place. Such a process of preliminary selection took 
 place in reference to the archons, though probably not through the 
 demes ; cf. ch. 8, 1. 4 and 22, 1. 28, and note on latter place. 
 
 5. irkrpi !3ov\evTa>v : this throws a fresh light on the election of the 
 members of the Council. The number of members elected by a deme 
 must have varied from time to time. In Aristotle's time there cannot 
 have been less than 150 demes, or an average of fifteen in each tribe ; 
 and among these fifteen the election of the fifty representatives of the 
 tribe must have been divided, probably in proportion to the popu- 
 lation of the demes. 
 
 6. <ppovp5>v : presumably the 500 tppovpol vaopiav mentioned in con- 
 junction with the PovXevrai in ch. 24, 1. 18. 
 
 7. p.to-8o<popovtri fie k.t.X. : one would certainly expect the first item of 
 pay to be that of the ecclesiastae, which would naturally be combined 
 with that for service in the law-courts and in the Council. But the 
 amount named is much more than we ever hear of elsewhere as having 
 been paid for attendance at the assembly. Aristotle has already 
 (ch. 41) mentioned the institution of pay for this service and its 
 
CH. 62.] A0HNAII2N nOAITEtA. 187 
 
 [iev aXXais eKKXrjaiais Spa^fLrjv, rfj 8e Kvpia ivvea.' 
 eiretra to. SiK^aa-TrjpLoij rpels ofioXovs" elff r\ fiovXr] 
 irevre 6/3oAoi;'y. tois 8e 7rpvTavevovcriv els airrjcriv 10 
 
 8. hvia : H-L., K-W. add iPo\ovs. 
 
 extension from one to three obols, but without any sign of its having 
 ever been increased beyond that sum. That was unquestionably its 
 amount at the date of the Ecclesiazusae of Aristophanes (392 B.C.), and 
 there is no sign in any of the grammarians of a later increase. The 
 only other pay in connexion with the ecclesia was that of the o-vvfiyopot 
 or advocates employed on the public service. This, according to 
 Aristophanes ( Wasps 691) and the scholiast on that passage, amounted 
 to a drachma, but it is hardly likely that this is the payment referred 
 to here ; for one thing, there is not room for the word in the lacuna, 
 and on every other ground than that of the sum named one would 
 prefer to supply 6 h^pos. In the great increase of national corruption 
 and pleasure-seeking which characterised the fourth century, it is not 
 at all impossible that some demagogue proposed that the pay for 
 service in the ecclesia should be doubled, and it is highly probable 
 that such a proposal would have been accepted by that body. 
 
 8. ivvea : sc. ofioKois, i. e. a drachma and a half. H-L. and K-W. 
 insert the word in. the text. 
 
 9. ra biKa<TTX)pia rpris d/3o\otjr : the institution by Pericles of pay for 
 services in the law-courts is mentioned in ch. 27, 1. 28, but the amount 
 is not named. There is a quotation of Aristotle by a scholiast on 
 Aristophanes (Wasps 684) which may be partly referred to the present 
 passage : Toiis rpels ofiokois' rbv (j>6pov Xe'yet, d(j>' hv e'Si'Soro to Tpia>fio\ov. 
 tovto Si aXXore aXXiar e'Si'SoTO, tS>v 8rjp.aya>ya>v to ir\rjdr] KohaKtvovrav, 2>s 
 (firjcriv 'Apia-TOTc\ris iv ttoKltcLcus (Rose, Frag. 421). Aristotle does 
 not, in the extant part of his treatise, connect the pay for service in 
 the courts with the competition of the demagogues, though he speaks 
 of the latter in general terms (ch. 27, 28) ; but it is quite possible that 
 he may have had occasion to do so in dealing with the procedure in the 
 courts, in which case the passage is now lost. Hesychius (s.v. 
 &iKaaTi)piov) uses the same phrase about the variation of the rate 
 of pay, SWotc a\\as e'SiSoTo. In the passage of Pollux (VIII. 1 13) also 
 quoted by Rose, in which there is mention of varying payments of 
 three obols, two obols, and one obol, it is not certain whether this 
 refers to to Sikcuttikov alone, or to to dewpinav and ro eKKXrjo-iaarucov as 
 well. 
 
 10. irevre o/3oXous : Hesychius (s.v. pov\rjs Xavfti') states that the 
 members of the Council received a drachma a day, but there is not 
 much difference between that sum and the five obols mentioned by 
 Aristotle, and the latter is most likely to be correct. 
 
1 88 API2T0TEA0TS [CH. 62. 
 
 \ofio\os Tr^poaTiOeTcu^ BtKairpoaTLdevTai t« &*£«■' els 
 a-LTrjanv Xafi^avova-LV kvv\ia apyov\rts rerra^pas] 
 ofioXovs eKacrTos K.cu 7raparpe(povcn KrjpvKa KCU 
 
 11. 6(3oA(5i : supplied by Blass, who also points out that the corrupt Sixa 
 ■npoaTiBivrai probably arose from a misunderstanding of the sign I, which = 
 diSoXos, but which was read as i, = St«a. H-L., Rutherford, th 6lio\6s, which is 
 possible if efs was represented by a numeral. 12. ivvka: Gennadios, H-L. 
 prefix 01', but cf. 1. 2. 
 
 12. apxovres : that this is the proper word to fill the lacuna in the MS., 
 in spite of the omission of the article before imea (which occurs again in 
 1. 2 of this chapter), is indicated by the mention of the <jjpv^ and 
 avXrjTr}! (see following note). In spite of its mutilated condition, this 
 chapter does much to clear up the question of the payment of the 
 Athenian officials. It makes it clear that several of the magistrates 
 received payment, which is contrary to the view that has been gene- 
 rally held. It is, for instance, directly stated by Schomann that the 
 magistrates (np^oi/res, or holders of apxal), as well as most of the 
 einiisXr)Tal, served without pay (Ant. of Greece, Eng. Tr. pp. 401, 402 ; 
 Ant. Jur. PubL, p. 237) ; but he gives no authorities for his state- 
 ment. On the other side we have more than one passage of the 
 present treatise. In ch. 24, 1. 20, among the various services for 
 which the populace of Athens received pay, and thereby supported 
 itself in the city, are the apxal evSiy/ioi to the number of seven hundred 
 which must apparently include all magistracies, great and small. 
 In ch. 29, 1. 38 one of the first provisions of the board of Thirty 
 which was established in 411 B.C. to draw up the new constitution 
 was ras apxas afiiadovs apx^v cmdtras ecus 6 7rd\cjior 17, 77X1)1/ to>v ivven 
 apxpvrav Kal tS>v irpvraveav 01 av Zhtiv, tovtovs fie (pepeip rpds o(3oXois 
 fxao-TOK ttjs r)p.lpas. This clearly shows that up to that time both the 
 magistrates named and others who are not named received pay. 
 Finally there is the present passage, which, though mutilated, seems 
 to indicate that the pay of the archons was four obols a day ; and 
 this agrees well enough with the passage in ch. 29, since it is not un- 
 natural that when all other officers were being deprived of their 
 remuneration those who still received it should have it reduced. At 
 what date pay was introduced for these magistracies we cannot say, 
 except that it must have been between about 470 B.C. and 411 B.C. • 
 nor can we say whether this rule applied to all magistrates, and, 
 if not, to which of them. It seems practically certain, however, that 
 it applied to the archons. 
 
 13. KrjpvKa Kal aiXr/Trjv: a Kr)pv£ ra ap^ovri and an av\r}T7]s are men- 
 tioned side by side in two inscriptions (C. /. G. 181, 182), and it is 
 probable that these are the officials here referred to. 
 
CH. 63.] A0HNAI12N nOAITEIA. 189 
 
 avXt]T7]V hreir apxcov [ely "2aXoijpiva 8pa^jirjv^ rrjs 
 T]/j.epas. dOXodercu 8' ev irpvTaveico Senrvovcri tov 15 
 , E/c[aro/z/3]aic5i'a firjva oW]au y to. YlavaOrjvaia, dp- 
 ^dpevot outto ttjs rerpdSos i<TTap.£vov. 'Aju,[0 :]ktuov€s 
 els ArjXov 8pa^jj.r)v rrjs rj/xepas eKaarrjs e/c ArjXov 
 (Aa.fi(3avov(rt.) . Xa/xfidvovo-i 8e kol oaai airo- 
 <tt€AAoi>tcu dp^ai els 1,dpLOV 77 1,Kvpov 77 Arjfxvov 77 20 
 
 3 \pfipov els aiTTjcriv dpyvpiov. ap-)(eiv 8e ras pev 
 Kara rroXepiov dp-^ds e^ecrjri irXeovaKis, rSsv 5' 
 aXXcov ov8epiav, irXrjv fiovXevcrai 8is. 
 
 63- Ta 8e 8LKacrTr)pLa \K^Ar)[pova-iv^ ol ap- 
 \}(o\vTes Kara. (j)vXds, 6 8e ypapparevs t<3u 0ea/xo- 
 
 2 \6ercov rrjsj SeKarrjs (j)vXrjs. e'laoSoi Se elaiv els to- 
 SiKaa-^rrjjpLa 8e<a, pia rfj (pvXrj i/cdo-Ty, kcll /cAt?[/xb- 
 T^piaj e'iKoai, 8[vo rfj~] (pvXfj eKacrTrj, kol KifieoTia 5 
 eKaTov, 8eKa rfj (f>vXfj eKaarrj, kou erepa, Kt/3&jri[a 
 8eKa, ols ejpfidXXeTcu tg>v Xayovrav 5i/ca[crjrai' to. 
 
 15. irpvraveiw : H-L. prefix to). Senrvovtri: MS. Siirvovat. 16. 
 
 orav : so K-W., apparently rightly; 1st ed. and H-L. S av. 19. \a.fi&&- 
 
 vovai : om. MS., owing to the repetition of the word immediately after- 
 wards. LXIII. 1. Ta Se : MS. to Be ra, 3. Before rijs H-L. insert toi/j. 
 
 14. apxav (Is 2a\afiiva : this is the officer mentioned in ch. 54, 
 1. 40. 
 
 LXIII. 1. Ta 8e diKaarfipia : a detailed account of the procedure in 
 the law-courts begins here, but unfortunately the greater part of it 
 is lost, or exists only in such a state that it is hopeless to decipher the 
 remains into a connected narrative. We have here the description of 
 the first part of the procedure in the assignment of the jurors to the 
 several courts, and the fragments which remain of the rest of the treatise 
 show that the same detailed scale was preserved throughout this part of 
 the work. Some points in the description are already known from the 
 scattered statements of orators and grammarians. These notices are 
 fully treated of by Meier (Attische Process, II. 1), and from him in the 
 various dictionaries of antiquities, but the hitherto received views re- 
 ceive correction and amplification from the new material. 
 
190 API2T0TEA0TS [CH. 63. 
 
 Tr\iva\iaa., kcu vSplai 8vo' kou j3ai<Tr]picu irapaTiOevraL 
 Kara rrjv e\j.cro8ov\ eKacrTTjv ocrouirep ol 5i/ca[o"]ra/, 
 10 /cat fiahavoi eh ttjv vbpiav e'/i/3aAAoi'rai 'lam reus 
 /3aKTr)pleu?. [yjeypaTTTCu Se kv rah fiakavois rwv 
 crroiyt'mv oltto tov iuSenarov, tov A, ocrarrep av 
 
 8. /3a«T?7p«u : MS. PaKTrjpia. 9. oaonrep : MS. ovaoiirep. 10. taai : 
 
 in the MS. a <r has been written before this word, but has been struck 
 out. 11. toiv OToixeiaiv. so read by Blass, apparently rightly; 1st ed., 
 
 K-W., H-L. [rd] (rToixeia. 12. a-no tou kvSiK&Tov, tov \ : MS. at first 
 
 airo tov (vScxaTov tou TpiaicooTOV, but tov Tpianoorov is struck out, and above it 
 is written tow A.' t piaitoOTOv . H-L., after Rutherford, remove toC tvBeKarov 
 as well as TptaKoarov. av': MS. (av. 
 
 1 1. tSiv o-Toixe'unv airo roO tvSeKarov : the text has been confused in the 
 MS., but the meaning is clear. The reason for the corrupt insertion of 
 TpiaKoo-rov in the text is simply that X is the numeral representing 30, 
 and some person, misunderstanding the passage, thought that the 
 letter was here used in its numeral capacity and added the number 
 in words in the margin or above the line, from which it became incor- 
 porated in the text. Aristotle is simply stating that in one of the urns 
 used in the process of selecting by lot the bodies that were to sit in 
 the several courts were placed tablets, equal in number to the dicasts 
 required on the day in question, and lettered from X (the eleventh 
 letter in the alphabet) upwards. The reason for beginning with X 
 is that the first ten letters, from a to /c, were already used to dis- 
 tinguish the ten groups into which the whole heliastic body was 
 divided. Accordingly when the casting of lots took place the letters 
 from a to k indicated the ten groups of jurors, and the letters from 
 X to v (or less, if not all the ten courts were required) the courts in 
 which they were to sit. The process of sortition described in this 
 chapter and the first column of the fragments which follow is suffi- 
 ciently intricate. It is first observable that nothing is said of a total 
 heliastic body of 6000, nor of groups of 500 each, with 1000 in reserve. 
 Nor is it stated that the jurors were selected by lot annually. On the 
 contrary it appears that all citizens over 30 years of age and not 
 labouring under any special disability were entitled to serve ; that they 
 were divided into ten groups, distinguished by the letters a to k, and 
 containing approximately an equal number of representatives of each 
 tribe ; and that the selection of the dicasts who should sit on anv 
 given occasion was decided by a process of sortition conducted for 
 each tribe by its archon (or, in the case of the tenth, by the secretary 
 to the archons). It is perhaps due to the mutilated state of the MS. 
 that the precise use of the groups is not clear. For it appears that the 
 
CH. 63.] A0HNAII2N nOAITEIA. 191 
 
 3 p-eXXrj [r]a ^LKacrr-qpia 7rXr)pcod^(readai. SiKa^eiv 5' 
 eg€o~Tiv rots vwep X err) yeyovoo-iv, oaoL avrcov \fi\ij 
 ocptiXovaiv rco 8r]poalcp r/ aTip.0'1 el<riv iav 8e ns 15 
 Sneaky oly fJ.rj e£eo~Tiv, ivSeUvvTai /cat [ety] to Siicao-- 
 TTjpiov eto-ayer[at], iav §' aXco irpoo-Tip^ao-iv avr~]<p 
 01 Bikolo-tcu ti av 8oicrj a^ios elveu 7ra#e[«/] 77 
 airoTtiaai. iav 8e apyvpiov Tip.r]0fj 8el avrov 8e- 
 8e[cr0cuj ecos av iKTeiar) to re Trporepov o(f)Xr]pIa 20 
 e]0' ra ive8el)(0T) /cat ti av avTca 7rpoaTip.^crrj t[o 
 
 4 8tKjao-TT]pLov. e^et 5' eicaaros SiKaarys irivaKiov 
 ttvqvov, iiuy£ypap.p.ivav to ovop.a to iavrov ira- 
 Tpodev /cat tov 8rjp.ov Ka\ ypdplp.a'] ev tg>v o-Toiyeiav 
 p-^XP L T °v K ' v^vepirjvTaL yap Kara (pvXas 8eKa p.eprj 25 
 
 14. 0001 : MS. at first 1001, but corrected. 16. ofs : H-L. c5, after 
 
 Richards. Kal . . . eioayerat : so MS. ; 1st ed. Kara ro Sucaffrripiov elaay- 
 
 ye\ia, which is followed by H-L. with the substitution of eioayyeKta, after 
 Fraenkel. 19, 20. aiTOTeiaat . . . tKreiffri : MS. avoriaai . . . efcriorj. 22. 
 
 mvaxiov : there is a lacuna before this word sufficient to contain two letters, 
 but it does not appear that anything is wanting to complete the sense. If 
 anything was written it was probably struck out. 23. iavrov : H-L. t avrov. 
 
 members of them did not act en bloc, as has been supposed, but that 
 the requisite number of dicasts was first chosen by lot from each tribe 
 (col. 31, 11. 20-24), and that then the selected persons drew tablets 
 bearing the distinguishing letters of the courts, which showed in 
 which court they were to sit that day (11. 25-35). Then each dicast 
 received a staff bearing the distinguishing colour of the court assigned 
 to him (col. 32, 11. 3-13), and, on entering the court, a o-vufioXov 
 (11. 13-15), which ultimately served as the voucher entitling him to 
 receive his day's pay. Some points still remain to be cleared up, and 
 the whole subject requires detailed re-investigation by bringing the 
 various references in Aristophanes and the orators into connection 
 with the present passage. 
 
 25. vtvt\n\vra<. yap Kara (pv\as dena p-ipl fc.r.X. : this does not mean 
 that each group consisted of members of a single tribe, which is incon- 
 sistent with all the evidence we have on the subject and is disproved by 
 the existing mvaxia or dicast's tickets, of which a considerable number 
 have been found in recent years, and on which members of different 
 tribes appear as belonging to the same group. The meaning is, on 
 
192 API2T0TEA0TS [CH. 63. 
 
 ol StKacrral, 7rapa7r\[r)o~ij(D$ "icroi kv i/cdo-Tcp rep 
 ypd/jF/xalri. iirtiftav 8e 6 Oea-fioOerrjs iirLKXripcoarj 5 
 to. ypldfilfxara a del irpocnrapaTidecrdaL toIs 5t/ca- 
 cmqpLQLS, €7re0T]Ke (pepcov 6 inrrjperrjS' i(p' €KO.(tt\ov 
 30 8iK~ja.(rTripioi> to ypap./xa to Xa^ov. 
 
 28. TrpoOTtapariStaSai : so rightly read by Blass; 1st ed., K-W., H-L. 
 irpoffTrapayiveaBai. 
 
 the contrary, that each group contained, roughly speaking, an equal 
 number of representatives from each of the ten tribes. 
 
 30. to AaxoV: the MS. breaks off here with all the appearance of 
 having reached the conclusion of the work, as it is neither the end of a 
 column nor the end of a line, and a slight flourish is made below the 
 last words. But clearly the author is only in the middle of his subject, 
 and there are moreover several fragments (Nos. 423-426) which 
 obviously belong to this description of the procedure of the SiKacrnJpia. 
 The rest of the work was evidently written on a portion of papyrus of 
 which several fragments remain, but unfortunately in a condition 
 which makes continuous decipherment hopeless. They are written in 
 the 'third hand' of the MS., which explains why the text breaks 
 off here in the middle of a column. The writer of the ' fourth hand ' 
 left off transcribing at this point, and when his colleague or servant 
 took it up he began a fresh column. Moreover it is clear, from an 
 inspection of the writing on the recto of these fragments, that he began 
 a fresh piece of papyrus. The writing on the recto of the piece which 
 ends here contains the accounts of the end of Pharmouthi and the 
 greater part of Pachon for the eleventh year of Vespasian ; while the 
 accounts on the recto of the fragments belong to the end of Phamenoth 
 and the greater part of Pharmouthi (both the beginning and the end 
 remain, but the middle is lost and the whole mutilated) of the tenth 
 year. It is therefore clear that an earlier portion of the same collection 
 of accounts was taken in order to receive on its verso the conclusion 
 of Aristotle's work. Enough is legible to show that these fragments 
 are a continuation of this part of the text, and to identify all but one of 
 the quotations referred to above as belonging to this part of the work. 
 The text is subjoined so far as it is legible ; but it will be seen that, 
 with the exception of the concluding sentences of the work and most 
 of the first column, with those places where the extant quotations assist 
 us, it is impossible to restore it to a state of continuity without an 
 unjustifiable use of conjectural emendation. 
 
A0HNAII2N nOAITEIA. 193 
 
 FRAGMENTS. 
 
 [T]a Se [Col. 3,.] 
 
 7rpocrdev . . . [/c]a#' eKaarrju tt)\v (pv\- 
 Xtju. €Triy£\ypawTai 5'] eV avrav ra trro[t]- 
 X^ia ^e'x/Jt r[ov k ' eVjetSav 8" i/x^dXcoaiv [rc»]- 
 
 2. ttpoaBtv . . .: the letters 9ev are doubtful. 4. c/iffaXtairiv: so 
 
 apparently, as a correction of PKafiiuaiv. 
 
 Col. 31. In the first edition only a slight attempt was made to 
 restore this portion of the MS., and as in many places the letters can 
 only be read with confidence after the sense of the passage has been 
 divined, the readings there given required correction in several places. 
 The task of restoration has been independently undertaken by Prof, 
 von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, by M. Haussoullier (Rev. de Philologie, 
 April, 1891), and, in part, by Dr. Sandys. These restorations, made 
 independently in the first instance from the facsimile, were subsequently 
 compared with the original ; and the results are now taken as the basis 
 of the present text. Professors van Herwerden and van Leeuwen drew 
 up yet another independent restoration from the facsimile, without 
 reference to the original MS. 
 
 1. Ta fie : these are the first words visible on the fragments which 
 now represent what was originally the last roll of the MS. A few 
 letters are visible to the left of this column, but it is not quite certain 
 that they belong to this MS., and the width of the margin, with the 
 fact that the beginning of this part of the papyrus corresponds with a 
 break in the series of accounts on the other side of it, favours the idea 
 that this is the beginning of the fourth roll. Moreover the subject 
 here under discussion is closely connected with that with which the 
 third roll ends. The first column, which is fairly complete, is followed 
 by two of which there are considerable remains, two which are almost 
 entirely lost or illegible, and two which contain the conclusion of the 
 work, the last one (which consists of only eight lines of writing) being 
 alone in good condition. It seems useless to divide this very frag- 
 mentary text into chapters, especially as it is all concerned with one 
 subject, and the numbers of the columns afford sufficient means of 
 reference. 
 
194 APISTOTEAOTS 
 
 5 v 5i/cacrr[co]y r[a TTi^a/cJia ely to iaf3a>Ti[ovj 
 i(f)' ov av rj e7n[yeypa]fj.fJ.evov to ypap[fia"\ 
 to avro 07r[e]/j efVi tS irjivaKico kcrTiv a[7ro] 
 Toav crTOtxeto)^] . . . aelcravTOS tov v[7rrjj- 
 pirov eA/cei 6 [0eo-fJ,o]deT7]? i£ eKao~Tov 
 
 io tov Ki/3a>Tio[v mvajiaov ev. ovtos 5e 
 KaAet[r]a£ e'/ijjTr^Kr^Jy, /cat IfXTrrjyvvcn 
 
 TO. TTlVOLKia [ja €K TO~\v KlficOTlOV elf TTJV 
 
 navovlSa \i(p' ^y to oJvto ypa.fj.fxa kireaTiv 
 
 oirep eVt tov [kiJ3cotiov. icXrjpovTOU 5'] ouToy tj/a /x?? 
 
 aei 
 
 15 6 auroy ifJL7r[rjKTT]9 gov] KaKovpyfj. elal 5e 
 KCLVovL8es \8eica ejv Ikolo-tw twv kXtj- 
 peoTrjplcov. [eVetSaz/ 5'] ififiaXy tovs Kvfiovs apyav 
 
 TTfV 
 
 (pvXrjv /ca[Aet ely to /c]A77/jan-^/)iOi'. etcrt 
 8e kvPol x a [X KO h P-QXaves /cat XevKol. 
 20 oa-ovy 5' civ Sefji eKcio~TOTej 5i/cacrray, TOcroO- 
 tol €fjLf3aXXov[raL Aei/jxcu kclto. irevTe 
 ■Kiva.K.10. ely, [cu 5e /xeAJavey tov ovtov Tpo- 
 ttov. iireidav 5' i[£eXr]\ rouy Kvfiovs KaXel 
 tovs elXrj^oTas 6 ^ap^covj' virdp^ei 5e kcu 6 e'/x- 
 
 5. K-W. read the first letter as ti, which they take as a misspelling of the 
 first letters of SiKaorwv ; but it certainly appears to be v. 8. . . . aeioav- 
 
 tos: Haussoullier, H-L. Staaeiaavros. II. MS. evirrjicTris and tvirq-f- 
 
 vvai, 13. xavoviSa : corrected from xavcoviSa, and so again below, 1. 16, 
 
 xavoviSes. }}$ : K-W. jf, but the phrase in the next line supports the 
 
 genitive. 14. KXrfpovrai must have been written above the line, as 
 
 the lacuna will not hold more than jciffariov. There is a trace of writing 
 above the line just before the lacuna commences. 15. l/«n7KTj;s av: 
 
 MS. evir-, K-W. tvirrjyvvcw. 17. Toits Kvfiovs : added above the line. 19. 
 Xa\Kot: the visible remains suggest x a '- rather than (vMvoi (K-W.), KiSot 
 (Haussoullier), or ttoKXoi (H-L.). 20. licaoTOTt : K-W. ttvai. 24. 
 
 apxwv : 1st ed., Haussoullier, H-L. v-mjpirrji, but the space seems against 
 this: 
 
A0HNA1J2N nOAITEIA. 195 
 
 irr)KT7)s els tov \totto\v. 6 8e icXr)0els kou 2S 
 
 eA/cei \j$dXavo~\v e/c ttjs vSplas 
 
 kcu . po . fay aur^[i/] . . . tov to ypdfipa 5[e/]- 
 Kvva-iv irp5iT[ov p.ev\ t<2 apypvTi tco e'[0]eor- 
 ttjkoti, 6 8e [apx<ou e7rei8ajv % ipfiaXXei to 
 
 TTLVaKLOV a\pTOV els TO KJlficOTlOV OTTOV 30 
 
 av rj eiriyeypap^p.i'v^ov to glvto crTov)(el- 
 
 ov owep ev T17 /3a\[dva>, t~\v els olov av Xdxy 
 
 ela-iij kcu p.rj els o\lov\ av fiovXTjTai, p,r]8e [eV]- 
 
 rj avvdyeiv [els to] SiKao-Trjpiov ovs av 
 
 fiovXrjTai tls. ir\apaK.ei?pai he tgS apypvTi /a- 35 
 
 ficoTia oa av del [fxjeXXrj to. hiKaaTypta 
 
 irXrjpcod-qo-eo-OaL \eyp\vTa aTOixelov e- 
 
 KacrTov oirep a[y yj tov SiKaarypiov e/cao - - 
 
 [tov] . «x [C ol. 32.] 
 
 [yJ7rr]peTrj ei 
 
 . os 6 8e inn]p[eTr]s~\ [/3a/c]r77/}iai> 
 
 [o\pLoxpa>v ra \p~\iKa\a-TT)pico\ 
 
 ypapp.a 
 
 \0J7rep iv rfj /3aXdvq> 1 Kaiov r\v avTa 5 
 
 [ejIo"eA#erz> els t\o e\av\roi> SiKaaT^piov' edv ydp 
 [ejls erepov el[o-ly, efeAey^erai i)7ro tov] xpafia- 
 [r]o[y Tjrjs fiaKTrjpias. [roiy ydp 8iK.acrTT)p~]Lois XP^~ 
 
 25. t6v : the reading is uncertain, especially the first two letters. 26. 
 
 <?A/m is not certain. 29. MS. €kj8oAA«. 30. onov : before this word 
 
 otj has been written, but it is struck out. 33. It is uncertain whether any 
 
 letters were written after /tr/Si. Haussoullier gives «f-. 34. avvdyeiv : 
 
 so apparently corrected in MS. from awayaytiv. 37. %\ovTa: corrected 
 
 in MS. from ex 0VTas - 
 
 Col. 32. The restorations in this column (except 11. 8-15) are chiefly- 
 due to Prof, von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff. 
 
 8. toii yap StKa<TTT)piois k.t.X. : this passage is quoted verbally by the 
 scholiast on Aristoph. Plut. 278, who introduces it with the words, 
 rrepi tov irapabihofiivov tois fliriovaiv «s to diKatrnjpiov cru^oXou 'Apicr- 
 
 O % 
 
ig6 API2T0TEA0TS 
 
 [/n]a[r]a hnyiypaiTT^ai i(f)' Ikolo-tco] eVt T(p a(prj- 
 io [/c]i(TKCp T-qs elo\68]ov' [o 8e Xaficov tt)v] fiaKTrjpl- 
 [ay] fiaSlfct els [to] 8iKa[crTrjptov to] bfioyfiav 
 [iev Trj j3aKr[77/)i]a e [xov 8e to avTo] ypd/M/ia 
 [oirep] ev Trj fiaXdva). eir\ei8dv 8e elaeXdy], irapaXap- 
 fidvei <rvp.(3oXov 8rj[p.oo-ia] irapd tou eiXrj- 
 15 [xoJtoj Tavrr/v ttjv d\pyr\v]. . to. . r/v to. . . . 
 . . . ttjv ftaKTr/piau pa . . . ttjs . . . 
 
 TpOTTOV ... € T€S TOLS .... 
 
 ovs . ... to 81 01 k . . 7rep . k . 
 
 . . invaKia ol 8e VTrrjpeTou Srjfioo-ia 
 20 lrrj]s (pvXrjs e/catrr^f a[-7ro8i]86ao-ii> to. k[i]- 
 [^3]coria, ev eVt to 8iKa\aTr]p]iov eKaarov . . 
 . . . eoriv to. .... a . [7-77 y] (pvXrjs to. ovt^o] 
 ev €k.olq-tg) Tu>v 8iKa[o~TrjpL]cov, 7ra/)a5t5o'a[cri] 
 5e roif eiXr})([6o-iv] 7rapa[8c]86vcu toIs 8ik[o.o-]- 
 
 25 TOLLS tKOLO-TCd . . . a . . [t]g5 dpiOpCp T . . 
 
 7ra/)a Tffl a . . . tovtov vv . . . s a7ro[5i'J- 
 
 8a>o-i tov \jiio~]6ov 8e irdvTa . . . 
 
 Kara SLKao-Tr/pia Tp ev tco v 
 
 8u<ao-Tr)p\_i]o\y] ta koX k 
 
 30 eiv eZr' eVi ra . . . toll e . . . . /cat 
 
 KoX €T€pOL /Cu[/3o]i kv ol[s] . . TCtiV dp[^]a)V T . . . . 
 
 Col. 32. 9. xp^f aTa '• K-W. restore xp^f fr° m the Schol. on Ar. iY«/. 
 278, and delete €<£', for which they think there is not space enough. 19. 
 
 of 51 bvrjptTai : so read, apparently rightly, by Blass. 20, 21. t£ Kij3tuTia : 
 
 this reading is also due to Blass. 
 
 TOTe'XTjr ev rjj 'h6r\va'uov noKirela ovra> ypd<fici (Rose, Frag. 420). In the 
 scholium xp5>\ia is read instead of xP<"M aTn j an< i a lacuna is indicated 
 between it and itnyiypairrai, which Dindorf fills up with a whole 
 clause ; but according to this MS. nothing can be lost except the 
 syllable to, and even that is not absolutely certain. 
 
A0HNAI12N nOAITEIA. 197 
 
 rep e .... £ . . era to . . . twv [deafio]- 
 
 QtTCOV [ Jyy TO v? Kv[/3oV?] 
 
 fidWovcnu 6 irevr [Si/cao-]- 
 
 rrjpiov 6 fie to>v dp-^oirAoav 35 
 
 . . . 8av . . . TT} a . . . . v ap-)(5)v .... 
 
 KTJpV 
 
 [a]px&v r [CoL 33-] 
 
 . evrep 
 
 e/xia . . en 
 
 ctv Xa . . . 
 
 .cos s 
 
 . rai T) apxv [8iKa]- 
 
 [arjrrjpLcp eKcicrTco 
 
 TlOV TTLVaKlOV Tel- 
 
 KaarTrjs rijs 
 
 erepov kzvov io 
 
 tovs irparovs 
 
 Scop Terrapas 
 
 /xr)8el? irapa 
 
 v8cop p.r)Te 
 
 . . rjra . . apecr 15 
 
 COL. 33. 6. rai 77 apxq : K-W. raj napa\-, which is possible. 12 This 
 
 reading is that of K-W. which is doubtful but probable. 
 
 Col. 33. Of this column only a strip remains, containing the begin- 
 nings of the lines ; and even this is considerably rubbed, so that it 
 is not possible to obtain any connected sense out of it. Under these 
 circumstances, it does not seem advisable to go too far in the way of 
 printing doubtful letters to which no sense can be attached. The last 
 five lines of the column are completely illegible. K-W. print another 
 fragment with this column, distinguishing it as b ; but there is nothing 
 to show that this is its place. It contains the ends of some lines, and 
 these are rarely reconcilable with the beginnings to which they are 
 attached. 
 
i9« 
 
 API2T0TEA0Y2 
 
 XaypvT 
 
 airo\aiL$avo\ycri\ 
 
 tov fxicrOov 
 
 rat at (pvXai |_e7retj- 
 
 20 8av St/cacracrjY] 
 
 8ia to. tov 
 
 tovto aw 
 ravra viro 
 
 0T0LV [16V 
 
 2 S rro opi0/i[y] • • • 
 . . tov v6fio\v\ . 
 ety olvto to it . . 
 
 aiXevs 
 
 . . crt . elcri 5[e] 
 
 30 . . povs 
 
 . . Tas 
 
 M- 
 
 35 
 
A0HNALQN riOAlTEIA. 
 
 199 
 
 10 
 
 (0 
 
 KtMTTOL . . . 
 
 wevSot . . . 
 0etv tovs . . . 
 Xap./3a . . . 
 pos rots 8 . . 
 ev oe rots . . 
 . cot Stacp . . . 
 [/j7ri to 1? . . . 
 [ejoTi 8e a . . 
 
 [x]pW"T ■ • • 
 diro r^[?] . . . 
 
 (2) 
 
 KCLl IT 
 CTTTJp . . 
 
 res . . . 
 
 IXT)T€ . . 
 
 evo X • . 
 overt re 
 
 TOVS . . 
 V 8lK . . 
 
 vat . . . 
 
 (3) 
 va . . . 
 rjfjtap . . . 
 vair . . . 
 fierprj . . . 
 [eJ7rtXap.fi ... 5 
 tco re Ka . . . 
 Stape . . . 
 Secovos . . . 
 "XpcovT . . 
 
 (4) 
 . . v . v 
 
 . . X . . 
 
 . . [ro]vy . . Say 
 
 . . 18'lovs 
 
 . . cov t[co]v 5 
 
 . X ... 01 
 
 . 8e ra Srjpo 
 
 . K 8lK . . . 
 
 . x ov ? ' ' • 
 . y Set . tov 10 
 . ety v . . . irep 
 . e7rra^ouy 5e 
 . cov Kcti Sfyovs 
 Kcti 8'typvs i^dxpvs 
 . epov Xoyos ov cos 15 
 . coy eTrtXapfidvet 
 
 [Col. 34.] 
 
 COL. 34. A few detached fragments are given here which belong 
 either to this column or to those which immediately precede and 
 
aoo API2T0TEA0TS 
 
 [Col. 35.] ecm av 
 
 SeSe uv 
 
 25 uvv evr/v [iev 
 
 to. v 
 
 rpie . . . [yjsf}(f)0L 8e e'urt ^aA/ccu] avXia- 
 kov [e'^oucrai iv tw p.€cra>, at p.ev ^Jfiiaeiai re- 
 Tpv[7TT]fievai at 8e rj/JLicreLai TrXrjptLS. olj 8e \a- 
 3o\6vt€s [eVt ray yjsrjcpov?, iirei^av eiprj/iflvoi 
 &(riv [oi Xoyoi, 7rapa8iS6a.(ri.v eKacrra rjav 
 SiKaa-r^mv 8vo \jry(j)ovs, T€Tpv7rrjp.eurjju /cat 
 
 follow it. The size of this portion of the papyrus is estimated from 
 the writing which is on the other side of it, from which it may be 
 gathered that not more than one column is required between that 
 which has just been given and that which follows as col. 35. The first 
 fragment consists of the beginnings of lines, and must therefore belong 
 to either col. 34 or col. 35. The second contains the middles of lines, 
 and may therefore be placed anywhere in columns 33-35. The third 
 has been ingeniously recognised by Prof, von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 
 as relating to the water-measurements which regulated the length of 
 the speeches. This subject is apparently referred to both in the 
 middle of col. 33 and at the bottom of col. 34 (see next fragment) ; 
 hence this fragment, which is from the top of a column, may belong 
 either to col. 34 or to col. 35. The same scholar has also seen that the 
 remains of words in 11. 4, 7, 8 point to the subject which forms the 
 matter of Harpocration's article Sta/ie/ifrpi/^fi/r; fj^pa (see App. I, frag. 
 423), in which mention is made of the month Posideon. This quotation, 
 however, is not verbal, and does not enable us to reconstruct the 
 passage with certainty. The fourth fragment contains the bottom of 
 col. 34, which is on one piece of papyrus with the left-hand bottom 
 corner of col. 35. 
 
 COL. 35. The remains of this column consist of a strip containing 
 the ends of the lines throughout, but in such a condition as to be 
 practically undecipherable, and of another piece which contains the 
 beginnings of the lines at the bottom of the column. In the latter it 
 is possible to identify one of the extant quotations of Aristotle's work 
 (Rose, Frag. 424), and the passage is accordingly reconstructed. 
 The quotation occurs in Harpocration, s.v. TiTpvir^jiivr], and it is 
 prefaced by the words, 'ApicrroreXiyr e'v 'ABrjvaLcov TroXirei'a ypdcpei ravri. 
 The only variation in the text is the addition of a/KpoTcpas at the end 
 of the quotation, which is a distinct improvement. 
 
A0HNAI&N nOAITElA. 301 
 
 TrX-qpr], [tfiavepa? bpav tols olvtiBlkols T\va p.T)~ 
 re ir\rj\p€is prjre TerpvKr\p.£vas apcpolrepa? 
 
 XapL^dvcocnvj [AJa^co . 35 
 
 airoXa 
 
 yjrvfrC ■ • • •_ 
 
 tov y airoSiSov? \y\ap y Xapfiavu . . -^rr](pi- [Col. 36.] 
 
 TravTts. o[y yajp earn Xa[p.j3dv]ei[uj . . . opov 
 
 \ov8ev~§. iau prj yj^rj(f)i^r]Tai. elcri [§'] dp-Cpopel? 
 [ouo Keijptvoi kv t<S 8iKa.<rTr)piq>, 6 pev %[clJXkovs 
 [6 8e i^v^Xivos, SiaipeToi [o]7ra? prj . . . . u7ro[/3]aAAcoz>- 5 
 [raij . . . €ls els ouy \j/7](p[£ovTGU oi Sucao-rcd, 6 pev 
 [xaA/coD]y Kvpios, 6 Se ^vXivos aKvp\os\. ex e [' ^' °] 
 
 X aX- 
 [/covy ij7rl0r]pa 8iepp^ivjj\pevov oxtt av\ryiv 
 \jj.6vri\v Xfopelv ttju ■yj/rj(f)ov, tva [/a]?) 8vo [o] olvtos 
 [/3aAA]?7. i7T€i8av Be 8iayfrr)(j)l[£e(r0aij peX[X]a>(riv 10 
 [St/cacrjTcu', 6 Krjpv^ ayop\ev\ei, irpwrov av eyir\i(rK-q- 
 
 Col. 36. . . . eis: the reading is not certain, but it does not appear to be 
 [i//7;0o]i, as K-\Y. give it. 1 1. Sixaarai : there does not appear to be room for 
 the article in the lacuna. The final i is faint but traceable. av ; so MS., not 
 
 IV, as K-W. ; an apodosis is easily understood. £iti<tktiittcwtcu : MS. cirtaice-. 
 
 COL. 36. The greater part of the width of this column remains, but 
 the writing is much rubbed in places, so that it is not easy to decipher 
 connectedly. Two of the extant quotations, however, occur in it, 
 which are of great assistance in restoring those parts of the text. For 
 the rest of the column the restorations are mostly due to Prof, von 
 Wilamowitz-Moellendorff. 
 
 3. apfapcis : this passage is quoted, with slight variation of language, 
 by the scholiast on Aristoph. Knights 1150, . . va-repov fie ajKpopeis 8C0 
 "urravTO iv rols SiKaarr/piois, 6 p-h ^aXftoir, 6 fie i-vXivos' (cal 6 fiev Kvpios 
 rjv, 6 fie aKvpos. e^ec 8e Kai 6 ^aXxoCs, cms <f)T]criv 'ApiOTOTe'Xijs, Si^ppivrjfjievov 
 imdrjp.a, tls to airfju fiovrjv rrpi ^(pov Ka6Utr6ai. Pollux also (VIII. 123) 
 draws from Aristotle, \jfTj(f>ovs 8' ei\ov ^nXray 8110, TeTpvirr)p.ivr)v Kai 
 arpvirrfTOV, Kai KaSov a Kr]p.6s eVexeiro fit' ov kclBUto r) \fffi(pos' avdis fie 
 8vo dp.<pope1s t 6 p.ev ^aXicoiJff, 6 fie £v\ivoSj 6 p.tv Kupioy, o fie aKvpos' rw fie 
 XaX/c<5 iirfjv iirL8r)p,a jiia yjfrj(pa xapav e^oy (Rose, Frag. 426). 
 
aoa API2T0TEA0TS 
 
 [7rreBi/]rat ol olvtISlkoc tois fiaprvp lacs' [^ e ]' 7 a P 
 [auroiiy] eirio~KtY\ra.o~dai [au]ra[r]y irplv [7rJaVra[y] 
 
 [(picracrjdai. hreiTa. iraXiv [6 Krjpv^ /C7?/3]Jrr[etJ, 77 re- 
 
 15 \rpv7rri\fj.ivr] tov 7rp\oJT€pov [Aeyovrjoy, 77 [5eJ 7rA?7- 
 
 [/)77y ro]G vcrrepov Xeyovros tolctt . . ara 
 
 ^jrpoo-djev tov Xv^yeiov ray \jrrj(povs [/jiri e\Kacr\TOv 
 
 ttjs i\rr)(pov kcu 011 SeiKvvcov [rjoty a- 
 
 lycoviiftj/xevoLS ovre to TeTpv7n]p.e[i>\ov 
 
 20 [oure to] TrXfjpes epfidXXei ttjv p.ev Kv\_pia~\v els 
 \tov \oX\kovv ap.(f)op[e~\a, ttjv he aicvpo[v] els 
 
 \t6v £vX]ivov . 7rAa a 
 
 p,evoi Xafietv ray . . . [wrjtjpeTac 
 
 tov a\p(f)opea tov Kvpiov .... aai . . . dva, 
 
 25 [ra. Tpv~\irr]p.a.Ta. eyovTa . . . [y]ap elo-i[v] ai \jrTJ- 
 
 \<pot. to] avTa. . . . at . . p vairev d^p^iOpoX 
 
 e kou to, [ef]ra [kcci] to. irX-qprj 8r]X- 
 
 [oitoIs aj/]TiS[t]/c[oty] ol tt\ ovs 
 
 [ejlXr]- 
 [Voray] 5ta ray . . tov a . aKacr 
 
 30 p-e eis x • • • • ^ e Ta ? re " 
 
 \rpvTn)\p.evas, /cai dvayopev[ei] 6 Kj}p[v£] tov 
 
 1 2. tois ftapTvpiais : MS. ras imprvptas. 1 3. aureus : the reading is 
 
 doubtful. 18. oi : read by Blass ; not 6, as 1st ed. and K-'W. 19, 20. 
 
 ovrt . . . out€ : so Blass. 20. e/ifiaWfi : MS. £aAA« with e v added 
 
 above the line. ep&a\kcu> is the regular word, cf. 55, 1. 30, 63, 11. 7, 10, col. 3T, 
 1. 17. 25. The readings in this line are very doubtful. 
 
 17. The sense of this passage appears to be that some official takes 
 two voting tablets, one of each sort, holds them up before a light, so 
 as to show that one is pierced and the other not, and drops them into 
 the urns to which they belong, so that the dicasts may clearly realise 
 which pebble should be placed in which urn. But the precise readings 
 are doubtful. 
 
A0HNAI&N nOAITEIA. 303 
 
 [a.pi0jp.ov tcov yjrrjtycov, tov pev \8j1c0- 
 
 [kovjtos ret? TtTpvirripivas, tov 8e (p[evyovJ- 
 
 [tos rajy irXr)peis' biroTepcp 8' av irXeico ^y\evrj- 
 
 [rat ov^ros vlkS.. av 8e [itrat], 6 [0euya>j/]. e[7re]tra 35 
 
 ira- 
 Xiv tijx&ctl, av $€7) Tiprjo-ai, tov avTov [Col. 37.] 
 
 Tpoirov \jfr)(pL£6p.€voi, to pev avpfioXov 
 airoSiSovTe?, j3aKT7jplav 8e ttoXlv TrapaXap.- 
 fiavovTcs. r] 8e Tip.r)o-Ls iaTiv irpos rjp.i'^ovv 
 v8aT0S eKare/3a). eiretSav 8e uvtoIs fj 8e- 5 
 
 SiKaapeva tu Ik to>v vopcov, airoXap- 
 fiavovcriv tov pucrOov ev tS pepei ov 
 eXa^ov eKacTTOL. 
 
 35. vixq : MS. va.ua. COL. 37. 1. Ti\mai : MS. rci/mat, and so again 
 
 below, Tfiiu/aai, rtiixqoit. 5. kxaripqi : corrected in MS. from eKarepav. 
 
 32. rav yjffj<f>a>v : this passage is quoted in the Lex. rhet. Cantabrig. 
 p. 670, 3°j J « ^. t-o~at al \j/T}<pot avTtav : eysvovro de io~ai \|fi)<poi, a>s ApuxToreXrjs 
 iv tjj 'Adrjvaitov jroXtrei'f* Km tjo-ov tov p.£v Sioskovtos al TtTpviTTjp.ivai, rou 
 he (pevyoiTos al irXf/peis' oirorepto 8' av nXciovs yivavrai, ovtos iv'tna' ore 
 8' "a-ai, d (pfiyav dnecpvycv, cos /cai GeoSekttjj ei> Tfl ScoxpaTOus diroXoyia 
 (Rose, i-V^f. 425). 
 
 Col. 37. This column contains the final words of the treatise in good 
 condition. It seems probable that this is actually the end of the work, 
 though the fact of the writing breaking off in the middle of a column 
 would not prove it, as that has already occurred in the cases of columns 
 24 and 30. But this time an elaborate nourish is executed, such as we 
 find at the conclusion of other papyrus MSS., and the subject of the 
 law-courts has been brought to completion. It is, no doubt, an 
 abrupt ending, but it is not therefore uncharacteristic of Aristotle. 
 
APPENDIX I. 
 
 Fragments of the 'Afl^cuW lToA.ireia previously 
 
 KNOWN FROM QUOTATIONS IN OTHER AUTHORS 1 . 
 
 343- 
 
 Harpocration s. v. 'AttoWmv TrarpZos' oYlvdios. irpoo-qyopia 
 tls kcrTi tov deov tioXX&v km. a\\a>v ov(r5>v. tov be AiroWaiva 
 koiv&s iio.Tp5>ov rijx&aiv 'AOrjvdiot. cmb "logos' tovtov yap 
 olKr\cravTOS rr\v 'ArnK?jz>, as 'Apiorore'X?js cp-qcri, tovs A6r)vaiovs 
 "latvas KXrjOrjvai koi 'AttoKXco -naTpaov avrols 6vop.ao-drjvai. 
 
 Exc. Polit. Heraclid. § I : 'Adrjvaioi to pev e£ a.p\rjs 
 eyjp&VTO /3ao"iA.eia, avvoucqaairros be "la>vos airrols, tot€ irp&rov 
 "Icoves kKkr\dn]<rav. Tlavbcov (1. JJavbiaiv) be fiao-iXeucras pera 
 'EpexBea bieveipe tt\v ap\rjv tols viols, /cat bierekovv ovroi 
 crrao-ia^ovTes. 
 
 Frag. 343. This quotation is clearly from the opening of Aristotle's 
 treatise, now lost. We know from the summary in ch. 41 that Aristotle 
 took the establishment effected by Ion as the starting-point of the constitutional 
 history of Athens, so that this passage probably occurred very near the 
 beginning. The extract from the TloXiTiiai of Heraclides is given because 
 that work was evidently a compilation from Aristotle (cf. note on ch. 18, 
 1. 9). The first part of it, as far as inKifiriaav, is given by Rose in his 1870 
 edition under no. 343 ; the rest, with the continuation of it quoted below 
 (Frag. 346), in his 1886 edition under no. 611. A passage added in this place 
 by him from a scholiast on Aristophanes has already been quoted in the note 
 on ch. 3, 1. 10. 
 
 1 The quotation is given in full when the fragment does not occur in the MS. 
 from which the present text is published. In other cases a reference is given 
 to the chapter in which it is to be found and the note which mentions it. The 
 numbers are, as before, those of the 1870 edition of Rose's collection in the 
 Berlin Academy edition of Aristotle. 
 
APPENDIX I. 20s 
 
 344- 
 Plinius, N. H., VII. 205 : Gyges Lydus picturam Aegypti 
 (condere instituit) et in Graecia Euchir Daedali cognatus, 
 ut Aristoteli placet, ut Theophrasto, Polygnotus Athe- 
 niensis. 
 
 345- 
 
 See ch. 60, 1. 7, and note on to ekaiov. 
 
 346. 
 
 Plutarch, Thes. 25: en be pak\ov av&jcrai tt\v -nokiv 
 fiovkopevos e/caA.et TrdvTds eirl rots tcroty, /cat to " bevp' he -navres 
 key Kr\pvyy.a ©jjtre'cos yeveadai <paal iravbrjpiav Tiva KadiaTavTos. 
 ov pr]v araKTov ovbe pepiypevrjv Trepieibev vtto -nk^Oovs e-irixv- 
 6evros aKpCrov yevopevrjv ttjv b1ip.0Kpa.Tiav, akka -wpa>Tos aisoKpivas 
 X<oplj evirarpCbas /cat yea>popovs /cat brjpiovpyovs, evtrarpibais be 
 yi.v<i>o-K€iv Ta deia /cat irapeyew apyovTas amobovs /cat vop.u>v 
 8i8a<r/caAouy elvai /cat ocrtcov /cat lep&v efijyqrds, rots akkois 
 TTokiTais cocnrep eis icrov /careoT7j<re, 80^77 pev evnaTpib&v x/> eta 
 8e yecopopaiv irk-qOei be brjpiovpy&v wrepe\eiv boKovvroov. oti 
 be irpa>Tos aireKkive lipbs top $)(kov, us ' ApiaTOTekrjs (prjcri, 
 /cat aiprJKe to povapyeiv, eot/ce paprvpetv /cat "Oprjpos ev ve&v 
 narakoyu povovs ' AOrjvaiovs bfjpov irpoo-ayopevcras. 
 
 Exc. Polit. Heraclid. § 1 : ©770-eti? be enrjpvge /cat crwe/3t- 
 /3acre tovtovs eir 1077 /cat opoiq poipq. ovtos ekdiov els Suvpov 
 eTekevrrjcrev axrdels /cara ireTpuv vtto Avtcoprjbovs, (poj3r]0evTos 
 prj a<peTepio-r]Tai tt\v vfjcrov. 'Affyvatot 8e vo-Tepov irepl to. 
 MribiKa pereKopio-av avTOV to, dora. airo be Kobpib&v ovueTi 
 /3ao"tA.eTs ypovvTO 8ta to 80/ceiy Tpv<pav /cat pakanovs yeyovevai. 
 '\vnopevr\s be els tG>v Ko8pi8<5v jiovkopevos a/Kuo-acrOai. rr\v 
 biafiokr)v, Aa/3a>z> eirl 777 Ovyarpl Aeipuvrf poi\6v, eKeivov pev 
 avelkev inro(ev£as pera Trjs OvyaTpbs tu apjuart, rrji> Se tirira> 
 avveKkeio-ev ecoj wnokr]Tai. 
 
 Frag. 344. This quotation is given by Rose and is therefore included here, 
 but it may be taken as nearly certain that it is not from the 'ABrjvaiwv lroKireia. 
 
 Frag. 346. It is impossible to tell for certain how much of this passage 
 is taken from Aristotle, but we know that Plutarch made use of the latter's 
 
2o6 APPENDIX I. 
 
 347- 
 
 Schol. in Plat. Axioch. p. 465 (cf. Moeris att. p. 193, 16) 
 yevvriTrj : 'Aptorore'Ar/s <pr]o~l tov o\ov -nX-qdovs biripr]\ievov 'Adjj- 
 vr)<riv els re toiis yeuipyovs Kal tovs bripuovpyovs qbvXas avr&v 
 elvai Teaaapas, tZv be <pv\&v eKaarrjs jxoipas elvai rpeis, ay 
 rpiTTvas re KaXovai km (pparpias, eKaor?js be tovtcov TpiaKovTa 
 elvai yevq, to be yevos e/c rpianovTa eKaarov avbpuiv o-vveordvai. 
 tovtovs brj tovs els to. yevr] reTay/xevovs yevvr\ras KaXovcri. 
 
 Lex. Demosth. Patm. p. 153, ed. Sakkelion, yevvrJTai: -aaXai 
 to tQiv 'AOrjvaicov irXijdos, itplv rj KXeio-devq bLOiKrjcrao-dai to. 
 nepi tols (pvXas, Stjjpeiro els yeoopyovs kcu. br]p.iovpyovs. Kal (pvXal 
 tovtoov rjcrav b , raw be (pvX&v l/cdoTTj \xoipas el\e y , as (pparpias 
 Kal TpiTTvas eKaXovv. tovtcov b' efcdoTTj crwetaT7j/cei Ik rpiaKovra 
 yevG>v Kal yevos Ixaarov avbpas e2\e TpiaKovra tovs els to, yevq 
 reTayixevovs, oiTtves yevvrjrai eKaXovvTO, S>v at lepooo-vvai e/cdarois 
 
 work, and he evidently had it before him here, as he proceeds to mention him 
 by name. In all probability the division of the people into Eupatridae, 
 Geomori, and Demiurgi, with the description of their respective positions, may 
 be ascribed to Aristotle's authority, in addition to the phrase which is actually 
 quoted from him. In the summary in ch. 41 the rule of Theseus is taken 
 to mark the first modification of the constitution in the direction of popular 
 government. 
 
 Only the first sentence of the extract from Heraclides is given in Rose's 1870 
 edition. Hippomenes was the fourth of the decennial archons and the last of 
 the descendants of Codrus who governed Athens, his period of rule ending in 
 723 B.C. 
 
 Frag. 347. The passage quoted by these various authors evidently comes 
 from Aristotle's description of the constitution under Theseus, to whom was 
 ascribed the division of the people into Eupatridae, Geomori, and Demiurgi. It 
 is noticeable that alike in the scholiast to Flato, Moeris, and the Lexicon 
 Demosthenicnm the name of the Eupatridae is omitted, clearly pointing to 
 a community of origin, which may have been either the text of Aristotle 
 himself or of some compiler from him. 
 
 The Lexicon Demosthenicum appears to contain the fullest citation from 
 Aristotle. The comparison of the numbers of the </>uAcu, (pparpiai and "/ivy 
 to the seasons, months, and days is also found in Suidas, who must have drawn 
 from the same source. 
 
 Harpocration appears also to have drawn from Aristotle in his account 
 of the word yfWTJTai, but he adds nothing to the quotations already given. 
 The same is the case with Pollux ^VIII. m), but he does not follow Aristotle 
 verbally. 
 
APPENDIX I. 207 
 
 irpoo-TjKODO-at kKXrjpovvTO, olov EiyxoAm'Sai Kal K-qpvKes kcli 'Ereo- 
 Povrabai, as laropel kv rfj 'A0r)vamv -nokiTelq 'A/Horore'ATj? 
 \eya>v ovTtms. <pv\as be avT&v o-vvvevep.rjcr9ai. 8' a.Ttoiuii.r\o-ap.eva>v 
 ras kv rois kviavTOis upas. l/cdaTijv be bit]prjcrdat. els rpia jxepr] 
 t&v <pv\5>v, ottco? yevqrai to. iravTa bcobeKa pepr), nadaitep ol 
 ixfjves els tov eviavrov, KaX.elcrda.1 be avra. Tpirrvs zeal (pparpCas. 
 els be TT\v (pparpiav rpidxoz/ra yevr\ biaKeKO<rp.T)<rdai, KaOanep al 
 r)p.epai els tov p.fjva, to be yevos elvai TpiaKovTa avbp&v. 
 
 Harpocration s. v. Tpirrvs : rpiTrvs eari ro Tp'nov \iepos 
 Tr\s <pv\fjs' avTt] yap bifiprjTai els rp[a p.epr\, TpiTTVs Kal eOvr] 
 Kai (pparpCas, &s (prjcriv ' ApioToreK-qs kv Trj 'AO-qvaicnv ■noXiTeiq. 
 
 348. 
 
 Servius ad Vergil. Georg. I. 19, uncique puer monstrator 
 aratri : . . . vel Epimenides (significatur) qui postea 
 Buzyges dictus est secundum Aristotelem. 
 
 Lex. rhet. Seg. p. 321, 8 s.v. Bov(vyCa: yevos tl ' A6r)vr)criv, 
 lepcooTJvriv Tiva e\ov' Boufvyrjy yap ny t&v fjpdoov irp&Tos 
 ftovs Ctv&s T V V Yh v T\poo~e Kai els yecopyCav kirirfbeiov kiroCrjcrev, 
 aqb 1 ov yevos KaXelrai Bov(vyia. 
 
 349- 
 
 See ch. 8, 1. 13, and note on <f>v\al 5' fjaav. 
 
 350- 
 
 See ch. 7, 1. 10, and note on rt^rj/xara. 
 
 35i- 
 
 See ch. 2, 1. 6, and note on weAdrai. 
 
 352- 
 
 See ch. 7, 1. 3, and note on a.vaypa\\ravTes. 
 
 353- 
 
 See ch. 8, 1. 34, and note on vop.ov edrjue. 
 
 Frag. 348. If this quotation belongs to the 'ABrjvaiaiv iroXiTeia, it must 
 come from the part in which Aristotle mentioned the families to which certain 
 priestly functions appertained ; cf. preceding fragment. 
 
208 APPENDIX I. 
 
 354- 
 Plutarch, Solon 32 : ^ 8£ 8tj Siao-wopa naraKavOevros avrov 
 (2o\com>s) rrjs Te<ppas Ttepl rqv ^aXapuvlaiV vfjcrov eari p.ev 8ta 
 ttji; aro-niav airidavos navTanan /cat ixvdubrjs, avayiypa-nrai 
 8' vtto re akkaiv avbp&v d£ioAo'ycoi> /cai ' Apiororekovs tov (piXo- 
 <ro<pov. 
 
 355- 
 
 See ch. 15, 1. i5, and note on rrji> em UaKkrivibi ^a^qv. 
 
 356. 
 See ch. 19, 1. 15, and note on Aei^vbpiov. 
 
 357- 
 
 See ch. 19, 1. 15, and note on Aeitfrvbpiov. 
 
 358. 
 
 See ch. 19, 1. 49, and note on hbs belv itevTrtKovra. 
 
 359- 
 
 See ch. 21, 1. 24, and note on xareorijo-e. 
 
 360. 
 
 See ch. 23, 1. 5> an d n °te on 81a ro ytvto-dai. 
 
 361. 
 
 See ch. 23, 1. 5, and note on 8ta ro yevecrdcu. 
 
 362. 
 
 See ch. 30, 1. 17, and note on kXXr)vorap.[as. 
 
 363- 
 
 See ch. 27, 1. 20, and note on Aamab&v. 
 
 Frag. 354- Plutarch does not state that this quotation is from the 'AflijftuW 
 iroXiTtia, and it is a story which may have been alluded to in any other work 
 almost as well. 
 
APPENDIX I. 
 
 209 
 
 364- 
 Plutarch, Pericl. 4 : 'A/nororeA^s 5e xapa TIvOoKkeibri fxovn- 
 k?/i> biairovrjdfjvai rov avhpa <pT\o\v (top riepiKXeo). 
 
 365- 
 
 See ch. 27, 1. 24, and note on <rvp.(3ovkevo-avTos. 
 
 366. 
 
 See ch. 25. 1. 14. and note on avvamov. 
 
 367- 
 See ch. 25, 1. 31, and note on 81' 'ApitTTobUov. 
 
 368. 
 
 See ch. 28, 1. 23, and note on ■nepi^a-ap.ivos. 
 
 369- 
 
 See ch. 28, 1. 38, and note on NiKias. 
 
 370- 
 
 See ch. 34, 1. 13, and note on vitb KAeo^wzros. 
 
 371- 
 See ch. 27, 1. 32, and note on 'Avvtov. 
 
 37 2 - 
 See ch. ^, 1. 1, and note on p.r\vas. 
 
 373- 
 
 See ch. 34, 1. 35, and note on ApaKovriSrjs. 
 
 374- 
 
 See ch. $$, 1. 7j and note on irp&Tov p.iv. 
 
 375- 
 
 See ch. 55, 11. 7 and 37, and notes on irp&rov p.ev and 
 
 6p.VV0V(TlV. 
 
 Frag. 364. It is evident that this quotation is out of keeping with the 
 character of the 'ABijvaiwv iroAireia and may well have been taken from some 
 other work. 
 
210 APPENDIX I. 
 
 376- 
 Pollux, III. 17: 6 be irdiiTTOvrj rrj^rj? wcm/p •npoiran-nos' . ■ . 
 ra\a 8' av tovtov rpirowaropa 'Apiorore'A.))? koXoi. 
 
 377- 
 
 See ch. 55, 1. 34, and note on wpds rbv Xidov. 
 
 378- ^ 
 See ch. 59, 1. 1, and note on ol be Oeo-ixoderai. 
 
 379- 
 
 See ch. 59, 1. 9, and note on ela\ be kch. 
 
 380. 
 
 See ch. 59, 1. 20, and note on ra <™p./3oAa. 
 
 381. 
 See ch. 56, 11. 14 and 36, and notes on ©apy?;Ata and ypacpaL 
 
 382. 
 See ch. 56, 1- 47> and note on eis }p.<pav5)v KaracrTacnv. 
 
 383- 
 
 See ch. 56, 1. 45, and note on els bar-qrZv atpecriv. 
 
 384- 
 See ch. 56, 1. 57, and note on ctitov. 
 
 385. 
 See ch. 57, 11. 4 and 10, and notes on Awvvaiwv and ypacpai. 
 
 386. 
 See ch. 57, 1. 1, and note on 6 8e /3ao-iXeu's. 
 
 387. 
 See ch. 58, ]. 1, and note on 6 be Tro\ep.apxos. 
 
 Frag. 376. As the word Tpiroiraraif does not occur in the Qiafuiljerav avaKpms. 
 to which Rose no doubt imagined it to belong, there is no reason to suppose that 
 it is taken from the 'Adrjvaiav iroAireio at all. 
 
APPENDIX I. an 
 
 388. 
 
 See ch. 58, 1. io, and note on avrbs 8' etcrayei. 
 
 389- 
 
 See ch. 56, 1. i, and note on \ap.j3avov<n. 
 
 390- 
 See ch. 61, 1. a, and note on arpar-qy ovs. 
 
 39 1 - 
 
 See ch. 61, 1. 33, and note on 'mirdpxovs. 
 
 392- 
 
 See ch. 61, 1. 28, and note on <pvka.px.ovs. 
 
 393- 
 
 See ch. 43, 1. 8, and note on TrpvTavevei. 
 
 394- 
 
 See ch. 43, 1. 14, and note on avvayovcnv. 
 
 395- 
 
 See ch. 43, 11. 14 and 19, and notes on awdyovaiv and 
 ■Trpoypacp overt. 
 
 396- 
 
 See ch. 43, 1. 19, and note on -npoypdcpovo-i. 
 
 397- 
 
 See ch. 44, 1. 1, and note on eTnorarrjs. 
 
 398. 
 
 See ch. 44, 1. 10, and note on •npoeb'povs. 
 
 399- 
 
 See ch. 54, 11. 16 and 34, and notes on ypap.jj.aTea and iirl 
 tovs vop.ovs. 
 
 4OO. 
 
 See ch. 48, 1. a, and note on irapaXapovres. 
 
 P 3 
 
212 APPENDIX I. 
 
 40I. 
 
 See ch. 47, 1. 8, and note on TtoaX-qrai. 
 
 402. 
 See ch. 47, 1. 6, and note on ■napakap.fiavovcri, and ch. 61, 
 1. 32, and note on Ta\xiav rijs Tlapakov. 
 
 403- 
 See ch. 61, 1. 32, and note on Tap.iav rijs Uapakov. 
 
 404. 
 See ch. 54, 1. 29, and note on Uponoiovs. 
 
 405- 
 See ch. 48, 1. 18, and note on tvOvvovs. 
 
 406. 
 See ch. 54, 1. 3, and note on koyicrrds. 
 
 407. 
 See ch. 54, 1. 3, and note on Aoyitrrdy. 
 
 408. 
 See ch. 50, 1. 4, and note on dorvvo/xot. 
 
 409. 
 See ch. 51, 1. 1, and note on ayopavop.oi. 
 
 4IO. 
 See ch. 51, 1. 16, and note on ep.nopiov e^tfxsXjjrdy. 
 
 411. 
 
 See ch. 5 1 , 1- 8, and note on cn.TocpvkaK.es. 
 
 412. 
 See ch. 5 1 ; 1- 5, and note on /xerpoz>o'/xoi. 
 
 413- 
 See ch. 53, 1. 1, and note on nrrapaKovTa. 
 
 414. 
 See ch. 53> h 7> an d note on tjis Siatrjjrats. 
 
APPENDIX I. 213 
 
 415- 
 See ch. 53, 1. 13, and note on e\Cvovs. 
 
 416. 
 Pollux, VIII. 62 : ecpecns be eariv orav ns airo bicurriT&v »/ 
 apyovTuv r) brjpor&v (irl hiKaorrjv e<pfj, V airo /3ovkfjs enl brjpov, 
 )/ aw6 Sijjtxou eiri 8iKarm/pioz>, r) a-nb bLKacrraiv eirl ^eviKov btnacr- 
 TrjpLov' e<peat.p.o$ 8' uivopa^ero r) Sikjj. aSrai be kcu IkkAtjtoi 
 Stxai e/caAowro. to be irapaKaTafiaXXopevov enl to>v ecpeaeui; 
 oirep 01 vvv ■napafiokiov jcaXoCcrt, Trapafiokov 'A/noTOTeA?jj keyei. 
 
 417. 
 See ch. 57, 1. 20, and note on r<3v 8' dxouo-iW. 
 
 418. 
 See ch. 57, 1. 20. and note on t&v clkovcticov. 
 
 419. 
 See ch. 57, I. 25, and note on evl AeAtpmu. 
 
 420. 
 See Fragments, col. 32, 1. 8, and note on rots yap Suao--?;- 
 
 pLOlS. 
 
 421. 
 See ch. 62, 1. 9, and note on rd biKacrrripia. 
 
 422. 
 See note on ch. 28, 1. 26, ttjv bica^ekCav. 
 
 423. 
 Harpocration s. v. biap.ep.eTprip.evr] i]p.epa : p.irpov n eoto 
 u'oaros irpos pejxerprjpevov r)p.epas Stdarrj/ixa peov. eperpeiTo he 
 
 Frag. 416. If this citation is from the 'ASyvaiav itoAitcio, which is in itself 
 probable enough, it presumably comes from the discussion on legal procedure, 
 which is imperfect in the MS. 
 
 Frag. 423. This passage belongs to col. 34 or col. 35 of the Fragments ; 
 see note on p. 200. 
 
214 APPENDIX I. 
 
 T(3 IlocretSe&iw p.r]vi. irpos 87; tovto r\ya>vL(fivTO 01 jue'ytcrrot /cat 
 irepi r<3v fieyiarcav dyoii'es. have/Aero be els rpia p.eprj to vboup, 
 to p,ev tco bi<&KOVTi, to be tc3 (pevyovTi, to be Tphov rois biKaCovo-i. 
 TavTa be aacpearara avrol ol prjTopes 8e8r?A&>/cacrii> . . . 'Apjoro- 
 reA.?is 8' ev ry 'A6r\vaLu>v iroAtm'a bibacrKei Trepl tovtcov. 
 
 424- 
 See Fragments, col. 35, and note. 
 
 425- 
 See Fragments, col. 36, 1. 32, and note on t&v -fij^mv. 
 
 426. 
 See Fragments, col. 36, 1. 3, and note on anQoptte. 
 
 427. 
 See ch. 42, 1. 5, and note on bia^fyi&vTai.. 
 
 428. 
 See ch. 42, 1. 38, and note on eKKkrjo-ias. 
 
 429. 
 See ch. 53, 1. 27, and note on bvo be ko.1 TeTTapanovTa. 
 
 430- 
 See ch. 49, 1. 29, and note on rois abvvaTovs. 
 
 43i- 
 
 See ch. 56, 1. 22, and note on Set yap. 
 
 In the latest edition of Rose (1886) two additional 
 passages are cited, viz. :— 
 
 413 (1886). 
 See ch. 3, 11. 28 and 38, and notes on $Kr)<ra.v and mpioi 8' 
 i](rav. 
 
 429 (l886). 
 See ch. 52, 1. 4, and note on 6p.o\nySxr< . 
 
APPENDIX II. 
 
 It has been mentioned in the Introduction, p. xi, and in 
 the note to ch. 25, 1. 6, that in the middle of the tenth 
 column of the 'AOrjvaCuv ttoXiTiia the sequence of the text 
 is broken by a column and a half of alien matter. This is 
 written in the opposite direction to the Aristotle, and was 
 evidently inscribed on the papyrus at an earlier date. It 
 occupies what was at that time the extremity of the first 
 roll of the papyrus, and is immediately at the back of the 
 beginning of the accounts on the recto. Subsequently the 
 transcriber of the Aristotle affixed an additional piece of 
 papyrus, on which the eleventh column of the 'A. it. is now 
 written ; the recto of this is blank. The writing of the 
 fragment now in question is not in the same hand as any 
 of those which wrote the Aristotle, but is of the same date, 
 and is in general character akin to the first and fourth 
 hands. Many of the same contractions are employed, viz- 
 //, fi, 6', f , r, t, it, it', k, k, /, //, a, 0, y, while the 
 symbol for avros and its cases (^), which occurs once in the 
 Aristotle and frequently in the accounts on the recto, is 
 found repeatedly here. Words are also frequently ab- 
 breviated by the omission of terminations, e.g. It}\x.o<j\Z for 
 brjixoa-mv, Tip-ap* for Tip.apxov, tv* for rvytlv, ap? for apyvpiov. 
 
 A transcript of the text is here given. The contents are 
 a short argument to the speech of Demosthenes against 
 Meidias, and explanatory notes on phrases in the first 
 eleven sections of the speech. Presumably the writer 
 
216 APPENDIX II. 
 
 intended to transcribe a complete commentary on the 
 speech, but never completed it ; and the scribe of the 
 Aristotle, on coming to this part of the papyrus, crossed 
 it out roughly and passed on. The introductory remarks 
 contain a reference to a statement by Kaua'Aioy, i.e. Caecilius 
 Calactinus, a rhetor of the age of Augustus, who wrote 
 various works relating to the Greek orators, including one 
 on the authenticity of the speeches of Demosthenes ; and 
 in the notes there is a quotation from the grammarian 
 Didymus. 
 
 This text has already been published in the edition of 
 the 'Adrjvalwv TroAireta by van Herwerden and van Leeuwen, 
 having been transcribed by the latter from the facsimile of 
 the MS. This transcript has been used in the revision 
 of the present version, and in some cases it has lightened 
 the labour of decipherment. On the other hand the 
 facsimile has occasionally led the Dutch scholar into error, 
 as was inevitable. Where the MS. reading is clear, it has 
 not been thought worth while to record variant readings 
 which merely represent a misreading of the facsimile ; but 
 where there is any doubt the variations are mentioned. 
 
 References are made to the sections in Blass' 4th edition 
 of the Teubner text of Demosthenes (Leipzig, 1888). 
 
 MetStcts els to. jud/Uara e)(dpbs i]V rco Ar/pLocrOeveL, kcu 81a 
 ■uoWuiv p.ev /cat aXXtuv evebeC^aro els clvtov ttjv ey6pav, xai Trore 
 Xoprjybv ovra avrbv tt)s Ylavbiovibos (pvkrjs ev jue'cnj T?) dp^Tjorpa 
 KOvbvXois eXafiev. 6 be eypa\\raTO avrbv br)p.o<riwv abiKrjp.aToiv, 
 5 avp.Tiepi\afi(i>v rots brjp.oaloLS abucripaai tt)v eavrov vj3piv eirel 
 e£i]v e<eiv(f Keyeiv on " vf$pLcrdr\s' \aj3e rfjs vj3pems to Trpo'ori- 
 p.ov.' e^ei b' 7] virodeo-is /card p.ev Kana/Uoi> bvo Kecpakaia, el 
 br)\xo(Ti6v eaTiv dSwnjfia, kcu el p.eya\a to. ■neiipayp.eva eo-riv. 
 ■npoadereov be KaKelvo, el vfipis ecrrlv 7; yevop.evr)' o-nep aderel 
 
 4. (\aP(v : the is partly lost in a crack in the papyrus, but it is tolerably 
 certain that this is the reading, not ira^tv, as H-L. read, emending it to 
 eTra.Ta(fv. The symbol for avruv is prefixed to the verb in the MS., but has 
 been struck out. 
 
 u 5e : the reading is not quite certain. 
 
APPENDIX II. 217 
 
 Kat/aAtoy, /ca<c<3y eorat yap evavTiats at/rco yeypap.p.ivov to 10 
 ■npooip.iov /cat r] tov xpvao\6ov jiaprvpia. ort be brjkos eari 
 o-vp.irepi.kaj3oJV toIs 6?/p.ocrtots aSi/ojjuacu Ti]v eavTov vftpiv e£ 
 eKiivov (pavepov, orav keyr\, " eireibav eTribeC£a> Meibiav tovtov 
 p.r] povov els ep.e akka /cat els vp.as /cat ets row akkovs airavTas 
 vftpiKOTa, /cat ra e^/7?. at S' viroOeaeis orav pvr] exuicnv Qr\Tr\p.aTa 15 
 p.rjb a/x^)t<j/3?;r?;creiy kekvp.evai elai, /cat tottov rc3 pr/ropi ov 
 KaTaXenrovcn' oiov irepl (povov rts ey/caAetrat kclL keyet " aireKTetva 
 p.ev tov belva, St/catcos be," Tore 6p.okoyr\travTOs avTOV tov <j)6vov 
 (^reirai iroVepa St/cauos 77 dSt'/ccoj aireKTeive' orav be keyr] 6 
 eyKaXovp.evos ort aireKTeive /cat abiKoos aireKTeive, Tore kekvTai i) 20 
 viroOecris. ovrats koX irepl Tavr-qs ttjs v/3peu>s prjdtforeTai. 
 
 tt\v p,ev atrekyeiav Si, /cat to, e£i]s (§ 1) : SeAyot edvos ecrrlv 
 eiri rrjs IraAtay, bUawv kcu. oaiov' 01 ovv irapajiaivovTes 
 to biKaiov elKOTcos av Kkr)Qelev aaekyiis. Tavra piev At6i>/xos 
 Aeyef rives be keyovaiv on, !: ir&s irepl brjp.oo-i.uiv abiKrjpidTcov 25 
 ovtos tov ay&vos keyei /cat tt]v vfipiv ; " e7TtAi/erat ovv avros 
 eiricpepojv on, fi irpbs airavTas del ^pfJTai Meibias, cos Kado- 
 Atfccos vfipicrTov irpos iravras ovtos. 
 
 Kat irpovfiakop.r\v dbiKeiv tovtov t (§ l): irpovj3ak6fxriv' 
 eis bU-qv Kare'arrjcra. dbiKeiv' irepl Ti)v eopTr\v. irpofiokrj yap 3° 
 
 11. napTvpia: after this word the following words have been erased in the 
 MS. : hrjfwaimv adtKTjfiaTaw ovk ocptiXe. 
 
 13. irruSav k.t.K. : Dem. contr. Meid. § 7 • the MSS. of Demosthenes read 
 'irren' iav, and tomtom : the latter letter may possibly be lost in a crack of the 
 papyrus. 
 
 14. eh vpiis : MSS. of Dem. add teal (is tovs vojiovs. 
 
 19. ankicTuve: MS. aircKTtiva. 
 
 20. 6Y1 dire/cTfive : MS. at first oti aweKreiva, but corrected. 
 
 21. xal mpi Tavrrjs: the MS. is doubtful, except as to the last three letters. 
 H-L. avTfjs. 
 
 22. Se\yol iOvos : corrected above the line to oeXyos iroMs. 
 
 23. 'IraAiar: MS. apparently ira^; H-L. [acrij^, but the MS. will not 
 admit it. 
 
 Sixaiov ko.1 oaiov : corrected to Smcdaiv xal uaiaiv, in accordance with the 
 change in 1. 22. 
 
 24. K\rj0eiey : MS. apparently Kkr)9imv. 
 
 \j.iv : MS. 8', not fi as given by H-L., but the correction seems necessary. 
 
 26. avros : MS. avro, corrected by H-L. 
 
 27. ort : the MS. is doubtful ; possibly <ui erased. H-L. ert. 
 29. TovTOfi : MSS. of Dem. tovtov. 
 
218 APPENDIX II. 
 
 /cupuos fj perd Aiovvcna. 81x77 fj yivoixevr] wept r&v finaprrmevcov 
 ev rots Abovvcriois, jueracpopt/cois 5' eirl irda-qs 8t/o;s. 
 
 ets rds ovaCas ras tovtuiv ovb' els ros VTroa^e are is 
 (§ 2) : els ScopoSo/cowraw. 
 
 35 e7rei8i7 rts elcrayei (§ 3) : Sr/AovoYt 6 virrjpiT-qs' ov yap 
 X<opts rovrot) ef^y rots keyovaiv elvekOelv. 
 
 TTokKa ixev y^prjjxar e£6v p.01 kafieiv, /cat to. ££ijs (§ 3): 
 roCro a>s Si/cauos ayu>vi^6p.evos /cat p.?) apyvpwv etAr/cpaSs" ofxuis be 
 XtXtas ka/3u>v /catfucpet/caro T-qv bUrjv, ais ez> 777 tcrropta cpe'perat. 
 
 4° woAAas Se 8e?jo-ets teal x^ptras (cat vrj At'a d7retAas 
 virofxeLvas (§3): eZ/coVcos, a avp-fiaivei rots TrapaicaAoScri /cat 
 ei> opyrj Tracrt yivop-evois. 
 
 el p,ei> ovi> irapav6p.o>v *; Tiapa-npecr^eias ^ rtpos dAArjs 
 rotavr^y ep.ekkov airofi, /cat rd l£?7S (§ 5) : et/co'rcos" 01 yap 
 
 45 irept 181W ■npayp.a.TUiv ayatvi£6p.evoi 6<pei\ov<nv ot/cTt£eo'0a't els 
 to ekeov Tivbs rvyjiiv, ot be "Kepi 8?7p.ocria>i> airb \xovov keyew /cat 
 evbeiKvvvai, is rod brnxov o\kovovtos /cat inrep eavTov dycovtou- 
 pe'vou. 
 
 irpoirrikaK tamo's (§ 7) : wA.?7y77. 
 
 50 6 p.ei> vojaos oSto's eaTiv a>, /cat ra e£?js (§ 9) : T0 eiSos 
 roSro Trpodecris keyerai, orav 6 pr\Tuip to TTpayp.a irepl ov keyei e/c 
 t&v evavTmv av^avrj' &o"nep /cat Pdo"xj.vr]s ev tu /card Ttp.dpxov, 
 wept IratpTjo-ecos ow?7s tt/s 8t/ajs, avTmapaTeOeiKe tovs tt\s 
 ev/cocrp;ias vo'pous. Sfiowv k&v et rts wept tepocrvAou Ae'ycoi; 
 
 ?5 av^avrj to hjxapTr)jxa ey/ccop-tdcras ro 0etoz>, oiirco /cat 6 Ai)p.oo-Qevr]s 
 ■np&Tov tov Trepl avT&v t&v Aiovvcricjov vop.ov aveyvia, bevrepov be 
 Tbvnepi Trjs v/3pea>s, embeiKvvs 6Yt /cat roiis e/c /cara8i,<r/s elcmpaTTo- 
 fievovs /cat 6<peikovTas avv^piarovs avtrjo-LV Tavras rds rifxepas 
 t&v Alovvo-lcov. oi!ov be rtp-coptas d£tot etcrty ot vftpio-avTes tovs 
 
 33. oi5" eis : MSS. of Dem. oiSe. 
 
 38. touto : MS. apparently tout ; H-L. ravra. 
 
 40. i»^ Ai'a : added above the line. The second column begins with the word 
 
 42. ira<7i -fivonivms : yivo/iivois is certain, but the last two letters of iro<ri are 
 doubtful ; H-L. Sia\cyoiievois. 
 
 43. f) rivos ahkris Toiavrijs : MSS. of Dem. add alrias, and Blass brackets 
 dXXrjs. 
 
 59. tuiv Aiovvaiwv : removed by H-L. as a gloss, unnecessarily. 
 
APPENDIX II. 219 
 
 KaTCLKpiTovs, irocru 01 jut) tovs Ka.Ta.Kpi.Tov5 AAA' iXfvdepovs 60 
 vj3pi(ravT€S ; 
 
 HOI'S ta (§ 9): eoprTj. 
 
 aAAa Kal to. Sikt; jcai v^?j<p<i> rail; eAoi'Tcoz' yivopava 
 t5>v eaAtoKorcov (§ II): o Ae'yei roioCroV kaTiv' a Kal t<3i> 
 w/crjcraircoz; 8ik?j yivofieva t5>v viK-qdevTcov 8e8<»/care rauTTjv ttji; 65 
 eopTTjy. 
 
 60. micro : H-L. add fiSAXor, which is an improvement. 
 
 62. TidvSia : MS. irapSeia. 
 
 65. vtKTjOiVTQjv : H-L. add uvai. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Acastus, kingofAthens,successor 
 of Medon, 7. 
 
 Acherdus, deme of, 123. 
 
 'Adivarot, supported by the state, 
 151. 
 
 Aegospotami, battle of, 1 14. 
 
 Agoranomi, 153. 
 
 "Aypoiicoi, early division of the 
 Athenian people, 43. 
 
 Agyrrhius, establishes pay for 
 attendance at Ecclesia, 131. 
 Raises it to three obols, 132. 
 
 'Aktij, southern, side of Piraeus, 
 133, 182. 
 
 Alcmeon, father of Megacles, 44. 
 
 Alcmeonidae, expelled from 
 Athens for the Cylonian sacri- 
 lege, 1. Leaders of exiles 
 against Pisistratidae, 62 fif. 
 
 Alexias, archon, 405 B. c, 1 14. 
 
 Alopece, deme of, 76, 142. 
 
 Ammonias, sacred trireme, ra/iias 
 of, 185. 
 
 Amnesty after expulsion of the 
 Thirty and the Ten, 125. En- 
 forced, 126. 
 
 ' A/iCpiXTvoves els ArjXov, 1 89. 
 
 Anacreon, invited to Athens by 
 Hipparchus, 58. 
 
 Anchimolus, of Sparta, killed in 
 unsuccessful attempt to expel 
 Pisistratidae, 64. 
 
 Angele, deme of, 112. 
 
 Anthemion, statue erected by, 25. 
 
 : Az/Ti'8o<ns, 170. 
 
 Antidotus, archon, 451 B.C., 93. 
 
 'AvTiypcxpevs, clerk to the Council, 
 163 and note. 
 
 Antiphon, leader of the Four 
 Hundred, no. 
 
 Anytus, loses Pylus, 96. Bribes 
 the dicasts, ib. One of the 
 leaders of the moderate party 
 after the fall of Athens, 115. 
 
 Aphidna, deme of, 115. 
 
 'A;ro8eKr<u, 147, 156. 
 
 Archestratus, author of laws re- 
 specting the council of Areo- 
 pagus, 116. 
 
 Archinus, of Ambracia, Cypselid, 
 first husband of Pisistratus' 
 second wife, 57. 
 
 Archinus, one of the leaders of 
 the moderate party after the 
 fall of Athens, 115. Prevents 
 large secession on re-establish- 
 ment of the democracy, 126. 
 Opposes extension of citizen- 
 ship to all who assisted in return 
 of the exiles, ib. Enforces 
 amnesty, ib. 
 
 ' ApXiTCKTOves, for ship-building, 
 144. 
 
 Archon fiamXevs, see King-archon. 
 
 Archon eponymus, origin of, 7. 
 Residence, 9. Duties, 169 ff. 
 
 Archons, the nine, origin of, 5 ff. 
 Residences, 9. Election under 
 pre-Draconian constitution, 11, 
 28 ; under Draconian constitu- 
 tion, 13 ; under Solonian con- 
 stitution, 26 f. ; under Cleisthe- 
 nean constitution, 74, note. 
 Importance of the office, 43. 
 Election by lot finally estab- 
 lished, 74 ff. Zeugitae made 
 eligible, 92. Examination and 
 duties, 166 ff., 189, 194 f. Oath 
 on taking office, 7, 21, 168 f. 
 Pay, 1 88. 
 
222 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Archons, secretary to, 166,179, 1S9. 
 
 " .\p)(OVTes els ra (ppovpta, 104. 
 
 Areopagus, Council of, under pre- 
 Draconian constitution, 10, 28 ; 
 under Draconian constitution, 
 17 ; under Solonian constitu- 
 tion, 30. Pisistratus summoned 
 before it, 55. Revival of power 
 after Persian wars, 81 ; its 
 supremacy at this time the sixth 
 change in Athenian consti- 
 tution, 129. Overthrown by 
 Ephialtes, 87 ff. Tries cases of 
 intentional homicide and arson, 
 174. 
 
 Arginusae, battle of, 112. Trial of 
 the generals commanding there, 
 
 113- 
 Argos, assists Pisistratus to recover 
 
 tyranny, 57. Its alliance with 
 
 Athens a cause of jealousy to 
 
 Sparta, 64. 
 Ariphron, father of Xanthippus, 76. 
 Aristaichmes, archon, circ. 621 
 
 B.C., 11. 
 Aristides, ostracised, 80. Recalled, 
 
 ib. 7rpo<TTaTrjs tov Mifwv, 82. 
 
 Assists in building walls of 
 
 Athens, 83. Makes confederacy 
 
 with Ionians, ib. Counsels 
 
 people to congregate in Athens 
 
 and assume control of politics, 
 
 84. His reforms the seventh 
 
 change in Athenian constitu : 
 
 tion, 129. 
 Aristion, proposes bodyguard for 
 
 Pisistratus, 47. 
 Aristocrates, assists to overthrow 
 
 the Four Hundred, 112. 
 Aristodicus, of Tanagra, murderer 
 
 of Ephialtes, 90. 
 Aristogeiton, conspiracy against 
 
 thePisistratidae,6off. Executed 
 
 with torture, 61. 
 Aristomachus, presides at Ec- 
 
 clesia which establishes the 
 
 Four Hundred, no. 
 Asclepius, festival of, 171. 
 ' A.<TTvv6p.oi, 152. 
 ' A.SKo8irai, 179. Maintained in 
 
 Prytaneum during the Pana- 
 
 thenaea, 189. 
 Kvki)TT]S Tav apxpvTav, 189. 
 
 BovXr], see Council. 
 
 Bovfyyia, priestly family in primi- 
 tive Athens, 207. 
 
 Brauronia, festival of, 165. 
 
 Buildings, public, superintended 
 by Council, 144. Plans for, 
 examined formerly by Council, 
 afterwards by law-court, 151. 
 
 Callias, archon, 412 B.C., no. 
 Callias, archon, 406 B. C, 112. 
 Callibius, harmost of Spartan 
 
 garrison in Athens, 121. Assists 
 
 the Ten to establish reign of 
 
 terror, 122. 
 Callicrates, increases amount of 
 
 the SiwfioXia, 99. Executed, ib. 
 Cavalry, inspection of, by the 
 
 Council, 149. 
 Cedon, leader of attack on Pisis- 
 
 tratidae, 67. Scolion on, ib. 
 Cephisophon, archon, 329 B.C., 
 
 166. 
 Charmus, father of Hipparchus, 
 
 74- 
 
 XeipoTovr)To\ npx<", date of entry 
 into office, 135. 
 
 XrjXri, northern side of Piraeus (':), 
 182. 
 
 Chios, under Athenian empire. 
 84. 
 
 Choregi, appointed by the archon, 
 169 ff. 
 
 Cimon, son of Miltiades, leader 
 of aristocratical party, 91, 97. 
 Munificence of, 94 f. 
 
 Cineas, of Thessaly, assists Pisis- 
 tratidae against Spartan inva- 
 sions, 64. 
 
 Citizenship, qualification for, 93, 
 132. Examination of candid- 
 ates, 132 ff. 
 
 Cleaenetus, father of Cleon, 97. 
 
 Cleisthenes, Alcmeonid, party 
 leader, 66. Expelled by Spar- 
 tans, ib. Restored, ib. Consti- 
 tution of, 67 ff. His reforms the 
 fifth change in Athenian consti- 
 tution, 129. 
 
 Cleitophon, motion on institution 
 of the Four Hundred, 102. One 
 of the leaders of the moderate 
 party after the fall of Athens, 
 115. 
 
 Cleomenes, king of Sparta, expels 
 Pisistratidae, 62, 64. Restores 
 
INDEX. 
 
 223 
 
 Isagoras, 66. Besieged in acro- 
 polis and capitulates, ib. 
 
 Cleon, 7rpocrrari;s toG 8i)fiov, 97. 
 
 Cleophon, TTpoardTrjs tov drifiov, 
 98. Institutes 8i<o/3oXia, ib. 
 Opposes peace with Sparta 
 after Arginusae, 113. Executed, 
 
 99- 
 
 Colacretae, 24. 
 
 Collytus, deme of, 50, 74. 
 
 Corneas, archon, 560 B.C., 47. 
 
 Comedy, choregi appointed for, 
 169. 
 
 Conon, archon, 462 B.C., 87. 
 
 Corn-laws, 154 f. 
 
 Council, of Four Hundred, under 
 Draconian constitution, 14 ; 
 under Solonian constitution, 
 30. 
 
 , of Five Hundred, instituted 
 
 by Cleisthenes, 68. Elected 
 by lot. 136. Liability to corrup- 
 tion, 130 f., 151. Summary juris- 
 diction of, 142. Appeals from 
 its jurisdiction, 142 f. Reviews 
 business to be submitted to 
 Ecclesia, 143. Superintends 
 ship-building, . ib. ; also public 
 buildings, 144. Miscellaneous 
 duties in conjunction with var- 
 ious magistrates, 145-152. Pay 
 for service in, 187. 
 
 Cylon, conspiracy of, I. 
 
 Damasias, attempts to establish 
 a tyranny, 42 f. 
 
 Damonides, adviser of Pericles, 
 95. Ostracised, 96. 
 
 Debt, early law of, 4, 17 ; reform- 
 ed by Solon, 19 f. 
 
 Decelea, occupied by Spartans, 
 
 ii3- 
 Delos, the confederation of, 83. 
 
 Festival at, 164, 171. 
 Delphi, temple of, rebuilt by 
 
 Alcmeonidae, 63. 
 Delphinium, court of, tries cases 
 
 of justifiable homicide, 175. 
 Demagogues, character of, 98 ff. 
 
 Disastrous naval policy, 130. 
 Demaretus, put to death by the 
 
 Ten, 122. 
 Demes, division of, among tribes 
 
 in Cleisthenean constitution, 69. 
 
 &r)piovpyoi, early division of Athe- 
 nian people, 43. 
 
 Democracy, re-establishment of, 
 after the Four Hundred, the 
 ninth change in Athenian con- 
 stitution, 130. Its re-establish- 
 ment after expulsion of the 
 Thirty and the Ten, 123 ff.; the 
 eleventh change in Athenian 
 constitution, 130. Its subse- 
 quent development, ib. 
 
 AiaiTTjTai, duties of, 157 ff. 
 
 Aidxpioi, party-division in Attica, 
 
 45- 
 
 Ai8paxiJ-ov, ancient standard coin 
 at Athens, 34. 
 
 AiKacn-ni Kara Sripovs, instituted by 
 Pisistratus, 54. Re-established, 
 93. Their duties, 157 ff., 177. 
 
 AiKaa-Tripia, mentioned under So- 
 lonian constitution, 32. Pay for 
 service in, instituted by Pericles, 
 96 ; its amount, 187. Sittings 
 regulated by the thesmothetae, 
 177. Procedure in, 189 ff. 
 
 Aico/3oAia, instituted by Cleophon, 
 98. Increased by Callicrates, 
 
 .99- 
 
 Dionysia, festival of, l7of. 
 
 , at Salamis and Piraeus, 166. 
 
 Diphilus, statue of (?), with in- 
 scription, 24. 
 
 AnKifiacria, of the archons, 167 ff. 
 
 Doors, legislation against their 
 opening outwards, 152. 
 
 Draco, constitution of, 11 ff. His 
 laws abrogated by Solon, except 
 those relating to murder, 21. 
 His reforms the second change 
 in Athenian constitution, 129. 
 
 Dracontides, proposes establish- 
 ment of the Thirty, 115. 
 
 Ecclesia, in Draconian constitu- 
 tion, 15. Pay for attendance at, 
 established by Agyrrhius, 131; 
 increased by Heracleides and 
 Agyrrhius, ib. ; its final amount, 
 186 f. Number of meetings of, 
 137. Business at each meeting, 
 
 137 f- 
 Eetioneia, fortification of, by the 
 
 Four Hundred, 120. 
 Egypt, Solon's visit to, 35. 
 ElcrayytXLa, 30, 137, 143, 177. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Elaayayels, 1 56. 
 
 Elections by lot, under Draconian 
 constitution, 15; under Solo- 
 nian constitution, 26 f. ; after 487 
 B.C., 74. Where held, 185 f. 
 
 Eleusinia, nevTerripLs of, 165. 
 
 Eleusis, assigned as residence for 
 the Thirty and their adherents, 
 123. The settlement there re- 
 absorbed into Athenian com- 
 munity, 127. 
 
 Eleven, the, superintendents of 
 prisons, 24, 103, 155 f. 
 
 "Epptjvoi SUai, 1 56. 
 
 'E/jLvrjKrris, chosen by lot to assist 
 at sortition of dicasts, 194. 
 
 'Epnoplov finpeXriTai, 155- 
 
 Ephebi,enrolment of in thedemes, 
 132 ff. Military service as irepi- 
 770X01, 134- 
 
 '£0erai, judges in courts of Palla- 
 dium, Delphinium, and Phre- 
 atto, 176. 
 
 Ephialtes, irpotTTdrt)! roi) Sr/ptw, 
 86. Attack on the Areopagus, 
 86 ff. Murdered, 90. His re- 
 forms part ofthe seventh change 
 in Athenian constitution, 129. 
 
 'Eiti)(eiporovla, 1 83 f. 
 
 'EmpekrjTai rav Aiovvcriav, 173. 
 
 efmoplov, 155. 
 
 ran/ ixvarypLaVf 173- 
 
 'Evip.f\j]rfjt to>v Kprjvmv, 135. 
 
 Epimenides, of Crete, purifies 
 Athens after Cylonian sacri- 
 lege, 2. 
 
 'E7ri(T<eva(TTai Upav, 1 52. 
 
 'ETn<TTCLTT)S TOSV ■UpOiSprnV, I4O. 
 
 rav irpvTavfav, duties of, I39. 
 
 'ETvavvpoi tS>v tjXckiuiv, 1 58 ff. 
 
 rav <$vka>v, 71, 1 58. 
 
 Erechtheus, king of Attica, 204. 
 
 Eretria, Imrels of, assist Pisis- 
 tratus to recover tyranny, 52. 
 Sea-fight off, between Athe- 
 nians and Spartans, m. 
 
 'Ereo/3oi/T-a8ai, priestly family of, 
 207. 
 
 Euboea, revolt of, in. 
 
 Eucleides, archon, 403 B. C, 
 123. _ 
 
 Eumelides, abolishes summary 
 jurisdiction ofthe Council, 142. 
 
 Eumolpidae, priestly family of, 
 124, 173, 207. 
 
 Eupatridae, early division of Athe- 
 nian people, 43. 
 
 Evdwa of outgoing magistrates, 
 148, 162. 
 
 EvOvvoi, 148 f. 
 
 Festivals : — of Asclepius, 171 ; 
 Brauronia, 165 ; Delian, 164, 
 171 ; Dionysia, 170 f.; Dionysia 
 at Salamis and Piraeus, 166 ; 
 Eleusinia, 165 ; Heracleia, 165 ; 
 Lenaea, 173 ; Panathenaea, 
 164, 179; Penteterides, 164 ff.; 
 Thargelia, 170 f. 
 
 Fines, for non - attendance at 
 Council or Ecclesia, 16 f. ; for 
 non-attendance at Council of 
 Four Hundred, 107. 
 
 Five Thousand, body of, under 
 constitution of the Four Hun- 
 dred, 103, 104, no. Govern- 
 ment by, after overthrow of the 
 Four Hundred, inf. 
 
 Forty, the, see AiKao-rai Kara Sr/povs. 
 
 Four Hundred, government of, 
 instituted, 101. Constitution of, 
 103 ff. Overthrown, in. Their 
 government the eighth change 
 in Athenian constitution, 130. 
 
 Tew;, early subdivision of Athenian 
 
 people, 206 f. 
 Tc WTfTm, 206 f. 
 
 Geraestus, promontory of, 80. 
 Gorgilus, of Argos, father of Pisis- 
 
 tratus' second wife, 57. 
 YpanpaTtU, various classes of, 
 
 i6 3 f. 
 Tpapparevs, o Kara irpvTavtiav, 163. 
 tS>v Bea-poScrSiv, 1 66, 179, 1 89. 
 
 Hagnon, father of Theramenes, 
 
 98. 
 "A/umroi, inspected by the Council. 
 
 150. 
 Harmodius, conspiracy against 
 
 thePisistratidae,J9ff. Religious 
 
 ceremonies in commemoration 
 
 of, 177. 
 Harpactides, archon, 511 B.C., 65. 
 Hegesias, archon, 555 B.C., 48. 
 Hegesistratus, son of Pisistratus, 
 
 also named Thessalus, 57. 
 
 Brings Argive troops to help his 
 
 father, id. His character, 58. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 225 
 
 Heiresses, under guardianship of 
 the archon, 172. 
 
 'EnTTj/iopot, 3. 
 
 'EXX^vorn/iini, 105. 
 
 Heracleia, festival of, 165. 
 
 Heracleides, of Clazomenae, raises 
 pay for attendance at Ecclesia 
 to two obols, 131. 
 
 Hermoucreon, archon, 501 B.C., 
 72. 
 
 Herodotus, referred to, 50. 
 
 'iepofioj/icai/, 104. 
 
 '\spa- oioi, 105, 164. 
 
 'lepcov eTTLVKevacrTai, 1 52. 
 
 Hipparch in command at Lemnos, 
 184. 
 
 Hipparchi, under Draconian con- 
 stitution, 14. Date of election 
 of, 141. Duties of, 150, 184. 
 
 Hipparchus, son of Charmus, 
 first person ostracised, 74. 
 
 Hipparchus, son of Pisi stratus, 
 associated with Hippias in the 
 tyranny, 58. Invites Anacreon 
 and Simonides to Athens, ib. 
 Murdered, 60. 
 
 'lirireU , catalogue of, 1 50. 
 
 Hippias, eldest son of Pisistratus, 
 succeeds him in the tyranny, 
 58. Sole rule after murder of 
 Hipparchus, 62. Expelled, 65. 
 
 Hippocrates, father of Megacles, 
 76. 
 
 Hippomenes, decennial archon. 
 last of the Codridae, 205. 
 
 'OoWoio.', 161. 
 
 Homicide, tried in various courts, 
 
 174 ff. 
 Horses, inspected by Council, 149. 
 Hypsichides, archon, 481 B.C., 
 
 £0. 
 
 Imbros, Athenian magistrates at, 
 189. 
 
 Infirm paupers, supported by the 
 state, 151. 
 
 Inheritance, law of, altered by the 
 Thirty, 1 17. 
 
 Ion, first po!emarch,7. His settle- 
 ment of Attica the beginning of 
 the Athenian constitution, 128, 
 204. 
 
 Iophon, son of Pisistratus, 57. 
 
 Isagoras, son of Teisander, party 
 leader, 66. Expelled, and re- 
 
 stored by Spartans, ib. Ex- 
 pelled again, ib. Archon, 508 
 B.C., 68. 
 'to-oT-eXfir, under jurisdiction of 
 polemarch, 177. 
 
 K iraXoyeis rav Xwiriav, 150. 
 Kluxer, priestly family of, 124, 
 
 173, 207._ 
 Kf)pu£ rav ap^nvrav, 1 88. 
 
 King-archon, origin of, 6. Resi- 
 dence of, 9. Duties, 173 ff. 
 
 Kopwqcpopm, body-guard of Pisi- 
 stratus, 47. 
 
 Koaiirjrfjs twv e'<pijj3<Bi/, 133- 
 
 Kprjvav eirtpiK^rrjs, elected by 
 
 piparovia, 135. 
 ICvp/3«t?, Solon's laws inscribed on, 
 zi. 
 
 Law-courts, see Areopagus, Del- 
 phinium, AiKaoTijpia, Palladium, 
 Phreatto. 
 
 Law-suits, various classes of: — 
 
 aypa(piov, 1 78 ; dSiKiou, 1 62 ; 
 aUcias, 1 56; avhptmohav, 1 56; 
 djro toiv o"u/u/3oX<di/, 179 ; arro- 
 aracriov, 177! airpooratriov, 177 > 
 do-e/3eiar, 174 ; jiovkevireas, 178; 
 yoviav KaKanrecos, 1 71 ; Sapo- 
 gevias, 178; Bwpcov, 162, 178; 
 eiVay-yeXiai, I37> 177 i " r Sotij- 
 ra>v aipc<Tiv, I72 ; el's ip.<\>av$>v 
 KardcTTacnv, 1 72 ; tig iitiTpoiTrjs 
 biahiKaaiav, IJ2\ elf iiriTpoirfis 
 Karda-Tacnv, 172; ipprjuoi, 1 56; 
 e'/OTopiKni, 178; eirinXripov KaKa- 
 (reas, 172; f'paciKai, 1 56; iepu- 
 (Tvvrjs, 174; Kkrjpav koi eViicXijpuf, 
 33, 172, 177 ; itXon-i/j, 162 ; koivw- 
 Ki/cai, 156; p.eTaAXi)cai, 178 ; 
 fioi^fiar, 178; o'ikou 6p(j>aviK0v 
 kcikoxtccos, 172 ; dpCJMivav KaKm- 
 (Teas, 172 ; irapavoias, 1 72 ; ivapa- 
 vopatv, 178; irpofioKm, 178 ; 
 irpomos, 156; mipKaias, 1 74 > 
 |ei/i'ar, 178 ; avKO(pavTias, 178 ; 
 Tpan-efiTiKai, 1 56; TpiT}pap\lag, 
 156; vTTofcvyiav, 156; <poj/ov, I74f; 
 \|/-euSeyypatpi)s, 178 ; i/z-euSoxXi;- 
 re/ar, 178; yj/ev8opnpTvpiu>v,iyg. 
 
 Leipsydrium, defeat of Athenian 
 exiles at, by Pisistratidae, 63. 
 Scolion on, ib. 
 
 Lemnos, an Athenian hipparch in 
 
326 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 command there, 184. Athenian 
 
 magistrates at, 189. 
 Lenaea, festival of, 173. 
 Leocoreum, scene of murder of 
 
 Hipparchus, 60. 
 Lesbos, under Athenian empire, 
 
 84. 
 Ai0or, stone on which oaths were 
 
 taken, 21, 168. 
 AoyurTaL, elected from the mem- 
 bers of the Council, for monthly 
 
 checking of accounts, 148. 
 , elected by lot, for annual 
 
 audit, 161 f. 
 Lot, see Elections. 
 Lycomedes, of Scyros, murderer 
 
 of Theseus, 205. 
 Lycurgus, leader of the Pediaci, 
 
 44. 
 Lygdamis, of Naxos, assists Pisi- 
 
 stratus, 52. Is made tyrant of 
 
 Naxos, ib. 
 Lysander, of Sparta, establishes 
 
 government of the Thirty, 114. 
 Lysicrates, archon, 453 B.C., 93. 
 Lysimachus, father of Aristides, 
 
 80, 82. 
 Lysimachus, condemned to death 
 
 by the Council, 142. 
 
 Marathon, battle of, 72. 
 Market regulations, 153 f. 
 Maroneia, mines of, 76 ff. 
 Maa-riyofpopoi, under the Thirty, 
 
 116. 
 Medon, king of Athens, successor 
 
 of Codrus, 7. 
 Medon tidae, character of rule of, 
 
 4 ff. 
 Megacles, son of Alcmeon, leader 
 
 of the Paralii, 44. Alliance with 
 
 Pisistratus, 49 ff. 
 Megacles, son of Hippocrates, 
 
 ostracised, 76. 
 Megara, war against, 45. 
 Melobius, partisan of the Four 
 
 Hundred, 101. 
 Metoeci, under jurisdiction of the 
 
 polemarch, 177. 
 Merpovofioi, 1 53- 
 Miltiades, leader of aristocratical 
 
 party, 97. Father of Cimon, 91. 
 Mines, discovery of, at Maroneia, 
 
 76 ff. Farmed out by the nwXifrat 
 
 and the Council, 145 f. 
 
 Mi<r6o(popia, 103, 186 ff. 
 
 Mitr^co/xarn, managed by the 7n»A?;- 
 rai and the Council, 145 f. 
 
 Mnasilochus, archon under go- 
 vernment of the Four Hundred, 
 III. 
 
 Mnesitheides, archon, 457 B.C., 
 92. _ 
 
 Munychia, intended to be fortified 
 by Hippias, 62. Occupied by 
 Thrasybulus and the exiles, 121. 
 Strategus of, 182. 
 
 Myron, accuser of Alcmeonidae 
 for Cylonian sacrilege, I f. 
 
 Mysteries, under management of 
 the king-archon, 173. 
 
 Naucrari, officers of treasury, 28ff. 
 Naxos, conquered by Pisistratus, 
 
 52- 
 Neocles, father of Themistocles, 
 
 82. 
 Neutrals, Solon's law against, 31. 
 Niftai, images of Victory, 145, 151. 
 Nicias, leader of aristocratical 
 
 party, 97. 
 Nicodemus, archon, 483 B.C., 76. 
 
 Oia, deme of, 95. 
 
 Oil, from the sacred olives, given 
 as prize at the Panathenaea, 
 179 f. 
 
 Oreum, in Euboea, remains faith- 
 ful to Athens, ill. 
 
 Orphans, under guardianship of 
 the archon, 1 72. 
 
 Ostracism, instituted by Clei- 
 sthenes, 72. First practised, 73. 
 
 'Oa-rpaKotpopia, proposed in 6th 
 prytany of each year, 137 f. 
 
 Paeaniea, deme of, 50, 99, 123. 
 
 naidorplfiai, trainers of the ephebi, 
 133. 
 
 Palladium, court of, tries cases of 
 unintentional homicide, 175. 
 
 Pallene, battle at, between Pisi- 
 stratus and the Athenians, 52. 
 
 Panathenaea, festival of, 164, 179. 
 Prizes at, 151, 180. 
 
 Pandion, early king of Attica, 
 204. 
 
 Pangaeus, Mt., residence of Pisi- 
 stratus in the neighbourhood of, 
 Si- 
 
INDEX. 
 
 227 
 
 IlopdXioi, party-division in Attica, 
 
 44. 
 Paralus, sacred trireme, rapids of, 
 
 185. 
 Jlapdaraais, 178. 
 ndpefipot tS>v evBvvav, 148. 
 
 , of the three chief archons, 
 
 169. 
 Paupers, supported by the state if 
 
 infirm, 151. 
 Pausanias, Spartan commander, 
 
 alienates allies from Sparta, 
 
 83- 
 Pausanias, king of Sparta, assists 
 
 re-establishment of democracy 
 
 at Athens, 123. 
 Pay for public services, 84 ff., 186 
 
 ff.; under government of the 
 
 Four Hundred, 103. 
 TlediaKoi, party-division in Attica, 
 
 44. 
 TleXapyiicbv rel^or, fortification in 
 
 Athens, 64. 
 
 IlcXdrai, 3. 
 
 Peloponnesian war, outbreak of, 
 
 94- 
 
 IlfVXos, of Athena, 151, 179. 
 
 Pericles, restricts citizenship, 93. 
 Accuses Cimon, 94. Attacks 
 Areopagus, ib. Promotes naval 
 development, ib. Institutes pay 
 for service in law-courts, ib. 
 
 IlepiVoXot, service of the ephebi as, 
 
 134- 
 Phaenippus, archon, 490 B.C., 72. 
 Phayllus, moderate aristocrat, 
 
 leader of second board of Ten, 
 
 123. 
 Pheidonian system of measures, 
 
 reformed by Solon, 34. 
 Philoneos, archon, 527 B.C., 56. 
 Phormisius, one of the leaders of 
 
 the moderate party after the fall 
 
 of Athens, 115. 
 iparplat, early subdivision of 
 
 Athenian people, 206 f. 
 Phreatto, court of, tries cases of 
 
 homicide by an exile, 175. 
 *poupoi iv rij 7rriXei, 85. 
 $povpo\ veatpluv, 85, 186. 
 4>iXapx ') io 4> I0 9> 15°) 1 84. 
 $uXo/3a(TiXeIr, 28, 176. 
 
 Phye, impersonates Athena at first 
 return of Pisistratus from exile, 
 50. 
 
 Phyle, occupied by Thrasybulus 
 and the exiles, 119. 
 
 Piraeus, demarch of, 166. Dionysia 
 at, ib. 
 
 Pisander, leader of the Four 
 Hundred, no. 
 
 Pisistratidae, government of, 58 ff. 
 
 Pisistratus, leader of the Diacrii, 
 45. Campaign against Megara, 
 ib. Seizes tyranny, 47. First 
 expulsion, 48. Second tyranny, 
 50. Second expulsion, 51. Resi- 
 dence at Rhaicelus and Pan- 
 gaeus, ib. Final establishment 
 of tyranny, 52. His administra- 
 tion, S3 ff. Death, 56. His 
 government the fourth change 
 in Athenian constitution, 129. 
 
 Plans of public buildings, removed 
 from jurisdiction of the Council, 
 151. 
 
 Polemarch,originof,6f. Residence 
 of, 9. Under Cleisthenean con- 
 stitution, 72. Duties of, 176 f. 
 
 HakriTai, 24, 1 45 f. 
 
 Polyzelus(?), father of Pytho- 
 dorus, 101. 
 
 Prisonsuperintendents,theEleven, 
 24, 155 f. 
 
 TIpoj3o\al crvKO(pavTu>v, 1 3 8. 
 
 Ilpdfipo/ioi, inspected by the 
 Council, 150. 
 
 Upaedpoi, duties of, 139 ff. 
 
 YlpoKpnoi, 26 f., 75, 105, 108. 
 
 Property-qualification for political 
 office, underDraconian constitu- 
 tion, 14; under Solonian con- 
 stitution, 22 ff. 
 
 UptxTTaTrjs tov Sr/p-ou, persons so 
 entitled : — Solon, 4, 97 ; Pisi- 
 stratus, 97 ; Cleisthenes, 67, 97 ; 
 Xanthippus, 97 ; Aristides, 82, 
 97 ; Themistocles, 82, 97 ; 
 Ephialtes, 97 ; Pericles, 97 ; 
 Deterioration of character of, 
 after Pericles, 97 ; Cleon, 97 ; 
 Cleophon, 98. 
 
 Prytanes, under Draconian con- 
 stitution, 14. Duties of, 102, 
 136 ff. 
 
 Prytanies, arrangement of, 136. 
 
 Pylus, loss of, 96. 
 
 Pythodorus, archon, 432 B.C., 94. 
 
 Pythodorus, proposes institution 
 of the Four Hundred, 101. 
 
 Q 2 
 
128 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Archon during government of 
 the Thirty, 404 B.C., 115, 127. 
 
 Rhaicelus, residence of Pisistratus 
 at, 51. 
 
 Rhinon, moderate aristocrat, 
 leader of second board of Ten, 
 122. Elected strategus, 123. 
 
 Salamis, archon of, 166, 189. 
 Dionysia at, 166. 
 
 Salamis, battle of, 80, 82. 
 
 Samos, under Athenian empire, 
 84. Athenian magistrates at, 
 189. 
 
 Scyllaeum, promontory of, 80. 
 
 Scyros, Athenian magistrates at, 
 189. 
 
 Sitcraxdeia, the, of Solon, 19 f. 
 
 Simonides, invited to Athens by 
 Hipparchus, 58. 
 
 2i7o0iXaKf r, 1 54. 
 
 Solon, first nyjoaranjs roC Sijpoi', 4. 
 His poetry, 18, 19, 36 ff. 
 Economic reforms, 19 f. Consti- 
 tutional reforms, 21 ff. Property 
 qualification adopted as basis 
 of constitution, 22 ff. Demo- 
 cratic characteristics of his re- 
 forms, 32 f. Reform of weights 
 and measures, 33 f. Withdraws 
 to Egypt, 35. Opposition to 
 Pisistratus, 47 f. His reforms 
 the third change in Athenian 
 constitution, and the beginning 
 of democracy, 129. 
 
 Sophonides, father of Ephialtes, 
 86. 
 
 2a>cj)povtaTai, appointed to take 
 charge of the ephebi, 133. 
 
 Sparta, expels Pisistratidae, 64. 
 Sends garrison to support the 
 Thirty, 121. 
 
 Strategi, under Draconian con- 
 stitution, 14; underCleisthenean 
 constitution, 72. Date of election 
 of, 141. Election of, 181 f. 
 Duties, 181 ff. 
 
 Srpnrqyor iiri rovs oirXhas, 1 82. 
 
 em tt]V -)(i>pav, 1 82. 
 
 i ir\ TOV Tleipaiea, 1 82. 
 
 e'jrl Tar <rvp.p,opias, 1 83. 
 
 2vKo<pavr5>v 7rpo$a\ai, in 6th pry- 
 tany of each year, 138. 
 
 Sv/i/SoXa, international conventions 
 
 respecting commercial suits, 
 178 f. 
 Swijyopoi, assistants of the Xo- 
 yi<TTai, 162. 
 
 Tafiint rrjs 'Adrjvas, in Solonian 
 constitution, 24, 28 ; under the 
 Four Hundred, 104. Nominal 
 property-qualification for, 145. 
 Their duties, 145, 180. 
 
 — twv lepiav Tpirjpw, 1S5. 
 
 Tauias tu>v ahwarw, 1 5 1. 
 
 t<ov (TTpaTLojTLK^Vj elected by 
 
 X^ipoTovla, 135. His duties, 145, 
 151. 
 
 Ta£iapxPi, 104, 184. 
 
 Teisander, father of Isagoras, 66. 
 
 Telesinus, archon, 487 E. c, 74. 
 
 Tepivi), p.Lcr9c0(Tis of, 1 46. 
 
 Ten, board of, created to succeed 
 the Thirty, 121. Establish reign 
 of terror, 122. Expelled from 
 power, ib. Excluded from 
 amnesty, and allowed to settle 
 at Eleusis. 123 f. 
 
 Ten, second board of, re-establish 
 peace in Athens after the 
 anarchy, 122. Moderate govern- 
 ment of, 123. 
 
 TfTpi'jpei?, construction of, super- 
 intended by Council, 143. 
 
 Thargelia, festival of, 170 f. 
 
 Thebes, assists Pisistratus to re- 
 gain tyranny, 52. 
 
 Themistocles, procures building 
 of triremes, 78 ff. Archonship 
 of, 78 ?lote. TrpofTTarr^ tov drjfxov, 
 82, 97. Builds walls of Athens, 
 S3. Accused of Medism, 89. 
 Assists Ephialtes to overthrow 
 Areopagus, 88 ff. 
 
 Theopompus, archon, 411 B.C., 
 hi. 
 
 Theorica, officers in charge of, 
 electedby ^ftpoTovin, 135. Their 
 duties, 145. 
 
 Theramenes, leader of aristocra- 
 tical party, 98. Character of, 
 100. Leader of the Four Hun- 
 dred, no. Instrumental in over- 
 throwing them, 112. Leader of 
 moderate party after Aegos- 
 potami, 115. Opposes extreme 
 proceedings of the Thirty, 
 118 f. Executed, 120. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 229 
 
 Theseum, review held in, by Pisis- 
 tratus, 52 f. Magistrates elected 
 by lot in, 186. 
 
 Theseus, the reforms of, the first 
 change in Athenian constitution, 
 129; the first step towards 
 popular government, 205. 
 
 Thesmothetae, origin of, 8. Resi- 
 dence of, 9. Duties, 143, 149, 
 156, 1 77 ff., 192 ff. 
 
 Thessalus, surname of Hegesi- 
 stratus, son of Pisistratus, 57. 
 
 Thessaly, Pisistratidae receive as- 
 sistance from, 64. 
 
 Thirty, government of, established 
 by Lysander, 114. Character of 
 administration, 115 ff. Defeated 
 at Munychia, 121. Expelled 
 from power, ib. Excluded from 
 amnesty, and allowed to settle 
 at Eleusis, 123 ff. Their govern- 
 ment the tenth change in Athe- 
 nian constitution, 130. 
 
 Tholus, residence of the prytanes, 
 . 136. 
 
 Thrasybulus, occupies Phyle and 
 defeats army of the Thirty, 119. 
 Prosecuted by Archinus for an 
 illegal proposal, 126. 
 
 Three Thousand, body of, under 
 government of the Thirty, 118. 
 
 Thucydides, leader of aristocrat- 
 ical party, 97, 100. 
 
 Timonassa, of Argos, second wife 
 
 of Pisistratus, 57. 
 Timosthenes, archon, 478 B.C., 83. 
 Tragedy, choregi appointed for, 
 
 169. 
 Tribes, four, in early constitutions, 
 
 28. 
 , ten, instituted by Clei- 
 
 sthenes, 68. 
 Triremes, built by Themistocles, 
 
 80. Building of, superintended 
 
 by Council, 143. 
 
 TpiTJptOTOlOl', 144- 
 
 TpiTTuff, in primitive constitution, 
 28, 206 f. ; in Cleisthenean con- 
 stitution, 69. 
 
 Tyrants, law against, at Athens in 
 time of Pisistratus, 56. 
 
 Voting, manner of, in law-courts, 
 200 ff. 
 
 Weights and measures, reformed 
 by Solon, 33 f. Official super- 
 intendence of, 154. 
 
 Widows and orphans, under guar- 
 dianship of the archon, 172. 
 
 Xanthippus, son of Ariphron, 
 ostracised, 76. HpoaTaTrjs tov 
 %ov, 97. 
 
 Xenaenetus, archon, 401 B.C., 127. 
 
PRINTED AT THE CLARENDON PRESS 
 
 BY HORACE HART, PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY