^■ix.vX 
 
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/cu31924026674253 
 
API2TOTEAOT2 
 A0HNAIX1N nOAITEIA 
 
0;cfcr6 
 
 PRINTED AT THE CLARENDON PRESS 
 
 BY HORACE HART, PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY 
 
AOHNAIXiN nOAITEIA 
 
 ARISTOTLE 
 
 ON THE 
 
 CONSTITUTION OF ATHENS 
 
 V EDITED BY 
 
 F?^G. KENYON, M.A. 
 
 FELLOW OF MAGDALEN COLLEGE, OXFORD 
 ASSISTANT IN THE DEPARTMENT OF MANUSCRIPTS, BRITISH MUSEUM 
 
 SECOND EDITION 
 
 PRINTED BY ORDER OF THE TRUSTEES OF THE BRITISH MUSEUM 
 SOLD AT THE MUSEUM 
 
 AND BY Longmans and Co., 39 Paternoster Row 
 
 B. QuARiTCH, 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 
 
 1891 
 
TREFACE. 
 
 The 'AdrjvaCcDv HoXiTeCa, now for the first time given 
 to the world from the unique text in the British 
 Museum Papyrus CXXXI., has been transcribed and 
 edited by Mr. F. G. Kenyon, Assistant in this De- 
 partment. Mr. Kenyon's transcript has been again 
 collated with the original by Mr. G. F. Warner, 
 Assistant-Keeper of MSS. ; and the sheets have also 
 been read by Mr. E. Maunde Thompson, the Principal 
 Librarian, by Mr. Warner, and by myself. 
 
 An Autotype Facsimile of the whole of the text of 
 the IIoXtTeia, together with a specimen-plate of the 
 writing on the redo of the papyrus, is published in a 
 separate volume. 
 
 - EDWARD SCOTT, 
 
 Keeper of MSS. 
 
 British Museum,- 
 
 ^isi December, 1890. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 When Neumann in 1837 edited the Fragments of the 
 IToXtreiai 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, 
 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 
 
viii INTRODUCTION. 
 
 course the great treasures of the papyrus literature. They 
 include a mutilated fragment of Alcman, now at Paris 
 (quoted in Mahafify'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 Biblioth^que Nationale of Paris) are preserved in the 
 British Museum \ 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 'AOrjvaiaiv UoXireCa 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 DoXtTeiat, 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 
 {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 (Ziindel 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 
 
 ' 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 ns, dating 
 (according to the Professors' letters in the Academy of Oct. nth, and the 
 Athenaeum of Oct. 26th and Dec. 6th, 1890) 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 will be published shortly. 
 
INTRODUCTION. ix 
 
 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 
 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 and authority with Aristotle's 
 Constitutional History of Athens. 
 
 ' 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. 
 
 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 probably 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. ai 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 difificult 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 
 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 
 
INTRODUCTION. xi 
 
 illegible 1. It is possible that the third and fourth lengths 
 were formerly united in a single roll, which would have 
 been of about the same size as the other two ; but it is 
 certain that they were originally written on separate pieces 
 of papyrus, which must, on this supposition, have been 
 artificially joined together. The height of the papyrus is 
 throughout about ii inches, except in the fourth roll, 
 which is at present rather less than lo in. ; and this is 
 another reason against supposing that it was ever attached 
 to the third. 
 
 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 ttjv, rrjs, -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^, 
 which vary in width from 4% to 11 inches, and contain 
 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 
 
 ' It should perhaps be added that, since the photographs of these fragments 
 were taken (Plates 19 to 21 of the volume of facsimiles), it has been foimd 
 possible to arrange them more accurately in order, owing to the fact that the 
 writing on the other side of the papyrus is in better preservation ; and one 
 fragment (that in the top left-hand corner of Plate 19) has since found a place 
 in another part of the papyrus. 
 
 ^ 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 that of the 
 Aristotle, but is apparently of the same date. For a description of its contents 
 see note on ch. 25. 
 
xii INTRODUCTION. 
 
 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 
 columns, measuring only 3 to 4^ inches in breadth and 
 containing forty-four to iifty-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 concluding part 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. 
 
 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, 
 beyond the correction of the somewhat uncultured spelling 
 of the second and third hands. 
 
INTRODUCTION. xiii 
 
 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^ 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 
 IToAtT-eia (Plate aa)^. 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 : Erous cDSexarou avTOKparopos Kaia-apos 
 Ovecnraaiavov 2e/3aoToi; apyvpiKos \oyos Ewtju.a)(ou UoXvbevKovs 
 \y]lJ.p.aTu>v Kai avrjXconaTMV tu)v bi fp-ov Aibvixov Aanatriov X^ipi- 
 ^ofxevwv, a>v eivai krjp.pL' rot) /xjjyoy Se^acrrov. The names of 
 the months for which the accounts are given succeed 
 one another in the following order, 2e/3aoTou, ^aa>cf>i, 
 Neou ^fjSacTTOV, Xotax, Tu^t, Mexeip, ^afMevaiO, <i>apiJ.ov6i, 
 Uaxoov. The remarkable feature here is the occurrence 
 of the names 2e/3aoTos and Ne'oj 2ej8acrro'y 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 jxrivos 
 ^e^aoTov AOvp T7fp.TrTr] (Pap. No. 1717, cf. Mittheilungen 
 aus der Sammlung der Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer, pt. II. 
 p. 16, 1887). The name Se/Saoroy is of course equivalent 
 to August ; but it is noticeable that it was given in Egypt 
 
 1 /. e. that side on which the fibres of the papyras are laid perpendicularly 
 {cf. Wilcken's article Recto oder Verso, in Hermes, Vol. XXII). 
 
 ' 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. 
 
xiv INTRODUCTION. 
 
 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 a6th. 
 The writing on the recto of the papyrus consequently 
 belongs to 78-79 A. D.^ 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 
 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 
 
 ■ 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 conjecture {e. g. 
 Papyri XCIX, CIX, 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 recto), which cannot be earlier than the middle of the fourth 
 century, shows how far this style of writing had degenerated by that time. 
 
INTRODUCTION. xv 
 
 'A6rivaL0}v TJo^LTeia 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 librorum 
 Fragmenta, Lipsiae, i8S6) contains ninety-one fragments 
 which are ascribed, with more or less certainty, to the 'A^tj- 
 vaiuiv YloXiTila, in fifty-eight of which the work is referred 
 to by name. Of these fifty-eight, fifty-five occur in the 
 MS. now before us ; one (No. 347-') belongs to the beginning 
 of the book, which is wanting in the MS. ; one (No. 423) 
 belongs to the latter portion of it, which is imperfect ; while 
 one alone (No. 407) differs distinctly from a passage on the 
 same subject occurring in the text. Of the thirty-three 
 fragments in which the work is not named, though in most 
 of them Aristotle is referred to as the author, twenty-three 
 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) 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 either a mis- 
 quotation of a passage in the MS. or a reference to some 
 other writing of Aristotle's. Thus of the total number of 
 
 ^ 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 Bibliotheca Teubneriana, 1886) 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 1886 ed. 
 are jiot given in the 1870 edition. 
 
xvi INTRODUCTION. 
 
 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 condition, and all 
 the rest, with two possible exceptions, are satisfactorily 
 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 'AOrjvaiajv rioAireia 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 y\ t&v 
 'Adrjpaiuiv UoXiTda. 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 noAireiai, 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- 
 treme view, which is in itself improbable, is rejected by 
 Heitz [Die verlorenen Schriften des Aristoteles, 1 865), 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 TloXireiai is stronger than that of 
 most of the doubtful works. From internal evidence it is 
 
INTRODUCTION. xvii 
 
 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. We know further from a quotation in Polybius 
 that Timaeus, who flourished about the middle of the third 
 century B.C., or only two generations after Aristotle him- 
 self, referred to the noAtTeiot, and referred to it as Aristotle's 
 (cf. Rose, Frag. 504). 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 Tmv 
 (Tvvr]yiJ.iva>v Ttoknei&v at the end of the Ethics is an explicit 
 reference to the UoXiTeiai, 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 
 
 b 
 
xviii INTRODUCTION. 
 
 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 ^ have been written, 
 while above the twenty-fifth column are the words y tojxos. 
 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 
 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 jBovXri. 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 iv rjj 
 a' 'AOrivaiwv TroAireta {Frag. 378), but even if the reading is 
 correct it is only on a level with kv rfj 'I6aKr]a-l(ov voXireia 
 /x/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 
 
INTRODUCTION", xix 
 
 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 
 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 Onomasticon 
 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 
 
 b % 
 
XX INTRODUCTION. 
 
 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. 
 
 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 Alcmaeonidae 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 
 
INTRODUCTION. xxi 
 
 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 
 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 
 
xxii INTRODUCTION. 
 
 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- 
 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 fahiily was that of the Alcmaeonidae. 
 
 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 
 
INTRODUCTION, xxiii 
 
 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 Alcmaeonid. These 
 events did not tend to allay the discord in the state. The 
 enemies of the Alcmaeonidae 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 631 B.C. the aristocracy consented to the appoint- 
 ment of Draco to deal with the trouble as seemed to him 
 best. 
 
 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 
 
xxiv INTRODUCTION. 
 
 existence, probably mitigated by an initial selection of a 
 limited number of candidates by the tribes. Property- 
 qualiiications 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 
 the reforms of Draco ; eirl be rois trw^atrti' ^crav bebf^voi, 
 Kal 7] xa>pa hi oXiyuiv ^v. The natural results followed, 
 avrearrr] rois yv<opift,oii 6 brjfios. 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 Alcmaeonidae, 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 
 
INTRODUCTION. xxv 
 
 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 Asia 
 Minor, and giving rise to that increase of prosperity from 
 commerce which was the best security against the re- 
 petition of such drastic measures as the o-eto-ox^eta. 
 
 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 
 
xxvi INTRODUCTION. 
 
 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. 
 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- 
 
INTRODUCTION. xxvii 
 
 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 develope. 
 
 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 
 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 a-eia-Axdeia. 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 
 
xxviii INTRODUCTION. 
 
 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 Alcmaeo- 
 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 
 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 wels 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, 
 
INTRODUCTION. xxix 
 
 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. 
 
 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 
 
XXX INTRODUCTION. 
 
 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 
 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 Alcmaeonidae 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 
 535 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 
 
INTRODUCTION. xxxi 
 
 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 
 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 sufificient revenue, and of 
 requiririg 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, 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 Alcmaeonidae had always been opposed to the 
 extreme oligarchs and in favour of some form of govern- 
 ment intermediate between oligarchy and democracy. This 
 
xxxii INTRODUCTION. 
 
 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 
 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 
 
INTRODUCTION. xxxiii 
 
 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 
 direct election of the principal magistrates, such as the 
 archons, by the popular assembly. Solon had, as wd 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 
 
 c 
 
xxxiv INTRODUCTION. 
 
 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 
 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 
 
INTRODUCTION. xxxv 
 
 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 
 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. Xahthip- 
 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 
 
 c a 
 
xxxvi INTRODUCTION. 
 
 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 Laurium or Maroneia, from 
 the proceeds of which Themistocles persuaded 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 
 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 straggle 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 
 
INTRODUCTION. xxxvii 
 
 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 
 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 
 
scxxviii INTRODUCTION. 
 
 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 6\ke 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 46a B. c. 
 In this enterprise he had a strange ally from within the 
 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 
 
INTRODUCTION. xxxix 
 
 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 
 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. 
 
 With the fall of the Areopagus the last check on the 
 1 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 every time 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. 
 
xl INTRODUCTION. 
 
 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 h3.ve 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 
 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. 
 
INTRODUCTION. xli 
 
 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 
 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 of one 
 hundred succeeding one another in rotation, of which the 
 first four were to be carved out of the original Four 
 Hundred. It is not necessary to go into the details of 
 these schemes, which are given at great length by 
 ^ristotle. 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 
 
xlii INTRODUCTION. 
 
 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 
 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 to 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 TTcirptos TToAtre^a) should be restored. The expressrcm 
 left room for a considerable variety of interpretation, an4 
 the democrats, the moderate aristocrats (the leader of 
 whom was Theramenes), and the extreme oHgarchs all 
 
INTRODUCTION. xliii 
 
 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 shortly came to be known, 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 
 strong measures which they took against those pests of 
 the law-courts, the professional accusers, and the other 
 discreditable parasites of the democracy. But ' I'app^tit 
 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 
 
xliv INTRODUCTION. 
 
 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 
 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 [i. 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 
 
INTRODUCTION. xlv 
 
 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 
 of the population had slipped away to Piraeus, and it 
 became clear that the party of the city had become 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 
 
xlvi INTRODUCTION. 
 
 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- 
 stitutional history, such as they are, end with the close of 
 the fifth century. Aristotle sums them up in a list of 
 eleven epochs^, 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 very little 
 description. Not only is the MS. considerably mutilated 
 in this portion, but the contents are of far less interest and 
 importance than those of the earlier part ; and in addition 
 to this it has been largely quarried by the grammarians and 
 lexicographers, so that much of it is already known, at 
 least in substance. It is a summaiy of the machinery of 
 
 ' 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 ; (7) 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. xlvii 
 
 government as it existed in the days of Aristotle. It 
 begins with the forms of admission of the youthful Athenian 
 to his place in the constitution when he came of age, and 
 it proceeds to describe in turn the functions of the Ecclesia, 
 the Council, the magistrates, whether elected by lot or by 
 direct vote, and the courts of law. The section dealing 
 with the Ecclesia and Council is perfect, but the details of 
 their procedure are not as full as we might perhaps wish, 
 or as is the case with the section on the law-courts. The 
 account of the magistrates would be complete, being fully 
 included within the limits of the six columns of MS. which 
 occupy the third roll of the papyrus, were it not disfigured 
 by a large number of serious mutilations. The law-courts 
 formed the final section, but of this very little remains in a 
 decipherable condition, though enough to show that their 
 forms of procedure were detailed at considerable length. 
 
 In all this, however, Aristotle is only describing the 
 mechanism of government. What we miss throughout 
 the treatise, and especially in the second part of it, is any 
 discussion of the spirit and principles of the Athenian 
 constitution. This formed no part of the scheme of the 
 present work. The TloXiTilai professed only to be collections 
 of facts. The generalisations and the deductions obtained 
 from them belonged rather to the Politics. But in point 
 of fact there is not much profit to be derived from minutely 
 inspecting the political proceedings of the Greek states. 
 The Greeks had none of the genius for organisation which 
 distinguished the Romans, and the influence of their 
 example on the political development of the modern world 
 has been extremely slight. At Athens, above all (and it 
 is at Athens alone that we know much of the internal 
 history of the state), there was no aptitude for the sobriety, 
 the conservatism, the adherence to forms which are essential 
 to the solid building up of a political constitution. The 
 Athenians had none of the tenderness for old formulas 
 
xlviii INTRODUCTION. 
 
 which have marked both the Romans and the English. If 
 they contemplated a change, they made a clean sweep of 
 the institutions of which they were tired. They were not 
 fond of acting upon principles, and consequently it is 
 useless to refer to their history for evidence of the principles 
 upon which the government of a country may be adminis- 
 tered. The instructiveness of Athenian political history 
 lies rather in the concrete lessons which may be gathered 
 from a study of the actual fortunes of certain forms of 
 government, and particularly the rise, development, and 
 degeneration of the democracy. It is true that any re- 
 flections which may be based on this must be: qualified by 
 the recognition of the fact that the Athenian democracy 
 was not a democracy of the busy working classes, but was 
 founded upon slave labour. Whether for good or for evil, 
 the members of the Athenian democracy had leisure to 
 devote themselves to the continued personal participation 
 in the affairs of practical politics, and had also leisure for 
 general self-culture in other directions. In these respects 
 they differed materially from modern democracies. But 
 on the other hand many of the deductions with reference 
 to democracy which may be drawn from Athenian history 
 hold good, — all, indeed, which rest on the fact that the 
 persons deciding on any political question were the same 
 as those who were directly affected by the decision arrived 
 at. The Athenian Ecclesia was responsible to no other 
 power or person, and it had no interests to consider except 
 its own ; and though no modern nation can have a sovereign 
 assembly which includes every adult man in the com- 
 munity, yet a parliament whose members are delegates or 
 mouth-pieces of their constituencies, and not representatives 
 with independent judgments, embodies a form of democracy 
 which is sufficiently parallel with that of Athens to make 
 it worth while to study the history of that state and the 
 observations thereupon of so acute a critic as Aristotle. 
 
INTRODUCTION. xlix 
 
 This is not the place to discuss the conclusions which may 
 be derived from it. Grote has drawn one series of judgments 
 from it ; other critics have drawn others of a different 
 character. The only point which concerns us here is that 
 the evidence of Aristotle on such a matter is no unim- 
 portant addition to our knowledge of the subject. 
 
 This is a fact which will hardly be disputed, whether 
 his work be regarded as a contribution to the lessons of 
 political philosophy, or as an assistance to the recon- 
 struction 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 
 
 d 
 
1 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 success of any political party. He was able to stand aloof 
 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 
 
INTRODUCTION. li 
 
 accurately as possible. There remain not a few passages, 
 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 asterisks. 
 
 F. G. K. 
 
 d 2 
 
ABBREVIATIONS IN USE IN THE MS. 
 
 ^ 
 
 = 
 
 avTr]v 
 
 (col. 
 
 9, 
 
 1.8). 
 
 y' 
 
 = 
 
 yap. 
 
 
 
 
 8' 
 
 = 
 
 8c. 
 
 
 
 
 s^ 
 
 = 
 
 Sid. 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 = 
 
 elvai. 
 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 = 
 
 ifTTl. 
 
 
 
 
 // 
 
 = 
 
 flat. 
 
 
 
 
 6' 
 
 = 
 
 6ai. 
 
 
 
 
 A^' 
 
 = 
 
 jJiev. 
 
 M^ 
 
 = 
 
 fiCTa. 
 
 o' 
 
 = 
 
 ovv. 
 
 TT^ 
 
 = 
 
 jrapd. 
 
 77' 
 
 = 
 
 irepi or nep. 
 
 tr' 
 
 = 
 
 (TVV. 
 
 7-^ 
 
 = 
 
 TTJV. 
 
 t' 
 
 = 
 
 TT/f. 
 
 t' 
 
 = 
 
 Tail. 
 
 v' 
 
 = 
 
 vjrep. 
 
 t/\ 
 
 = 
 
 VTTO, 
 
 X 
 
 =: 
 
 Xp6ms. 
 
 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. avayKov, yfyfvrfpos. 
 
 In addition to these there are occasional abbreviations of 
 the terminations of words : e. g. o-TpaTTjy" for arpaTqyos, pax for pdxiv, 
 yevea^ for yevea-Bai. 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. eKp^prvpav (col. 3, 1. 9) 
 and vopo<pv\aKelv (col. 3, 1. 26) have circumflex accents, & (col. 12, 
 1. 3) has a rough breathing of an angular shape, and riyavrm (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. 
 
API2TOTEAOT5 
 A0HNAII1N nOAlTEIA. 
 
 I. . . . [M]J/)a)i'o$' KaB^ lepmv o^iocravTes apia-riv- 
 8r]v. KarayvaxrOevTos 8e tov ayo[i']y [j/e/c/jjoi fiev 
 
 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 had Aristotle's work before him in writing 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 Alcmaeonidae 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 (irpotxnoLrja'dfj.evos €Taiprjtr}v Tav rjXtKLWTetoVj 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 Alcmaeonidae for the party of Cylon, which had 
 at the time been nearly exterminated, to recover strength and carry on 
 a vigorous feud with its opponents. It is therefore probable that the 
 
 B 
 
a APISTOTEAOTS 
 
 €/c Ta>v Td(f)a)V e^e^X'qdrjaav, to 8e yevos avrav 
 e(f)vy€i> aeK^vyiav. ['ETTij/LieviSi;? 5' 6 K.pr]s eiri 
 TOVTOis eKadrjpe rrjv ttoXlv. 
 
 2. Mera 5e ravra crvvefirj aTaaiaaaL tovs T€ yvco- 
 pifiovs Kol TO ttXtjOos TToXiiv \p6vov *Tov Sfjpov*. rjv 
 yap . . .7] TToXiTeia t[ois pev\ aXXois oXiyapx^Krj Traan, 
 Kol 8ri Koi iSovXevov ot Trevr]Te[g tols] irXovaioLS kol 
 
 attempt of Cylon should be placed about the year 632 B. c, or 628 B. c. 
 at the latest. Whether the date of the visit of Epimenides, which is 
 assigned to about 596 B. c, should be altered is another matter. Aris- 
 totle in the present passage may very probably be merely carrying 
 on the narrative of the rising of Cylon to its conclusion, and the words 
 fiera be toCto which follow may easily refer to the attempt itself and 
 not to the visit of Epimenides. Plutarch, with Aristotle before him, 
 is not likely to have made so gross a mistake as to assign to the life- 
 time of Solon (with whom he states Epimenides to have associated 
 freely) an event which occurred before the legislation of Draco. The 
 feud arising out of the Kvkaveiov ayas (the memories of which were 
 still active in Greece at the period of the outbreak of the Peloponnesian 
 war) had evidently lasted for a considerable time before the expulsion 
 of the Alcmaeonidae ; and it was not till some years after this that the 
 visit of Epimenides took place. 
 
 Miipaivos : Myron is mentioned by Plutarch as the accuser of the 
 Alcmaeonidae at the trial to which Solon persuaded them to submit. 
 The word apia-rivSrjv occurs in the same passage (KpidTJvm rpiaKoaimv 
 dpia-TivSt]v biKaiovrav), referring to the selection of the judges on that 
 occasion. 
 
 KaTayvaxrBtirros : this has been corrected in the MS. to KaBapQivros, 
 but the tense and the context seem to make the original word preferable. 
 
 i< rSnv raipav i^e^XrjQrjcrav : both Thucydides (I. 126) and Plutarch 
 (/. c.) mention the disinterment of the bones of the members of the 
 Alcmaeonid clan who had died since the affair of Cylon. 
 
 dei<f)vyiav : cf. Plat. Legg, 877 C, (^cuyeVo) dtv^vy'iav. 
 
 'Emp^iii8r)s : c/. Plutarch, /. c. 
 
 2. Tov b^pov : these words are superfluous and are probably a gloss 
 on TO 'Tr'KrjBos which has crept into the text. 
 
 fboiXevov : in earlier times, according to Herodotus (VI. 137), there 
 were no slaves (oiVeVat) 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. 
 
AQHNAniN nOAITEIA. 3 
 
 avTol [kol rja r^Kva koL at yvvaiKcs, koI eKaXovvTo 
 TreXarai kol iKTrj/xopoi' [eVi] ravTrjs yap rrjs jXLa- 
 Oaxrecos [ei]/)yafoj/ro rav ttXovctlcov tovs aypovs. 
 7] 8e Traara yrf di oXiymv ^v kol [el firj] ras fii(T- 
 Owaeis [a7r]o8i8o7ev aycoyifioi kol avroi Koi 01 TraiSes 
 cyivouTo, /c[at deSe/Jievot roty Saveicr\a(ni> eVt TOty 
 acop.aaLV rjaav p-^XP'- ^oXcovos' ovtos 5e irpwTos kyi- 
 v\eTO Tov 8r]fjLovj TrpoaTOLTTjs. )(aX€7ra)TaTov pev odu 
 Kai TTiKporaTOv rjv roty ttoXXols tSsv Kara rijs 
 TToXiTeias [apxi^v p.rj p.€T\ex^LV- ov prjv dXXa /cat 
 eTTt roty aXXois iSvax^patvov ovdevos yap, wy 
 fhreiv, irvyxavov /xereT^oirey. 
 
 3. 'Hj/ 5' t} ra^ty r^y apx^l-OiS iroXtTetas T-qs irpo 
 ApaKo[vTos TOiavTT}]. ray p.ev dpxas [tjcrrao-ai' 
 apicTTLvSrjv Ka\ irXovTivBrjV VPX^^ ^^ [™] M^^ 
 
 TteXdrai Koi eVrTj/idpot : Photius quotes Aristotle as his authority for 
 the word TreXdrai, which he explains as 01 jxicrQa SovXevovres, cnel to 
 TTe'Xat eyyis, mov eyyiara bia irfviav npoaiovrfs, and again as oi irapa rois 
 jr\rj(riov ipya^ofievoi' Ka\ B^res oi airoi Kai eKrr//idpoi, fweiSfi (Ktco fiipn 
 rS>v Kapn&v elpya^ovro tijv yrjv. Cf. also Pollux III. 82, ■nekdrai Se Koi drJTcs 
 iXfvBipav iariv ovojxaTa dia nfviav in apyvplat hovkevovrav and IV. 165, 
 cKrrjp.6poi,oi neXdrai napa tois 'AttikoXs. exTij/idpot, not fKTrjuopioi, seems to 
 be the proper form. neXdrai is also used to represent the Latin dientes 
 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. 
 
 fieSefieVot Totf Savei(ra(nv : the reading is largely 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. 
 SeSepiivoi is moreover confirmed by the parallel expression at the end 
 of ch. 4. For the phrase eVt rois cra>fia<nv cf. Plutarch, /. c. 
 
 TOV S^jxov Trpoa-Tdrr)! : 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. 
 
 3. ^pxov Se TO iih TTpSiTov del: the reading of the MS. is somewhat 
 doubtful, owing to the faintness of the writing, but enough remains to 
 make the words given in the text nearly certain. The noticeable 
 
 B a 
 
4 APISTOTEAOTS 
 
 7r/)o>[roi'] d^ei'], fiera 8e ravra [Se/cajertaf. fieyia-Tai 
 8e KoX irpmraL tS>v dp^mv rjcrav ^aayXevs re k(u 
 
 point is the combination of the mention of election i^itrraxrav dpio-nvSriv 
 Kai nXovTtvSnv) 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 some- 
 thing to elucidate the point. It is probably not the case (see the fol- 
 lowing 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 grati- 
 tude 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. 
 irpwTai Twv dpxav : 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, 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. The office of tlpxav came into 
 existence in the time either of Medon or of Acastus, z. e. at the beginning 
 of the rule of the Medontidae. At this time, however, says Aristotle, 
 the office was of comparatively little importance, and was inferior to 
 both the ^aa-iXiis and the iroXipapxos, and it was only at a later period 
 that the npxwv 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 positions which detracted considerably 
 from the autocratic authority of the titular governor. It seems, howr 
 
AGHNAIiiN nOAITEIA. 5 
 
 TroXYfiapyps kol ap^covy tovtcov 8e ttp^cotJt} p.€v y 
 Tov ^aertAecoy, avrrj yap eV [apx^ iyeuero, Sevjrepa 
 8' iiTLKaTia-TT} [7roXe])U.a^xta Blol tov yl^v^ea-Oai rivas 
 rau ^aaikecov to, iroXefiia fiaX^aKovs, o6ev /call 
 TOV 'Icova /iere[7re/x]\^ai'ro ^etafy KlaTaXa^ovcrrjs. 
 
 ever, 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 ^aoiKevs Still continued in use {c/. Abbott's History of Greece, 
 I. 286, quoting Pausanias, I. iii. 3), and this passage of Aristotle makes 
 it practically certain. The /SaaiXt us 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 ofiSce 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 term aipeo-is used 
 below may, no doubt, refer only to a later period ; but if, as has been 
 shown in the preceding note, the king himself was at this time elective, 
 it is very probable that the inferior oflScers would be so also. Later, 
 when the kingly rule was entirely abolished, the apx'^" (who no doubt 
 did not previously bear the title of fVmi/u/nos) took the first place in 
 dignity ; and hence, when Aristotle is dealing with the magistrates of 
 his own day, the Archon takes precedence of the fiaaiKevs and the 
 Polemarch (ch. 55). 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 ewawfios, 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 (682 B.C.). 
 
 "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 
 inpaTapxni (VIII. 44) ; and a scholiast on Aristophanes {Birds 1527) 
 actually calls him Polemarch, vaTpaou Sc np.Sxni' 'AnoWcova 'A.6r)valoi, 
 fVei "lajv o iroXepapxos 'ABrjvaiav e'i 'AnoWavos Koi Kpeovaijs rrjs Sou^ou 
 [yv^/aiKos] iyivero. 
 
6 AP1ST0TEA0T2 
 
 reXevraia 8' rj \tov ap\ovTos' ot] p.€v yap irX^iovs [eVi] 
 MeSofTOf, hiOL 5' eVt 'Kkolo-tov (paal yevicrOai \Tr\V 
 apyj]v' (TT^/u.eioi'] 5' i7n(f)€povcrt.v [oTi] ol iuvea ap)(OVTesf 
 ojxvvovcn [KaOaTrep] eVi 'AKacrrov [rrjf iroXecos ap)(\€LV, 
 eof €7rt Trjs i\K€ivov\ fiaa-tXeias irapa^cop-qcravTcov 
 tS)v Ko5[/Ot5dji'] . . . rm ap^ovTL *8a)peav*. tovto 
 p.€v odv OTTOTepoos TTOV €)(ei p-LKpov, [/Cttt kyiv€TO 8rj 
 iv tov]tois Tols )(p6vois' OTI \8e\ TeXevraia tovt(ov 
 
 lyev€TO Twv dp^au, [crrj^elov kol picov 
 
 Tov dp^ovra 8iotK€tv axnrep 6 fiaaiXevs Kai o TroXe- 
 
 p,ap\os, dXXa 8lo kuI vecoo-rl yiyovev rj dp-xjj 
 
 peydXrj, tols e7r[i]^eVoiy av^r}0[€?aa. 0€a\p.o0€TaL 8e 
 7roAAo[r]? varepov ereaiv ypedrjaav, rj8y} /car iuiavTov 
 alp\e6evTes eVt] rds dpyas, oiroas dvaypa<^avTes ra 
 Oeapiia (pvXaTTCoai Trpos ttjv tS)v [7rapavop,ov]vTcov 
 KpiaiV 8lo kol p,6vr] rau dp^wv ovk eyevero irXeicov 
 [rj'\ iviava-Los. \ovToi\ pev odv [is] toctovtov irpoe^ov' 
 (TLV dXXcov. wKrjcrav 8' ov^ oipa Travres ol iuvea 
 
 aWa . . . : at the end of the hiatus the letters t ra or eya are visible. 
 
 avaypa-^avT€s : hitherto, apparently, judicial decisions had not been 
 recorded, and consequently there was no stability in the administration 
 of justice. The Thesmothetae therefore received their name not merely 
 from the fact that they made law by administering it (Thirlwall, II. 
 17 : Did. 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. 
 
 hXXcoi' (c.t.X. : the MS. reading here is aXXjjwj'ijo-uj', a corruption 
 of which the reading given in the text seems the most probable 
 correction. 
 
 (aKi\aav k.t.\. : cf. Suid. S. V, tipxav : npo fiiv tS>v SoXoivos vofimv ovk 
 e'^^v avTois a/ia ^ixd^fiv, dXX' 6 fiiv /SacriXevc Kadrjaro napa t<S KnXov/xfVqi 
 BovKoXib)' TO 8e ^v TrXijCTioi/ TOV UpvTavdov' 6 8e TroXf/ttopX"* ^^ Au/ceio), Koi 
 o Spf(av napa tovs eircopviiovs, koL ol Bca-fiodiTai jrapa to QetTjUtSeteiov, 
 
ASHNAIilN nOAITEIA. 7 
 
 ap^ovTes, dXX' 6 fiev ^aaiXevs ^\J}x'^ "^^ ^^^ Kokov- 
 fievov BovKoXtov, TrXrjcriov rov UpvTaveiov (a-rjfj.eiov 
 Se' ert /cat pvu yap rrjs tov fiaaiXecos yvvaiKos rj 
 avfifiL^is ivravda yiverai tS Aiovvaco kol 6 yap,os), 
 6 fie ap-)(cov TO Hpytavelov, 6 Se iroXipiap^os to 
 ^TriXvKeioV o irpoTepov fxev c/caAeiro YloXefJMp^elov, 
 eTret Se 'EttlXvkos avcoKodofXTjae /cat KaTeaKevaaev 
 avTO 7roX€ixa[p^r]\(Ta9 '^TrtXvKelov eKXrjOrj' deafio- 
 OeTai 8' ei^ov to QeafiodeTelov. eVt 8e ^oXcovos 
 a^TrjauTes eiy to Qea-p-odeTeiov avvrfXOov. KvpioL 8' 
 ■qcrav KOL Tas Slkus avTOTcXels [/c/JiVJetJ/, /cat ov^ 
 
 (Rose, ed. 1886, iv'ag'. 413). The residence of the Archon is here 
 described as napa rois iircavviiovs, 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 1 83, rorros itapa jrpvraveiov ev <o earriKaiTiv 
 dv^pidvTfs oils fvcovvfjiovs KaXoviriv), and if the Archon occupied a 
 wing of the Prytaneum adjoining these statues both descriptions will 
 be satisfied. 
 
 rris TOV ^aa-iXems yvvaiKos : the wife of the king-archon, who was 
 called BacriXivva or fiaa-iXia-aa, always went through the ceremony of 
 marriage to the god Dionysus at the feast of the Anthesteria. C/. 
 Dem. contr. Neaer. c. 76, p. 137 1. 
 
 TO 'ETrtXuKfioi' : it has generally been supposed that the Polemarch 
 occupied the Lyceum, on the strength of the passage of Suidas quoted 
 above. Hesychius, indeed, under the word imXvKetov describes it as 
 the residence of the Polemarch ; but this has generally been written 
 as two words, eiri 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. 
 
 Kvpioi 8' riaav : cf. Suidas, /. C, Kvpiol re ^(rav atrre ras SiKas avToreXeis 
 iroieiadai, varepov Se SoKtovos oiSev erepov avrois reXeirai ij /lovov viro- 
 Kplvovm Totis avTtSiKovs. It is possible, in the light of this passage, that 
 the verb here should be read as noieh instead of Kptveiv ; but the active 
 is less suitable for such a sense than the middle, and xpiveiv cor- 
 responds better with npoavaKpU'eiv. 
 
8 API2T0TEA0TS 
 
 axnrep vvv irpoavaKpiveLV. to. fieu o5v [jreptj ras 
 ap-)(a.s TovTov ei^e top rpoirov. rj 8e rav Apeo- 
 irayeiTcov ^ovXrj rrjv fxlv rd^iu et;(e rod Siarrjpeli^ 
 
 f) tS>u 'Apfoirayeniov ^ovXrj : this passage is important, as bearing on 
 the origin and early existence of the Areopagus, Plutarch (So/. 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 conjecture in ch. 8) 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 Alcmaeonidae 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 
 heads of yivr\ 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 
 
A©HNAmN nOAITEIA. 9 
 
 Tovs vojxovs, SicoKei Se to. irXela-Ta kol to, fieyicTTa 
 Twv iu TYJ TToXei, Kol KoXd^ovaa Koi ^rjfji^Lojvara 
 iravras tovs aKoa-fiovvTas Kvpicos. rj yap atpecns 
 Tmv apypvToav apKTTivBrjv kcu TrXovTivSrjv -qv, e^ wv 
 OL ApeoTrayelrai KaOiaTavTO. Sto kol /xovrj twv ap^wv 
 avT-q p.€p.evrjKe Sia ^lov kol vvv. 
 
 4. 'H p.€v odv irpcoTT] TroXiTeia ravr-qv ^\}\x'^ '''W 
 i)7ro^ypaj(f)r]v. fiera 8e ravra, ^(^povov tlvos ov ttoXXov 
 SieXdovTO^, en ' ApiaTai^fiov ap)(ovT09 Apd^^Kcojv rovt 
 Oea-fiovs edrjKev rj 8e tcc^ls avrr] rouSe top rpoirov ei^e. 
 aTreSeSoTO [^] TroXiTeia toIs oTrAa Trape-)(OfxtvoLS' 
 
 archonships, though it would of course be many years before the 
 council came to be composed solely of those who had served this 
 office. 
 
 4. iit" hpiaraixiiov apxovTos : 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) ApaxovTos 'Adrjvniois 6e(Tfio6eTiiijavT05 may possibly 
 indicate that he was one of the junior archons, though it is not 
 necessary so to interpret the word. 
 
 aiTf&iboTo f) TToXiTfi'a Tols oTrKa jrape^onevots : this passage throws a 
 completely new light on the legislation of Draco, and shows that he 
 was not merely a jurist but also a political reformer. It is, moreover, 
 absolutely opposed to the statement in Pol. II. 12, that Draco made no 
 change in the constitution (no^iTcla S' innp^ovtrr) roiis vojiovs fdr/Kf), and 
 makes it additionally certain that that chapter is not Aristotle's. The 
 readings of the present passage are doubtful in several cases, but the 
 general drift is clear. A certain share in the government was given to 
 all persons capable of providing themselves with a military equipment, 
 a definition which would probably include the first three of the so-called 
 ' Solonian ' classes (see below, where all three are mentioned as liable 
 to fines for failure in public duties). It is probable, however, that this 
 share was at first considerably limited. There was a property quali- 
 fication for the various offices, differing in amount according to their 
 importance ; and this would secure the predominance of the wealthy 
 classes in the higher posts. Moreover the poorest class, which was 
 probably also the largest, had not even the avayKaioTarrj Sivafus which 
 was afterwards assigned to it by Solon. On the other hand both the 
 property classification (though not necessarily its employment for 
 constitutional purposes, c/. note on TifujuaTa, ch. 7), and the creation 
 
lo API2T0TEA0TS 
 
 rfpovvTO Be tovs fiev kvvia apypvra^ [xai t\ovs [rjayiitay 
 ovaiav KCKTrjfievovs ovk eXaTTCo SeKU fiuav iXevdepav, 
 
 of the Council of Four Hundred, which have hitherto been assigned to 
 Solon on the direct evidence of Plutarch and others, are here declared 
 to belong to the time of Draco ; and the latter, if not the former, was 
 evidently his own creation. Moreover if the word KKrjpova-Bai is to be 
 used in its strict sense (and it is unlikely that Aristotle would use a 
 technical word otherwise), the institution of the lot must also be 
 assigned to Draco, though its employment was probably limited to the 
 election of the new Council, and perhaps some other inferior offices. 
 Aristotle does not say what the duties of the ^ovXi] were. As the 
 Ecclesia is mentioned below, the Council may already have had 
 something of its later probouleutic functions ; but it is not likely 
 that the Ecclesia had much important business entrusted to it yet. 
 Perhaps the less important details of government and the manage- 
 ment of elections were delegated to it, but it cannot have been 
 intended to exercise any very important powers. The Areopagus, on 
 the other hand, retained all its former authority, with powers of control 
 over all the magistrates and a general right of revision of legal decisions 
 on appeal. In short it still remained the central force in the state, and 
 in this fact the gist of the Draconian constitution lies. With the intro- 
 duction of several distinct steps in the direction of popularising the 
 constitution, the balance of power is nevertheless unaltered. This 
 explains the otherwise strange fact, that no other extant author has 
 mentioned the legislation of Draco from any other point of view than 
 the legal one, and that his position as a constitutional reformer was 
 evidently forgotten in later times. The first definite shifting of the 
 balance of power occurred under Solon, and consequently all the 
 details which were worked into his system were ascribed to him, 
 though some of them had actually come into existence twenty or thirty 
 years before. Nevertheless it is strange that Plutarch, who certainly 
 was acquainted with Aristotle's work, should have attributed the 
 property qualification and the institution of the /SouX^ to Solon ; but 
 perhaps in writing the biography of the latter he preferred to adopt 
 the traditional account of his legislation. 
 
 It is furthemoticeable 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, and which have, moreover, some bearing on 
 the transition from the autocratic to the popular method of government 
 at Athens. 
 
 Tols on\a napexofiivois : the same qualification was revived at the 
 deposition of the Four Hundred in 411 B.C., and under this constitution 
 
A©HNAmN nOAITEIA. ii 
 
 raf 5' aXXas ap^as eXdrrovs e/c tmv oTrXa 7rapex[ofie- [Col. 2.] 
 va)v\, arpaTTjyovs fie kol iTTTra/j^ouf ovcriav airocpaivov- 
 Tas ovK iXuTTOv r) eKarov pvav eXeuOepcov kol TuaiSas 
 e[/c] yap.€TrJ9 yvvaiKos yvqaiovs virep ScKa ett] yeyovo- 
 ras' TOVTOvs 5e 8€l\y etj/at] tovs irpvraveis kol tov9 
 (TTpar-qyovs kol tov9 Imrap^ovs tov yevovs p-^XP'- 
 €v6vvS>v .... Tas 8' eK tov avrov reXous 8e)(opivovs 
 ovirep OL (TTpaTTjyol kol ol hrirap-^^oL. iSovXeveiu 8e 
 
 T€TpaKO(TLOVS KOL iva TQVS Xa^OVTaS 4k TTjS TToXLTiiaS' 
 
 KXrjpova-dat 8e kol TavTrjv kol [ra]p aA[Aay] ap)(as 
 
 Thucydides affirms (VIII. 97) Athens to have enjoyed the best govern- 
 ment within his memory ; a favourable judgment which is repeated by 
 Aristotle {infra, ch. 33). 
 
 apxovTas: MS. apxovres, obviously a mere slip. 
 
 i\ev6ipav : i. e. free of all encumbrances. The writing of the MS. 
 in this and the following lines is very faint, but the readings are 
 tolerably certain. 
 
 kKaTov pxav : it seems extraordinary that the property qualification 
 for a strategus should be 100 minae, while that for the archons was 
 only 10 minae. It is possible that in these early times strategi were 
 only elected when they were required, i. e. in case of war, and then no 
 doubt it would be desirable to secure men of special competence. 
 Moreover it might have been difficult to find enough persons possessing 
 a qualification so high to provide nine archons a year ; while the 
 strategi, even if appointed yearly, would not have been more than 
 four in number at the outside, one for each tribe. The number ten of 
 course belongs only to the time after the reforms of Cleisthenes. 
 
 hew : the first three letters of this word, which alone are visible, are 
 a correction, the word originally written beginning with fit. 
 
 TeTpaKo<riovs Koi €va : this addition of a single member in order to 
 secure an uneven number in an assembly is paralleled by the StKaanjpta 
 of later times, but was not retained by Solon in his reorganisation of 
 the Council. Apparently under the Draconian system the members 
 were selected by lot from the whole body of citizens (e/c t^s noKireias), 
 in which case the odd number presented no difficulty; whereas the 
 Solonian Council was chosen equally from the four tribes. 
 
 Koi Tas aXKas dpxds : 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 
 
12 APISTOTEAOTS 
 
 Toiis inrep TpiaKOPra err] yeyovoras, kcu Sis top avrou 
 fjLTj ap^eiv irpo rov irdvT^s Trept^eXdelv Tore 8e 
 7raA[tj/] i^ V7rap)(rjs KXrjpovv. el 8e tls twv ^ovXevTcov, 
 OTav e8pa ^ovXt]s r] eKKXrja-ias y, e/cAewroi ^rrju (rvvjo- 
 
 merely means that the Council and those magistrates who were chosen 
 by lot were chosen from persons of the stated age, t. e. over thirty. 
 
 TpiaKnvra : MS. rpiaKovB, 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 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, Att. Proc. p. 204, Schomann, Ant. Jur. Pub. 
 p. 238). 
 
 fKKkr\a\.ai : this is the first mention of the existence of this body, and 
 raises the question as to its original character. It has been commonly 
 supposed that it existed from the earliest times, and that it represented 
 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. p. 301). As to the 
 existence of some such body befoj-e 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 ^ovXj] 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 o-Tao-ir 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 araai.1, 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 
 
AGHNAmN nOAlTEIA. 13 
 
 Sou, UTreTLVov 6 /xev ■7revTaK0a-10fjLe81.iJ.v09 rpels Spa^- 
 fids, 6 [8e [JTrirevs Svo, ^evytrrjs 8e fiiav. rj 8e ^ovXr/ 
 ■f] e^ 'Apeiov irayov (f)vXa^ rjv rav voficov kuI 8ieTT^p[et, 
 rajs apyas oirws Kara tovs v6p.ovs apyaaiv. e^rjv 8e 
 Tw a8iKovixevcp irpo^s rrjv twv'] ' KpeoirayeLT\a)v'\ fiov- 
 Xrjv eiaayyeXXeLV aTro(f>a[vovTL Trap' ov a8iKeiTat 
 vopLOv. evL 8e rots aa)\}jia\(riv rjaav 8e8ep.evoi, 
 KaOairep e'lprjTai, kcu t] xdipa. 81 oXiycov rfv. 
 
 5. ToiayrT/y 8e ttjs ra^ecos ovarjs ev ry TroXiTeia 
 Kai Twv [7r]oXXav 8ovXev6vTcov rots oXiyois, dvTea-rrj 
 Tois yvatpLfxois 6 8rjp.o9. l(r\vpds 8e tt]9 arda-ecos 
 ovarjs /cat 7roA[i'i'] ■)(p6vov dvTiKa6r}p.evcov dXXrjXois 
 eiXovTo Koivfj 8iaXXaKT7]v kcu dp^ovra ^oXcova, kcu 
 
 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. 
 
 dweripov k.t.X. . fines for non-attendance at official duties are charac- 
 teristic of the earlier part of Athenian history alone, as they naturally 
 cease with the establishment of payment for attendance. As Boeckh 
 {Public Economy of the Athenians, 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. 
 
 em 8e rots (ro>iJiacnv rjcrav SeSf/tieVoi : 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. 
 
14 APISTOTEAOTS 
 
 T[r]v 7roXi]Tet,[a]v eTrerpe'^au avT^ Troi'^cravTi Trjv 
 iXeyeiav ^s ia-riv apxV 
 
 Tlv(o[<tkcS\, KaC fjioi (j)pevo's €vSo0ev aXyea fceiTai, 
 TTpea-jSvTdT'qv icropav yaXav 'laofias. 
 
 Ktti yap eTrriXavvev Koi irpos eKarepovs vwep eKarepcov 
 p.dxeTai Koi biap.(^La^r]T€i, kcu p-era ravra Koiujj 
 [irlapaivel [KaraJTraveiu rrjv ivea-racrau ^ikoviKiav. 
 r]v 8' 6 ^oXcou rfj p,ev prja^L kou ry So^y t&v irpcoTcov, 
 r[^ S"] oixTia Kot Tols Trpaypacn tS>v p-eacov, a>s ck re 
 
 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. 
 
 S-TroDjo-ai/Ti Tqv eXeyeiav: 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. c. 
 255, PP- 421-3 (Bergk, Frag. 3). 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 SiaWnKrij?, 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, rg fio'f ij tSiv trpwrcov). 
 
 Koi yap iirfiKavvev ital : the reading is very doubtful, with the ex- 
 ception of the first koi. 
 
 <piKoi/iKiai/ : corrected in the MS. from <|)i\oTi/iiai'. The speUing of 
 the MS. has been followed, as against the alternative form (piKoveiKtav. 
 
 TrpayiMdi : i. e. ' position in life,' not ' ability in affairs.' 
 
A©HNAmN nOAITElA. 15 
 
 Twv aXXcou ofioXoyeiTai kol [avros] ev TolaSe tois 
 Troirjfiao-iu fiaprvpel, irapaivav tois irXova-lois /J-rj 
 TrXeoveKTelw 
 
 T/Acts S' 'qav-)(acravTe<s ivl (])pe<rl Kaprepov ^Top, 
 ot TToWwp ayaOwv es Kopov ddcraTe, 
 
 iv p.e.TpioL(Ti T[joe<^e(r^]e jjueyav voov' ovre yap rjfJLel? 
 7r€i(r6p,e6 , ov6 vfjuv apria Ta[XX'] ecrerai. 
 KOL oXms alel ttjv alriav ttjs aTaaeoos dvairTei tois 
 TrXov(TLOis' Slo Koi eV d.p-)(f} Trjs iXeyeias SeSoiKevai 
 <l>r}a\ TTjv re (f)[LXapyvp]iav Trjv Te vireprjijiavlav, as 
 Sia TUvTa Trjs e\6pas eVeo-raj[o-]?7y. 
 
 6. Y%.vpLOS 8e yevo/xeuos tS>v 7rpayix[aT]cov ^oXcov 
 Tov re Srjfiov rjXevdepaxre kol ii/ tS irapovTL kcCl els 
 TO fjLeXXov, KcoXvcras 8[av€L]^eiv eVt toIs a-copiacnv, 
 Kcu v6p.ovs edr]K€ kol ^eav a[7ro]K07ras' i7r[o]i7](re /cat 
 Tmv ISlcov kol Tav SrjfioaLcou, as a-eia-a^deiav KaXov- 
 (TLV, d>s aTroc^Kra/JLevot to fiapos' iv ols TreiprnvTai ti 
 
 6. as (Tfi(rdx6fiav Ka\ov(nv : MS. crei(raf(6ia ; and the 9 of as has been 
 inserted above the line. 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^'^" anoKOTral 
 should remove it. 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 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 xpeav diroKOTrr} 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 novae tabulae, 
 
 dnoiTficrdfievoi : MS. airoaia-aiievoi. 
 
i6 APISTOTEAOTS 
 
 [/cat] Sia^dXXeip avTov. (rvuefirj yap r^ SoAooi/t /xeX- 
 XovTi iroielv ttjv cr€i(ra^[d]etav Trpoenreiu Tiart tS>v 
 \yvoii]piiuo\y\, eireiff , toy jxev ol Stj/xotikoI Xeyovai, 
 TrapaaTpaTrjyrjdrjuai Sia rav (f)LXcov, as 8' ol [/ce/CTT^j- 
 pevoi, fiXacr(l)rjp,elv Koi avTou KOLVcovelv. 8aveiaap,euoL 
 yap ovTOL (TVveirplavTO rroXXrjv ■)^copau, [jxera 5e] ov 
 TToXi) Trjs T&v •)(p€S)V airoKOTrrjs yLvop^ivqs iirXovTOW 
 odeu (pacri yevea-dat tovs vcrTepov 8o[Ko]vvTas eivat 
 iraXaioirXovTovs . ov /xrjv aAAa 7n0[avco]T€pos [o] rmv 
 8r]fioTiKm[v X]6yos' ov yap [el/coy e]v fieu toIs aXXois 
 ovTco perpiov yevecrOai, /cat kolvov, \a.p,(i\ t i^ou 
 avTc^ \t\ovs \y6p\ovs vTroTroirjcrafieuou Tvpavuelu rrjs 
 TToAecoy dfjiCJiOTepoLS dire^dv\€aQai koX irepX irXeiovos 
 \Troi\r]aaa6aL t\o ko^Xov kolI ttjv ttjs iroXews (rooTrj- 
 piav 7] TTfv avTOv irXeove^iav, iv [ovt\co 8e piKpols [/cat] 
 ai'[a^to]ty /cara/)/)U7raii'[e]ti' iavTov. otl 8e ravTTjv 
 icr^e TTjv i^ovcrtav rd re irpdyp-ara voaovvra pere- 
 Kpovcraro, /cat ip rols TroLrjpMcriu avros iroXXa^ov 
 pepvrjKe koX ol aXXoi (rvuopoXoyovcri 7raj'['rey]. rav- 
 TTjv pev odv XPV vopl^eLV ^ev8y] ttjv alriav elval. 
 
 7. IIoAtrftai' 8e KareaT-qcre kou vopovs cdrjKev 
 aXXov9, TOLS 8e ApaKovTOS deapols iirava-avTO xpco- 
 
 (Tvvi^rf yap k.t.X. : this story of the profit made by the friends of 
 Solon out of the a-eia-dxdna 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 
 vi^as 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. 
 
 baveurafievoi : MS. Savtcraiievoi. 
 
 liiTCKpoxKTUTo x n Very doubtful reading. 
 
AQHNAmN nOAlTEIA. 17 
 
 lievoi ttXtju twv (ftoviKcou. avaypa^avres 5e tovs 
 vofiovf ety tovs Kvp^eis icrTrjaav 4u rrj (rrod rrj 
 fiaa-iXela /cat mfioaau ^ xprjcrecrOaL iravres' ol 8' 
 ivuea ap^ovres ofivvvrey irpof tS XiOcp KareipaTi^ou 
 avadrja-eiv avSpiavra •)(jpv(rovv idu riua irapafiaxri tcov 
 vofiav o0ev en Koi vvv ovtcos 6p.vvovai. KareKvpaxre 
 8e TOVS vojxovs ds Ikoltov [e]r77 kcu SieTU^e ttjv ttoXl- 
 reiav TovSe Tpoirov. TifiT^fj.a[Ta SiJctAev els TeTTupa 
 
 7. avaypdyffavTfs fie . . . rrj /3n(riXfim : this is the first passage (out 
 of very many) which directly proves the present treatise to be Aristotle's 
 'Afliji/atmj/ IIoXiTfia, these words being given by Harpocration (s. v. 
 KiipSfts) as a quotation from that work. Plutarch also (Sol. 25) and 
 the scholiast on Aristophanes' Birds 1354 refer to Aristotle for the 
 word KvpBns {cf. Rose, Frag. 352). 
 
 opvivm K.rX. : Plutarch (/. c.) paraphrases this passage, a/iwcv . . . 
 eKatTTOS Tav Bea-fioBerSiV iv dyopa irpos ra \l6(0, KaTa<jiaTi^aVj ft tl Trapa^airj 
 tS)V BeapSiv, dvSpidvra ;^puo'oS» l(TopeTpT]Tov dvadrjaeiv iv AfXtpois. 
 
 Tip-ripara it.T.X. : the question raised by the present passage is a 
 diflficult 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. hrnds) quotes the present work thus, 
 'ApioToreXijs 8' iv 'Adrjvaliav woKireia (priaiv on SoXav fls Terrapa Sicike 
 reXrj to Trav irXrjdos AOrjualaVj irfvraKoa'top.ehi.pvovs kol iirireas Kai ^evyiras 
 Koi 6^Tas, and again (j. v. TrevTaKoaiop,ihipvov), on 8 Te'X); fVoiijcrej' 'A6rj- 
 vaiwv andvTCDV ^6\av . , , deSr/XuKev 'ApioTOTfkrjs iv 'Adrjvaiav TroXtrcta 
 (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 
 KaBdirep SiypjjTo Kai nparf pov 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 
 
 C 
 
1 8 APlSTOTEAOrS 
 
 TiXrf, Kadam-ep Si'^prjTO Koi irporepov, els TrevTUKoaio- 
 p[e8ijj]v[ov Koi iTrTrea] /cat ^€vyiTr]u /cat dijTa. ras 
 
 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 
 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 onXa Trapcp^o/ieWi', in the 
 Solonian constitution it was that he was a member of one or other 
 of the four classes. There is nothing to show that the division into 
 property classes had any connection with the political franchise or 
 eligibility to office before the time of Solon. 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 
 jeasonablybe 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 substituted 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 either to careless quotation or to a 
 disbelief of Aristotle's authority with reference to the pre-existence of 
 these classes. It is also possible that the words Kaddnep 8t.7pi?ro koI 
 TrpoTcpov 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. 
 
AOHNAIiiN nOAITEIA. ig 
 
 ti[€u ov]v ap^as OLTreveifiev apx^iv e/c irevTaKoa-LO/xe- [Col. 3.J 
 oifivcov /cat iTrrrecov kcu ^evyirmu, tovs evvia apyov- 
 Tas Koi Toiis rafilas /cat tovs TrcoXrjlTas] kcu tovs 
 evSe/ca kcu tovs KcoXaKperas, Ikolcttols avdXoyov rm 
 peyedei tov Tip[r]]p.[aTo]s uTroSiSovs T[riv dp]xriv. 
 Tols 8e TO OrjTiKov TekovcTLv eKKXyjo-ias /cat Slkuct- 
 T-qpuov ficTcScoKe povov. eSei 8e TeXeiv TrevTaKoa-iope- 
 8ip,vov peu OS av e/c ttjs oiKeias Troifj TrevTaKocna 
 p€Tpa Ta (rvvdp(f)co ^Tqpd kol vypd, hrirdba be tovs 
 TpiaKoaia iroLovvTas, toy 5' eVtoi ^aau tovs ittttot/Oo- 
 ^€iv Svvapevovs. crrjpelop de (f)epovcrL to re ouopa 
 To[v\ TeXovs, ms av diro tov irpdy\}Ji\aTos Kcipevou, 
 
 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 explanation. 
 
 aniviifiev apx^iv : 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 raniai were elected from the first class alone, which it is 
 practically certain was also the case with the archons (c/- Plutarch, 
 Arist. i). The offices mentioned were filled from the first three classes, 
 but some of them were filled from one class and others from another, 
 cKaoTois dvaKoyov tw fieyeOei tov TifirifjiaTos diroSiBovs Tr]v dp^rjv. The 
 highest offices were open to the first class alone, the lower to the others 
 as well. 
 
 Tols 8e TO driTiKov TeXovtriv cKK\t]<Tias Koi biKaaTrjpLtov fieTtSaiKe jnovov : this 
 corresponds with the dvayKaioraTr) hivafus which Solon is said in Pol. 
 II. 12 to have given to the lowest class, to tols dpxas alpelaBai koi 
 tidvveii'. 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 aU con- 
 siderations of birth from the political constitution, and to give the 
 labouring classes a share in political power. 
 
 as 8' enoi (jiain, ; no doubt the two standards are really the same. 
 An income of 300 medimni was fixed as representing that on which a 
 man could equip and maintain a mounted soldier. 
 
 C a 
 
20 API2T0TEA0T2 
 
 Kol TO, avaOrjjxaTa twv ap^alxov avaKeirai yap eV 
 aKpoiroXei eiKav Ai(j)iXov e[0' y eVJtyeV/aaTrrat raSe' 
 
 Aii^iXov 'AvOep-tcov TtjvS' avedrjKe deoi^, 
 Otjtlkov olvtI tcXous iiTTraS' dfieLypdfievo'S. 
 KOL Trapea-TTjKeu lttttos iKfiaprvpav *a»y ttjv hriraSa 
 TOVTO (rr)fia[[jvov(r[a\p.* ov firjp dXX' evXoycorepov 
 TOis jxirpoLS dirjprj(r0ai KaOairep tovs TrevTaKocriofie- 
 Bifivovs. ^evyia-iov 8e reXelv tow SiuKocria ra 
 (rvvaiJL(j)co iroiovvTas' tovs d' aXXovs OrjTLKOv, ovSe- 
 fiids fieTe^ovTas dp^rjs. Sio kou vvv eTretSav eprjTUi 
 
 elxcDv Ai(jit\ov : this statue is also referred to, and the inscription 
 upon it quoted, by Pollux (VIII. 131). The MSS. of the latter give 
 the first line as Ai(j>l\ov 'hvOijiiav mirov t6v8' aveBrjKs ffenls, excepting one 
 which agrees with the present text with merely the substitution of rdvS' 
 for rrjvS'. The editors and commentators have either taken the name 
 Ai<f)i\ov out of the line, attaching it to the word imypafifm which 
 precedes it, or else have emended it into a hexameter, At(j}i\ov 
 'AiiBeiilav tokS' mirov Oeols avc6r]Ke. The present text probably gives the 
 real reading of the inscription, as two pentameters, the corruption of 
 most of the MSS. of Pollux being explained by the intrusion into the 
 line of the gloss mnov. 
 
 mr TTjv imraba k.tX. : there seems to be some corruption in the text. 
 The sense is clear, and perhaps we should read as Tfjv iTnraSa toCto 
 
 jiirpois ; MS. /leTpiois, 
 
 SioKoa-ia : this confirms the usual statement as to the property 
 qualification of the Zevylrai., as against Boeckh (P. E. IV. 5), who 
 holds it to have been 150 medimni, on the strength of a law quoted by 
 Demosthenes {Contr. Macart. 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 (cVt'isXT/poy) 
 was fixed, if he was a pentacosiomedimnus at 500 drachmas, if he was 
 a knight at 300 drachmas (in each case the equivalent of a minimum 
 year's income for the class), and if he was a zeugites at 150 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. 
 
 Sii Kut vvv K.T.X, : this is interesting, as showing that the property 
 
A0HNAmN nOAITEIA. 21 
 
 Tov fieXXovTa KXrjpovcrdai tiv oip-^rjv irolov reXos 
 TcXel, ovS* av eiy ehrot drjTiKov. 
 
 8. Tay 8' ap^as eiroiiqae KXrjpcoras ck TrpoKpircov, 
 [ojus [^eKaa-^Trj irpoKpivei tS>v (f)vXaw. irpovKpivev 
 
 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 Zevyirai being 
 made eligible in 457 B.C. (see ch. 26 and note there). 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 Zevyirqi, 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 invasion of the law of property qualification for a member of 
 the English parliament previous to 1858. 
 
 8. Tar 8' apxis : MS. tijs S a^i^iys. 
 
 KXripcoTCLs cK TTpoKp'iTwv i this passagc 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 earlier times. It is now 
 certain (c/. infra) 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 of Demosthenes (Contr. Neaer. p. 1370J, 
 TOV ficv ^aaiKia ... 6 8^/ios ^peiro ck npoKpiToiv Kar' avdpayadiav )(ei,poTov5iv. 
 Demosthenes 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 x«P<""o''Si' : for whereas Aristotle represents 
 the second stage of the election as conducted by the lot, Demosthenes 
 regards both processes as selective. On a priori grounds the version 
 of Demosthenes 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 
 
%% AP1ST0TEA0T2 
 
 5' ety Tovs kvvia apypvras eKoia-Tr] SeKa, kcu tov\tovs 
 eK\rf\povv' o9ev ere Siafieuec rais ^vXals to Se/ca 
 KXrjpovv eKaarTTju, eir' eK tovtcov Kvafi€ve\^iv^ . o"r]fieiov 
 S" OTL KXrjpcoras iiroirjaav e'/c twv TLfirjp.aT(ov 6 irepl rav 
 rafiimv vopos a> ■^(pcop.evoi [SiareAojOcrif ert koL vvv 
 KeXevei yap KXrjpovu tow Tajxlas e/c 7revTaKO<nop.€- 
 8Lp.v(o[v. ^6X\cov p.ev odv o^tcos ivop-oOeTrjaev Trepl tcou 
 evvia ap^ovrwv. to yap dp^alou rj iv 'Ap[eup irayto 
 
 of his statement from the practice of his own day. Isocrates has a 
 passage on the subject (Areop. c. 24, Bekk. p. 144), ovk e| ImavTaiv tols 
 ap^as KXrjpovPTes, dWa tovs ^eKTifTTovs Koi tovs iKavoyrdTovs e<l> eKatrrov 
 tS)v epyav wpoKpivovres, 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. 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, 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, aniiihoTo (c.t.\.). 
 
 KKrjpovv . . . Kvafiiveiv : there is no difference in meaning between 
 these words, both being regularly used of election by lot, as opposed 
 to x"po'''"'f '" or alpkiadai. 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. 
 
 i] fV 'Apeia Trdya ^ovXr) : cf. note on ch. 3, ad fin. 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 oi oTrXa iTapexdp.fvoi {i. e. the ecclesia) elected 
 the archons and other magistrates under the constitution of Draco. 
 Aristotle's phrase to apxalon, however, does not necessarily imply that 
 
AGHNAIliN nOAITEIA. 23 
 
 fiovX]ri dvaKaXearafieuT] Koi Kpiuaaa Kaff avTrjv tov 
 eTTiTTjSeiou €0' eKaarrj t5>v ap^wv [eV eviavrov 8i.a- 
 Ta^ajaa aTrda-TeXXeu. ^vXal S" rjcrav 8 KaOairep 
 TrpoTepov Koi 0uAo/8ao-tAeiy reacrapef. €K 8e [ttJs 
 (f)vXrjs iK]d(rT7jS' rjuav v€V€ixT]p.evai rpiTTves p-eu rpeis, 
 uavKpapiai Se 8a)8eKa Kad* eKacTTrju. [^u 8e Tav] 
 vavKpapiaiv dp^-q KadecTTTjKvia vavKpapoi, rerayp-evT] 
 
 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. 
 
 eV eviavTov 8iaTa|atra: the writing of the MS. is almost entirely ob- 
 literated, but the remains which are visible are in accordance with the 
 reading here proposed. 
 
 0uXai 8' rja-av . , . Kaff inaa-Tr^v : quoted by Photius, j. v. vavKpapia, 
 who prefaces his quotation with the words, ix rijs 'Apio-ToreXous noXiTelas, 
 ov rponov Siera^e Trjv woKiv 6 SdAmi' (Rose, Frag. 349). 
 
 vavKpaplai : MS. vavKpaipai, 
 
 Kaff iKCUTTTjV '. SC. <^v\ijV. 
 
 vavKpapoi : MS. vavKpaipot. This passage does not do much to 
 clear up the obscurity which surrounds the question of the vavKpapoi. 
 Photius (/. c.) ascribes the invention of the name to Solon (SdXwj/os ovtius 
 ovopatravTos , i>s Kai 'ApioroTeXi/r (jir/irlv), 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 (ray dpxas cn-oii^o-e KKriptoTas . . . 
 ovTtos ivoiioBcTtia-ev . . . 0ov\rjv 8' inoirfiTe). 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. vavKKapoi) as oLnves a<j)' sKda-rris x<»pos 
 Tas €la-(j>opas tiaikeyov, and Pollux (VIII. I08), ras 8' eiVi^opns to 9 Kara. 
 
24 API2T0TEA0TS 
 
 TTpos re TOLS €\la\<^opas kcu ras 8aiT\avas\ ras yivo- 
 fjLeuas' 8io Koi iv tols vofxoLs Tol\s 2]oAcoi/oy oly ovkcti 
 ^prnvrai {oiov \^Ikos) ye^ypairraL tovs vavKpapovs 
 elcnrpaTTeiv kol avaXiaKeiv e'/c tov vavKpapiKOv apyv- 
 p[iov. fiov}C\r]v 5' iiroirjae T€TpaKoaio\ys\, eKarov i^ 
 eKciaTrjs 0yA^y, Tr)v Se tcov ' ApeoTrayeirmv era^ev 
 e[7-t] vop.o(l>v\aK€iv, axrirep virrip-)(€v kol irporepov 
 iTTia-KOTTOs o[S](ra rrjs TroXire/ay ey ra re aXXa, kol 
 TO, TrXelara Koi ra fieyiara rmv ttoXitcov Sierrjpei kol 
 Toiis ap,apT0LV0VTas ijvdvvev Kvpi[a] odlara tov C'?]/^'" 
 [ovv] Koi KoXd^eiv, koL ray eKTiaeLS du€<j)€peu ely 
 
 8rjiJ,ovs Sif xftporovovu oStoi koi to i^ avrav avaKa/iaTa, adding also vavxpapia 
 S' eKd<TTri Svo lirrr(as ivapeix^ kcu vavv piav, d<f>' rjs laas a>v6iuuTT0 (Rose, 
 Frag. 349). The quotation which Aristotle proceeds to make from 
 the law of Solon shows that the vavKpapot, 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 
 npvrdveis tS>v 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 vavKpapoi 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. 
 
 ^ovXrjv : this is the same assembly as that established by Draco, 
 with the exception that the one additional member is omitted (c/. 
 note on ch. 4). Its origin has hitherto been universally ascribed 
 to Solon, by Plutarch among others {c. 19, Sfvrepav irpoo-KaTc'i'ci/ic fiovKfiv) ; 
 but c/. note on ch. 7, Tip-rnmra k.t.X. 
 
 e's TO. , . . n-XeicTTa : the writing of the MS. is very faint, and the 
 readings consequently doubtful. Cf. ch. 3, di^Kci fi« to irXeitrTo icai tu 
 p-tyiara rav iv rg TrdXfi, Kal KoXa^ovo'a Koi ^ij/uiofa'a itdvras tovs aitoa- 
 fioivras Kvplas, 
 
AQHNAmN nOAITEIA. 25 
 
 ttoXlv ovk iwiypacpovcra ttjv 7rp6(j)a(n[i> tov koXo,^- 
 eaOaL, kcu tovs eVt KaraXva-ei tov 8-^fxov avv[i]crTa- 
 lx€vovs €Kpivev, ^oXcovos 0ev[TOs], 6 fi€v [oSv ravT 
 era^e] Trepl avrmv. bpmv 8e ttjv fiev ttoXlv ttoXXolkls 
 aracTLaQova-av, rmv 8e ttoXitojv iviovs 5[ta] ttjv 
 padvi^ioi^v [aTrofrraji'T-ay to avTofiaTov v6p.ov edrjKC 
 TTpos avTOvs "lBlov, OS OLV aTaa-La^ova-qs Trjs TroX^eoo^s 
 fx^T) alp^TjTai TO. OTrXa fijjSe fied' iTepmv, arip-ov elvai 
 Kol Tjjs TToXeas p.r) fMere^etv. 
 
 9. Ta p.ev odv [irepl to^s ap^as t\ovt^ov [eix]^ "^ov 
 TpoTTOu. doK€L 8e ttJs ^oXcovos TToXiTeias Tpia TaVT 
 eivat Ta SyjfiOTiKcoTaTa, Trpwrov fiev /cat fieyicTTOv to 
 
 noWaKis : MS. noWaKi. It is not likely that a poetical form was 
 used by Aristotle, and the omission of the s is easily explained by the 
 next word beginning with the same letter. 
 
 voiiov fOrjKe : 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, 
 perhaps GeUius himself. Plutarch also [c. 20) refers to this law, which 
 he calls Ibios fioKicrTa Kai irapabo^os. Cf. Rose, Frag. 353. 
 
 9. rpla Ta SrnionKaTara : in Poi. 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 
 
26 API2T0TEA0TS 
 
 /Lij) 8av€L^eLV eVi Tois (rmfiacnv, ejreira to i^elvai 
 Tw ^ovXofJLeua [SiKa^ec^at] inrep rau d8iKOVfievcov, 
 rpiTOV 8e ((17) fiaXLCTTa (pacriv la^vKevai to ttXtjOos) 
 rj els TO 8iK\a(rT-^piovj e0[ecrt]y Kvpios yap wv 6 Srjpos 
 TT]9 "^rjcpov KvpLos yiv€Tai, TTjs TToXtTeias, €TL 8e KcCi 5ia 
 TO prj yeyp\a\(l)6\aL Toji/s vopovs airXm fJLr]8e (ra(l)a)S, 
 dXX' mcnrep 6 irepl Ta>v KXrjpcov kou eTriKXrjpmu, 
 dv^ay^K^T] 171'] ray dp(j)i(rfiT]Trj(rets yivecrdai kol iravTa 
 ^pafieveiv kol to, koivo, kou to. tSia to, 5t/ca[o"r]^/)[ia]. 
 otovTai peu odv Tives i7riTT]8e9 daa^eis clvtov TroLrjaai 
 
 by which the popular House has at first checked and finally brought 
 into subordination the power of the Crown. In Rome it was the 
 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 firom the growing 
 strength of the lower classes whom he had introduced into public life. 
 
 e(f>e<ns : 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 oaa rais ap\als era^e Kpivfiv, 6fioia>s Ka\ Trepi fKelvcov els to 
 SiKaiTTrjpiov e(p4<Teis eSaK€ toIs ffov\oixevois. The construction of 17 . . 
 c0c(r(s is somewhat irregular, and the whole sentence appears to have 
 suffered some corruption in the MS., apart from the difficulties of 
 decipHerment in the case of certain letters ; but the sense is quite 
 clear. 
 
 6 TTfpi tS>p KKrjpmv Ka\ imKKr)pav ; cf. Plutarch, c. 20. 
 
 oXovTai fiev olv 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 fijKaorijpta at least as early as the time of Solon, 
 which Grote doubts. In some form they must have existed for the 
 
AQHNAmN nOAITEIA. 37 
 
 Tovs vofiovs OTTtoy Ti TTJs Kpla-ea>s[e]xV [^ SvH'O^ K\vpio9. 
 ov fiiju CLKos, aXXa 8ia to [it] Bvvaa-Oai KadoXov 
 TrepiXafieLU to ^eXTia-Tov ov yap [5]t/c[aioj/] 6/c Tav 
 vvv yivop.€vcov uXX' e/c ttjs aXXrjs TToXiTelas Oewpeiv 
 TTjv eKeivov ^ovXrjaiv. 
 
 10. El/ [/xev o^v rjotf v6p,0LS tuvtu 8ok€i delvat 
 8r]fi0TiKa, irpo 5e Trjs vofiodeaias iroirja-a^crOai ttjv 
 Xjo]e<S[j' aTToJ/coTrryi', /cat /xera TavTa Trjv re rai' /te- 
 Tpcov Kai (rTa6p.a>v kou ttjv tov vop.Lcrp.aTos av^rjtnv. 
 eTT €Keiuov yap iyeveTO /cat Ta peTpa p.e[^co rav 
 ^eiScoveicov, /cat ^ p.va irpoTepov \p.ev e~)(o\vaa irapa- 
 \TrXrjcr\i.ov e^Bop.rjKOVTa dpa^pas dveTrXrjpaiOrj tols 
 eKaTOV. rjv8* bap-)((uosxapaKTr]p 8i8pa-)Qiov. eVotiyo-e [Col. 4] 
 fie KOU (TTaOpov Trpos T^oj v6p.L(rp.a *r[/)]ety /cat* c^^- 
 
 purpose of the eUBwa ; 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 intro- 
 duced for service in them. 
 
 10. fierpav Kai araBiiSiv : 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, that the reform of the monetary 
 standard had nothing to do with the afia-axSei-a. 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, with the view of developing 
 the Athenian trade with the great commercial cities of Euboea, as well 
 as with the Ionian cities in Asia Minor, which likewise used the Euboic 
 standard of currency. 
 
 riv 8' 6 apxaios xop'^i'Trip hlhpaxiiov : SO Pollux (IX. 60) says of the 
 bibpaxp,ov, TO 8e iraKaiov toCto ^v 'Adijvaiois voiuap-a, Kai iKaKeiro ^ovc. 
 
 Tpels Kai i^^Kovra /ivas to ToKavTov dyovaas : this appears to be the 
 reading of the MS., though the letters of the first word are rather faint. 
 The words Tpeis nal must, however, be corrupt. There is no indication 
 that the number of minae in a talent was ever other than sixty. 
 
a8 API2TOTEAOT2 
 
 Kovra fxvas to raXavTOV ayovcras, kou i7n8Lev€fn]dr](rav 
 [ai] fival TOO (TTaTrjpi kou toIs aXKois (TTaOjxols. 
 
 1 1 . Aiara^ag 8e rrjv iroXLTeiav ovirep elprjTai 
 rpoirov, eVetS^ TrpocnovTes TrdvTes Trepl tcov uo/juov 
 evcoxXovv, TO. p-ev eTriTipMUTes ra 8e avaKpLvovres, 
 fiovX6p.€vos p.y}T€ ravra Kivelv p-rjT aire^aveaQai 
 wapoou aTro8r}p.Lav iXoyiaaro Kar ep-Tropi^avj d/xa kol 
 Oecopiav els AHyvTTTOv \Trep\ KaJz/toTrou [TroAjei Se/ca 
 irav ov yap oieadai Slkuiov eivai [rojuy v6p.ovs 
 e^rjyeladai Trapcov aAA' eKaarov ra y€ypap.p,€va 
 TTOirjaai. dp.a 8e koI avvi^aLv\ev\ avrS twv t€ 
 yvcopipMV 8ia(f)6povs yeyevrjcrdaL ttoXXovs 5ta ras 
 Tcou yjpemv mroKOTrd\s, k\cu ray a-racreis dp.(poT€pas 
 p^eraOiadai 8ia to irapd 86^av avTols yevicrdai Trjv 
 \ov\crav \KaTa\(TTa(TLV. 6 p.ev yap 8rjp,os w€to TrauT 
 dvd8a(rTa TroLrjaeiv avTov, ol 8e yvapipLOi [TraJAti/ els 
 TTjv avTTjv Ta^LV dTro8a)(reiV rjs [jJLevToi\ irapaX- 
 Aa^fay So^rjs a\p(f>OTepois rjvavTLCoOr), KcCi i^ov avTm 
 p-eff OTTOTepcov rjfiovXeTO (rv(rTd\vTij TVpavvelv etXeTO 
 Tj-pos dp,(j)OTepovs dir€-)(6e(rdrivai crcoaas ttjv TraTplSa 
 Ka\ TO. |Qe[Ar£](rra vop-odeTrjaas . 
 
 12. TavTa S" OTL tovtov {tov") Tpoirov ea-\€U ot 
 T dXXoL avp,(f)a)vov(rL iravT^s, kou avTos eV Trj Troirjaei 
 p.e\^p.v\r}TaL Trepl avTcov iv TOiaSe' 
 
 Ai7ju,&) jjikv yap eSw/ca Tocrov yipa<; ocrcrov dnapl^Ket], 
 
 11. Kivfiv: MS. Keiwiv. 
 
 KaTaa-Taatv : the word originally written was Ta^tv, but KardirTacnv 
 has been written above it as a correction. 
 
 12. A^/io) /lev yap K.T.X. : quoted in Plutarch (c. i8), Bergk, Frag: 4. 
 
 £^/ia) : MS. Srifioi. 
 
 yipas : the MSS. of Plutarch have Kparos. 
 
 airapKei : the reading of the MSS. of Plutarch is iwapKei, but mrapKii 
 
AGHNAIfiN nOAITEIA. 29 
 
 TifiTJ'S ovT atjjeKoiv ovt enope^dfxevo'i. 
 
 Kai Tois e^/Dacra/ATjv [jbrjSev a[ei]/ces ex^'^- 
 carrjv o afi(j>L/3akQ}v Kparepov cra.KO<i afi.<^oT4poi(Ti 
 T\i\Kav S' ovK elacr ovheripov; dSiKcos. 
 
 TraXiv 8' a7ro(f)aiv6ix€POs irepl rod TrXrjOovs, ws "[wt]^ 
 Set ■)(j)7J(rdar 
 
 Arjfio's o &)§' av apurra cri/v rfyefiovecrcrLV erroiTO, 
 
 p,y]Te XCav di'[e]^eis ju-^jre /3i,a[,6[ievo<s. 
 TiKTei yap /copos v/Sptv, orav ttoXus o\/8os e7n^T[ai] 
 
 avdpamoKTiv ocrois jit'^ voos apTio<; y. 
 
 KOL iraXiv biayvcadi irov Xeyei TrepX tS)v SiaveifiaadaL 
 TJ]v yrjv fiovXofiivcov 
 
 Ot S' e^' apTrayalcriv ^\dov, e\7ri[S* eX]-)(ov d(j)veoiv, 
 
 has been conjectured as being more suitable, and the present MS. of 
 Aristotle confirms it. 
 
 eirope^dfiefos : MS. aTTOpe^afievot. 
 
 01 : MS. otrot. 
 
 Arjfws S' 2)8' fii/ K.T.X. : the first two lines are quoted in Plutarch (Sol. 
 et Popl. Comp. 2), Bergk, Frag. 5. 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 Theognis borrowed 
 a couplet which harmonised well with his own didactic verses. 
 
 ^ta^ofifvos : the MSS. of Plutarch have me^onevos, but the present 
 reading appears preferable. 
 
 TToXuj : the MSS. of Theognis have KaKa, but the quotation in 
 Clement of Alexandria agrees with the text of Aristotle. 
 
 avOpamoimv otrois : the MSS. of Theognis have avBpaira koI ora, but 
 the present reading again appears preferable. 
 
 o( 8' £0' apirayaldi.v ^\dov k.t.\. : this quotation is from a poem which, 
 as Aristides (jrepi tov irapaKftdeyfiaros II. p. 536) informs us, was com- 
 posed e^ejr/rijScy eZs avrbv Kai Trjv eavTov noKiTeiav. Lines four and five are 
 quoted by Plutarch (c. 16), and part of lines six and seven by Aristides 
 (/.£■.). The rest is new. The three other fragments in the same 
 metre (Bergk, 30, 32, 34) are no doubt from the same poem, including 
 the well-known lines on his refusal to set himself up as tyrant, ovk i'tjiv 
 SoXa)i> fiadv(j)pav. Plutarch, in quoting one of these fragments, states 
 that the poem from which it comes was addressed to Phocus. 
 
30 APISTOTEAOTS 
 
 KoZoKovv eKacTTOs avTCJv oK^ov evpyjcreLV noXvv, 
 Kai jx€ KoniWovTa \eia»s Tpa)(yv cKcfiaveLV voov. 
 ^aSi/a i^kv TOT i(f)pdaavTO, vvv hi jjlol -^oXovfJievot, 
 \of[^ov 6]^^aX|ju.or]s opSicn Traj/re? wcTTe hrjioi. 
 ov ■^(pemv' a fie.v yap eiTra crvv deolcriv 7]vv[cr(i], 
 [aXXa S' a\v p^ajryjv £€p2{o]v, ovSe [lot, TvpavvCSo^ 
 avBdvci fiia, tl [piQeiv, ovSe 7rte[i/)a]s xdovos 
 TTttT/aiSos OaKOLcriv icrdXov? laopjOipiav e)(eLv. 
 [7rdXiv\ 8e kcu Trepl Trjf a7ro[/0i]ay Trjg t5)v [Trei'^rjcov 
 KoX tS>v SovXevovTcop fi€v TrpoTcpou iXevdepcodevTcov 
 [5e 5ta] TT/v (ret(ra;(^ei[ai']. 
 
 'Eyci) 8e Tcav p,kv ovveK d^ovqXaTov 
 Brjfiov Tt TO'VT0)v irpXv tv)(S>v eiravcrdp,riv, 
 
 Srjioil MS. Sijiov. 
 
 a fih yap ewra : the MSS. of Aristides read dfia yap aeXnTO or & fih 
 yap aeXffra. Gaisford conjectured A p-ev aekirra, and is followed by 
 Bergk, and these words have hitherto been taken as the beginning of 
 a line. 
 
 aWa 8' : following Gaisford's emendation of apn 6', which is read by 
 the MSS. of Aristides. 
 
 dubavei. k.tX. : the readings in this line are rather doubtful, and the 
 exact meaning of the final couplet is not clear. There is no reason 
 why he should not hke honest men (cVfiXoi) to have an equal share in 
 the enjoyment of the country, and it may be suggested that oKKa should 
 be substituted for ovbe, as the latter may be simply a mistake due to 
 the occurrence of the same word in the same place in the preceding 
 line. 
 
 hovKivovTav : this is the first word legible on the first of the two frag- 
 ments of the IloXtTfia 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 fines, all imperfect, 
 ending with a portion of the line ttoXXSc hv avhpav 178' fxiP">^1 foXiy. 
 
 *Eym 8e tS>v pev 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). 
 
 o^ovrfXaTov : 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 a-vpiyyes, and is used in its 
 simple sense of ' whirling on the axle.' Here it is metaphorical and 
 indicates a torture such as that of Ixion. 
 
AQHNAmN nOAITEIA. 31 
 
 a-Vfifxaprvf^oi^q tcivt av iv SUr} )(p6vov 
 it-rirrip [leyCa-Trj Sai/Jiova^v 'OXvjfnrLcov 
 apicrra, Trj fj^iXaiva, tijs ey<u ttotc 
 [o]pous avelXov noXXa^rj veTrrjyoTaljs], 
 {Trpoa-d^ev he 8ovXevovcra, vvv iXevdipa. 
 TToXXov's 8' 'A^Tjvas, irarpCS' eis ^eo/cTiT[oi'], 
 [avqjyayov vpadevra';, aXXov e/cSi/cws, 
 aWoi' oi/caiws, tov<s 8' dvayxaiTys viro 
 Xpeiov<s (jivyovTa?, yXwcrcrav ovkct 'Attlk-tiv 
 leWas, ft>5 av TToXXa)(rj TrXai{cop.ivov?^, 
 Toil's S' ivdaS" avTov S[ovXC]7jv detfcea 
 [e]-)(ovTa<s, rjdr) SecnroTav T/30/Aei'jU,eV[ous], 
 [eX]eu^e/>ov9 edrjKa. Taura ju,ev Kparei 
 vofjLov, jSiav re fcal BCktjv (rvvapfjioa-as, 
 [epe^a], Koi SirjXdov ois VTrea~)(6fi'rjv. 
 dea-p.ov's ff ofio LCD'S tS /ca/coJ re KayaOw, 
 evdelav cis c/cacrTov apfiocra's Z'iKiqv, 
 iypa^a. Kevrpov 8' dXXos ct»s eyai Xa^utv, 
 \KaKp^paori<s re Kat <f)LXoKTy]fici}v avrqp, 
 ovK av KareoT^e hrjfiov' ei ydp i7[^e]Xov 
 
 xpovov : so too the MSS. of Aristides ; Bergk accepts the conjecture 
 Kpovov, but the MS. reading appears to give a perfectly good sense. It 
 is Solon's appeal to the judgment of Time. 
 
 BeoKTiTov : MS. OfOKTUTTov, which is also thp reading of all the MSS. 
 of Aristides except one. 
 
 Xpeiovs <j>vy6pTas : this is certainly a better reading than the fantastic 
 Xpr](rfi6v \eyovTas, which is given by the MSS. of Aristides, to the 
 confusion of commentators. 
 
 KpoTfi vofiov : MS. Kparefi. Kparei Sfiov is the reading of most of the 
 MSS. of Aristides, and Plutarch also gives o/jlov : in accordance with 
 which the editors read (tparij, which is found in one of the MSS. of 
 Aristides. The present text seems preferable : ' by the strength of 
 law I did it, fitting might and right together.' 
 
 el yap ijBeKov k.tX. : the quotation in Aristides ends with the words 
 OVK. hv KaTi<T\i Sjjpov, but Plutarch (c, 16) says kmtoi (l)ria\v as ei tjs aXXoj 
 eir^f ffiv avTrjV hvvap.iv, ovk hv Kareaxf 8^pov .... yd\a {cf. tnfra). 
 Consequently the latter line and a half have been joined on to the 
 quotation of Aristides ; while the lines « yhp ^6(\ov , . . , inTpa^riv 
 
32 API2T0TEA0TS 
 
 a Tots ivavTio[i(rL]v ■r]v8aveu Tore, 
 aS^iS S' a Toiatv are/oois (f)pdcraL oi^a, 
 TToXXcSv av dj/S/owv 17S' €)(y]pco6'r) 770X15. 
 [wi'] ovveK oikKriv iroivTodev 7roLovfievo<i 
 015 ev Kvcrii' TroXXato-it' i(TTpoi<fyr]v Xv/co5. 
 
 /cai TTCtXti' oveLSi^div Trpos ray vaTepov avT\ov\ /xefi^i- 
 lxoipia9 dfi(j)OTepcou' 
 
 Atj/ao) jLtev ei ^/"^ Si,a(f)paBr)v oveuoCcraL, 
 a vvv evovcTLi' ovttot 6(f)6a,\fiOLcrLV av 
 €voovTe<; eioov 
 
 oa-OL Se fi€i^ov<s Koi ^Cav dfieuvove? 
 aivolev dv fie /cai (jaXov TTotoiaro. 
 
 et yap ns- ccAAoy, ^?70-t, Tavrrjs rrjs riixrjs eTv^ev, 
 
 ovK av Ko/ricrye 8rjfiov ovo hravcraTO, 
 vplv av Tapd^a<; vvap e^[eX]eti' yd\a. 
 [Col. 5.1 ^y<^ ^^ TouTft)j/ aa-irep iv p-eraiyjiiw 
 
 6po<i KarecTTrjv. 
 1 3 . T^J' pev odv diroh-qplav liron^a-aTO 8ia ravras 
 
 'XvKor, which are separately quoted by Aristides, stand as an inde- 
 pendent fragment (Bergk, 36). The present passage shows what must 
 be taken as the true re-arrangement of the lines, from which it appears 
 that Solon repeated the phrase ovk Si/ Karea-x^ Srniov more than once. 
 
 d Tols : MS. avTois-. 
 
 avdis S' K.T.X. : the MS. is quite corrupt, reading avBis Se avroicriv 
 ovTipai (l>pacraLaTo, from which one may perhaps extract the reading 
 (ppdaai in place of Spaa-ai, which is found in Aristides. 
 
 Sm : the MSS. of Aristides have tS>v. 
 
 dKKrjv : the MSS. of Aristides have apxriv, which Bergk emends 6pyi]v. 
 The present reading seems preferable. 
 
 trotoiiievos : the MSS. of Aristides have KVKeipevos, 
 
 evSoires c'Sok : it is evident that the quotation was broken off here, 
 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. 
 
 irvap : MSS. of Plutarch n'lap. The following line and a half were 
 not hitherto known. 
 
A0HNAI12N nOAITEIA. 
 
 33 
 
 Tag' aiTLas. ^oXcovos S" am-oBTjfirjcravTos, en r^y 
 TToAeojy rerapayfiiviqs, iin fieu err] Terrapa Sirjyov [e]v 
 ijcrv^La' rm Se Tre/iTrro) /jLera tt]v 1.6X(avos ocp^rjv ovk 
 eirea-Trj&av ap^ovra dia rrjv a-T\aa\Lv, kol irdXiu 
 €Tei Trep-TTTcp *t7]v avTrjv alrlav apxaMU* €Troir}a-av. 
 fiera 8e ravra Slol rav avrav xpoucou A^ap^a^aias 
 
 13. TM 8e wefiiTTia /icto t^k SoXovos apxqv : the legislation of Solonbeing 
 in 594 B.C., the date here referred to will be 590 B.C., according to the 
 usual Greek method of reckoning time. In the lists of archons the 
 name of Simon is given for that year ; but Clinton shows some reason 
 for believing that the Parian Chronicle is right in this case, instead of 
 (as usual) giving the date a year too high, and he accordingly places 
 Simon's archonship in 591 B.C., which leaves 590 B.C. clear for the year 
 of anarchy described by Aristotle. 
 
 ineiTTt]CTav : MS. apparently airecrTrja-av. 
 
 iraKiv cr€( TrefOTTcf : Clinton, on the strength of the scholiasts on 
 Pindar {Prolog. Py^/%.), places the archonship of Damasias in 586 B.C., 
 but unless we are to suppose that there were two archons of the name 
 within five years of one another there must be a mistake here. It is 
 quite possible that this very passage of Aristotle was the authority of 
 the scholiasts (or rather of the source from which both evidently 
 drew) for the date of Damasias, and that the mistake arose through 
 there being two periods of five years mentioned. The words which 
 follow are doubtful. The MS. reading is corrupt, and the simplest 
 and most probable correction seems to be to read 8ia ti)!/ amfiv ahlav 
 ap^fjv OVK iiroirjirav. 
 
 Aa/ioo-iar : until the discovery of the Berlin fragments of the HoXirda 
 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 ap^ovTa just above, but becoming intelligible first with the 
 name Aafiaalas. It contains twenty-four lines (all imperfect, especially 
 the last five), and ends with the words ™ xp^"- 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 of the accession of Damasins to office is 
 clearly 582 B.C., and he governed for that year and the year following. 
 The Parian Chronicle for the year 581 B.C. has the words SpxovTos 
 Aap,acriov tov Sevripov, and the last word has been supposed to be 
 added to distinguish this Damasias from the archon in 639 B.C. In 
 the light of the narrative of Aristotle it is probable that it means the 
 
 D 
 
34 APIST0TEA0T2 
 
 alpejdeh apyav iT-q dvo Koi 8vo fiijuas "rtpq^v, ecos 
 e^rjXacrOrf fiia ttjs a.p\ris. elr eSo^e^v] avTols ^la 
 TO (TTacria^eLV ap-^ovras iXecrOat Seku, wevre p.ev 
 evTrarpiSmv, rpeh Se d^yp'^oiKcov, Svo Se Srjp.Covpyau, 
 
 second year of the rule of Damasias, though the compiler of the 
 chronicle possibly did not so understand it himself, but copied it from 
 a record in which the name of Damasias stood against both 582 and 
 581 B.C. : in this case it is a confirmation of the date as deducible 
 from Aristotle. As to the constitutional significance 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, wa-re SijXov k.t.\., 
 indicates that though the archon's was the most important post it did 
 not stand alone) in 582 B.C., illegally continued himself in office during 
 the following year, and in fact endeavoured 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. This was a mixed board of ten 
 members, five belonging to the Eupatridae, three to the Geomori (here 
 called ciypoLKoi), 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 
 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. 
 
 aypoUmv : 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 airoiKoi, but 
 
A0HNAIi2N nOAITEIA. 35 
 
 Acat ovTOi Tov fiera Aafiaaiav \ri]p^a[y ejuiavTov. 
 a)\o-T€J SrjXov on /xeyLcrTrjv dx^v 8vvafiiv 6 apxcov 
 <f)aivovTai, yap alel a-r^ajcrtd^ovTes Trepl ravTTjs rrjs 
 ap^rjs. oAtay 8e SiereXovv voaovure? to, irpos 
 iavTovs, 01 jxev ap^^v koI Trpocfyacrtu e\ovT€s ttjv 
 Twv xp^mv aTTOKoirr^v, crvvelSefiyKeL yap avrols yeyo- 
 V€vai TTiVTjaLV, OL Sc Tjj TToXiTeLo, 8v(rx€paivovT€s 8ia 
 TO fieyaXrju yeyovevat jxeTa^oXrjv, evioi Se 5[ta rr^vj 
 Trpos aXXrjXovs ^iXoviKLav. r](rav [5'] ai crTacreii 
 
 it can hardly be the true word. Apart from the fact that aypoiKot 
 corresponds with the name of the middle class as it is otherwise 
 known (yeafiopoi), 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. aypoi&Tai) explains that word thus, 
 aypoiKoi, Koi yci/os 'AOijVTiinv, ot avTiSiecTTeXKovTo jrpbs tovs evTrarpibas' rjv 
 Se TO tS>v yeapymv, Koi Tpirop to tS>v 6rjpiovpyS>v, 
 
 alei: this spelling is so commonly found in the MS. that it seems 
 hetter to retain it in the text where it occurs. 
 
 01 ii€v . . . oi Se : these two classes are not the upper and lower 
 classes, since the latter would have no reason to complain of a great 
 /*€raj3o\ii 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 fox 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 modern British 
 constitution. 
 
 ^aav S' ai (rTaaeis ac.t.X. : the Story of the rise of Pisistratus is sub- 
 stantially the same as that which we know already from Herodotus 
 and Plutarch. 
 
 D a 
 
36 APISTOTEAOTS 
 
 rpels, fiLa jxlv toov irapaXlxov, &V TrpoeiarrjKei Meya- 
 kXtJs o 'AXKjxloivos, o\t'\iTep iSoKOVV fidXicTTa SicoKecv 
 TTjv fi€(r7)v TToXtTeiav aXXr] 8e tcou ireSia^K&vj, oi ttjv 
 bXiyap-)(iav i^-qrovv, rjyelTO d' avToov KvKovpyos' 
 TpiTT) 8' Tf TOOV diUKpicov, icj) jf TeTuyfievos T]V 
 YieKriarpaTOS, 8r)p,OTiK00TaTos eivai 8okcov. irpoa- 
 eKeK6ap,-qvT0 81 tovtols ot re a<l>\7J\pT]p.€V0L ra XP^'^ 
 Sia Trjv a7ro/)[i]aj', /cat ol tw yevei p-rj KaOapoL 8i.a 
 Tov (po^ov aripiLov 8', on p-era ttjv rvpavvcov 
 KaTaaTaaLV eiroiyjaav 8La(j)r]p,i(Tp,ov toy TroXXatv koi- 
 vcovovvTcov Trjs iroXLTelas ov Trpoa-rJKOv. €u\ov 8' 
 cKacrroi rag eTrcovvpLas oltto twv T\o^Trcov iu oly 
 iyecopyovv. 
 
 'AXKfiiapos : the spelling of the MS. is retained, which consistently 
 has e for the more usual at in this word and its cognates, such as 
 'AKK/ifcDviSai. In the patronymic the spelling varies between a and o 
 (c/. ch. 20). ' 
 
 irebiaKav : 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 mbiiav. 
 
 hia TOW ^oQov : sc. of a return to the aristocratic regime of class and 
 family qualifications, in place of the Solonian property qualification. 
 But though they feared a distinctly and avowedly aristocratic basis of 
 government, they showed that they were oligarchic in sympathies by 
 the resolution which Aristotle records in the next sentence, the point 
 of which is to prove that the supporters of Pisistratus were not all 
 democratic in their views. 
 
 SuKJiTjiiia-fuiv : i. e. a proclamation. The word does not seem to be 
 found elsewhere, but the verb dia(priiii((iv occurs in Dionysius of Hali- 
 carnassus. 
 
 elxou 8' exao-Toi k.t.X. : the three local divisions of the Plain, the 
 Shore, and the Mountain corresponded with differences of class which 
 account for their being taken as the basis for political divisions. 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 oc- 
 cupied 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. 
 
AQHNAmN nOATTEIA. 37 
 
 14' ArjfioTiKcoTaToy 5' eivat boKmv 6 Ylei<TL(rTpaTos, 
 Kol (TCfyoSp' evSoKLfirjKms eV tS irpos M[ey]apeay 
 
 14. €6So(et/«;i£a)r€i'Tffl7rposMe'yap€ay7roXe;i(»: 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), jrporepov euSoKifi^o-as eV t^ 
 Trpbs Meyapeas yevofievri orpaTijyti;, Niffatdv tc eXtof, Km oKKa dnoSe^afievos 
 fifyoiKa fpya, 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 most modem historians (cf. Abbott, I. 399), Grote, though 
 he argues that the dates make it practically impossible, believing that 
 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, 'Sia-aiav i\a>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 yrfpaios, 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 age) 
 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 (infra, 
 ch. 17, (pavepms Xi/poO<rt (j)d<TKOi'Tes ipap^vov eivai IltaitrTparov SoKavos Koi 
 (TTpaTTjyeiv iv ra rrpbs Meyapeas noKcfia Trepi SaXafieicos' oi yap evSexerai 
 ra'ts ijAiKiair). 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 Alcmaeonidae, 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 
 
38 APISTOTEAOTS 
 
 iroXefio), KaTaTpavfrnria-as eavrov (rvveTreicre rov 
 Srjfiov, as Trapa tcov avTia-raa-icoTCov ravra irewov- 
 d[<o]s, (ftvXaK^v eavrS Sovvai tov craifiaTos, 'ApLcr- 
 Tiayvos \y\p\a^avTOS rrjv yveo/XTjv. Xaficou 8e tovs 
 Kopvvr](])6pov9 KaXovjxevovs, kiravaaTas \iera tovtcou 
 TOO St^/xco Kari(T\^ r^u aKpoiroXcv eVet Sevrepco Kai 
 TpiaKoaTco p.eTa rr/u t5>v voficov decnv, ein K[o)/x,Jeou 
 apxovTos. Xiyerai 5e '^oXoiva, YiujicrTpaTOV ttqv 
 (j)vXaKrjv alrovvTos, avriXe^ai Koi €hrel\y o\ti twv 
 pkv el'77 (ro(j)c6Tep09, rmv 8' avSpeto^Tepojs' oaoi fieu 
 yap ayvoovaL Yiicria-TpaTov eTriTcdefievov rvpav^vlSij 
 (ro(l)(OT€pos elvai tovtcov, oaoi 5* elSorey KaTaata- 
 
 about seventy at the time of his death, which is as high as we can safely 
 go, he must have been bom 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 a-TpaTrjyelv confirming Herodotus' Nto-ami' 
 eXatv), which may be assigned approximately to 565 B.C. 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. 
 
 eiSoKiiirjKa)! : the augment is omitted, as it also is in the MSS. of 
 other Attic writers, e.g. Aristophanes' Clouds, 1031 ; Xen. Hell. VI. i, 2. 
 
 'Aptariavos : Plutarch (Sol. 30) gives the name as Ariston. 
 
 erei Sevripa Kal TpiaKoa-ra: this is probably a slip on the part of 
 Aristotle, since the archonship of Corneas and the first accession of 
 Pisistratus to power fall in 560 B. C, while the legislation of Solon is 
 fixed with fair certainty in 594 B.C. At the same time the authorities 
 are not unanimous, and 591 B.C. is a possible date for Solon ; but this 
 would involve an alteration in the date of Damasias and the other 
 events mentioned at the beginning of ch. 13. 
 
 Kffljticou : in Plutarch {Sol. 32) the name is spelt Ka>p,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. 
 
 Xeyerai S6\ava k.t.}!.. : c/. Plutarch {c. 30). 
 
 nia-ifTTparov : the spelling of this name in the MS. varies, the diph- 
 thong being used at first and afterwards the single vowel. 
 
 KaraaiamSxriv : MS. KaTaa-tmiravTes, clearly a clerical blunder caused 
 by the participle preceding. 
 
AQHNAmN nOAITEIA. 39 
 
 irSxriv avSpeiorepos. eVei 8e Xiycov [Trparrei ovjdeu, 
 igapa/ievos to, oirXa irpo ratv 6vpS>v avros p.ei> 60?; 
 fie^orjdrjKivaL rrj TraTpiBi Ka& oaov rjv Svvaros {rjSr) 
 yap (r<p68pa TrpeafivTrjs ^v), d^iovv 8e /cat tovs aXXovs 
 TavTo TOVTO TTOielv. "^oXmv [/xev ovv ov]8ei> ■^vvcrev 
 Tore irapaKaXav Ui(ricrTpaT09 8e XajSap ttjv dpxw 
 OLcpKei Ta KOLva iroXiTiKas p-dXXov ^ TvpavuiKas. 
 ovirco 8e r^y dp^rjs ippt^mp.ei'ijs ofiocppovrjcrai/Tes 
 [olj wepl Tov MeyuKXea kou top AvKovfpyojv i^e^a- 
 Xov avTov eKTCp €T€l fierd tt]v irpmnqv KardcTTaacv, 
 e^' 'HyrjCTLOv dp^ovrog. erei 5e 8(o8eKdTcp fxerd 
 ravra TrepLeXavv6p.evos 6 Meya/cX^y rfj o-rdcrei, 
 
 e^apafievos TO. onXa k.tX.: MS. e^aipa/ievos. For the story, t/ Plutarch 
 
 oujTffl Trjs dpxrjs eppif<»/ievi)s : Aristotle is clearly following Herodotus' 
 Tiji/ TvpavviSa ovkco Kapra ippi^iofiivtjv e)(av (I, 6o). The date which 
 Aristotle adds, exra eVet p,eTa rrju irpiirriv KaTaaraaiv i<p' 'Hyrjalov apxpvTOS) 
 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 p^era oi jroXvv xpo"""! and this, coupled with the phrase 
 ovira eppi^afjievriv, would justify Curtius' belief that the first tyranny 
 lasted only about a year, were it not for the direct statement of 
 Aristotle. 
 
 ?T« Se ScoSfKara imcto. ravra : Aristotle gives us plenty of materials for 
 determining the chronology of Pisistratus, but unfortunately they are 
 absolutely irreconcileable. The two extreme dates are 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, diflfers from Aristotle's own statement in Po/. 
 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. He tells us that the first expulsion took 
 place inrta erfi, or five full years after the first establishment of the 
 tyranny; that the return and establishment of the second tyranny 
 occurred haiv^ara erei p^ra ravra; that the second expulsion took 
 place erei poKurra efidopa pera rfjv KaSoSov, and the final return evSeKarif 
 eret. These periods, added together, amount at the lowest computation 
 
40 API2T0TEA0T2 
 
 ttoXlv eTTLKrjpvKevo-afxevos irpos [roji' Tli(ri(rTpaTOV 
 icf) a re r^v dvyarepa avTov Xr)\j/eTac, Karrjyayeu 
 avTov ap')(CLLKS>s Kcu Xiav airXms. TrpoScacnreipas 
 yap Xoyov a>s TrJ9 'Adrjva^ Karayovcnqs Yii(rt,- 
 (TTparov, Kcu yvvatKa pieyakqv kcu KaXrjv i^evpcov, 
 
 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. 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, 560-5 55 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. 
 
 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, however, is quite 
 in harmony with the words of Herodotus (I. 59), ro fiev 'Attikov kotcxo- 
 fievov re Kat Siea-Traa-neuov envvddvfTO 6 Kpoltror iuro Hficria-TpaTov tov 'Itttto- 
 Kpareos, TOvrov Toi/ xP^vov TvpavvevovTOs ' A.6r)vaiaiv. 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. 
 
A©HNAmN nOAITEIA. 41 
 
 ojy fx^v 'H/)o5oroy (j)T](riv e'/c tov Si^fiov t(ov Haiavecov, 
 toy 8 kvioL Xeyovo-if €k tov KoXvttov a-reipavoTrcoXiu 
 Qpyrrav, fi ovo/xa ^vrj, rrju deov aTrofiifirja-d/jLevos 
 rm Koa-ficp \_KaTi^'j'yaye[yj fier avrov, koI 6 fikv 
 UiatarpaTos i(f)' ap/xaros ela-^Xavue TrapaifiaTOvarTjs 
 Trjs yvvaiKos, ol 8' iv ra aa-rei. trpoa-KwovvTes 
 i8i^ovTO 6avp.d^ovT€s. 
 
 15- 'H p,€v odv TrpcoTT] Kddo8os e[y€V]ero Toiavrr]. 
 fiera 8e ravra, toy e^eTrecre to 8evTepov eTci fidXicrTa 
 e^SofJup /x€Ta Tfjv KoidoSov, — ov yap ttoXvv )(p6vov 
 Karea-xev, aAA[a] Sict to prj fiovXe&Oai Trj tov 
 MeyaKXeovs 6vyaTp\ crvyyivea-dai (f)ofir]0eh dp- 
 <j)OT€pas TOLS (TTda-eis VTre^TJXdei'' kcu ,irpa>Tov pev 
 (TvucpKKre Trepi tov Qeppaiov koXttov yoapiov 
 KoXeiTaL 'PaiKTjXos, eKcWev 5e TraprjXdev els tovs 
 irepl Tlayyaiov tottovs, odev ')(p'r]paTL(Tdp£vos Koi 
 (TTpaTLCOTas piaOcoaapevos, iXdwu els '^peTpiav 
 ivScKaTcp TToXiv €Tei, TO irpSiTov dvaa-axrourdai jSia 
 
 tftrja-h : MS. (^17, but it is hardly likely that Aristotle should have used 
 this shortened form, which appears to occur only in Anacreon. 
 
 i7Te(f>avona>\w : so Athenaeus, XIII. p. 609. 
 
 15. as cieTrea-e k.t.X.: the construction of this sentence is ungram- 
 matical, as there is no principal sentence on which the clause as e^enfae 
 can depend. The syntax can be restored by striking out Kai before 
 irpSrrov /lev and taking ov yap . . me^rjXdev as a parenthesis ; but it is 
 more probable that Aristotle broke off his original construction at 
 ov yap, and forgot to resume it. 
 
 wpSiTov p-ev 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 air& 'Srpvp^vos jrora/xoS. 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. 
 
 'PaiKijXos : at first written PatKijSos-, but corrected. 
 
43 APISTOTEAOrS 
 
 Tr]v a,p^r)u eVe^et/oet, avfnrpodvfiovfievcoi' avra iroX- 
 Xa>v fi€v KotX aXKav, fxaXia-Ta 8e Qrj^auov kui 
 AvySdfiios Tov ^a^iov, ert 8e tcov hnrecov tcov 
 [Col. 6.]' e)(6vT(ov iv 'Kperpia rrjv TroXiTelau. VLKrjcras 8e 
 TTjv eiri YlaXXrjvidL ^p.d^rjjv koI Xa^av \Tr)v dp')(i]^v 
 Kol irapeXop-evos tov dr]p.ov ra oirXa Karel^ev rjBr) 
 Trjv TvpavviBa fie^aicos, [kol] eiy Na^oj' eA[^la)i' 
 ap^ovra KariaTrjae AvyBapuv. TrapeTXev 8e tov 
 8t)p.ov to, oirXa T6v8e tov Tpoirov. i^oTrXccriav iu 
 r[roj 'AvaKeia Troirjadpievos eKKXrjcrid^eiv eVe^eipei, 
 ^(f)covfj 8' i^eKXrjcrQaaei' puKpoV ov (paa-KOVTCov 8e 
 KaTUKOveiv eKeXevaev avTOVS irpoaav^a^^rj^vai^ irpos 
 TO TrpoTTvXov TTjs oLKpoiToXecos tva yeytovrj p.a.XXov. 
 iv m 8" eKelvos BieTpi^e 8r]p,r)yopcov, dveXovTes 
 ol eVt TOVTCov TeTayp.€voi to, OTrXa avTwv [koL 
 crvyjKXrjLaavTe9 els [raj irXTjo'lov olKT]fiaTa tov 
 QrjaeLov 8i€<7rjpr]vav iX$6vT€s Trpos tov Iliaia-Tpa- 
 toV 6 8e [eVei Tjov dXXov Xoyov i-TreTeXeaev, eiire 
 
 Ttjv eVl naWtjviSi lidxr/v: the scholiast on Aristoph. Acharn. 234 refers 
 to this passage ; IlaXXijvaSe" 01 IlaXXijvEts S^fidr eVrt t^s 'ATTtie^r, hiBa 
 Jl€t(Tt(rTpdT<o ^ov\ofjL€vc^ Tvpavvetv Koi *Adrjvaiois dixvvofi€Vois aiiTOP trvveaTrf 
 
 TToKefios nffivtjTm 8e tovtov koi 'AvSporiiov xal 'AptororeXijr iv 'Adrj- 
 
 vaiav 7roXiT«9 (Rose, Frag. 355). 
 
 TrapeiXei/ Se k.tX. : the story of this stratagem is told by Polyaenus 
 (Strateg. I. 21, 2). 
 
 e^o7rXt<riac : MS. e^ojrXao'iai'. 
 
 ^mirf i^tKKr]a[aiT(v piKpov : this restoration is not proposed with much 
 confidence. 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. 
 
 fltcTptjSc: apparently written SierpeijSe in the MS. Similarly elsewhere 
 Kfiviiv, x"Xiour. 
 
 Terayp-evoi. ; before this word there is an erasure of one or two letters 
 in the MS. 
 
A©HNAmN nOAITEIA. 43 
 
 Kai irepi tcov ottXcov to yeyovos, \Xiycov ms ov xpv\ 
 davfxd^eiv oy[5e KaTojdvfMeiv, dXX' d-Ki\66vras kin 
 TOiv ISuav, TCOV 8e KOLvav [avr^ vvv\ fieX-^aeadai 
 iravTcov. 
 
 1 6. ['H ii\v odu Hijaia-TpaTOu Tvpauvh i^ dp-)(rjf 
 T€ KaTecTTT] ^TOvTov^ Tov TpoTTOv Kou [/tierajSolAay ^arx^ 
 ToaavTas. SimKet 5' 6 WKriaTpaTOs, axnrep eipiQ- 
 [^Kafievj, Tr]v ttoXlv fieTplcos koL p,dXXov ttoXltikws 
 r) TvpavviKoas' ev re yap toIs ^[etr/ioty (j)ijXdudpeo7ros 
 rfv Kai Trpdos koL toIs dp.apTauovac trvyyvcop-ovLKOs, 
 Kol 8rj KOL TOIS d^Trojpoi^sj TrpoeSdveL^e ■xplvf^^'}''^ 
 irpos Tas ipyaacas, maTe Siaynrejpes eyeapyovvTO. 
 TovTO 8' iiroieL Svoiv [^^cTj/Oii', ti'ra] /x^re eV rro dcrTei 
 SiaTpifimcriv dXXa hieairappiivoi Kwra ttjv ^co/jai', 
 KOU oTTCos [eu7ro]/)oi)i/rey twp p.eTpioov kol yrpos Tots 
 [iJSiOiy ovTes pir]T imOvp^ma-i fii^Te (rxoXd^faxrii'^ 
 eTrip-eXeicrdai twv KOivav. dp.a Se (TVve^aLvev avTa 
 Kot Tas irpoaobovs ylveaQai /(/.[et^ojuy i^epya^op.epr]s 
 TTjs xtopas' iwpaTTeTO yap diro tcov yiyvop-ivav 
 SeKdTiju. 810 KOU Tovs Kara [S^/iJofy KaTeaKeva^e 
 8iKa<TTas Kal avTos i^y^i 7roAXa/cty ely Trjv yapav 
 
 16. iyeapyovvTo : MS. eyfapyovvrai ; the copyist seems at first to have 
 written yeapyovvrai, and then an e has been prefixed above the line, 
 with the view of altering the word to the imperfect, but the termination 
 is accidentally left unaltered. The middle is not otherwise known. 
 
 TOVTO 8' i'n-oUi K.T.'\. : cf. Aristotle, Pol. V. 11, where the house of Pi- 
 sistratus is mentioned among the tyrants who undertook great public 
 works as a means of keeping the people poor and constantly occupied. 
 
 hiKoTifii: Boeckh {Public Economy, III. f. 6) mentions this tithe, but 
 the evidence has hitherto been of doubtful authority. Thucydides 
 (VI. 54) mentions an ciKovTr) 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. 
 
 e'^ijet : MS. e^Tjet. 
 
44 API2T0TEA0TS 
 
 eTria-KOTrav [/cai] StaX^XaTrjcov roiis Sia^epofxevovs, 
 oirays fiy Kara^aivovTes els to acTTV Trapa/xeXmai 
 Tcov layplmv. TOLavrrjs yap tlvos e^oSov t^ Hiai- 
 aTpdrco yiyvopeurjs a-vp^rjvai (paaL ra irepl rov ev 
 T^ ^YprjJTTm yempyovvra to KXrjdev vaTepou ■)(a>pLOV 
 (XTeXes. iScov yap Tiva TraTTaXa TreTpas (TKairTOVTa 
 Kol ipya^ofievov, Sia to davfidaai tov 7ra[rraXoj^J 
 iKeXevei/ [epleaOat, tl yiyveTai e/c tov j(copLOV 6 8', 
 oaa KaKO, Kal oSvvaL, e^r;, Kal tovtcov twv KaK&v kclI 
 T&v \o^8vvS>v YiLaicTTpaTov del Xafieiv ttjv 5e[Ka]- 
 tt)v. p.€v ovv avOpwiros \ajire^KpL^vaTO dyvomv, 6 
 Be Hia-icTTpaTos rjaOils 8ia ttjv TrappricrLav kcu ttjv 
 (piXepyiav [alreX^ dirdvTcov eTroLTjaev avTov. ovSev 
 8e TO ttXtjOos ov8' iv toIs dXXoLS wapco^Xei /cara ttjv 
 dpXWi dXX' aiel Tr^oi^petrK^evja^ev eiprjvrjv /cat e[T]?)/)ei 
 8\j.j rjcrv^Lav 8lo Kal iroXXotKis [Trapmpid^^eTO as 
 
 [^] UKTKTTpaTOV TVpaVVLS 6 CTTt K^Oi'[ou] filOS €17)' 
 
 avve^r] yap va-Tepov 8ta [r^y fJ/Q^ecoy] Tmv v'Ueov 
 TToXXm yevecrdai Tpa^vTepav ttjv dp-)(r]v. peytcTTOv 
 8e TrdvTcov rjv \tS)v dpecTKO^pevcov to 8rjpoTiKov eluai 
 Tw -qdei Kal (piXdvOpcoirov. ev re yap roty aAAofiy 
 etco^etj iravTa Sloik€lv KaTO. tovs vopovs, ovBepiav 
 iavTw TrXeove^iav 8l8\ovs Kal 7ror]e irpocrKXrjdels 
 (j)6vov BiKrjv els 'Apeiov 7ray[oi'] avTos peu dirrjVT'qaev 
 my yaTToXoY/rjaopevos, 6 8e TrpoaKaXeadpevos (po^rj- 
 deis eXuirev. 8lo Kal ttoXvu ■)(p6vov epeive Wvpavvayv, 
 
 'YfirjTT^ : the reading is doubtful, but this is the locality named by 
 Apostolius {cf. next note). 
 
 warraKa : the word is very doubtful, except the first two letters. The 
 story is told, though not in the same words, by several of the collectors of 
 proverbs (cf. Zenobius, Cent, iv, Prov. 76 ; Apostolius, Cent, x, Prov. 80). 
 
 Kai TTOTc Trpo(rK\r]6els k.t.X. : cf. Arist. Pol. V. 12, Plut. Sol. 31. 
 
AQHNAmN nOAITEIA. 45 
 
 el'Jr eKweo-oi ttoXlv iTreXdfi^ave paBioas. i^ovXovro 
 yap KOL Tmv yvoopi/xcov Kol rmv [prjfioJTtKwv ol ttoXXol' 
 Tovs fiev yap raty OfiiXlais tovs 8e rals els ra 'i8ia 
 ^orjOeiais [axpeXrja-evj, Ka). Trpos a/jLCporepovs i7re(l)VK€i 
 KaXoos. rjaav fie kcu toIs 'AdrjuatoLS ol Trepl tS>v 
 \TV\pavwiv vo/xoi irpaoi /car eKeiuovs tovs Kaipovs 
 01 T aXXoL KCU 8r] koX 6 ixaXiara /ca^r^KJeoj/ irpos tt]s 
 Tvpavvibos. vofios yap avrols rjv oBe' Oiap-La rdSe 
 'AOrjvai^cov eVrtJ Trdrpia, idv [rtj'jey rvpavvelv eVa- 
 vuTTOiyvjTaL [77] eVt TvpavviBi 7't(y) (rvyKadLo-Trj rrjv 
 TvpavviSa aTLfion/ eivjai avrou /cat yivos. 
 
 17. YltcriaTpaTos jxev odv iyKarey-Qpaae rfj dp^rj 
 Kul d7r\edjave voarjaa^s eVi] ^iXoveco dp^ovTOS, a0' 
 01) fxev KareaTT) to TrpaTov Tvpavvos eV?; r/Oia[/coli'rr]a 
 /cai Tpia ^icoaas, a 8' eV rjj dp^fj Bie/JLeivev evos 
 8eovTa eiKoaf e^^yyjev yap Ta Xouird. 8to Ka\ 
 (j)av€pws Xrjpova-L (f)aaK0VT€s epcofxevov eivat Uiai- [Col. 7.] 
 (TTpaTov ^oXcovos /cat aTpaTrjyelv iv tS wpos Me- 
 yapeas iroXefxa) Trepl ^aXap.elvos' ov yap evSe^eTai 
 Tois T^XiKiais eav tls dvaXoyi^rjTai tov eKarepov 
 ^iov Kal icf)' ov direOavev dp^ovTos. TeXevT-qaavTos 
 8e YleiarKTTpaTov Karel^ov ol vlets ttju dp^-qv, irpoa- 
 yayovTes Ta irpayfiaTa tov avTov Tpowou. rjaav 8e 
 
 irpbs Trjs TvpavviSos : MS. Ttpos T{riv) t())j) TvpavviBos, which seems to be 
 a confusion between wpos rr/v rvpavviba and itpos ttjs rvpavviSos. Probably 
 the copyist began to write the former but changed to the latter, and 
 forgot to strike out the rrjv. 
 
 17. iyKareyfipaire ; MS. fVKareyripacri. 
 
 iici ^CKovea apxovros : 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 sum- 
 marised, see notes on ch. 14, tiSoKifiriKms k.t.\. and erei de daSeKara 
 
 K.T.X. 
 
46 APIST0TEA0T2 
 
 8vo /xep €K T7]5 yafieTTjs, 'linrias kcu lirirap^os, 8vo 
 5' e'/c rrjs 'Apyeias, 'lo(f)(ov /cat 'YiyrjalaTpaTOS, c5 
 wapcovvfiiov rjv GeVraXoy. eyrj/xev yap YiicncrTpaTos 
 i^ "Apyovs avBpos 'Apyeiov dvyarepa, m bvofia rjv 
 VopyiXos, TLp-mvaacrav, rji/ Trporepov ea")(€v yvvaiKa 
 'Apylvos 6 ^ApjirpaKKorrjs twv ^v^€\l8S>v odev kou 
 r) wpos Tovs 'Apyelovs iveaTT] (piXia, kcu crvvep,a-^ 
 ■)(€cravTO ^iXioL rrju eV TlaXX7]vi8i p-a^rjv Yieiaia- 
 Tparov KOfiiaavTos . yrjfiaL 8e (fxKri ttjv 'Apyeiav ol 
 fi€u eKireaovTa to irpcoTOv, ol fie Kariyovra rrjv ap\rjv. 
 1 8. 'Hcrav 8e Kvpioi rwv p,€v irpayp.aTav 8ia ra 
 a^LCop,aTa kou 8ia ras rjXiKias "liTTrap^os kcu 'iTnrlas, 
 irpeafivTepos 8" a>v 6 'iTTTrlas kcu ry ^vaei ttoXltlkos 
 KCU ep.(l)pcou €7r€crTaT€i Trjs ap^s. 6 Se Iinrapxos 
 7raL8iOi>8r]s Kcu ipcoTiKos koI (piXop-ovcros r]v, kcu tovs 
 irepX ' AvaKpeoi/ra koL ^ifJxoviSrjv Kctl tovs aXXovs 
 TTOirjTas ovTos rjv o p.eTairep.irop.^vos' QerraXos 8e 
 vecoTepos ttoXv kou tco ^lco dpacrvs kol v^ptaTrjs. 
 a^ 01) Kai avve^T] ttjv ap-^rjv avTols yeveaOuL 
 
 eK Trjs yanerrj! : the name of Pisistratus' first wife is not known. 
 
 'HytjcrlaTpaTos, m wapavvfuov rjv QirraXos : Thessalus is mentioned by 
 Thucydides (I. 20) and also by Plutarch {Caio, 24), who calls him the 
 son of Pisistratus and Timonassa ; Hegesistratus is named by Hero- 
 dotus (V. 94), who calls him iraiSa vodov yfyovora i^ 'Apy€lt]s yvvaiKos ; 
 but there has been nothing hitherto to show their identity. Herodotus 
 can hardly be correct in calling him illegitimate ; for Pisistratus must 
 have been regularly married to Timonassa, if the union was accom- 
 panied by an alliance with Argos. 
 
 1 8. TOVS irepl 'AvaKpeovTa (cai St^cai/i'fii/v : the presence of these two poets 
 at Athens under the patronage of Hipparchus is also mentioned in the 
 pseudo-Platonic dialogue Hipparchus, p. 228 C. 
 
 d^' o5 KOI avvi&T] k.tX. : in face of the direct testimony of Thucydides 
 (VI, 54) it seems impossible to refer the relative to its natural ante- 
 cedent, Thessalus, and it therefore seems better to treat the words 
 eeTToXos . . . ippKTTqs as a parenthesis, and to suppose that Aristotle is 
 
AOHNAIHN nOAITEIA. 47 
 
 travTCov rav KaKmv. ipacrdiis yap tov 'ApfioSlov 
 /cat SiafxapTavcov rrjs 7r/)oy avrov ^iXias, ov Karel^^e 
 TTjv bpyrjv aAA' ev re rols aXXoLS ivea-qiiaive to 
 TnK^p6vj, Kol TO TeXevToiov p.iXXov(rav avTov tyjv 
 aSeXcprjv Kavrjcpopelv YlavaOrjvaiOLS i^^KcojXvaev Xol- 
 Boprjaas tl tov 'App,68Lov roy [xaXaKov ouTa, oOev 
 (Tvve^r) Trapo^vvdevTas [rovj 'Ap/xoSiov kol tov 
 'ApiCTToyeiTOva wpaTTeiv Trjv wpa^Lv fieTa iroXiTav 
 iroXXav. ■^dr} 5e ^irapaTrjjpovvTes eV aKpoTroXet 
 Tols UavadrjvaLOLg 'lirTriav {eTvy^avev yap ovtos 
 p.€T€p-)(6p.evos, 6 d' iTTTra/j^oy airoaTeXXoav tt/v 
 TTOfiTrrjv), ISovTes Ttva tcov kolvcovovvtcov ttJs irpa- 
 
 still speaking of Hipparchus. Among the fragments of Heraclides 
 Trepl TToXiTcias 'Adqvaiav (preserved in a Vatican MS., cf. Rose, Frag. 
 611, ed.l886), a work whicli was evidently an epitome qf Aristotle, is 
 the following summary of this passage, but so confused as to lend no 
 assistance, ncio'iVrpaToy \y erri Tvpavyrjaas yrjpd<ras atredavev, "iTtirap^os 
 6 uioy TlfunaTp&TOv TraiSiaSrjs rju Ka\ ipanKos Kai (f>i\6pov<Tos, GetrtraXos 8e 
 vemrepos koi Bpairvs, tovtov Tvpawovvra pfj hvvrjQtVTa (or -es) dvfXeii' 
 "Ijrrrapxpv airexTeive (or -av) tou dStkcpov avrov. 'iTmtas 8e jriKpoTara 
 ervpdvvei, Kai tov 'jvep\ otTTpaKKrp.ov vofiov elo'rjyrjfraTOj os eredrj 6ta tovs 
 TvpavvmVTas. Koi aXXoi re waTpaKiaBqaav Kai Savdmnos Kai 'ApiixTeiSris. 
 
 ■KokiT&v : the first letters of this word are doubtful. Thucydides 
 (VI. 56) expressly says that the conspirators were not many in number, 
 i^trav be ov ^oXXoi oi ^vvopwp^oKOTes d(T(j)a\eias eveKa. 
 
 iv dxponokfi : 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 
 to look for Hipparchus. 
 
 o 8' "imrapxos dtrodTeWav ttjv jrofiTr^c: this again is not in accordance 
 with Thucydides, who says it was Hippias who was arranging the 
 procession. 
 
48 APISTOTEAOTS 
 
 [^JecBs- <f)Lkav6pa)ir(os ivTvyxavovra t^ '\inria kcu 
 vofiLcravT€s fxrjvveiv, iSovXofievoi ti Spdaat irpo rrjs 
 avW-qy^eoas, Kara^avTes Koi irpoe^avacrTavTes tSsu 
 \aXku)v\ Tov jxlv "linrapxov 8MK\o(r'\fJiovvTa rrjv 
 TTOfJiTrrjv Trapa to AecoKopeiou wwiKTeLvav. yryjv fiev 
 odv oX^rju iXvixrjvavTO irpa^LV, avTwv 8' 6 p,€v 
 'ApfJLoBLOs evdecos eTeXevTrja-ev viro rav 8\opv(^o\pa}v, 
 6 S" ' ApiaTO^yejiTcov {jo-repov avXX7}<pdels kcu ttoXvv 
 Xpovou aLKKrOeis. Kanqyoprjaev 8' ev [rjaiy avay- 
 Kais TToXXmv ol kcu [rjj] (l)vaeL rav iincpavoov kcCl 
 (piXoL TQis TvpavvoLS r](rav. ov [yap ej8vvavT0 
 Trapa')(jprjp.a Xa^elv ov8ev t-)(yos rrjs irpa^ecos, aAA' 
 6 Xey6jX€vos Xoyos a>s 6 'liririas airocTTrjcras airo 
 Toav ottXcov tovs TTOfxirevovTas i(j)copaa€ tovs ra 
 iyXeipiSia e^ovras ovk dXr)0r)9 iarLV ov yap 
 iiripnrovTO fxeO' ottXcov, dXX' varepov tovto Kare- 
 (TKevaaev 6 8rjixos. KaTTjyopei 8e rav tov Tvpavvov 
 (f)iXa)v, as p.ev ol 8'qp.oTLKoi (j)a(rLv, eVtrT^Sey tua 
 daefi-^aaieu dp.a kuI yevoiVTO dyevvels dveXovres 
 
 wapa t6 AetBKopeiov : the exact phrase of Thucydides, which shows 
 Arnold's conjecture irepi to be unnecessary. 
 
 TToXiiv )(p6vov aiKurQels : Thucydides' ov pahltos SiereBrj. 
 
 6 "Keyofievos \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 Pana- 
 thenaea 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. Moreover Aris- 
 totle 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. 
 
 aKri6r]s : MS. dXr)6€S. 
 
AQHNAmN nOAITEIA. 49 
 
 T0V9 avaiTiov9 kcu <f)iXovs eavrmv, o)? 8' evLoi 
 X^yova-Lv, ovxi rrXaTTOfievos aAXa roiis a-vveiSoras 
 efir)vv€u. Koi TeXoy tay ovk Tj^vvaro Travra iromv 
 aTTodaveiv, eTrayyeiXafievos coy aXXovs ixr/vucrcov 
 TToXXoiiy Koi TreiVay avrS top 'iTnriav Sovvai rrjv 
 de^iav TTiVreffly )(apiv, toy eXa/Sev ovubicras OTt tco 
 (j)oveL Tov d8eX(j)ov ttjv Se^iap SeScoKe ovtco Trapco- 
 gvve TOV 'linriav axrff inro TrJ9 opyrjs ov Karei^ev 
 iavTov aXXa cnraadfievos ttjv p.a)(cupav 8ie(f)0eipeu 
 
 avTov. 
 
 19. Mera 5e ravra (rvve^aivev ttoXXw Tpa^v- 
 Tepav eiuai rrfu TvpavulSa' kcu yap did to TifuopeLU 
 T(^ d8eX(f)iS Koi Sia to ttoXXovs dvrjprjKevai. Koi 
 eK^e^XrjKevai ird(riv rjv diriaTos kcu iriKpos. eTei 
 8e T€TapTcp fJiaXicTTa fieTa tov '\inrap')(ov davuTov, 
 eVet KUKms etX^" '''" ^^ ''''? ^(^T^h ttjv yiovvv^iav 
 i-jre^eLprjo'e Tei^i^eLv, coy e/cet fiedi8pvcr6fJievo9. iv 
 TOVTOis 5' av i^eTvecrev vtto ILXeofiivovs tov Aa/ce- 
 8r)fiovo9 /QacTiXe'coy, )(pr](rfJL6iv yivofievcov del toIs Aa- 
 Accocrt KUTaXveiv t7]v TvpavvlSa 8id ToiavS" apr/ccj/]. 
 01 (j)vya8es, a>v ol ' AXKfieoovi8at TrpoeLcrTrjKecrav, 
 avTol p.€v 5t* avTcov ovk ■q8vvavT0 Troirjcracrdai ttjv 
 Ka6o8ov, dXX' alei TrpocreTTTacoV kv re yap toIs [Col. 8.] 
 
 TOV aSeX^ov : MS. raSfXc^ou, a curious synaloepha which is repeated 
 a few lines below, raheK^ai for t«5 d8e\^ta. 
 
 19. mKpos : it is almost certain that the MS. reading is maros, but if 
 so it is plainly a slip of the copyist, and mKpos is sufficiently like that 
 word to explain the blunder. 
 
 Kaxas : the MS. at first had ev KoKm, but it is corrected to Kaxas. 
 
 TTjv Movvvxiav twexfipta-e TMX'f«"' : this circumstance is not mentioned 
 in the extant historians. 
 
 AawSij/xoj/os : the spelling of the MS. is preserved. 
 
 E 
 
50 APISTOTEAOTS 
 
 aXXois oh eirpaTTOV Bua^aXXovTO, kcCL reix^aravTes 
 iu Ty X'^P'? A.L^v8pLov TO virep JJapvrjdos, ety o 
 avve^rjXdov rives twv ck tov aa-recos, i^eTToXiopKr}- 
 6r)aav vtto t&v rvpavvcov, odev vcrrepov /JLera ravTTjv 
 T^v crvfji<j)opau ySov iu tols (tkoXiois alef 
 
 aiai Ai^vSpiov TrpohaiaiTaipov, 
 
 ol'ous oivSpa<s aTTtuXecras jiia^etr^at 
 
 dyadov's re koL eviraTpCBas, 
 
 Ob TOT eoetgaf olcdv 
 
 TTaTepcov ecrav. 
 diTOTvyxavovTes. oi)v iu a7r[a]o-t roty wAAoty ifiiadco- 
 aavTO TOV iv AeX(j)OLS vecov oiKoSop-eiv odev eviro- 
 prjaav xpr^p-aTcav, irpos rrjv tcov AaKcovcov ^orjOeiav. 
 7] 8e Hvdla 7rpoe(j)epev alel rols KaKebaipiOVLOLs 
 Xpr)(rTr]pia^op.evoL9 iXevdepovv ras 'Adrjvas. els 
 TovT evdecos wpovTpe'^e tovs ^TrapTiaras, Kanrep 
 ovTCov ^evcov avTols tcov JJeiaia-TpaTiScoV avve- 
 /3aAAero 8e ovk eXaTTCo fioipav ttjs 6pp,T]s tols 
 
 Ai^jfiidpiov : there is a reference to this passage in Schol. Aristoph. 
 I-ysist. 666, AcLyj^iBpiov' ;^(»pioj' t^s 'ATnKtjs wept Trjv Hdpvrjdov fls o 
 (TVVTJXdov Tiyes tojv ck tov atjTeoss &s (^ritriv ApitrroreXris iv Adrjvaiojv 
 TToXiTela (Rose, Frag. 356). The passage of the same scholiast (1. 665) 
 on XuKOTToSey, 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. 1153) 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). 
 
 aiaX Av^vhpiov : this song is also quoted by Athenaeus (XV. 695, 
 scol. 22), and in Etym. Mag. j. v. inl Aei\|?u8pi(a /laxv- The compiler 
 of the latter work seems, from other phrases used by him {e.g. &V 01 
 'AXKpLcuojviSai TrpocarrjKfa-av), to have had the work of Aristotle before him. 
 
 oJ TOT eSei^av : E. M. Sttot eSet^av, but the present reading, which is 
 also given by Athenaeus, is much superior. 
 
 (Tvve^dWfTo 8e k,t.\. : this certainly helps to explain the action of the 
 
AQHNAIilN nOAITEIA, 51 
 
 KaKCocTLV -q irpos rovs 'Apyelovs Tols YleKriarTpaTidais 
 inrapyovaa (f)LXla, to fxev ovv irpSyrov ' KyyiixoXov 
 WK^a-Teikav Kara daXarrav k'xovTa arpaTidv. rjTTr}- 
 [^e'l/Jroy 5' avrov kol TeXevrrjarauTOs 8ia to Kiveav 
 ^orjOrjaaL tov Qecra-aXov ^■)(OVTa -j^iXiovs hnreis, 
 7rpo(ropyt(r6evTes Tm yevop-ivc^ KXeofievrjv e'fe- 
 TrefiyJAav tov fiacnXea cttoXov e^ovTa /xei^co KaTO, yrju, 
 OS cVet Tovs T(ov Qea-aaX&v linrets eviKr)(rev kcoXv- 
 ovTUs avTov €LS TTjv 'Attiktjv wapievai, KaTaKXeiaas 
 TOV 'iTTTTiav eiy to KaXovfievov HeXapytKov Tetj^oy 
 iTToXiopKCL p,€Ta t5)v 'Kdrjvalcov. TrpocrKadrjfievov 
 5' avTov (Tvverrearev iire^iovTas aXcovai tovs twv 
 Tli(ri(rTpaTi8av vleis' o>v Xr](f)d€VTCov o/xoXoyLav eTrt 
 rjj Tmv iraiScov (rtoTrjpia iroirja-ajx^voL kcu to. iavTav 
 iv irevff ■^p.epais iKKOfiiaa/xevot TrapeScoKav ttjv 
 OLKpoiroXiv Tolf 'AOrjvaioLS eVi 'ApiraKTidov ap- 
 yovTos, KaTaa\6vTes Trjv TvpavvlSa p,eTa ttjv tov 
 
 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. 
 
 ' AyxifJ-oXov : in Herodotus (V. 63) the name is given as 'AyxinoXios, 
 but in the note of the scholiast on Aristophanes, referred to above, the 
 Ravenna MS. reads 'Ayp^i/ioXoy, 
 
 xMovs : MS. xf'^'ows- 
 
 KioKiovTas avTov els tijk 'AmKrjv irapievai ; so Herodotus (V. 64), 
 cVjSaXoCo'i eir TrjV 'Attiktjv xwpriv, 
 
 TO KciKoiiicvov HfKapyiKov Tfixos : the form JJeKapyiKov is confirmed by 
 the scholiast on Aristophanes, while IleXaa-yiKov is used in the parallel 
 passage in Herodotus (/. c.) and in Thuc. II. 17, 
 
 eVi 'ApiraKTiSov apxovros : the word was at first written ApiraKtSov, and 
 the r is inserted above the line. 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, wavBeis iv rm TeTapra), 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., 
 
 E a 
 
53 APISTOTEAOTS 
 
 irarpos reXevTrjv err] fiaXca-ra eTTTaKalSeKa, to. 8e 
 (TVfiiravTa aiiv 61s 6 Trarrjp ^p^€u evos SelirevTrjKOVTa. 
 20. KaTaXvdeiirrjs 8e ttJs TvpavviBos iaTacria^ov 
 7r/)oy aAA[7^A]oi;y 'laayopas 6 TiadvSpov, ^iXos cov 
 tS>v Tvpavvcov, /cat K.Xeia0€vr]s tov yevovs a>v rmv 
 'AXKfieoviSmu. rjTTrjjxivos Se rais iraipeiais 6 
 }^Xu(Tdevr)sirpo(rr]yayeTO tov Srjfiov, aTroSidovs tS 
 TrXrjOei ttjv iroXiTuav. 6 8e 'laayopas eVtAetTTo- 
 fxevoS Ty Svvafiei woXlv €7nKaXe(Tap,evos tov KAeo- 
 p.ivr]v, ovTa eavTw ^4vov, a-vv€7r€iaeu iXavveiv to 
 ayof, 8ia to tovs ' AXKfiecoulSas Sokclv eivai twv 
 Ivayav. vire^eXdovTOs fie tov K-XeicrOevovs p-eT 
 oXiymv, rjyrjXaTei Ta>v 'Adrjvalcou ewTaKoa-las o'cKias' 
 TavTa fie Biairpa^apevos ttjv p,ev fiovXrjv iireLparo 
 KaTaXveiv, 'laayopav 8e koI TpiaKoa-iovs tcov (j)iXa)v 
 per avTov Kvp'iovs Kadiaravai ttjs iroXecos. ttjs fie 
 
 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. 
 
 ivos hn irevTTjKovTa : the scholiast on Aristoph. Wasps, 502, quotes 
 Aristotle as saying that the tyranny lasted forty-one years (Rose, Frag. 
 358), but if the citation is correct it must be from some other work. 
 The forty-nine years named by Aristotle of course represent the total 
 period from the first tyranny of Pisistratus to the expulsion 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, ?rei hi BcaSfKorm). 
 
 20. ea-raa-ia^ov irphs dXXjJXoDs K.r.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. 
 
 fifT avTov : MS. fi(fT-n) TOV, the preposition being abbreviated, as 
 usual. 
 
AGHNAIliN nOAITEIA. ^^ 
 
 /3ouA^y dvTca-Toicrrjs kcu (rvvadpourdevTos tov irXri- 
 6ovs, ol fikv wepi TOV KXeofievrjv kol 'laayopav 
 Kare0i;yoz/ ety ttjv aKpoiroXiv 6 8e Srjfios Svo pev 
 rip.ipas 7rpo(rKade^6p.€vos €7roXt6pKei, ry Se TpLTy 
 KXeofxevyv p.h kol tovs p-er avrov iravTas dcpUaav 
 virQ(nr6v8ovs, KXeia-devrjv de kol tovs dXXovs (pv- 
 ■yaSas p,€T€7r€p.yfrauT0. KaTaa")(6vTos 5e tov dypov to, 
 7rpayp,aTa KXeta-devijs rj-yep-av rjv kol tov 8rjp.ov 
 Trpoa-TUTTjs. aiTUOTaToi yap (tx^^ov iyevovTO rrjs 
 €K^oXrjs' Twv Tvpdvvwv oi 'AXKp.e(ovi8ai, kol a-Taaid- 
 ^ovT€s Ta TToXXd SieTeXfaav. ert 8e irpoTepov tS>v 
 AXKp,eovidcov KrjScov eTredeTO roty TvpdvvoLS' 8io kol 
 ySou Koi ely tovtov ev toIs aKoXiois' 
 
 ey^et /cat Kt^Scdvi, hiaKove, prjh' eTnXTijdov, 
 
 et XPV '''°'5 dyadolt; dvhpda-iv oivo-)(0€LV- 
 
 2 1 . Aia p,ev ovv TavTas tols aiTias iiriaTevov 6 
 
 Sr]p.o5 T(S K.Xeiadepei. totc Se tov ttXtjOovs wpo- 
 
 eaTTjKcos eTei TeTupTm p.eTa ttju t&v Tvpavvcav KUTa- 
 
 Xvcriv €7ri 'laayopov ap-)(pvTos, irpwTov piev ovv 
 
 iravras a^Uaav imoa-novbovs : 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. 
 
 Krjbav : 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. 
 
 ey;fet k.t.X. : quoted by Athenaeus (XV. 695, scol. 21), where, how- 
 ever, the reading of the second line is «/ bq xPV ayadoh. 
 
 21. eiria-revov : at first written imarevev, but corrected to the plural ; 
 and, as the corrections in the MS. are generally entitled to respect, it 
 seems better to accept the amended reading here. 
 
 eret reraprffl . . . iiil 'la-ayopov apxovTos : the archonship of Isagoras is 
 fixed by Dion. Hal. {Ant. I. 74, V. i) as occurring in 508 B. C. The 
 
54 Apistoteaots 
 
 eveifie iravras ely 5e'/ca ^vXas avrl rmv reTTapoov, 
 avafu^ai fiovXofievos ottcos fiiTaa\ai(ri TrXeiovs rrjs 
 TToXiTelas' odev eXi\6r) kol to firj (j>vXoKpiveiv 
 [Col. 9.] TTpos Tovs i^erd^eiv to, yevrj ^ovXojxevovs. eweiTa 
 rrjv fiovXrfv 7rei'ra/coo-t[oi;y] avri TeTpaKoalcou K^arje- 
 aTTjaev, irevTTjKovra e^ eKcio-Trjs (jyvXrjs' Tore d' 
 rjLcrdjv eKarov. Sia tovto Se ovk els Sa>[8ejKa 
 (f>vXa.s avvera^ev, OTrfcBy cc^vTm p-rj (Tvp-^aivrj p.epi^eLV 
 
 Parian marble places it seventeen years before the battle of Marathon, 
 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 
 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. 
 
 TO fir] (pvKoKptvelv : the meaning of this phrase apparently is that 
 since the <j>v\ai after the reforms of Cleisthenes no longer bore any 
 relation to the yhri, it was useless to enter on an examination of the 
 tribes for the purpose of reviewing the lists of the yevtj. 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 (j)v\al, 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 yfvr). 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 yhri, 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 
 
AGHNAIHN nOAITEIA. 55 
 
 Kara ras irpovirap^ovacLs rpiTTvs' rjaav yap eK 8 
 (})vXaiv ScoScKa rpiTTves, wot' ov [<TVu]e7rnrT€u dua- 
 fila-y^a-Oai to ttXtjOos. Sieveiixe 8e /cat t^u yapav 
 Kara 8r]p.ovs TpiaKovra fieprj, 8eKa p.h rmu irepl to 
 da-TV, 5e/ca 5e Trj? TrapaXias, ScKa Se Trjs p-eaoyeiov, 
 Kai TavTas iirovop^daas TpiTTvs iKXrjpaxrev Tpeis els 
 T-qv (pvXrju cKaa-Triv, OTrcas eKaa-Tr} p-eTexy TrdvTcov 
 Twv TOTTCOV /cat Br^p^oTas eTroirjcrev dXXrjXoov tow 
 oiKOVVTas eV eKda-Tm Totv 8-qpxav, tva p.rj Trarpodev 
 irpoaayopevovTes i^eXeyxcocrtu tow veoiroXiTas, 
 
 which Aristotle introduces it, to have become a proverbial one, 
 perhaps for making useless distinctions; and this, rather than any 
 stricter sense, may be its meaning in Thuc. VI. 18, where it is to be 
 preferred to the otherwise unknown ipiXoKpivtiv. 
 
 Kara ras trpovirap^ovaas : at first written Trpbs t. jr., but corrected. 
 
 avvemiTTev : written a-vveiTfnrTev in the MS., if this is the right 
 restoration of the word, part of which is lost. 
 
 Sieveifie 8c Koi ttjv ^mpav Kara Sij/iou TpiaKovra p^epr] : 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 a/. 
 Strabo, IX. l, p. 396). The demes composing each trittys appear to 
 have been contiguous. 
 
 i^e\iyX<ii<nv tovs vcoTroXiVar : Cleisthenes introduced a large number 
 of new citizens by the enfranchisement of emancipated slaves and 
 resident aliens, and he made their reception into the community easier 
 by altering the official mode of designation. If described by their 
 
^6 API2T0TEA0T2 
 
 aXXa Twv hr][xxav avayopevcocnv odev kcu KaX[o{;]- 
 aiv 'AdrjvaioL (r(j)ds avTOVS rmv Srjficou. /care'crTiycre 
 fie /cat Srjixdpxovs ttjv avrrjv eypvTas eTrifxeXeiau 
 Tols irporepov vavKpapoLS' koX yap tovs Stj/jlovs 
 avTL Toov vavKpapiav iwoirjcrev. Trpocrrjyopevae 8e 
 Tap S'qp.cov TOVS p.ev diro Ta>v Ir^oTncain, tovs de diro 
 Twv KTicravToaV ov yap arravTes VTrfjp^ou eTi toIs 
 TOTTOis. TO, 8e yevr] Ka\ Tas ^paTpias /cat ray 
 hpcoavvas elaaev ^X'^i-v CKacrTOVs KaTa Ta iraTpia. 
 
 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. 
 
 KaTiaTTjore Se Km drj/iapxpys . . . inoitjirfv : quoted by Harpocration 
 (s. V, vavKpaptKoj as from 'ApurTOTeXijs if 'ABrjvalaiv iioKiTfiq, and he 
 refers to the same passage s.v. Srj/iapxos (Rose, Frag. 359). The 
 second Beriin fragment (Blass, Hermes XV, Diels, Berl. Acad. 1885) 
 also begins at the same place, with the exception of the single word 
 'Adr}vaioi 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 second fragment 
 includes twenty-five lines, but only twelve or fourteen letters in each 
 are visible. The first word legible is ^ hArpioXoi, as mentioned above : the 
 last which can be identified are [^ujX^t inaaTrjs. This passage is also 
 quoted by a scholiast on Aristophanes (Clouds, 37), who may, however, 
 have derived it from Harpocration (Rose, ed. 1886, Frag. 397). 
 
 eniptXeiav : MS. eTrifieXtav. 
 
 ov yap oTrai'Tes imrfp^ov 'in Tois Tdn-ois : it is difficult to extract a 
 satisfactory sense from the words as they stand. The meaning seems 
 to be either that some of the localities now erected into demes had no 
 founders from whom they could be called, or that they had no names 
 of their own. In the one case it is an explanation of the practice of 
 naming a deme from its local appellation when it had no founder of 
 any note to call it by, in the other of that of naming it from its founder 
 when it had no name already of its own. In either case it would seem 
 that anaa-iv is the right reading rather than anavrts. 
 
AQHNAmN nOAITEIA. 57 
 
 raiy 8e (j)vXaLS eiroiT](r€v lirtavvfj^ias^ Ik twv irpoKpi- 
 QivTOiv CKaTou ap^-qyermv ovs aueiXev r} YlvOia SeKa. 
 22. TovTcov 8e yevofjievmv SrjfioTiKcoTepa ttoXIv rrjs 
 2]oAft)i'os' iyevcTO rj troXiTeia' koL yap a-vvefirj roiif 
 fieu SoAcovoy vofiovs acpaviaaL rrjv TvpapviSa Sia to 
 fXT] xprja-dai, tovs S" aXXovs OelvaL tov KXeLaOeurjv 
 a-Toxa^o/xevou tov irX-qOovs, eV ols iriOr} /cat 6 Trep\ 
 TOV oa-TpaKta-fJLov v6p.os. irpatTov p.ev odv eTei 
 *7r€fjL7rTcp* fiera TavTTjv ttjv KaTacrTaa-Lv e'^' 'E/o/aou- 
 KpeovTOS apxovTOS tjj ^ovXy tois irevTaKoaiots tov 
 opKov €7roLr](rav bu €Tt kol vvv ofxi/vovcrtv eireiTa 
 Tovs (TTpaTTjyovs ypovvTO KUTo. ^vXds, i^ eKacTTTjs 
 
 ms aveiKfv rj HvBia : 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, raCra fie to. btKa ovofiara cmopois 6 IIvBios 
 eTXero, and Lex. Demosth. Patm. (p. 15, ed. Sakk.), tovtovs yap i^ 
 ovofiaraiv fKarov 6 6f6s c^fXe^aro (Rose, Frag. 429, and ed. 1886, 
 Frag. 469). 
 
 22. e0' 'EpfiovKpeovTos apxovTos : 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 
 TTtfinTio /icTo ravTrjv rrjv KaraiTTaiTLv 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 archonship 
 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, or that Trip-im^ is a 
 mistake for oySdo) (e' for rj) ; the latter solution is perhaps the most 
 probable. 
 
 Toil oTpaTijyovs : it has generally been stated (e.g. by Grote) that the 
 office of a-Tparrjyos was created by Cleisthenes, but it has already been 
 seen iri ch. 4 that it was at least as old ae the time of Draco. Cleis- 
 thenes did not even, as it now appears, increase their number to ten 
 nor make them the chief ofificers of the state. Under his constitution 
 the archons, who were elected directly by the assembly (f/f below, note 
 on (Kvafievaav k.t.\.), were still the chief magistrates of the state ; and 
 
58 APISTOTEAOT2 
 
 (jyvXrjs eva, rrjs Se airacrrjs (rTparias i^yeficou rju 6 
 TToXifiap^os . erei 8e fiera ravra SvoSeKarco vlkt]- 
 cravTes Trjv iu M.apa6avi M-c-XV^ ^'""^ ^aiviinrov 
 apxpvTOS, KaraXuKOVTes err} 8vo jxera Trjv VLK-qv, 
 OappovvTos r]8ri tov SrjfMov, Tore wparou i)(pi](ravTO 
 rS vojjiw T^ Trepl tov oaTpaKKr/Mov, os ireOt] 8i.a ttju 
 VTTO'^tav tS)v €v Tois Svvafiea-iv, on Yli(ri(rTpaTOS 
 8r)iJiaycoyos Kol crrpaT'qyos a>v Tvpavvos Karearr]' 
 Koi TrpS>Tos axTTpaKLcrOr] rav eKelvov avyyevav 
 
 the ten strategi were only elected at the date here indicated as sub- 
 ordinates to the polemarch. 
 
 on UicrlcTTpaTos k.t.Ii.. : MS. oi-e, which makes nonsense of the passage. 
 It has just been said that the law of ostracism was passed by Cleis- 
 thenes. 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 itj,may be remembered that Aristotle is not by any means 
 an extreme admirer of democracy) ; but when the Persian invasion and 
 tjie 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. 
 
 irpStTos i)iTTpaKi(T0t] . . . 'iTTiTapxos : cf. Harpocration, s. v. "linrapxos, 
 aWos Se i<TTiv "imap^os 6 Xdppov, &s ^r)iTi AvKovpyos fv Tc5 koto. Aeaxpd- 
 Tovs' irepl 8f TOUTou 'Ai/Sponoiv in rfj /3' (}>jj<tIv oti tTvyyevrjS pev fjv Hckikt- 
 rpdrov tov rvpdvvov Ka\ irparos e^atTTpaKiaBri tov wep\ tov otTTpaKiirpov i/o^ov 
 TOT€ Trp&Tov TfBevTos Sio TTjV VTToyjriav tS)v Trepl Ilfio'io'TpaToi/, oti Siyjiaymyos 
 Ac Kol aTpaTrjyos fTvpamtjo-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 . . . eTvpawrjo-ev are so nearly identical 
 with those of Aristotle that the one author must have drawn from the 
 
A©HNAmN nOAITElA. 59 
 
 Iwirap^os Xdp/x.ov KoXvrrevs, 8t' ou kol fidXio-ra 
 Tov uofxov edrjKeu 6 KXeia-devrjs, i^eXdaai fiovXo- 
 fj.€vos avTov. ol yap 'Adrjvalot rovs twv Tvpduvoov 
 0tAouy, oaoi fxr] (rvve^rj/xapTavov eV raiy Tapa-)(ah, 
 elcov OLKelv Tiqv ttoXlv, ^pafxevoL rfj eladvia tov Stq/jlov 
 TrpaorrjTL' a>v rjyefiav /cat TrpoaTaTrjs rfv "linrapxos. 
 €v6vs 8e T(S va-Tepcp erei cVi TeXeaivov dpxovTos 
 €Kvap,€vaav tovs kvvia ap^ovTas Kara (pvXd? Ik twv 
 
 other. The date of Androtion is doubtful, but it appears more probable 
 that he lived somewhat later than Aristotle, quite at the close of the fourth 
 century. In that case, and supposing the sentence to be part of the 
 quotation from Androtion and not an explanatory addition by Harpo- 
 cration, it would show that Aristotle's work was publicly known in the 
 generation immediately succeeding his own. There are, however, so 
 many elements of doubt about the matter that it is unsafe to draw any 
 positive conclusion. 
 
 KoXvTTcus : Plutarch (Afic. 11), who also mentions Hipparchus as 
 the first victim of ostracism, describes him as XoKapyeCs. 
 
 fjyfiiaiv : 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 Tpir/peU • but the remains are too small for any information 
 of value to be extracted from them. 
 
 eVi TeXeo-tVou apxovTos : 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. 
 
 eKva/ieva-av Toiis ivvia apxovTas k.tX. : this passage must be compared 
 with the account of the system of election introduced by Solon (ch. 8, 
 K\r]pa)Tas k.t.\.). 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 Se nporepoi Trdvres Tjaav aiperot, 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, pre- 
 sumably by the ecclesia. We therefore have the following stages in 
 the history of the method of election to this office i (l) prior to Draco, 
 the archons were nominated by the Areopagus ; (2) under the Dra- 
 conian constitution they were elected by the ecclesia ; (3) under the 
 Solonian constitution, so far as it was not disturbed by internal troubles 
 
6o APISTOTEAOTS 
 
 irpoKpLdevTODV VTTO rav Srjfiorap irevTaKoa'uav Tols 
 fi€Ta TTjv Tvpavviba irpcaTov, (oi 5e irporepot Travres 
 ■qaav aipeTot)' Koi axTTpaKia-dr) Meya/cA^y 'Itttto- 
 
 and revolutions, they were chosen by lot from forty candidates selected 
 by the four tribes ; (4) under the constitution of Cleisthenes 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 irevTaKoaiav {((>') 
 we should read tKarov (p), the confusion between the two numerals 
 being very easy, and perhaps to be paralleled from Thuc. II. 7. 
 
 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. 
 
 VTTO Twv SrifioTav : this, if literally interpreted, is in contradiction with 
 the passage in ch. 62, which says ai 8e KXi;po>rai ipx"-' Trporepov /liv^aav 
 ai p,£v pfT ivvea ap)(OVTa>v ck t^s (fivKrjs oXrjS xXijpov^EKai, al 8' ev 0ri<reUf 
 KKrjpoipevai Sit)povvro els roiis Sripovs. 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 Sij/idroi may simply 
 stand for the members of the tribe, all 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 
 TTfVTaKotriav discussed above is part of the same mistake ; for the demes 
 did actually elect the 500 members of the /3ovX^, 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. 
 
 MeycucKris 'liriroKpaTovs : this would be the grandson of the Megacles 
 who was the opponent of Pisistratus, and the nephew of Cleisthenes. 
 
AGHNAIilN nOAITEIA. 6i 
 
 Kparovs 'AXanreK^dev. eVt fMev oSv err} y tovs twv 
 Tvpavvcav ([)iXov9 ma-TpaKi^ov, mv ^apiv 6 vopos 
 €Te0T], p,€Ta 5e ravra rm TerapTca eret koL t(ov 
 aXXmv el tls SoKotrj puei^cov ehai peOicrTavTO' kcu 
 irpcoTOS axTTpaKia-Or) tS>v airmOev ttJs Tvpavvibos 
 AavOiinros 6 ^ApL(f)povos. tru 8e rpiTco fxera ravTa 
 NtKoSrjpov apxovTos, ®y i(f)aurj to, fieraXXa to, ev 
 
 It is consequently surprising to find him among the persons ostracised 
 as a friend 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. 
 
 SavSmnos 6 'Api<f>povos : this ostracism of Xanthippus is not elsewhere 
 mentioned, except in the extract from HeracUdes quoted above, in the 
 note on ch. i8, a0' oS k.t.X. 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 the siege of Sestos. 
 
 NiKoS^^ou apxovTos : the dates are somewhat confusing here. The 
 notes of time given for the period between the Persian wars are these. 
 After Marathon KaToKtnovTes bio t-n] , . , T(f varepa crct comes the 
 archonship of Telesines (487 B. c.) ; these three years are summarised 
 in the phrase eVi piv ouv Iti; y, and then t^ rerdpTa erei (486 B.C.) is the 
 ostracism of Xanthippus ; erei Se rpira pera ravra (484 B.C.) is the 
 archonship of Nicodemus ; ev ToiiToir rois xP""'"'^ Aristides was ostra- 
 cised, and Tfrdpra erei he and all the other political exiles were recalled, 
 in the archonship of Hypsichides, 81a rrjv Sep^ov arpanav, i.e. in 481 B.C. 
 This seems plain and consistent enough ; but there is the difficulty 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, Leostratu^, and Nicodemus should be placed in the years 
 486-484 B. C, instead of 485-483 B. C. The Parian marble does indeed 
 place Philocrates in 486 B.C. ; but as that record assigns Marathon 
 and Salamis respectively to 491 B.C. and 481 B.C., it is clear that it 
 habitually places the archons a year too high, so that its authority 
 cannot be quoted in support of the present suggestion. On the other 
 hand it is possible that Aristotle was mistaken in the year of Nico- 
 demus ; for it is noticeable that Plutarch, who, like Aristotle, records 
 that Aristides 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 
 
6 a APISTOTEAOTS 
 
 ^apcopela kol Trepieyei/ero rfj iroXei raXavra eKarov 
 e/c tS)v epycov, avfi^ovXevovTcop Ttvmv ra Srjfi^ 
 Siaveifiaa-dai to apyvpiov, Q€p,t(rTOKXrjs eKcoXvaeu, 
 
 discrepancy is removed, and it is unnecessary to make any alteration in 
 the received list of archons. 
 
 As regards the exact name of the archon in question, it must be 
 noted that the MS. reads NtAco/i^Souj, 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 ; more particularly since 
 Nicomedes is not a name that would have been likely to be given to an 
 Athenian bom before the time of the Ionian revolt at earliest, while 
 Nicodemus would be a name suitable in an aristocratic family at any 
 time in the sixth century. Under these circumstances it does not 
 appear that any good purpose would be served by leaving the name 
 NiKofiriSovs in the text here, and NticoS^fiou has accordingly been 
 substituted. 
 
 TO fieraWa ra iv Mapmvfia: in Herodotus (VII. 144) and Plutarch 
 - {TAem. 4) the mines are described as those of Laurium. Demosthenes 
 {Contr. Pantaen., p. 967) refers to a Maroneia at which there were 
 works {epya) which seem to have been mines ; and Harpocration 
 (s. V. Mapavela) states that this place was in Attica, and was distinct 
 from the Maroneia in Thrace mentioned by the same orator {Contr. 
 PofycL, p. 1213). 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. 
 
 ToXavTa iKarov 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. 
 
 GfjiHo-roicXijs : 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 available 
 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 
 
AQHNAmN nOAITEIA. 63 
 
 ov Xeycov on ')(^pr](r€TaL toIs XRVt^'^^^'^^ dXXa Saveia-ai 
 KcXevcov Toiy irXova-LcoTaTOis 'Adrjvaicov eKarov eKo.- 
 (TTCO ToXavTOU, cIt iav fiev apeaKji to dvaXcofia rrjs 
 
 ultimately by the leaders of the ecclesia. On the other hand 
 Thucydides expressly says that Themistocles was in office at the time 
 that he began the fortification of the Piraeus (I. 93, vttjjpkto 8' airoii 
 
 JTpoTcpop in\ Trjs cKiivov apxrjs ^s kot cnavTov 'ASrjvaiois Vpi^)' This 
 
 does not necessarily mean that he was archon eponymus, but the use 
 of eVi 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 
 period in his career, from the fact that he appears later as a member 
 of the Areopagus (ch. 25). 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 
 (TTparriyos, on whom the execution of such operations might naturally fall. 
 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. Nor is it likely 
 that the naval pohcy 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). If Themistocles 
 was archon in 493 B.C. he must have been born 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 veor, as he is by Plutarch (TAem. 
 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 (see note there), 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 E. C. improbable. It rests on the authority, which 
 
64 API2T0TEA0TS 
 
 TToAeeoy elvai rrjv 8airavr]v, ei 5e firj, irapaKO- 
 fiicracrdat ra -xprifiaTa irapa rmv SaveLcrajxevcov . 
 Xa^cov 8' eVt tovtois iva^y^-qy-qcraTO Tpiqp€i9 
 eKUTOv, eKaarov vavirr]yovp.evov twv eKarov p,iau, 
 aly evavp.a)(r]orav ev ^aXaplui Trpof tow ^ap^apovs. 
 mcTTpaKLaOr] S" iv tovtois toIs Kaipols 'ApLCTeiSrjs o 
 KvcTLpaypv. TeTapTa 8' eTet aire8e^avTO iravTas 
 Tovs d>aTpaKL(rp.ivovs, ap^ovTOS 'Y'\^Ly[8ov, 8ia ttjv 
 Sep^ov (TTpaTidv Koi to Xolttou wpicrav toIs 
 oaTpaKi^opLivois ivTos TepaicrTOv kol ^KvXXaiov 
 KaTOiK€Lv rj oLTip-ovs tivui Kaddira^. 
 
 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 not mentioned, and it may be another person of the same 
 name, or else Dionysius has on this occasion made a mistake. 
 
 ctpxovTos 'YyjfixiSov : the reading of the name is somewhat doubtful ; 
 after \jf there appears to be an erasure of two or three letters, over 
 which an 1 has been written as a correction. The name Hypsichides 
 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^aa-TpaKia-fieuos means 
 more than that he had been ostracised, without necessarily implying 
 that he still was so. 
 
 f vTos VfpauTTuv Kn\ ^KvWaitv : 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. 
 The object of the regulation no doubt was to obviate the danger of a 
 banished citizen entering into communication with Persia. Plutarch 
 says that the principal reason for the recall of the exiles before the 
 
A0HNAII2N nOAITEIA. j55 
 
 23. Tore fiev ovv fiexpi- tovtov TrpoijXdev -q ttoXis 
 afia Ty SrjfxoKpaTia Kara fiiKpov av^avo/jievT]' fieTO, 
 8e ra M.r)8iKa Trakiv 'La^vaev r} iv 'Apeico irayco 
 fiovXrj KCLL 8i(pK€i TTfv TToXiv, ovSevl 86yfJLaTi Xa^ovaa 
 TTjv riy\epio\viav dXXa 8ia to yevea-dat rrjs irepl 
 ^aXaplva vavfxa^ias airta. twv yap (TTpaT-qyav 
 i^aTropr/ardvTcov toIs Trpdyfjuao-t kcu Krjpv^dvTaii> 
 (rcoQeiv eKacrrov eavTov, iropiaacra Bpay^^jxds eKdaTca 
 OKTco SteBcoKe kol ivefiifiaaev ds rds vavs. dtd 
 TavTTjv 8rj TTJV alrlav 7rape-)(c6povv avrfj rra d^ia>p.aTi, 
 Kol iiroXLTevd-qa-av 'Adrjvaioi /caAmy kol Kara tov- 
 Tovs Tovs Kaipovs. (Twe^Tj yap avrois Kara tou 
 Xpovov TOVTOV Ta re eiy tou woXep^ov daKrja-at kol 
 
 second Persian invasion was the fear that Aristides might attach 
 himself to Xerxes and carry with him a considerable party in Athens. 
 As he proceeds to say, the Athenians were completely mistaken in 
 their estimate of the man in entertaining this fear, but it is very likely 
 that the fear was felt, and the present passage of Aristotle confirms 
 it. The regulation cannot, however, have been strictly observed 
 subsequently ; for instance, we find the ostracised Themistocles living 
 in Argos (Thuc. I. 135) and the ostracised Hyperbolas in Samos 
 (Thuc. VIII. 73). 
 
 23. Sia TO yeveaBai k.tX. : Plutarch tells this story (Themist. lo), quoting 
 Aristotle as his authority, though he adds that Cleidemus reported 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. 
 
 ^apex^povv air^ : MS. avrrjv, but there is no justification for an 
 accusative after irape^apovv in this sense. 
 
 KOI Kara tovtovs tovs Kaipois : it may be questioned whether kol is not 
 due merely to a copyist's mistake, as there is no apparent reason for 
 the emphasis which it gives to the clause. 
 
 KOTci Tbv xpovov TOVTOV ', TTfpi. sBems to have been written above kotu 
 as a correction, but as this is not certain it appears better to retain 
 Kara in the text. 
 
66 API2T0TEA0T2 
 
 irapa rots "^XXrja-LV evSoKiixTJaai, /cat ttjv rrjS OaXar- 
 rrjs rjyefiovlav Xa^elv olkoutcov t5>v AaKeBaijxoviaiv. 
 Tjaav 5e irpocrTaTaL tov Stj/jLOu Kara tovtovs tovs 
 Kaipovs 'ApL(rTeL8r)s 6 Avaifidxov kcu QefiKTTOKXrjs 
 6 Neo/cXeouy, 6 fiev to, TroXefiia acrKav, o 8e ra 
 TToXiTiKa 8eLU09 eivai {SoKwvy koL SiKaiocrvur) tcov 
 Kaff kavTov 8ia(pepeiv' 8io Koi e^patvro tco jxev 
 a-TpaTrjyS, too 8e crvjJL^ovXcp. ttju fieu odu tcov 
 Tei^mu avoLKo86iir](rLv Koivy 8icoKr](rav, Kanrep 8m- 
 (l)€p6fievoL TTpos aXXrjXovs' iirl 5e ttjv dirocTTaa-iv 
 
 TTfJU TmV 'IcOVQiV KOL TTjV tS)V KaK€8aLflOV lcov avfi- 
 
 p^a^iav ' Api(rTei8ris rju 6 TTpoTpi^^as, Trjprjcraf Toiif 
 KaKavas 8iafi€^X'qfJievovs 8La Tlavcraviav. 8io Koi 
 Toi/s (j)6povs ovTos rju Ta^as rats iroXeaiv tovs 
 irpwTovs €T€L TpiTcp p.eTa TTJU ev ^aXafuvL i/av/xa^Lau 
 iiri Tip,ocr0evov oip\ovTos, kcu tovs hpKovs wp-oaev 
 [Col. lo.] Tols "laxTL moTTe tov avTov €-)(9pov eivuL kcu (plXov, 
 icpi" ols Koi TOVS fjLv8povs iv r^ ireXayei, KaOeiaav. 
 
 noKiTiKo. : MS. woKefuKa, evidently a clerical blunder due to iroXc/xia 
 which precedes. 
 
 SokSiv : not in the MS., but clearly required by the sense. 
 
 avoiKob6ixri(nv : MS. avioiKoSofirjiriv. 
 
 fifTci : at first written Sia, but corrected. 
 
 em Ttfioa-devov apxovros : the list of archohs, derived from Dionysius 
 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. Thucydides (I. 94-96) gives no 
 date, but his narrative is quite in accordance with that named by 
 Aristotle. 
 
 Toiis opKovs &iw<7iv Tois "loxri : 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 lonians at the time of which Thucydides 
 
AGHNAmN nOAITEIA. 67 
 
 24- Mera 5e ravra 6appov(n)9 rjSrj Trjf iroXeois 
 Kai^pr^fxaroDV iroWav rjOpoia/xevcov, avve^ovXevev 
 avTiXap-fiavecrdaL rrjs rj-yefMovia? kol Kara^avras €K 
 t5>v aypav OLKelv iv rw aaret' Tpo(j)^v yap eaeadaL 
 iracri, rots fieu crTpaTevofMevoLs, toIs 8e (j)povpovac, 
 Tols Se ra KOLva irpaTTovcri, ei6' ovtco KaTaa-)(r](T€iv 
 TTjv rjyefiovMv. ireiadevTes 5e ravra Ka\ Xafiovres 
 rrjv apxv^ tols re (rvfifia^oLS Sea-TrorLKCorepcos 
 i^^pcouro ttXtjv Xicoi' /cat AeajSlcov Ka), ^ap,icov rov- 
 rouy 8e (f)vXaKas el^ou rrjs ap\rjs, iaures ras re 
 TToXireias Trap avrols kou ap\eLv mv erv^ov ap^ovres . 
 Karea-rrjcrav 8e Kal rols iroXXols evrropiav rpo(f)rJ9, 
 axrirep ' Api(rrei8r]s elarjyrja-aro. avvefiaivev yap 
 airo rS>v (j)6pcov Kal rmv reXwv Kal rav avppa^oav 
 irXeiovs rj 8Lap.vpL0vs av8pas rpe(j)e(Tdai. 8iKacrral 
 
 speaks (I. 95) (t^oiTavres upos tovs 'Adifvaiovs rj^iovv avrovs riye/iovas (rtj)S>v 
 yeveadai Kara to ^vyyevis). 
 
 24. ridpourixhav : wrongly corrected to ddpoia-fiivav in the MS. 
 
 irwe^ovXevev k.tX. : 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 npoa-TdTtjs roii 
 Sfjpov 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 riyep.ovia of Greece 
 by sea, though his policy of friendship with Sparta would have 
 prevented any attempt to interfere with the supremacy of the latter by 
 land. The multipKcation 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. 
 
 irXeiovs T Sia-pvpiovs : 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 
 
 F 3 
 
68 APISTOTEAOTS 
 
 fji€v yap y^(Toijv i^uKLcrx^^ioi, ro^orai S" i^UKoa-LOL 
 l(al ■)(^l\loi, Kcti wpos tovtois iTTTrety ^/Atoi koL 8ia- 
 KoatoL, ^ovXt] Se TrevraKoa-Loi, koL (f)povpdl veco- 
 picov irevTaKocTLOi, Koi irpos tovtols iv ry iroXei 
 (ppovpail u, ap^ai 5' evSr]p,oi fiev eiy eTTTaKociovs 
 QLvBpas, virepopioL 8' els iiTTaKocriovs' irpos 8e tov- 
 tois eVei (TvveaTrjcravTO tov TroXefiou vcrTepov 
 mrXiTai fxev 8L(r)(iXtoi /cat irevTaKoaioi, vijes Se 
 <j>povp[8es e'lKoari,, aXXat 8e vrjes ai tovs (f)6pov9 
 ayovcrai, tovs oltto tov Kvap.ov 8icrxtXtovs auSpas, eTt 
 fie irpvTavelov kol op(f)avol koI 8eap.coTa)v (f)vXaK€s' 
 airaai yap tovtois airo TOiv Koivatv rj 8i.0LKT](ns rjv. 
 
 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 poHcy which Aristides initiated. 
 
 apxal 8' ei/Sr/fioi k.t.X. : it has been generally believed, and is stated 
 by Boeckh, Schomann, 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. C/. ch. 62. 
 
 ev8r]fioi fiEv : the word ^o-av follows in the MS., but has been cancelled 
 by a row of dots above it. 
 
 onXirai, : MS. oirXcirai, a spelling which is also found elsewhere in the 
 MS. 
 
 ai Toiis (j)6povs ayova-ai : Boeckh (P. E. II. 7) considers that the 
 subject states brought their tributes to Athens themselves at the time 
 pf the Dionysia in the city, and that the dpyupoXoyoi were only sent to 
 collect special sums, such as arrears or fines. From this passage of 
 Aristotle it appears that this was not the case, and that the tribute was 
 regularly collected by certain vessels appointed for the purpose. These 
 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 Tois ano tov Kva/iov Sicrxi^ious av&pas is not clear, but apparently a 
 suitable word must be supplied from ayovam to govern it. 
 
 vrpvTaveiov : this presumably stands for all the persons who for various 
 reasons were maintained at the public expense in the Prytaneum. 
 
AQHNAmN nOAlTEIA. 6g 
 
 25. 'H fieu ovv Tpo(f)7) Tw 8r}fi(p 8ia tovtcou 
 eyiuero. err] de eirra KoiX 5e'/ca (xaXia-Ta /xeTa to. 
 MrjSLKa Siefjieivev rf iroXLTeia TrpoecrTcoTcov rav 
 ApeoirayiTMVf Kaiirep vwocpepofxevrj Kara piLKpov. 
 av^avop-ivov 8e rod irXrjOovs yevop-evos tov 8^p.ov 
 wpoaTaTTjs 'E^iaArT^y 6 "^axIxoviBov, kolI Sokcoi' [Col. n. 
 aScopoSoKTjTos eivat Koi SiKaios irpos ttjv TroXireiav, 
 eiredero rrj ^ovXy. kcu irparov p.ev avetXev iroX- 
 Xovs rmv 'ApeoirayiTcov, aymvas €7rt[0]e)oc!)v irepX 
 rmv hicoKTipivcov' eireira rrjs fiovXrjs eVi K.6veovos 
 ap^ovTos diravTa irepielXe to, eTrideTa 8l mv rjv -q 
 
 25. en; 8e eTTTo (tal 8cKa /id\io-Ta /lera TO MijSiica : 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 Confederacy of 
 Delos. 
 
 2(»<^o)wSou : with this word the tenth column of the MS. breaks off, 
 the rest of the column and the whole of another column being occupied 
 by writing of a different description, after which the text of the Aristotle 
 is resumed. The interpolated matter, which runs in the reverse 
 direction, was evidently written before the Aristotle, and has been 
 roughly struck out when the papyrus was required for the latter. It is 
 not in the same hand as the Aristotle, but in one apparently of the 
 same date and employing many of the same contractions. It contains 
 a sort of argument to the speech of Demosthenes against Meidias, in 
 the course of which there are references to the argument Kara KaiKiXiov, 
 i.e. as given by 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, from which the 
 references just spoken of are probably taken. 
 
 aySivas im^ipav : so Plutarch speaks of Ephialtes {Pericles 10), 
 <j>o^epbu ovra toIs 6Xiyapxt<ois, Kal jrepi ras eiSivas Koi fiiti^eis Tav tov 
 drj/iou dSiKovvTcov airapairriTov, 
 
 eVi Kovavos apxovTos : 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, 
 
70 API2T0TEA0TS 
 
 Trjs iroXiTeiag t^vXaKr], kcu to. fi\€v rjoty irevra- 
 Kocriois, TO, 8e r^ ^W"? '^"^ '"^'^ SiKaaTrjpiois 
 aTreScoKev. eTrparre 8e ravra crvuaiTiov yevofievov 
 
 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. 
 
 awavrmv yevo/jiivov Oe/iKTroKKeovs : the mention of Themistocles in this 
 connection revolutionises the history of the later part of his career. 
 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 condemnation and death of Pausanias ; on which occurred his 
 flight to Persia, where he arrived in the reign of Artaxerxes and died 
 some time afterwards. No dates or sufficient indications of time are 
 given by Thucydides or any other authority, but it has been usual to 
 place the ostracism in 471 B.C. and the flight to Persia about 466 B.C. 
 Xerxes died in 465 B.C., and Thucydides states that Themistocles on 
 his arrival in Persia found Artaxerxes vema-Ti ^aa-iKciovTa. The present 
 passage shows 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 discovery 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 acquittal (Diod. XI. 54, c/. Grote, ed. 1870, 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 inconsistent with Thucydides' phrase weoxttI Paa-iXevovra. The 
 fifth year of a king who ruled for forty might well be spoken of as in the 
 beginning of the reign. As to the date of his death, 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 (vcos 
 &v ?n, 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 
 
AQHNAmN nOAITEIA. 71 
 
 QefiUTTOKkiovs, OS -qv fxev tcov 'ApeoTrayLTi&p/efieXXe 
 5e Kpivea-dai MT/Sitr/iou. ^ovXo/xems Se KaraXvdrj- 
 vai TTjv ^ovXrjv 6 QefiiaroKXys irpos fiev tov "E^loX- 
 T7]v eXeyev otl (TVvapird^eLv avrou ?} fiovXr/ fieXXei, 
 irpos 8e Tovs ' ApeoTraylras on Sel^ei tlvols avvLa-Ta- 
 fi€VOvs iTTL KaraXva-ei ttJs iroXtTeias. ayayav 8e 
 Tovs d(f)aipe0ePTas Trjs ^ovXijs ov Sierpifieu 6 
 'EcjuaXrrjs, tva dei^rj r[oj;]y d6poi.^op,€vovs, 8k- 
 Xeyero fierd cnrovdrjs avTols. 6 8' 'F,(j)idXTr]s wy 
 
 to attach much weight to the connection in time which he indicates 
 between it and the Athenian expeditions under Cimon at the time of 
 the Egyptian revolt. 
 
 It is strange that Plutarch should not have mentioned the part taken 
 by Themistocles in the overthrow of the Areopagus. His behaviour, 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 ail 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<pia\Trjs Tis Kal Ge/xioTOKX^s p^peaxT-ToOirej t^ jroXei p^p^fiora (cai eiSores on 
 fav hiKa<i6S><Tiv [qu. fitxacrsxrn' ?] ol 'Apeowaylrm, itavras a7roba>(rov(ri, 
 KaraXvirai avrovs eTreurav ttjv ttoKw, oCwas tivos fiiWovros KpiBfjvai, 6 yap 
 ' ApiaToreKrjs Xeyfi iv rrj woXireia tS>v 'ABqvalav on Kal 6 0e/ij(7TOK\i)s airios 
 Tjv fir] wdvTa SiKa^eiv Toils ' ApeoTraylras' &ijdev [lev as 8i avrovs tovto 
 TTOiovVTes, TO 8' oXijBes fiia tovto irdvTa KaTaaKevd^ovres, eiTa oi 'Adrjva'ioi 
 acfiivas aKoviravTes t^s ToiavTr/s (TV/i^ovXrjs KaT€\v<Tav avTovs. (Part of 
 this quotation is given by Rose as Frag. 366.) This passage has, 
 however, been ignored by the historians, possibly in the belief that it 
 referred to some much smaller transaction than the complete overthrow 
 of the supremacy of the Areopagus. 
 
 Toiis a<j)aipedevTas t^s ^ovXrjs : this must be taken in the unusual sense 
 of ' the persons despatched by the Areopagus.' Themistocles under- 
 took 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 bia 
 escape to sanctuary. It is possible we should read aipedhras. 
 
>]i APISTOTEAOtS 
 
 flSei/ KaTa/T^fiyels Kadl^ei fiovo')(l,Twv eTrl tov ficofiov. 
 davfiaa-avTcov 8e iravrmv to yeyov^os^ /cat fxera 
 ravra avvaOpoLcrdclarjs rrjf ^ovXrjs rau "Trevra- 
 Koaicov KaTT/yopovv ratv ' ApeoTrayirmv o r E0i- 
 dXTr}9 Koi QefJLKTTOKXrjf, kou ttuXiv iv tS 8r]fia> toV 
 avTov TpoTTOu, eco9 TrepieiXovTO avrcov rrjv ^vvajxiv, 
 Kol avypidt] 8e kou 6 '^(jytaXTrj^ SoXocfyourjdelg fier 
 ov TToXvv xpovov 8i 'ApKTToSiKov ^tJov TavaypULOV. 
 rj fjL€v ovv rSiv ' KpeoirayLTrnv ^ovXr/ tovtou tov 
 TpoTTOv ccTrea-Teprjdr] ttjs eVi/xeAe/ay. 
 
 26. Mera 5e TavTa crvve^atvev avUaOai puaXXov 
 TTjv TToXiTeiav 8ia tovs wpodvpxos SrjfjLaycoyovvTag. 
 KaTa yap tovs KUipovs tovtovs avviweae p.r]^ 
 rjyffjLoua ex^iu tovs tTneiKea-Tepovs, aXA' avTav 
 wpoeaTavai ILipcava t,ov M.iXTid8ov, vecoTepov bvra 
 KOU irpos TTjv TToXiv 01^6 iTpoaeXOovTa, irpos Se 
 
 jrepiflXovTO '. MS. nepeiXovTo. 
 
 8i' 'ApuTTobUov TOV Tavaypaiov : this Statement is quoted by Plutarch 
 (Pericl. lo) as from Aristotle, 'Ei^taXrijv p,lv ovv . . . iwi^ov'Keia-avTes oi 
 ex^pot 8i ' ApuTToSiKov tov Tavaypaiov Kpv<f>alas aveiXov, oas 'AptaTOTe\ijs 
 e'iprjKev (Rose, Frag. 367). 
 
 26. dvie<rBai : MS. avftf(Tdai, 
 
 fiycpova : the first three letters of this word are very doubtful, and 
 there seems to have been some blunder in the writing. 
 
 veoTepov ovTa : 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. 
 
A0HNA1I2N nOAlTEIA. 73 
 
 TOVTOis €^6apdai tovs iroXXovs Kara TroXefioW Trjs 
 yap (TTpaT^ias yivop.evr]s iv tols totc -^povois e'/c 
 KaToXoyov, kcu o-rpaTrjymv icjiia^TJafxevcou am-eipcov 
 fiev Tov TToXe/xelv TipMp.4va>v 8e 8ia rag irarpiKas 
 ho^as, aXei avve^aiuev rmu i^LouTcov ava 8i(t\lXlovs 
 rj TpicrxiXiovs aTraXXvcrOai, [rojore avaXla-KecrOoLL 
 Tovs eiruLKels Kai tov 8r]fiov kcu twv ^viropcov, to, 
 fj,ev ovv aXXa iravra 8lcokovv ou^ ofioicos kcu wpo- 
 Tepov TOLS vofioLS TrpocTc^ouTes, Trjv 5e twv kvvia 
 ap-^ovTcov atpecTiv ovk eKiuovv, aXX' eKTcp €T€i jxeTO. 
 TOV ^(jiiaXTOv davuTov eyvcacrav kcu ck ^evyLTmv 
 TrpoKpiveaOai tovs KXrjpcoaofievovs twv kvvia ap- 
 ypvTcav, KCU irpcoTos rjp^ev i^ avTcov M.vr]cn6ei87]s. 
 ol 8e irpo TovTov iravTes i^ lirirecov koH ircvTaKOcno- 
 fie8[p,vcov Tfcrav, ol (5e) ^eyytrat tols eyKVKXiovs 
 
 SjcrxiXious : MS. 8Krx«Xiouy. 
 
 imvovv : MS. eKeivovv, 
 
 exToj er« /iera tov 'E(/)td\Tou davarov : as the final victory of Ephialtes 
 over the Areopagus occurred in 462 B.C. (cf. supr.), and 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. 
 
 KOI eK (evyiTav : it is practically certain that originally only the 
 pentacosiomedimni were eligible to the archonship (cf. supr., note on 
 ch. 7, aTTeveifiev), 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 fcuyirai 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, sub Jin.). 
 There is no direct evidence to show when the 'mireis became eligible, 
 but it may very hkely 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. 
 
 ol be ^evy'iTai : MS. om. 8f. 
 
 ras eyKVKKiovs : i. e. the inferior magistracies. 
 
74 APISTOTEAOTS 
 
 rfp-^ov, ei /i^ tl Trapecoparo rmv iv Tols vofiois. erei 
 de Tre/MTTTm fiera ravra eVt XvaiKparovs ap^ovTos oi 
 TpiaKOvra SiKacTTai KaTecrrrja-au TraXiv ol KaXovfievoi 
 Kara Srjuovs' kcu rptrcp fier avrov errl 'AutiSotov 
 8ia TO TrXrjOos twv ttoXltcou, TlepiKXeovf eiTrovTOS, 
 eyvcoaav firj pi€Te-)(eLV rrjs TroXecog os av fxr] i^ a.p,^olv 
 daroiu y yeyovas. 
 
 I"]. Mera 5e Tavra irpos to drjuaycoyelu iXOovTO^s 
 HepiKXeovs, kcu irpcoTov evSoKLfirjcravTos OTe kutt]- 
 
 fl fiij Tl TTapeaparo : this seems to mean that ahhough only members 
 of the first two classes were legally eligible to the archonship, yet 
 occasionally persons not so qualified were allowed to slip in ; just as in 
 later times persons not possessing even the qualification of a fewyirijr 
 were elected archons by a notorious legal fiction. 
 
 tS)v iv TO(s vojiois : before these words the MS. originally had the 
 phrase vnb tS>v hfjuav, but it has been erased. 
 
 iiti AvciKparovs ap^ovTos: i.e. 453 B.C. 
 
 01 rpiaKovra biKaa-rai : cf. ch. 53. These oflicials were judges of 
 assize for local cases, and were established by Pisistratus (ch. 16). 
 
 eVi 'AvnSdxou : i. e. 45 1 B. C. 
 
 27. McTO 8e Tavra Trpos to drmayioyeiv iKdovTOs IlipiKkiovs : 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 ac- 
 cusation of Cimon, which Aristotle mentions as his first important 
 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 (Cim. 14). This would put the date in 463 B.C., which is 
 quite possible. Pericles was then young (veos &v) and it was his first 
 prominent apt in public life ; and though he undoubtedly supported 
 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 dvTiSrip.ayayS>v irphs ttjv Kip.a)vos exmoplav, 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 
 
AGHNAmN nOAITEIA. y^ 
 
 yoprja-e ras evOvvas K-L/xcavos a-TparriyovvTos vlos 
 mv, SrjfioTtKCOTepav en avvf^T] yevecrdat rrjv ttoXi- 
 Teiav' Koi yap raiv ' ApeoTrayircov evta TrapeiXero, 
 Kai fiaXi(TTa Trpovrpeyj^ev ttjv ttoXlv iiri ttju vavTiKr/v 
 SvvafiLv, i^ -qs avve^T] OapprjaavTas tovs ttoXXovs 
 airaaav ttju iroXLTelav paXXov ayeiv ei? avTOvs. 
 pera Se ttjv ev ^aXapivi vavpa^iav ivos Sei TrevTij- 
 Koarm krei ein. YlvdoScop^ovj ap^ovTos 6 irpos IleAo- 
 irovvrjCTLOvs iuea-Trj iroXepos, iv cb KaraKXeia-deis o 
 StJpos eV TiS aoret koi avvedicrdiis iu rals (TTpaTials 
 pia-6o(f)op€Lu, ra pev eKcov to, 5e aKcov TrporjpeiTO 
 rr/v iroXireiav 8toiK€iv avros. eTroirjae 8e koI pLado- 
 ^opa ra SLKaarrjpia HepiKXrjs irpcoTos, dvTLSrjpayco- 
 ymv Trpos ttjv Y^ipxovos eviropiav. 6 yap K.[pcou, are 
 TvpavviKTjv €)(cov ovaiav, TrpcoTov pev ras KOLvas 
 XrjLTOvpyias iXrjiTovpyeL Xapirpms, eireira tS>v drjpo- 
 
 date. The murder of Ephialtes and banishment of Themistocles left 
 the way clear for him. 
 
 tZu ' Ap€07TayiTS>v evia rrapfiKero : 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. 
 
 ivos bei TTfKTijKoo-Tw eVet : 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 431 B.C. 
 
 KaTaKKeiadels : MS. KaraxXio'deif. 
 
 iiroiriiTe he Koi fu(T6o<f)6pa to. SiKatrr^pia IlepiKK^s irparos : this confirms 
 the passage in the Politics (II. 12), ra be btKaa-rripia p.ia-docj)6pa KaTea-Ttja-e 
 IlepiKKrjs, 
 
 XriiTovpyias e\riiTovpyei : these forms are given in Hesychius as Attic 
 variants of the more common Xeir-, which seems to justify the reten- 
 tion of the MS. spelling here. 
 
76 API2T0TEA0TS 
 
 Ta>v €Tpe(l)e ttoXXovs' i^T]v yap tS fiovXofiivw 
 AaKiaScov Kaff eKaa-Trjv ttjv rj/jLepau eXOovTi irap 
 avTov kyeiv ra fierpta, en 5e ra -^copLa iravTa 
 a^paKTa rju, ottcos l^rjv rro fiovXofievco rrjs mrmpas 
 airoXaveiv. irpos 8r] Tavrrjv rrju ^oprjyiau eiri- 
 Xeiirofxevos 6 HepLKXrjs rrj ovcrta, a-vybfiovXevovTos 
 avTm Aa/juouiSov tov Oir}0eu (oy iSoKei t&v TroXe/xau 
 elarfyrjTrjS' eluai tS YlepiKXel, 8io Koi marpaKKrav 
 avTOv va-repov), eirei toIi ISlocf -qTraTO 8i86vai rols- 
 TToXXois Ta avTotv, Karea-Kevaare fjLicr0o(f)opau Tols 
 8iKaaTaLS' dcj)' wv aiTLavTai rives X^^P^ yevecrOai, 
 KXrjpovfjieucov eVijiieAtay aet fidXXov rmv tv^ovtcov 
 rj Tcou iiTLeiKcav avOpoiircov. ■qp^aro 8e fiera ravra 
 Kou TO 8eKa.^eLv, Trpmrov KaraSei^avTos 'Avvtov ixerd 
 rrjv iv UvXm crTpaTTjyLav. Kpivop-evos yap vtto 
 Tivcov 8ia TO diro^aXelv YlvXov, SeKoiaas to 8LKaarT7j-^ 
 piov dTre(l)vy£v. 
 
 28. Efflff fiev odu TleptKXrjs irpoeiaTrjKei tov 
 8r]p,ov fieXTLco Ta Kara ttjv iroXLTeiav rjv, TeXevTTj- 
 
 AoKtaSoJv : Plutarch (CiM. lo) 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 Pericles 9, which 
 reproduces the substance of the present passage. 
 
 oiras i^ffv : this is the reading of the MS., though it may be ques- 
 tioned whether we should not read i^fj. 
 
 a-viifiovXeiovTos k.t.X. : quoted by Plutarch (Pericl. 9), rpcVerai jrpos 
 Tr]V tS)V brifioaiav biavojirjv, <rvii^ov\ei(TavTos avT& Aajiavibov tov Ott/BeVf 
 i>s 'ApKrroTeXijs iaroprjKev (Rose, Frag. 365). 
 
 OS : MS. ovs. 
 
 'Avvtov: MS. avTov, but that this is a mere clerical error is cleai" 
 both from the context and from the fact that the passage is referred to 
 by Harpocration (s. v, hnui^atv), 'ApiorroreXijs 6' iv 'AStjvaiav TroXirei^ 
 "Avvt6v tprjo-t KaraSet^ai tci Sexd^eip ra biKaa-Ttipia (Rose, Frag. 371). 
 
 28. ^eXt/o) : MS, /SeXrEio). 
 
AQHNAmN nOAlTEIA. 77 
 
 aavTOS 5e Ile/JiKAeoyy ttoXv ^eipco. TrpaiTou yap 
 t6t€ TrpocTTaTrjv eXa^ev 6 8rjp.os ovk evSoKi/jiovvTa 
 TO. irapa tols eTrieiKea-iV iv 5e tois Trporepov 
 XpovoLS aet SiereXovv ol eViei/cety SrjpxiyaiyovvTes. 
 ^^ "■PXVS t^^v yap Kou Trpatros iyeuero Trpoa-TaTrjs 
 Tov Stj/xou ^oXcop, 8evT€po9 de YieLaiarpaTos tS)v 
 evyevmv Ka\ yvoopip^cov KaTaXvOeicnjs Be rrjs Tvpav- 
 vl8os YiXeicrOeurjs, tov yevovs cbv t&v 'AXKp.eovi8ai', 
 /cat Tovrm fiev ovSeis rju auTL(rTa(ncoTT]9 toy e^iirea-ov 
 OL wepl TOV 'laayopau. peTo. 8e raOra tov p,lv 
 8-qp.ov 7rpoeicrTrjK€L ^avOiinros, tcov 8e yvapip-wv 
 M.iXTia8r]s' eireiTa Qep.iaTOKXr]s kcu ' ApicrT€i8T]s' 
 p.€Ta 5e TovTovs 'E^taAr?;? pev tov 8ripov, Y^ipxov 
 8' 6 M.iXTia8ov Tcou evTTopcoW eha HepiKXrjs p-ev 
 TOV 8r]p,ov, QovKv8L8rjS 8e twv eTepcov, Krj8eaTr}<f asv 
 ¥^Lp.covo9. IlepiKXeovs 8e TeXevTrjaavTos tS>v pev 
 ewLCpavav TrpoeiaTrjKei Ni/ctay, 6 cV Si/ceAia reAeu- 
 Tr]aas, tov 8e Brjpov YiXewv 6 K-XeaiveTov, by 8oKel 
 
 evSoKiiiovvra : at first written evioKiixovfuvov, then -ira was written 
 above, but the letters -/jievov, which should have been struck out, 
 remain accidentally uncancelled. 
 
 Trpoa-Tarris tov Srjfiov : the way in which Aristotle uses this 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 eSVopoi 01; yvapiiioi as their rivals have in 
 reference to the Srj/ios. 
 
 KXcaivcTou : MS. KXaieverov. 
 
78 AP1ST0TEA0T2 
 
 fxaXia-ra 8ia(j)deipai rov Stj/jlov tols opixals, kul 
 irpcoTOs eVi tov firjfxaros aviKpaye k<u iXoLBoprjaaro 
 Kou TrepL^ooaap.evos eSrjixrjyoprjcre, tS>v aXX(ov €v 
 Kocr/xco XeyovTcov, eha fiera tovtovs toov p,ev 
 erepcov Qijpafievrjs 6 "Ayvcovos, tov 8e 8r]fiov KAeo- 
 (j)a>v 6 XvpoTTOios, OS Koi Trjv Buo^oXiav ^Tropiae 
 irpatTos' Kol ■)(p6vov fiev TLva SiedlSov, /xera 8e 
 ravra KareXvcre KaXXiKpdrrjs Ylaiauievs irpcoTos 
 
 Trepi^aa-dnevos : the scholiast to Lucian ( Tim. 30) refers to Aristotle 
 for this fact, 'ApiiTTOTekqs he kcu Ttepi^coaancvov avTov Xcyet Sr]firiyopfi(rai, els 
 TTjv 6paa-vTr)Ta avTov dnoa-KmirTav. 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 state- 
 ment that Cleon obstructed the making of peace with Sparta (Frag. 
 368). The scholiast to Aeschines (Dindorf, p. 14) uses nearly the same 
 words, XeyeTot fie lS\ea>v o Srjpaymyos irapa^as to e^ Wovs (tx^P^ irepi^aad- 
 pevos 8r]prjyoprja-at,' 
 
 TTjv hua^oKiav : 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, 11. 51, 255 ; Wasps, 609, 684, 
 690). The hia^oKia (or finB/SfXia, as it is generally spelt) 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 koi SiKaanKois 
 \rippa<Ttv oKXms re picrBocjsopais koI xopijyi'ais irvvSeKacras to TrXijflor), 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 diobolia 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 the ordinary seats at the theatre 
 continued to be two obols (de Cor. p. 234, iv toIv bvolv ofioKolv eSeapovv 
 av), and it may therefore appear impossible that the theoricon should 
 have been augmented. But we gather from Ulpian (/. c.) and Harpo- 
 cration (s. v. detopmd, quoting Philinus) that the money thus distributed 
 was intended to provide not only a seat in the theatre, but also a meal 
 
A0HNAI12N nOAlTEIA. 79 
 
 v7ro(rx6fMevo9 iwidi^o-eiv Trpos toiv Bvolv o^oXoiu 
 aXXov ofioXou. tovtwv jxev ovv dfX(j)OT€pa>v ddvarov 
 Kareyvcoaav va-repow elcodeu yap, kolv i^aTrar-qdrj 
 TO TrXrjdos, varepov piaelv tovs ti TrpocrayayovTas 
 TTOieiv avTovs t5>v pJi) KaXm kyovTcav. diib Se 
 KAeo0(»i/roy rjdrj SieSexovTo avv€)(W9 Trjv Srjpayco- 
 yiav ol paXicrra ^ovXofievoi dpaavveaOai kcCI xapi- 
 ^eadat tols iroXXols Trpos rd irapavTLKa /3Ae7roz/rey. 
 8oKov(TL fie ot ^eXriaroi yeyovevat rav 'Kd-qvriai 
 7roXLT€vaap.ev(ov perd tovs dp^aiovs f^iKias koL 
 QovkvSlStjs Koi QrjpapevTjs' Koi irep\ pev Niklov 
 
 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 an Athenian proverb {mep ra KaXXiKparovs, used 
 in the case of anything exceeding all reasonable measure ; and the 
 origin of it is explained by Zenobius (VI. 29) from the present treatise, 
 ApiOTOTcXijr Se (j)rj(nv iv rfj 'A6rjvaiav TroXiTfia KaWtKpari/w Tiva irpaTov 
 tS)V StKaarav Toiis fucrdovs eh vwep^oXriv av^rjirai, o8ev Kail ttjv irapoiplav 
 elprj(rdai (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 is to some passage which is missing in the present 
 condition of the MS. 
 
 TToKiTeviranivtav : MS. TroKfiTev(rancva)V. 
 
 NiKf'as Koi 0ovKv8cSrjs Kot Qrjpapevijs : this passage is referred to by 
 Plutarch (JVic. 2), eveariv ovv Trepl NiKi'ou rrpSiTov emeiu o yeypaxjjev 'Apwr- 
 TOTeXrjs, oTi Tpels eyevovTO fieXTiaroi rS)V jroXirSr koi TraTpiKTjv exovres eiivotav 
 Koi ^tXiav Trpos t6i/ Sjjixov, NiKi'ay 6 NjAo/pdrou Koi OovkvSiSt]! 6 MeXrja-iov Kal 
 e^pa/ihris 6 'Ayvoavos (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 
 
8o API2T0TEA0T2 
 
 KoX QovKvSlSov Travres a")(€8ov 6fioXoyov(nu avBpas 
 yeyovivai ov fiovov KaXovs Koyadovs aXXa kul 
 TToXtrt/couy Koi rfj TroXei Tracy irarpLKas \pa>ix€vovs, 
 Trepi Be Qrjpa/Meuovs Sia to crvfi^TJvai kut avTov 
 Tapa^co8eLS ras TroXireias dp(j)i(r^r]Tr]ais ttjs Kpiaecos 
 io-TL. SoKel pevTOL Tois pr] irapepycas a'iro(f)aLvo- 
 peuoLS oi;^ axnrep avrov Sca^aXXovcn Traaas ras 
 TToXireias KaraXveLV, dXXa iraaas irpoayeiv ecos 
 prjSev Trapavopolev, as dvuapevos TroAtreuecr^at Kara 
 irdaas, oirep earlv dyaOov ttoXltov epyov, irapavo- 
 povaais 8e ov (rvy)(a)pS)v dXTC oTrexdavopevos. 
 
 29. "Etay pev odv laoppoTra ra Trpaypara Kara 
 Tov TToXepov r]v 5i60[i;Aarroz/] rrjv SrjpoKpaTiav. 
 eVei 8e perd ttjv ev ^iKeXla yevopevrju SLa(f)opau 
 la^vpoTara ra tcov AaKeSaipovLCov iyevero Sia tt/u 
 Trpos ^acriXea crvppa^Lai>, rjvayKdadTjaav pe^racrTTj- 
 cralvrey rrjv drfpoKpariau KaTacrTTJaai riqv eVt Toiv 
 TerpaKocrtcov TroXiTelav, elTro^vTojs top peu irpo tov 
 ■^r](l)LcrpaT09 Xoyov M.r]Xo^[ov, ttjv Se yvcoprjv ypa- 
 y^avTos Ylvdo8a>pov To\y] . . . tlov, paXicTTa Se 
 
 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. 
 
 irarptKas : this has been corrected in the MS. to icaXSr, but the 
 quotation of the passage in Plutarch (given above) confirms the more 
 uncommon word. 
 
 nevToi : -MS. ficv, but there is no corresponding 8c, and the omission of 
 Toi is easily explained by the following tois. 
 
 29. laoppona : MS. itropona. 
 
 Biacfiopdu : so the MS., but it may be questioned whether Sia(j>dopav is 
 not the right word. 
 
 MtjXo^i'ou : 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, conir. Erat. p. 121). 
 
AQHNAlilN nOAITEIA. 8i 
 
 (TVjXTreicrOiVTcov t5>v TroAXdjj/ hia to vofii^eiv ^aaiXea 
 [aa-fievojv iavTols (rvfnroX€}iy]a€iv iav 8l oXiycov 
 TTOirja-covTai rrjv iroXiTeiau. rjv de to ■^■q^Lcrfia tov [Col. 12.] 
 Tlvdodcopov TOLovSe' tov Srjfiov iXeadai fieTO. Tav 
 "jrpovTrapypvToyv SeKa irpo^ovXcov aXXovs e'lKOCTL e'/c 
 Tcov VTrep TeTTupaKovTa cttj yeyouorcov, otTives ofxo- 
 aavT^s r) pnqv (rvyypd^eiv a av riyviVTai ^eXTicTTa 
 elvuL Ty TToAet (rvyypa'^ovfTL irepl ttJs (TcoTrjpias' 
 i^elvai Se /cat tcov aXXoav tS ^ovXopLevw ypd(j)eiv, 
 Xv e^ aTravTcov alpcovTai to dpiaTov. K.XeiTO(j)(ov 8e 
 Ta fiev dXXa KaduTrep HvBoScopos ehrev, Trpoaava^rj- 
 Trjaai 8e tovs aipedevTas eypayf/^ev /cat tovs Trarpiovs 
 vop,ovs ovs ^Xeiadivrjs kdrjKev ore KadlcrTrj ttjv 
 SrjpoKpuTiav, OTTCos aKovaavTes Koi tovtcop ^ovXev- 
 (TCovTai TO dpicTTOv, coy 01) SrjfJLOTLKrjv aAAa irapa- 
 TrXfjaiau oicrav ttjv YJ\.€L(r6evovs iroXtTeiau tjj 
 
 rav irpovnapxovTav Seko 7rpo0ov\a>v : Thucydides (VIII. 67) speaks of 
 ten persons being elected as (rvyypa(t>ecs avTOKparopes, but says nothing 
 of the additional twenty mentioned by Aristotle. The latter is, however, 
 supported by Philochorus and Androtion, as appears from Harpocration 
 (j. V. <Tvyypa<^€is), who after quoting the words of Thucydides adds riaav 
 de ol fiev iravTes wyypa^els X oi rare alpeSevres, Kadd iprjirii^ AvdpoTiau re 
 .Kai 0iX6)(opos, ixdrfpos cv tJ 'AtBiBi' 6 8e QovKv&l8r)s tS>v I efivripAvevcrc 
 nSvcov T&v npo^ovktov. From Aristotle's account it would appear that 
 there was an existing board of ten irpofiovKoi, which was probably 
 the continuation of that which was first appointed after the news of the 
 Sicilian disaster (Thuc. VIII. i) ; 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. 
 
 TO apia-Tov : there is a single stroke following to in the MS., which 
 looks as though the copyist had begun to write tov but had seen that it 
 was wrong before completing the word, to apia-Tov is confirmed by the 
 recurrence of the phrase below. 
 
 KXf(ro0£i/ : as Pythodorus is spoken of above as the author of the 
 yvafiTj or yjni(l>uTp.a which was passed by the assembly, it would appear 
 that the rider proposed by Cleitophon was rejected. 
 
 G 
 
8a APISTOTEAOTS 
 
 "^oXcovos. 01 8' aipedevTCS irpSiTOV /xev eypayjrav 
 iiravayKis eivac tovs irpvTaveis airavra ra Xeyop-eva 
 Trepl Tr]9 (rcoTrjpla^ iTri\lrr](f)[^ei,v, eireiTa ras tS)v 
 irapavofJLcou ypa(f)as koL ras elaayyeXLas Kai ras 
 TTpoKXrjaeis avelXov, owcos av oi ideXovres 'Adrjualoi 
 (Tvp^ovXevcoai Trepl Tcoi> irpoKeipivcoV lav Se tls 
 TOVTcov •)(apLV rj ^r]p,iOL r/ Trpoa-KaXijrai rj elcrayrj etg 
 SiKaarypLov, evBei^iv avTOV eivai kcu airaycoyrjv 
 irpos TOVS (TTpaTrfyovs, tovs Se (TTpaTrjyovs irapa- 
 Sovvai Tols evSeKa OavaTco ^r/picoaai. peTa 5e TavTU 
 Trjv TToXiTciav SieTa^av TovSe Tpoirov to. peu xprj- 
 puTa {to) irpoiTLOVTa prj i^elvai aXXocre Sairavyja-ai rj 
 els Tov TToXepov, Tas S" ap^as apiaOovs oip\eLV airacras 
 ecos av 6 TToXepos y, irXrjv tS>v evvea apyovTOiv koL 
 Twv irpvTavecov ot av acriv tovtovs 8e (pepeiv Tpels 
 ofioXovs eKUCTTOv Trjs Tjpepas. ttjv 8' aXXrjv ttoXc- 
 Teiav iTTCTpeyj/ai iraaLv 'Adrjvaimv tols 8vvaTcoTaTots 
 /cat Tots acopacTLV koH tols )(prjpa(rLv XtjiTOvpyelv prj 
 eXaTTOv T] irevTaicL(r)(j.XLOis ecos av 6 iroXepos y' 
 
 TTpSiTov fih ^ypaijfav k.t.X. : this is substantially the same as the 
 briefer summary of Thucydides (VIII. 67), that the avyypacfieis pro- 
 posed nothing except that any Athenian might suggest anything 
 he hked without fear of penalties (e'leicai /nev 'Adrjvaia avSpX flnelv 
 yvap-rfv ^v av Tis ^oiXi/Toi* fjv bi Tis tov elndvra rj ypdsjfjjTai Trapavofitov fj 
 aXXo) TO) Tp6ma i3Xa\|/'j, /ieydXas £r)ij,las iireBearav), 
 
 els biKacFTrjpiov : MS. i; cis SiKatrTrjpiov, plainly a mere clerical error. 
 
 TO, fiiv ;)^p^jaaTa K.r.X. : cf. Thucydides (VIII. 65), Xoyor re . . . irpoetp- 
 yacTTO avTois i)S ovre /uiTBocpoprjTeov eirj SXkovs rj tovs CTTpaTevofjievovs, oiVe 
 p,e6eKTeov rav irpayjiaToiv irXeioaiv fj TrevTaKurpfiXioif, kui tovtois ol hv 
 fxaKiaTa toIs te xPW'^"'^ *"' ''<''* aapairiv dxpeXe'iv oloi re &(nv. 
 
 TO irpoaiovra : the article seems to be required, and its omission in 
 the MS. is easily explained by the similarity of the termination of the 
 preceding word. 
 
 J7el»^aKl(rx'^''olJ : corrected in the MS. to TrevTaKia-xO^iwv, the corrector 
 having apparently overlooked the fact that 7 precedes. 
 
AQHNAmN nOAITEIA. 83 
 
 Kvpiovs 5' clvaL TOVTOVs Kou CTVvdriKas avvTiOecrdai 
 irpos ovs OLV ideXcoaiV eXecrOai Be kcu tyjs (pvXrjs 
 eKaa-Trjs deKa auSpas virep TerrapaKOVTa €Tr] yeyo- 
 voras, o'ltlvcs KaraXe^ovai tovs irevTaKLcr^^iXiovs 
 6p.6(ravT€s Kaff Upav reXeimv. 
 
 30. Ot p.ep ovv alpedevres ravra avviypa^av. 
 KvpcoOevTcov Se tovtcov eiXouTO (rcfimv avrav ol 
 irevTaKLa-xiXioi, tovs avaypa^ovras Trjv TroXiTeiav 
 €KaTov avSpas. ol 8' alpeOevres dveypa^av Koi 
 i^iqveyKav rdSe. fiovXeveiv p-eu kut iviavTov tovs 
 vw€p rpiuKouTa errj yeyovoras avev p.i,(rdo(f)opd9' 
 TOVTCOV 5' etftti Toi)f (TTpaT'qyovs koL tovs evvea 
 dp-)(ovTas KOL Tov lepopvrjpova kcu tovs Ta^idpyovs 
 KCU lTnrap-)(ovs kcu (pvXap^ovs kcu dp-)(pvTas els tu 
 
 30. elKovTO ^(filov avrav ol 7rej'TaKi(r;(iX(oi tovs dvaypa-\JAovTas : this State- 
 ment, which is confirmed below (oi uiro t&v Trfyi-a/fio-^fiX/mi/ aipfde'vTes), 
 seems to be in direct contradiction to the assertion in ch. 32 that the 
 5000 Aoym fiovov fipeBrja-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 
 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 wfere 
 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 Athqps and for its future 
 constitution. 
 
 G 2 
 
84 API2T0TEA0TS 
 
 (fypovpia /cat rafiias rmu iepS>v ^p-qpLarav ry 0[e(o 
 KoiX t\oIs aXKoLS deals 8eKa koI iXX-rjuoTafiLas Koi 
 T&v aXXcov oalcov xpr/ixaToiv aTravrcov elKoaiu ol 
 dLa^eipLovaiv koI tepoiroiovs /cat iTrifxeXrjTas SeKa 
 eKarepovs' alpeladai 8e Travras tovtovs €K irpoKpi- 
 Tcou, e/c Tcou del jBovXevovTcou ttXclovs TrpoKpivovras, 
 Tas S" aXXas ap-)(as airacras KXrjpcoras eivai Kai fir/ 
 e/c TTJs ^ovXrjs' Toiis 8e eXXr/voTap-ias ol kav 8ca- 
 )(€LpL^cocrL TO. ^prjp,aTa prj crvplSovXeveiv. /SouAa? 
 5e TTOiTJcrai Terrapas e/c rrjs -qXiKias rrjs elprjpevrjs 
 
 Tafias tS>u Upav ^prjfiaToip r^ Sea Kot rots aXXotff Oeois '. cf. Boeckh, 
 Public Economy, II. 5. Every temple at Athens had its own treasurers, 
 those of the temple of Athena being far the most important ; but about 
 419 B.C. the various treasurers, with the exception of those of Athena, 
 were united in a single board under the title of Taniai tS>v hWav SeSip. 
 
 iWrivoTofiias : it is presumably to this passage that Harpocration 
 {s, v.) refers, when he says, oti ap^rj tk rju 01 iWrjvoTaiuai., oJ Siep^eipifoi/ 
 TO ;^p^fiaTa, Kol ' ApiiTTOTe\r]S StjXoi iv rrj 'Adr/valaiv TroXireia (Rose, Frag. 
 362). There is no fuller description of them in the second part of the 
 work, because the ofifice did not exist in Aristotle's own day. It is not 
 clear why they are named here as belonging to the Council, when im- 
 mediately below it is stated that they were not to do so. 
 
 Kai Ta>v aWav otjiav xprffxariov etKotri : Boeckh (/. c.) considers the 
 public money to have been in the keeping of the Tap-iai rrjs 6eou, 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 at Athens. 
 
 jtXeious npoKpivovTas : that is, the holders of these offices, who were 
 all to be members of the Council of Four Hundred, were at the expira- 
 tion of their term of office to nominate a number of candidates to 
 succeed themselves. The final selection among the candidates thus 
 nominated rested with the full Council. 
 
 &ovKas hk Troirjarm rtrrapas k.t.X. ; the arrangement of the jSouXai is 
 not very clearly expressed, but it seems to be as follows. There were 
 to be four councils, each of a hundred persons, which were to cast lots 
 for precedence, the one securing the first lot to hold office for a year, 
 while the others followed in order, each on the termination of its 
 predecessor's term. Iii the first instance they were to be formed from 
 the board of one hundred which was drawing up the constitution (jois 
 
A©HNAIi2N nOAITEIA. 85 
 
 €LS Tov Xoiirov ■)(jp6vov, KotX TOVTCov TO Xayov iiipos 
 ^ovXeveiv, velfiai de koI tovs aAAouy irpos rrju 
 Xrj^iv eKaa-Trjv. tow S" e/carov avSpas Siaveifiai 
 tr0ay re avTovs Koi Toi/s aXXovs TCTTupa fJieprj as 
 laaLTaTa kol SLaKXrjpaaai, kol ety iviavTOU {/Sou- 
 Xevciv}. fiovXeveiu 8e y av doKrj avTols apurTa 
 e^eiu Trepl Te tcov xprjp.a.Tcov, OTrtoy au (raia y koL ely 
 TO Seou auaXiaKrjTaL, Kal irepl tcou aXXcov d>s av 
 SvvcovTaL apLCTTa' kolv ti diXaxriv ^ovXevaacrOaL 
 fi€Ta irXeiovav, eTreicTKaXelv eKaaTou iTrelaKXrjTOv ov 
 av fdeXy Tav e/c ttjs avTrjs "^XiKias" ray 5' eSpaf 
 TTOie'iv Trjs ^ovXijs Kara 7r€vdr]p,€pov iav firj BecovTUt, 
 irXeiovcov. KXrjpovv Se ttjv ^ovXrjv tovs ivvea ap^ov- 
 Tas, Tas 8e ^ctpoTovias KpLveiv TreVre tovs Xa^ovTas 
 CK Trjs fiovXrjs, Kal ex tovtcov eva KXrjpovadaL KaO' 
 eKao-TTjv rjpiepav tov e'iru^r](j>iovvTa. KXrjpovv 8e 
 Tovs Xa^ovTas irevTe tovs ideXovTas irpoaeXdelv 
 ivavTiov Trjs ^ovXrjs, irpwTOv p.ev lepav, SevTCpov 8e 
 
 eKOTov avSpas) and from certain others, in whom we may see the 300 
 co-opted members of the original Four Hundred mentioned by Thucy- 
 dides (VIII. 67), and these were to be divided into four equal parts to 
 make the first four councils. That the councils were to consist of 100 
 members each appears from ch. 31, sub fin., where it is said that the 
 original 400 were to be divided into ras Terrapas \rj^eis. 
 
 ^ovKevciv : MS. 8ov\eveiv, 
 
 els iviavTov ^ovXeieiv : ^ovXeveiv is not in the MS., but it seems 
 necessary to supply it, and its recurrence as the first word of the 
 following sentence is enough to explain its omission. 
 
 Kav : MS. eav, but a copula seems necessary. 
 
 iireicniKrjTov : MS. eTTeicre<Kr]Tov. The word is unknown to the 
 lexicographers, but so also is iireia-KoKeiv. 
 
 nevBtjuepov : MS. wevdrminepov. The meaning must be ' once every 
 five days.' The /SouXij under the democracy sat every day except on 
 festivals {n\^v iav ns d<f>e(np.os 5, ch. 43). 
 
 Upmv . . Krjpv^iv , . wp((r^eia , , tSiv aWav : the change of case is 
 remarkable, though a koto aiveariv construction might be made out for 
 
86 APISTOTEAOTS 
 
 K-qpv^Lv, rpiTOv TrpeajSeia, Teraprov tcov aXXav' ra 
 
 Se Tov TToXip^ov orau bey aKXrjpcorl irpocrayayovTas 
 
 Tovs (TTpaTTjyovs ■)(^p'r]ixaTL^e(TdaL. tov 8e fxrj loura eis 
 
 TO fiovXevT-qpLOv T&v l3ovXev6vTa)v ttjv copav ttjv 
 
 irpopp-qOetaav 6(j)eiXeiu bpa^p-rjv ttjs r}p.€pas eKaaTrjs, 
 
 iav p-t) €vpL(TK6p,euos a(j)eaLv ttjs ^ovXrjs a.Trfj. 
 
 [Col. 13.] 21. TavTTjv p-ev odu eiy tou pLeXXovTa ^ovov 
 
 aviypa^av ttjv iroXiTiiav, iv 5e r<^ irapovTL Katpm 
 
 Tr}v8e' fiovXeveiv p.ev TeTpaKoaiovs Kara ra iraTpLa, 
 
 TeTTapoLKovTa i^ eKo.cTT'qs (j)vXrJ9, eV irpoKpLTCov [o]i;y 
 
 av eXcovTai oi (pvXeraL t&v virep TpiaKovTa €TT] 
 
 each. The order of business is probably that usually adopted in the 
 (SouA?) under the democracy. In the ecclesia, as appears from ch. 43, 
 different subjects were assigned to each of the four ordinary meetings 
 of that body in each prytany. 
 
 31. Tairriv fiev 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-cussive, as that is 
 {vt'd. 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 i often takes the place 
 of the diphthong ei, especially in the preposition els ; e.£^. laiovra, itKiov, 
 i\r))^viav. On the other hand ft appears for t, as in TroKeiriKav, fiera- 
 Kciveiv. 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 
 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. 
 
 KOTa TO. TrnVfJiu : 2. e, as in the Solonian constitution. 
 
 oils hi fAmirai ot (^uXe'rai ; this differs from Thucydides, who says 
 (VIII. 67) that the Four Hundred were elected by a process of 
 co-optation ; five irp6e8pot, elected by the ecclesia at Colonus, were to 
 
A0HNAmN nOAITEIA. 87 
 
 yeyovoTbiv. tovtovs 8e ras re a/j^ay KaracrTrjcrai, 
 Kol irepl Tov opKov ovTLva ^PV Ofioaai ypa-^ai, {kcu) 
 Trepl Ta)v vofuov /cat raz/ eu^i>[i']©i/ /cat rmu aXXcov 
 irpaTTUv y av r^yavTai \crvpi\<l)^peLV. toIs 8e vop-ois 
 OL eav reOaxriu Trepl rmv TroXiTiKau ■)(pTJa6at, /cat 
 jjbrj e^elvat ixeraKLvelv p-rfS" eripovs deaOai. r5>v 
 8e (TTpaTrjyav to vvv eivat ttjv (upecriv ef airavTcov 
 TTOieicrdaL rav ■ir€VTaKLa")(iXL(av, ttjv 8e fiovX^v 
 iweLdau KaracrTrjarj iroL'^a'aaav i^eracnv oirXois 
 eXea-dai 5e/ca avSpay /cat ypap.p.aTta tovtois, tow 
 8e alpeOevras ap\ii,v tov eiaiovTa eviavTov avTO- 
 KpaTopas, KOL av tl 8e(ovTai avp^ovXeveaOai /iera 
 Trjs ^ovXrjs. iXeadaL 8e kol L-jnrap^ov eva /cat 
 (j)vXap)(^ovs SeKa' to 8e Xouirov ttjv atpeaiv iroLeladai 
 TOVTtov TTjv ^ovXrjv KUTu Ta yeypapp.eva. Ta>v 8' 
 aXX(ov dp^mv ttXtjv Trjs fiovXrjy /cat Tmv (TTpaTrjymv 
 p,rj i^elvai p.r]Te tovtois pr/re aXXco p.r]8ev\ irXelov rj 
 
 choose a hundred persons, who were each to nominate three others. It 
 is difficult to decide between two such good authorities ; but possibly 
 Thucydides may have taken the arrangement of the four councils by 
 the original hundred commissioners (see note on ch. 30, ^avKas be 
 k.tX.) to be a co-optation of three hundred additional members, whereas 
 from Aristotle we should gather that the tribes elected the whole four 
 hundred, or rather that they elected three hundred in addition to the 
 hundred already existing, and that those hundred were eventually to 
 distribute themselves and the remaining three hundred into four 
 separate councils, — an arrangement which never came into force, 
 owing to the overthrow of the oligarchical government. 
 
 KOI TrepiT&vvonaiv : Kai is not in the MS., but it seems to be required, 
 and its omission is easily explained by the similarity of the termination 
 of ypdijfai, which precedes it. 
 
 anrapxov 'dva : ordinarily there were two hipparchs {cf. ch. 61). 
 
 TO 8e XoiTTOV : MS. TO 8f TO XoiTTOI/. 
 
 irXriv : MS. rrpiv ; cf. ch. 37, where the same mistake is made, but 
 has been corrected by the reviser, while in ch. 38 it again occurs 
 uncorrected. 
 
88 APISTOTEAOTS 
 
 ttTraf ap^ai rrjv avrrjv a.pxvi'' ety 5e tov aXXou 
 Xpovou iva vefir]6a)(riv oi rerpaKoaioi els ray rer- 
 Tupas Xrj^eis *0Tav rots aaTois yiyvrjTai fiera tcov 
 aXXcou fiovXeveiv SLaveLfiavTcov avTOvs oi eKarou 
 avhpes. 
 
 32. Ot p.€v olv €KaTov ol vTTO tS>v TTevTaKia^L- 
 Xicov aipedevres ravr-qv aviypar^av ttjv TroXireiau. 
 
 eTTLKVpCodeVTCOV 8e TOVTCOV VTTO TOV TtXtjOoVS, CTTl- 
 
 yln](f)La-avTos 'Api(rTop,a^ov, rj fiev ^ovXrj iw). KaXXtov 
 irplv Bia^ovXeva-ai KareXudr} pirjvos QapyrjXiwvos 
 TerpaSi eVt BeKa, oi Se TeTpaKoaiot ela-yaav ivarrj 
 (J)6lvovtos QapyrjXicovos' eSet 8e ttjv elXrj^vlav tw 
 Kvapxo ^ovXrjv elaiei/aL 8 iirl Seku ^KLpo^opiwvos. 
 Tj pev ovv oXiyap^la tovtov KarecTTrj tov rpoirov 
 eVt KaAAiou p.lv ap\ovT09, eTecnv 8' varepov ttjs 
 tS>v Tvpdvvcov eK^oXrjs paXicTTa eKarov, aiTLCov 
 pdXia-Ta yevopivcDv Ileicrav8pov Koi 'AuTi(f)avT09 
 
 orav K.T.X. : this sentence is manifestly corrupt, but it is not clear 
 how it is to be satisfactorily emended. That the revision by the 
 original owner was not quite thorough is shown by the fact that 
 though be has corrected two blunders in this passage (i/yviji-ai and 
 hiavijiavToiv) he has allowed the last word to stand as avSSpeis. The 
 ixarbv avSpes referred to are the hundred constitution-makers, and 
 there is clearly a reference to their distribution of the Four Hundred 
 into the four councils of one hundred which were to succeed them. 
 
 32. nrjvot BapyrjXiSivos TfTpdSi eVi dcKa : 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. 
 
 elcfjaav : MS. fitrijiercav, 
 
 tSei ; MS. €ri. 
 
 Ilf io-di/8pou : MS. UcTta-avSpov. An E is added above the line, but it is 
 not clear whether it is intended to be substituted for the cr (which 
 would be better effected by simply striking out the t) or if it is to be 
 
AGHNAmN nOAITEIA. 89 
 
 Koi Qrjpafxeuovs, av8pa>v kcu yeyevrjfjLevcov ev Koi 
 avueaei koi ypcofirj Sokovvtcou 8La(p€peiv. yepofievrjs [Col. 14.] 
 fie TavT-qs rrjs TToAireiay 01 fJLeu irevTaKLa^iXiot A070) 
 p-ovov ypedrjaav, oi fie rerpaKocnoi fiera rmv deKa 
 Tmv avTOKparopcov elaeXOovTe^ ely to fiovXevrrjpiov 
 rjpxov TTJ9 TToXeas, koI irpos KaKeBaip-oviovs irpea^ 
 ^ev(rap,euoL KareXvovTO tov TroXe/iov i(j) oils eKarepot 
 Tvy)(a.vov(riv e\ovT€s. ov^ inraKovfa-ajvTcov 8' eKeivcov 
 el fiTf Koi TT]v ap')(rjv rrjs [OjaXdTTijs a<pr](rov(rLV, 
 ovToos airiaTrjaav . 
 
 33. yirjvas fxev ovv 'lacos rerrapas Siefieivev rj 
 tS)v TeTpaKocricov TroXiTeia, kcu -^p^ev i^ avrav 
 
 inserted before the i. 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 regime. 
 
 fipe&r)(Tav : this word is written twice in the MS., but the repetition is 
 cancelled by a row of dots above it. In the first instance it has been 
 corrected in the scribe's own hand, quite unnecessarily, to eprjdrjaav. 
 
 oi : MS. u. 
 
 rav SeKo rav avTOKparopav : the generals mentioned in the preceding 
 chapter. 
 
 Tvyxavrnxriv : two superfluous letters, apparently \e or re, have got 
 inserted in the MS. before the Xj where the word is broken by the end 
 of a line. 
 
 vwoKovtravToav : MS. v<f>aKov<ravTa>v, 
 
 33. Mijvas . . . TiTTapas : 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. 411 B.C.). Mnasilochus 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. TerpaKoaioi) refers to Aristotle's 'KOrjvaiav 
 noKiTua as his authority for the duration of the rule of the Four 
 Hundred (Rose, Frag. 372). 
 
90 APISTOTEAOTS 
 
 Mvaa-iXoxos Sifjirjvop eVt QeoTrofnrov ap^ovTOS, 
 <o?> rip^i Tovs einXouirovs SeKU fJLrjvas. rjfTTjOeuTes 
 8e 7-J7 Trepl '^perpiau vavfiaxia [/cat] T-qs ^v/Soias 
 arroa-Tacnqs oXtjs ttXtjv 'Qpeov, ^aXeiraf eveyKovres 
 eVt ry crvp.(j)op5. fiaXicTTa tS>v irpoyeyev'qp.evcov {irXeuo 
 yap e'/c rrfs YiV^oias rj ttjs 'Attiktjs irvyxavov 
 Q}(p€Xovp,€voi) KareXvaav tow TerpaKoa-Lovs /cat ra 
 TTpdyfiara irapeScoKav toIs irevraKLcrxiXiois toIs e/c 
 Twv oirX(ov, y\rr^(f)L(Tap.evoL fir]8ep.Lau ap\r}v eivai 
 fiicrdo^opcov. alruoTaTOL 8' iyevovTO ttjs Kara- 
 Aucrewy 'ApLo-TOKpaTrjs /cat Qr]pap,€UT]f, ov avvape- 
 uKop-ivoi Tols VTTO tS)v TeTpaKOCTLcov yevop.evoLs' 
 airavra yap 8i avrciv eirparTov, ov8€v eirava- 
 (hepovres tols Tr€VTaKL(ryj.Xiois . Sokovctl 8e KaXcos 
 TToXiTevdrjvaL /cara tovtovs tovs Katpovs, TroXep-ov re 
 KaOecTToaTos /cat e/c tSiv ottXcov ttjs TroXtreta? ovcttjs. 
 
 34. Tovtovs p-^v odu a(j)eiX€T0 ttju iroXiTeiav 6 
 8rjp,os Sia Toixovs' eTei 5' e^86p.co p,eTa ttjv twv 
 
 MyocriXoxos : originally written yiva(n\i.axos in the MS., but corrected. 
 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). 
 
 OS : the insertion of this word seems necessary, and its omission is 
 easily explained by the similarity of the termination of the preceding 
 word, afnovToi. 
 
 'Qpeov : MS. ilpiov, 
 
 'ApKTTOKpaTrjS Koi Qj)paplvi]i : cf. Thuc. VIII. 89. 
 
 hoKovfTi be KaKws TroKtT€v6i}vai Kara tovtovs tovs Katpovs ' this must 
 undoubtedly be an intentional repetition of the comment of Thucydides 
 (VIII. 97) in which the same judgment is expressed at greater length. 
 
 34. 8ia Tumour : as has been suggested in the Introduction, this phrase 
 probably indicates that the aboHtion of the government by the nominal 
 Five Thousand, and the re-establishment of the full democracy, 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. 
 
 erei (MS. exi) 8' e/3S(i/itp : this must be a mistake. The archonship of 
 
AQHNAmN nOAITEIA. 91 
 
 TeTpaKOcrL(ov KaraXvaLv, eVt KaAAtou tov 'Ayye- 
 X-qOev ap-)(pvTOS, yevofiivqs Trjs eV ' KpyivoixraLS 
 vavfia^ia^, irpwrov fiev tovs deKa a-TpaTrj-yovs tovs 
 rfj vavp-ayta vLKWuras crvvefir} Kpidrjvai paa X'^'-P^' 
 TOVLO. iravras, tovs p,ev ov8e avvvavpa^^crauTas, 
 TOVS d' iir dXXoTpLas vews crcodevTas, i^aTraTTjdevTOS 
 TOV Srjpov 8ia tovs irapopyiaavTas' eireiTa fiovXo- 
 p.€vcov AaKeSaipovLcou Ik AeKcXelas avievaL kcu e0' 
 ols ^xpvcriv eKUTepot elprjvrjv ayeLV, evict, p,ev icnrov- 
 Sa^ou, TO 8e irXrjdos ov^ VTrrjKovcrev i^airaTrjOevTes [Co'' 15] 
 
 Theopompus, in which the Four Hundred were overthrown, was in 41 1- 
 410 B. C, and the archonship of CaUias 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 ofiScial 
 year 412-41 1 B.C. 
 
 TOVS hixa a-TpaTT/yavs : Aristotle is certainly inaccurate here. Two of 
 the ten generals, Conon and Leon, were not included in the accusation, 
 the former having been blockaded in Mytilene during the battle, while 
 of the latter we hearnothing 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. 
 
 X^ipoTovia : the decision to try all the generals collectively was taken 
 by ;(eiporoi/ia, but the actual vote which condemned them was by ballot 
 (Xen. Hell. I. 7. 34). 
 
 TOVS jxev ovSe avvvavfiaxritravTas : 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, the state- 
 ment 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 reference 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. 
 
 Toiis 8' eV dXXorpiay : MS. omits 8f . 
 
 e^airaTrjBevTos : MS. e^aTraTrjSevTes. 
 
 cieaTipoi flprjvriv: MS. tprjvrjv cKaTfpoi, an inversion which is more 
 likely to be due to the scribe than to the author. 
 
92 APIST0TEA0T2 
 
 VTTO KXeo(j)aivTOS, os eKcoXvae yeviadai Trjv elprjvrju 
 eXdcou els rrjv eKKXrjcrlav fxeOvcov kol daspaKa evoe- 
 SvKcos, ov (pdaKcov iTnTpeyjreii' iav p^rj rracras a^uoa-L . 
 AaKe8atp.6vioL ray TroXeis. ov ■)((aprjaap.€V0L oe 
 KaXw Tore tols irpaypa^aij, p-er ov ttoXvu yjiovov 
 eyvcoaav ttjv apap^riav^. t(S yap varepov erei 
 eV 'AXe^lov apypvros r)Tv\r}(rav T-qv ev Aiyos 
 TTorapoLS vavpaxic-v, i^ ys avvefir) Kvpiov yevop-evov 
 TTjS TToXecos AvcravBpov Karaa-TrjaaL tovs rpiaKovra 
 TpoTTCo TOLcoSe. Trfs elprjvrjs yevopeviqs avTols e^ 
 ro re TroXiTevcrovTat ttjv irarpLov TroXLveiav, ol peu 
 
 VTTO 'KXeo(l)S>vTos : this passage is cited by the scholiast on Aristophanes 
 (Frogs, 1532), as 'Apio-TOTcXijs </>'J0'', /icTO rrjv iv ' Apyivova-ais vavfui)({.av 
 AaKeSmnoviav ^ovKo/jiivav e'k AeKfXelas diriivai e<p ois e;^ou(rii' eKarepoi Kai 
 elprjvriv ayeiv, iiri Tov KaXXi'ou, K\eo(f>S)V e7rei<re tok S^/ioi/ fifj jrpoaSi^aadal 
 iX6av els rfju eKK\rjcriav fieBvav koX 6a>paKa ei>beSvKuis, ov <pda-Ka>v eTTiTpii^eiv 
 iav fi.f1 ndcras d(l>S>(n ras irokfis oi ^.aKebaifiovioi (Rose, Frag. SJo). 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. 
 
 (TT 'AXe^LOV apjfOVTOs : 405-404 B. C. 
 
 Tj)v ndrpiov TroKirelav : this was a sufficiently vague term, indicating 
 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 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. 
 
AQHNAmN nOAITEIA. 93 
 
 SrjfiOTLKOL 8iacrco(T€LV iireipcovTO tov Srjixov, rati' de 
 yvcopifMcov ol fX€v iv raty iraipelais oures Kal rcov 
 fpvyaBcov ol jxera ttju elpiqvqv KareXOovres 6Xiyap)(^Las 
 eTredvfiovv, ol 8' eV eTaipela. p,ev ov8ep,ia. crvyKade- 
 <TTC0T€s [aJAAcoy Se SoKovvTes ouSevos iinXeLTrea-dat 
 Toiv TToXirmv ttjv Trarpiov iroXiTeiav i^riTovv &v rfv 
 fieu Kol 'Ap\Lvos Ka\ ' Auvros kol K.XeLTO(f)cov /cat 
 ^opfiicTLOs KOI erepoi. ttoXXol, TrpoeiaTr]K.et 8e p-dXiara 
 Qr}pap.ivrjs. Avaav8pov 8e Trpocrdefjievov tols oXl- 
 yap-^iKols KarairXayeis 6 5^/Aoy rjvayKaa-Or) •)(eipo- 
 Tovelv TTjv oXiyap^lau. eypayjre 8e to ^T^(f)iafJia 
 ApaKOUTLSrjs 'A<pL8valos. 
 
 35- Ot Mf o5^ rpiaKovra tovtov tov Tpoirov 
 KaTeaTTjaav iir). HvOoScopov a.p\ovTOs. yevop-evoi 8e 
 KvpiOL TTJs TToAecBy TO. p.€v ccXXa TO, 86^avTa irepl 
 T.rjs TToAtretay Trapecopcov, irevTaKoaLOvs 8e /SovAeuray 
 Koi Tas aXXas ap^as KaTaaTrjcravTes e'/c irpoKpLTWv 
 e/c Tcav -)(i.Xlcov, kcu TrpoaeXojxevoL a(f)L(Tiv avTols tov 
 
 Stcuraxrciv : so corrected by the reviser from Siao-ajfEiv. 
 
 'Apxivos : subsequently one of the exiles who joined Thrasybulus in 
 his occupation of Phyle (Demosth. contr. Timocr. p. 742) ; cf. ch. 40. 
 Anytus (MS. Awuroy) was another of the same number (Xen. Hell. II. 
 3. 44). Cleitophon (MS. K\iTo0a)i/) may be the same as the person of 
 that name mentioned in connection with the establishment of the Four 
 Hundred. 
 
 ApoKoj/TtSijs : Dracontides is mentioned by Aristophanes ( Wasps, 157), 
 where the scholiast refers to the present passage of Aristotle (Rose, 
 Frag. ZTi)- He was himself one of the Thirty (Xen. Hell. II. 3. 2). 
 
 35. Ka.rkaTr\aav: MS. KareaTrjcre, 
 
 inX UvBoSapov apxovTos : 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. 
 
 cK tS>v p^iXio)!/ : there is no other mention of a body of 1000, and it is 
 possible that the phrase is merely epexegetic of f k irpoKpiTov, indicating 
 that a list of 1000 persons was at first drawn up from which the 500 
 members of the council were finally selected. 
 
94 API2T0TEA0TS 
 
 Heipaucos apxovras SeKa kcu tov 8€crficoTr]pi.ov 
 (f)vXaKas €v8€Ka Koi ixa(rTiyo(f)6povs Tpia\^KJo(novs 
 virrjpeTas Karet^ov ttjv woXlv 8i eavrcov. to p-ev 
 ovv irparov p-erpcoi toIs TroXiVaty [^Jo'a[i'J Kai 
 TrpoaeTroLovvTO diotKeiv rrjv Trdrpiov 7ro\XiTj€Lav, 
 
 KOX TOVS T 'E(piaXTOV KOX ' KpX'^CTTpOLTOV v6p,0VS 
 
 Tovs Trepl Ta>v ' KpeoirayLTatv KadeiXov eg 'Apeiov 
 [Trdyovj kcu toov "EoXcovos Oecrp-cav oaoi 8Lap,(j)i(r- 
 ^r)T[ri(rjet.? elxov, kcu to Kvpos o rjv ev toIs 8LKaaTaLS 
 Ac[a7-e]A.i;crai', as iyravopdovvTes kcu iroLovvT^es] dvafi- 
 [Col. i6.] ^icrl3rjTrjT0P ttjv iroXiTeiav, oIo[j/] 7rep\ tov 8ovvai 
 TO. eavTov « au ediXrj Kvpiop woLTjaavTes KaOaira^, 
 
 KOI 'Apxfo-TpaTov : 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. 
 
 Sra/i0io-/3i;T^o-6(E: MS. 8ia/i<^if^i;ri;treis, but this substitution of f for a 
 is paralleled immediately below, where the MS. has avaiJKpiC^rjTrjrov. 
 
 TO Kvpos o rjv iv Tois SiKaarals : this has been mentioned above (ch. 9) 
 as the foundation of the whole power of the democracy, and it is there- 
 fore natural that it should be one of the first things abolished by the 
 oligarchy. 
 
 irepl TOV dovvat to iavTov k.t.X. : the law of Solon relative to testa- 
 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 {So/. 21) and is repeatedly 
 referred to by the orators {e.g: Demosthenes in Lept. p. 488, contr. 
 Olymp. p. 1183 ; Isaeus, de Menecl. hered., passim, de Philoct. hered. 
 p. 57). The change introduced by the oligarchs simply consisted in 
 abolishing the provisions against mental incapacity and undue in- 
 fluence, which, though reasonable enough in themselves, had been 
 abused and had given rise to much <rvKo4>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 testamentary dispositions except those relating to 
 mental incapacity and undue influence, partly because Aristotle could 
 not speak of so revolutionary a change in the law of property as merely 
 
AOHNAmN nOAITEIA. 95 
 
 Tag 5e irpoa-ova-as 8v<TKoXias, eau fir/ fiavmv rj 
 yrjpwv 7] yvvaiKL TnOojxevos, a(pelXov ottco^ jxr] y toIs 
 avKo^avrais €(f)o8os' bfioicas 8e tovt eSpcov koL eVt 
 Tcov aXXcov. KUT ap)(as fi€v ovv ravT iiroiovv kcu 
 Tovs a-vKo<f)avTas KcCi tovs t^ ^rjpxo irpos \apLv 
 ofxiXovvras irapa to ^IXtlcttov koll KaKoirpdypLOva? 
 bvTas KCU irovrjpovs avypovv, €0' ols eyaipov rj itoXls 
 yiyvofxevoLS, rjyovfievoL tov ^eXriaTov \dpiv irotelv 
 avTovs. €7rei 5e riju ttoXlv iyKparda-Tepoi/ ecrxov, 
 ovSeifo? dTrei^ovTO Ta>v iroXircou, dXX' aTreKreivau 
 TOVS Koi TOLs ovcriais koL rca yivei kcu toIs d^ia>p.a(nv 
 irpoexovras, VTre^aipov/xevoL re tov ^ofiou kcCI 
 ^ovXo/ieuoi. Tas ovcrias SiapTrd^eiv kcu xpovov 
 oiaTrecrouTos fipa^eos ovk IXolttovs dvrjprjKeaav r/ 
 ^tXiouy wevTaKocriovs. 
 
 36. OvTCos 5e Trjs TToXeays vTro<p€pop.ivr)s Qrjpa- 
 /JLevrjs ayavaKTmv eVt tols yLvop.4voLS ttjs fiev 
 dcreXyeias avTols iraprjvei iravcraa-Oai, fjueTaSovvai 8e 
 TCOV Trpayp.aTcav tois ^eXTLCTTOLS. ol fie irpcoTov 
 evavTioodevTes, eTret SLeaTraprjcrav ot Xoyoi irpos to 
 irXrjdos Kou rrpos tov Qrjpafievr}v oiKelcos el^ov ol 
 TToXXoi, (j>ofir]devT€s firj TrpocTTaTrjs' yevop-evos tov 
 8r]p,ov KaToXvcrrj ttjv 8vvacrT€Lav KUTaXeyovaiv tcov 
 
 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 a-vKofjjdvrt]!. 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. 
 
 ■ virf^aipoiiievoL re tov (j)6fiov : i. e. removing their own apprehensions, 
 by destroying those whom they had most reason to fear. 
 36. npoTov : MS. irpatTOi. 
 
(j6 API2T0TEA0TS 
 
 TToXiTav Sia-xiXiovs ms fieTaScoarouTes rrjs iroXiTeLas. 
 Qrjpafxivrjs 8e irakiv iTnrifia Kol tovtols, irpStTOV 
 IjL€v otl fiovXo/JieuoL fMeradovvai Tols iiriecKeaL TpLcr- 
 ■)(lXlols fi6voi9 ixeTaSiSoaa-i, my eV tovtco tS TrXydei 
 TTJf ap€Trjs Q)pi(rp,evrjf, eVet^' otl 8vo ra ivavTLCoTara 
 TTQLOvaLv, fiiaLov re rrjv ap^rjv kcu rav ap^ofievcov 
 rJTTCo KaracrKevd^ovTes. ol 8e tovtcop p.ev wXiymprj- 
 aav, Tov. 8e KaraXoyov t&v rpLO-xiXicov ttoXvv p,€v 
 Xpovov v7repel3dXXouTO kol Trap' avTols i(j)vXaTTOV 
 Tovs iyvcoa-fxevovf, ore 8e kcu 86^eieu avToh iK(f)epeLU 
 TOW p.ev i^rjXeKpou t5>v yeypap-fievcov, Tom 8' 
 dvt€veypa(l)ov Tap e^codev. 
 
 37. ''il8r] 8e TOV )(eifji.covos ivea-TaTos, KaTuXa- 
 ISouTOf Qpacrv^ovXov fxeTO, tcov <f)vya8cov i^vXrjv, 
 Koi KaTct TTjv (TTpaTidu rjv i^rjyayov oi TpiaKOVTa 
 KaKcos diroxi^prjcravTes, eyvcoaav rav [xev aXXcov Ta 
 
 fiio-xiXi'oiJS : so the MS., but this must be a mere clerical bkmder for 
 rpia-xi-^l-ovs, unless we are to consider the 2000 an addition to the body of 
 1000 named in ch. 35. That, however, is hardly probable, as Aristotle 
 would almost certainly have explained it if it had been the case, 
 instead of immediately going on to speak of the force as 3000 in 
 number. 
 
 npSiTov jih (t.T.X. : cf. Xen. Hell. II. 3. 19, which contains the sub- 
 stance of the same criticisms and almost the same words. The latter 
 pari is indeed an almost verbal quotation from Theramenes, whose 
 words are given by Xenophon, 6pS) tyayye bio rj/ias ra ivavnarara 
 TTpdrrovTas, ^laiav re Trjv a,pxr]v Kai rJTTOva tSsv ap^^ofievau KaracrKeva^oiievovs. 
 The last word confirms the reading Karaa-Kfvd^ovTes here, which is the 
 correction of the reviser for the /ierawKEurifoi'«s of the scribe. 
 
 37. syvaaav k.tX. : this somewhat alters the order of events as we 
 gather it from Xenophon. The latter first narrates the disarming of 
 the people and the execution of Theramenes, and then says that after 
 this {i< fi« TovTov, 11. 4. 2) Thrasybulus made his descent on Phyle. 
 According to Aristotle the disarmament and the execution of Thera- 
 menes were in consequence of the advance and first success of 
 Thrasybulus. There is time in the chronology of the period for 
 either order of events ; the only difference is that we must allow a 
 
A0HNAII2N nOAITEIA. 97 
 
 OTrXa Tra/jeXeV^at, Qrfpafievijv 8e 8ia(pdetpat rovSe 
 TpoTTOV. vofiovs elcTTjueyKau els rrjv ^ovXrjv 8vo 
 KeXevovres eTri^eipoToveiv, av jxev ely avroKparopas [Col. 17. 
 eiroieL tovs TpiaKovra tS>v ttoXitcov diroKTe'Lvai tovs 
 py] Tov KaraXoyov perixovras rav Tpi(r')(LXLa>v, 6 5' 
 erepos CKCoXve Koiucoveiv rrjs Trapovarjs TroXiretay 
 oaoL Tvy)(avov(rLV to iv 'Hertcuj/e/a reL^os Kara- 
 (TKo^avTes 7] Tols TerpaKoaiois evavriov tl TTpd^avT€s 
 T] Tols KaTa<TKev(racri Tr]v irpoTepav oXiyapylav w[i'] 
 
 longer time for the stay of Thrasybulus at Phyle than is usually griven 
 in the 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 two or three of the winter months at Phyle and then advanced. 
 The date of the occupation of Munychia can be fixed within narrow 
 limits from the speech of Cleocritus the herald after the fight in which 
 Critias was killed (Xen. Hell. II. 4. 3i), where he says that the Thirty 
 had killed in eight months almost more than the Peloponnesians in ten 
 years. Athens surrendered on the i6th of Munychion (April), and 
 the Thirty were probably established about the beginning of the 
 following month. Eight full months would bring us to Gamelion 
 (January), about which point we may place the defeat of the Thirty at 
 Munychia by Thrasybulus. The government of the Ten, which 
 followed, and the intervention of the Spartans occupied several months 
 more, and the democracy was restored about the following August, 
 after sixteen months intermission. 
 
 napeKcuBcu.: MS. irapua-Bai, and an e has been written in correction 
 above the first «, the X being accidentally omitted. 
 
 vofiovs ela-rfveyxav k.t.X. : as to the first of these two laws Aristotle 
 agrees with Xenophon (Hell. II. 3. 51), but as to the second the two 
 accounts differ fundamentally. If Aristotle is right as to the passing of 
 the second law, the well-known dramatic scene depicted by Xenophon 
 must disappear. At best it can only be supposed that Critias, instead 
 of striking out the name of Theramenes from the list of the 3000, 
 proposed the second law as described by Aristotle and forced it down 
 the throat of the council by threat of armed force. This is possible, as 
 the law is in itself so obviously aimed at Theramenes that it is difficult 
 to suppose that he would have remained in Athens after seeing that it 
 was likely to be passed ; but if it is the case the narrative of Xenophon 
 will require so many alterations in detail as to show that it is largely 
 imaginary. 
 
 H 
 
98 APISTOTEAOTS 
 
 Irvyyavev afi(j)OT€pcov KeKOLVcovrjKcos o Qrjpafieurjf, 
 axTTe avve^aivev linKvpcoOevTcov twv vopxov e^co re 
 yiyveaOai rrjs woXtTelas avrov Koi tovs rpiaKOura 
 KVpLOVS eluai davarovvras. avaipeOivTOS 5e Qr/pa- 
 p.4vovs TO, re oirXa TrapeiXovTO iravTCov 'irXr]v tiov 
 Tpiaxi-Xlcou, Kol eV rois aXXoL? ttoXv irpos cop.6T7]Ta 
 Kol irovrjpiav eireBoa-av. irpea^eis 7rip.-^avTes els 
 AaKeSaifjLoua tov re Qrjpafievovs KUTTjyopovv kol 
 fior)6elu avTols rj^lovV S>v aKovcravres ol AaKeSat.- 
 p.6vL0L KoXXlISlov aireiTTeiXav ap/xoa-Trjv Kal crrpa- 
 Tuoras toy eirTaKoaiovs, oX rrjv aKpoiroXiv eXdoures 
 i(l>povpovv. 
 
 38. Mera 5e ravra KaraXa^oPTcop twv awo ^vXrjs 
 TTiv yiovuv^LO-v KOL vLKrjaavT(ov p-axy tovs p-era tcov 
 TpiaKovra fiorjOrjaavTas, iTravaxcopTja-avTes p-era ro[i'J 
 KLvBvvov ol CK TOV acTTecos KOL (TvvadpoLadevT€s els 
 T^p dyopap ry vcrTepala tovs p-ev TptaKovTa KaTe- 
 Xvaav, alpovvTai 5e 8eKa twv ttoXltwv avTOKpaTopas 
 eVi TT]v \tov 7ro]Ae)u.ou KaToXvaiv. ol 8e irapaXa- 
 
 TO SwXa napflXovTo: Xenophon (II. 3. 20) represents this as having 
 taken place before the death of Theramenes. 
 
 KaWi^tov direa-TfiXav : this is in very marked contradiction to Xeno- 
 phon, 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. 
 
 38. avvaBpourBivres : apparently written a-vvaaopoia-BeiiTes in the MS. 
 
 01 be TrapaKafiovTcs k.t.\. : 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). As a matter of fact their rule extended over nearly half the 
 total time occupied by the anarchy, Lysias {contr. Erqtosth. cc. 
 
AQHNAmN nOAITEIA. 99 
 
 fioures TT}v ap^^v iv oils jxev ype$r](rav ovk ^irparrov, 
 
 e[7r/oeV/3eu](r[aj'] 5' els AaKeSatfjLova fioi^deiav fxera- 
 
 Tre^fXTrofjijevoi /cat xPT^fiara Savei^ofxevoi. ^''^XeTrajy 
 
 8e \(f)ejp6pTcov eVt tovtols Ta>v eV rij iroXiTeia, 
 
 0o[/3ou)U,ej/]ot fj.^ KaraXvOaxTLV Trjs oip-)(ris kol jSouXd- 
 
 p.evoi p.ev /car[a7rX^^]at rovs aXXovs {oirep iyevero), 
 
 (TvXXa^ovTes . , 7]p.ap€T0u ovSevos ovra Sevrepou 
 
 Ta>v TToXirau aireKTeivau, kol ra irpdyfiara ^efiaicos 
 
 eixov, arvvaycovi^Ojxivov KaXXifilov re kol rmv IleAo- 
 
 Trovvrjaicop rmv irapovTcov kol irpos tov^toiJs ivicov 
 
 Tcov iu Tols linrevaL' tovtcov yap rives p-aXiorra tS>v 
 
 TToXiTcov ecrirovBa^ov p.r] KareXOelv rovs oltto ^vXrjs. 
 
 d>s S" ol Tov Ueipaiea kol ttju M.ovvv)(mv exovres 
 
 airoaravTos iravros tov Sr]p.ov irpos avrrju eire- 
 
 Kparovv tS iroXepxo, Tore KaraXvcravTes Toi/s deKU 
 
 Tovs TrpcoTOvs alpeOevras, aXXovs etXovTO 8eKa 
 
 Tovs ^eXricTTOvs eivai Sokovvtus, e(j) wv (rvvefirj 
 
 KOL Tas StaXvcreis yeveaOai kcu KareXdelv tov 8rj- [Col. 18.] 
 
 fiov, (rvvaycovi^op,ev(ov kol 7rpodvp.ovfievcov tovtcov. 
 
 Trpoeio-TTjKecrav d' avTav p.aXicrTa 'Plvcov Te 6 
 
 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). 
 
 ev oh : it may be suspected that the preposition should be ecj). 
 
 davei^ofievot : MS. SaviCo/ievot. Saw'fm is a later form of bavei^m, and 
 recurs twice in ch. 52 ; but the older spelling is preserved earlier in the 
 MS., in chapters 6, 9, and 16. 
 
 KaToKvBSxnv . . . /SouXo'^ei/oi : these words are written twice over in the 
 MS. through inadvertence, but the repetition has been cancelled. 
 
 oXXouy elKovTo dexa : Xenophon makes no mention of this second 
 board of Ten, who were apparently members of the moderate aristo- 
 cratical party. 
 
 'Pivav; this person is mentioned incidentally by Isocrates {contr. 
 Callim. c. 7, p. 372) as eis t&v hUa yevofievos, but Isocrates clearly 
 
 H a 
 
lOO API2T0TEA0TS 
 
 Uaiavievs kol <^avXXos 6 'Ax^pSovs vtos' ovroi 
 yap irp\vri Yiavaaviav t a.(f)CK€(rdai 8ie7rep^ovT\o 
 irpos Tovs eV ITet/jatei, kou d^iKOfievov arvveairov- 
 Bacrav rrjv Ka6o8ov. eVt irepas yap -qyaye Tr]v 
 elpT^vrju /cat ras SiaXva-eis Ylav(ravMS 6 ratv AaKe- 
 SatfiouLCov ^aaiXevs /xera rap 8eKa 8\^LaXjXaKTCou 
 Ta>v vcTTepov a^LKOfievoov e/c AaKiBaifiovos, ovs 
 avTOS ia-TTOvSaa-ev iXdeiu. ol ■ 8e 7re[jOi] top 'Vivcova 
 Slo, re TTjv evvoiav rrjv eiy tov ^[tJ/xoi'J eiryveOrjaav, 
 KOU Xa^6vT€s TT]v eTTifieXeiav iv oXiyapyla ras ev- 
 Qxivas t8o(rav rfj 8r]fjL0KpaTia, kol ov8els iveKaXeae^v 
 avJTOis ovre rmv iv aaret ixeivavToyv ovre tcov €K 
 TleLpaieas KareXdovrcov, aAAa 8ia ravra /cat arpa- 
 TTjyos €v0vs yp^Or] 'Pivcov. 
 
 39. 'EyevovTO 8' at 8LaXvaeLS eir EvKXeL8ovs 
 apxpvTOs Kara ras avvOrjKas rda-Se. Toiis fiovXo- 
 pevovs rmv 'A6r]vaia>v iv dcrrei peivdvTcov i^otKelv 
 e'x^iv 'EAeixriva iiriTLpovs ovras KoiX Kvpiovs /cat 
 avTOKpdropas i\Tr\ Trday-v kol to. avrmv Kapirov- 
 pivovs. TO S" lepov elvai koivov dfKJyoTepcov, eVt- 
 peXeladat 8e ^rjpvKas kol ^vpoXirL8as Kara to. 
 TTOLTpLa. pr] i^elvai 8e p-qre rots '^XevaLvoOev els 
 TO dcTTV prjre Tols in tov acTTecos 'EXeutrtWSe iivai 
 irXrjv pv(rT7]piois eKaTepovs. (rvvTeXeiv 8e aTro tS>v 
 
 knows of only one board of Ten, as he refers to them just before as the 
 successors of the Thirty {^pxpv h^" y"P "' S«« ol juera rous rpiaKovTa 
 KaTa(rrdvTes). 
 
 atpiKo/ifvov : MS. acfuKVOfievovs. 
 
 tSiv fitKo SiaXKaKTciv : Xenophon {Hell. II. 4. 38) gives the number of 
 Spartan commissioners as fifteen. 
 
 39. fV EiKX«8oi)r apxovTos : i.e. late in the summer of 403 B.c^ 
 
 ttXiji/ : MS. irpiv, a mistake also made elsewhere. 
 
AQHNAmN nOAlTEIA. loi 
 
 Trpoa-iovTcov ely to (rvfifxa^iKov KudaTrep Toiis aXXovs 
 ' AdrjvaLovs . iau 8e riues tS>v airiovTOiv oIkmu 
 Xa/jL^avaxriv 'EAeucrtvt, (rvfnrelOeiv tov KeKrrjfievop' 
 eav 8e firj (TVixfiaivaxriv aXXrjXots Tifirjras iXeaOai 
 Tpelf eKarepcov, /cat ■^vtlv av ovtol Ta,^oy(ri Tifx^v 
 Xafji^dueiu. '^Xevaivicov 5e p-vvocKeiv ovs av ovtol 
 ^ovXcovTai. TTjv 5" a'7roypax^r]v eivai tols fiovXo- 
 IxivoLS e^oiKeiv, tols /jlcv iTrL8[r)fji\ov<nu acf)' ^s av 
 OfioacoaLV tovs opKovs 8l [eVrja iQp^epaiv, ttjv S" 
 i^oLKTja-LV eiKoai, tols 5' airo8iqfxov(nv €7r€L8av eVi- 
 8r]fir](r<o(TLv kutol TavTa. firj i^elvai 8e ap^eiv 
 ixr]8efiiav ap^rjv tcov iv t^ aorei tov '^XevcrLvi 
 KUTOLKOvvTa "TTpLV dTToypa^rjTai ttoXlv iv Tm aaTei 
 KUTOLKeLV. Tas 8e 8iKas tov (f>6vov elvuL kutu tu [Col. 19.] 
 iraTpLa, el tls tlvu avTO-)(€LpL {dTreKTOvev} eKTiaeL 
 Upcoaas. TCOV 5e TrapeXrjXvdoTcov p.'q8ev\ irpos 
 fi7]8eva p,vr]ariKaK€'lv i^e^vai, ttXtjv irpos tovs Tpid- 
 KovTa /cat TOVS 8eKa xai tovs ev8eKa kcu tovs tov 
 JJeipaLecos ap^avTas, fii]8e irpos tovtovs idv 8L8coaiv 
 €v0vvas. evdvvas 8e SovvaL tovs fiev iv UeLpaLel 
 ap^avTas iv tols iv Ueipaiei, tovs 8" iv Tm daTeL 
 
 PovKavrai : MS. /SouXovrai. 
 
 o/xocroxru' : MS. onoKTaxTiv, 
 
 <j>6vov : corrected in the MS. from irovov, which of course was a mere 
 blunder of the transcriber. 
 
 avTOxfipi'. MS. avTo-xeipa, 
 
 aircKTovfv : omitted in MS., but this or some similar word must be 
 supplied. 
 
 Koi roil fie'ica : Xenophon (Hen. 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. 
 
loa APISTOTEAOTS 
 
 eV T0L9 TO, Tifi^fiara 7rap€)(OfieuoLS. eld' o^tcos i^oiKeiv 
 Tovs ideXovras. ra 8e j(/)^/Liara a iSavelcravro ety 
 TOP TToXefiov eKarepovs airoSoduai ^oj/a/y. 
 
 40. Tevofxevcov fie toiovtcov twv 8La\v<Tea)v, kul 
 (f)o^ovfi€vcov o(roi fiera rav TpiaKovra (Twe-TroXe- 
 firjaau, kcu iroXXav fiev eTrivoovvTcou e^otKclv ava- 
 ^aXXofiivcov fie ttjv dvaypa(f)riv els ray ea~)(aTas 
 rip.epas, oirep elcoOaaiv iroieiu airavTes, 'Kpylvos 
 o-vvlScoi' to ttXtjOos koX l3ovX6p.evos Karacrxelv av- 
 Tovs ixpelXe ray viroXoLTrovs rifxepas ttJs a7roypa(f)rjs, 
 aare avvavayKaadrjvat jxeveiv iroXXovs aKovras ecus 
 
 iv rols Ta Tinrniara napexo/ifvois : this is the reading of the MS., but it 
 appears to be corrupt. In the first place it seems necessary to insert 
 iv T<S aa-rei after rois ; the omission of the phrase is easily explained by 
 its occurrence almost immediately before. Whether further emenda- 
 tion is necessary depends on the sense given to ra n/i^/iara jrapexoficvoir. 
 If rifirjfia be taken in the sense of ' rateable valuation,' it may mean that 
 the magistrates of Piraeus were to give account for all proceedings re- 
 lating to persons or things rated in Piraeus, and the magistrates of the 
 city for persons or things rated in the city. This gives a fair sense, 
 but it is not clear how the eSdwa could in all cases be regulated 
 according to a rateable valuation. On the other hand riiirifm may 
 be taken in the sense of 'compensation' or 'penalty,' in which case 
 irapexonevois must be altered to napexon^vovs, the sentence meaning that 
 the magistrates of Piraeus were to suffer penalties (in case of any de- 
 fault being found) for matters done in Piraeus, and the magistrates of 
 the city similarly for affairs within the city. 
 
 eiff 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. 
 TOVS idiKovras : the MS. inserts a 8« after rour unnecessarily. 
 40. 'hpxivos : this particular action of Archinus is not recorded else- 
 where, but emphatic testimony is borne to his character by the orators. 
 Isocrates (contr. Callim. c. 3, p. 371) speaks of a law of his to prevent 
 crvKo^ama after the amnesty, of which his prosecution of a breach of 
 the amnesty mentioned below appears to be the corollary; and 
 Aeschines (contr. Ctes. 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. 
 
AQHNAmN nOAITEIA. 103 
 
 i0appr)(rau. koI 5o/cet tovto re iroXLTeva-aa-Oai 
 KoKcos 'Ap)(lvos, Kcu fiera ravra ypa^a/xevos to 
 y\rrj<l)urp,a to QpaavfiovXav irapavofiav, ev S fieTe- 
 8180V TT]s TToAtreiay iraai Tols €k Ueipaiecos crvy- 
 KaTeXOovcri, a>u evLOL (])avepms rjcrav SovXof koI 
 TpiTou eVei TLS rjp^aTO t5>v KUTeXrjXvOoTcov fivrjai- 
 KUKelv, dirayaycov tovtov eVi tttjv fiovXrjv kou ireiaas 
 uKptTOV OLTTOKTeLvai, Xeycov OTi vvv SeL^oucriv el 
 l3ovXoi>Tai TTjv 8rjfioKpaTiav crm^eLV Koi tois^ opKois 
 efjifieuciv a(])€VTas fiev yap tovtov TrpoTpe^eiv Koi 
 Tovs aXXovs, kav S" aveXcoacv Trapadeiyfia iroirjareLV 
 airaxTLV. oirep kou (rvv€7re(rev airoOavovTos yap 
 ovSeis TTtoTTore vcTTepov efivrja-iKaKTrjaev. dfia doKov- 
 criu KaXXiaTa 8r} /cat TroXiTLKCoTaTa airavTcov KapSla 
 /cat Koivy \pr](racr6aL Tals Trpoyeyevrjp-ivais crvficpo- 
 pals' ou yap fxovov Tas Trepl tcov TrpoTepcov aiTias 
 i^T^XeiyJAav aXXa /cat to, )(fiT^p.aTa AaKeSaifiovioi^, a 
 01 TpiaKOVTa irpos tov iroXefiov kXa^ov, airiBoaav 
 KOLvfi, KeXevovtrcou t5)V a-vvdiqKav eKarepovs airo- 
 SiSovai ^((opls TOVS T e'/c tov acrTecos /cat tovs e'/c tov 
 Ueipaiecos, i^yovfievoi tovto irpSiTOv ap^eiv p,ev Trjs 
 bp.ovoLas, €v Se Tals aXXais iroXeaiv ov^ olov eri 
 irpoaTtOiacTLV twv olKelcou oi Srjp^oKpaTTjcravTes, aAAa 
 
 aa-Teas : the first two letters of this word are written twice by inad- 
 vertence, at the end of one line and at the beginning of the following 
 one. 
 
 Hcv: MS. Bfv. The form of the second branch of the sentence is 
 changed, for instead of continuing with another infinitive dependent on 
 {jyovfievoi a finite verb, irpoanBiaaiv, is substituted. 
 
 TTpoariBiaaiv tS>v olKeiav : i. e. not only did they not make any super- 
 fluous contributions to public ends out of their own pockets, but on the 
 contrary they made a redistribution of the property of the defeated 
 oligarchs among themselves. 
 
104 API2T0TEA0YS 
 
 [Col. 20.] /cat TTjv ^copav avdBacrTov iroLovaiv. 8ieXv6rj(rav 
 Se KoL irpos tovs iv 'KXevcrivi \i^oi\K7](ravTas erei 
 rpLTcp fiera. ttjv i^otKr}(riv, eVt [S'ei'aijj'erov ap- 
 
 4 1 . Tavra fxev odv ev tols ^(TT€\po^v orvve^r] 
 yeviadai Kaipols, Tore 8e Kvpios 6 Srjfios yevofievos 
 Tav TTpaypLOLTCov ivearrjcraTO rrjv [vDv] odcrav woXt- 
 Teiav, eVt Ylvdo8(opov fiev apxovTos, ^8^okovvtos 8e 
 8t.Kaicos Tov 8rjp,ov Xafielv rr/v ^i^ovcrLJav 8ia to 
 iroirjaao-OaL ttjv KadoSov 8l avTou tov 8rjijL0v. t]v 
 8e Twv fxeTajSoXaiv iv8eKa.Tr} to^v dpijdfwv ar^TTj. 
 TrpcoTrj fiev yap iyeveTO [^ /claratrratriy twv i^ 
 dp^ijs 'Icovos K(u TWV p.€T avTov avvoLKiaavTcoV 
 t6t€ yap irpcoTov eJy Tas TeTTapas avvevep-rjOrjaav 
 
 erei Tpira: 401 B.C. Xenophon (Jlen. II. 4. 43) says merely iarcpco 
 xpnva, and the final overthrow of the Thirty at Eleusis has been generally 
 supposed to have followed within a few months after the re-establishment 
 of the democracy. 
 
 41. inX UvdoSapov : Aristotle has already stated (ch. 39) 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 
 till the following year, and the archonship of Eucleides was always 
 taken as the date of the regeneration of Athens. 
 
 SoKovvTos Se K.T.X. : Es 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 Sri/iov . . . Sijiiov 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 
 i^ovirlav should perhaps be altered to Trpoa-Tao-iav, and aMv would be 
 read instead of airov. If this is correct, the name to be substituted for 
 StjiMv would presumably be that of Thrasybulus. 
 
AOHNAmN nOAlTEIA. 105 
 
 (f)vXas Koi Tovs ^uAojSatriAeiy KaTeaTrjcrav. Sevrepa 
 8e Kcu TrptoTT) fX€Ta Tavra [e^Je^^ouora TroAire/ay tu^ls 
 Tj irri Qrja-eois yevofievrj, fxiKpov TrapeyKklvovara rrfs 
 ^aaiXiKrjs. fiera 5e Tavrrjv rj eVi ApaKOVTOs, kv rj 
 Kou vojxovs aveypa^av irpmrov. Tp'iTiq S" rj fiera 
 TT]u (TTaa-LV rj kin "^.oXcovos, a(p' rjs oLp^rj Srj/xo- 
 Kparias iyev€TO.- TerdpTr] d' rj eiri YiLaLo-Tpdrov 
 TvpavvLS. irefXTrrrj 8' r] fiera (rrjv') twv Tvpdvvoav 
 KaraXvaiv rj KXeicrdevovs, SrjfjLOTiKcoTepa rfjs 2o- 
 Xcovos. eKTr) 5' ^ fxerd to, M.r)8LKd, ttJs i^ 'Apetov 
 irayov fiovXrjs kiria-TaTOva-rjs . ifi86fJLr] 8e kol fierd 
 Tavrrjv rjv ' ApicrT€i8r]s fiev VTreSei^ev, '^^LoXTrjs 8' 
 eTrereAeorev KaraXvaas rrjv 'ApeoTraylriv ^ovXrjv' 
 
 SevTepa fie (cm itpaTT) : the enumeration of the eleven /^cra^oXai begins 
 here, the constitution of Ion being taken as the original establishment 
 and not a fura^oK^, 
 
 TToKiTcias rd^is : MS. TToXireiai/ ra^tv, for which some emendation is 
 clearly necessary. 
 
 lUKpov TrapeyKkivova-a rrjg ^aa-iKiKrjs: 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 {Thes. 25, 
 np&TOS a7T€K\ive irpos tov Sx^ov, as ' Kpi<TTOTeKr)s ^rjiri, Rose, Frag. 346). 
 
 fjv 'Apia-TetSrjs fiev vTreSei^ev : 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 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 
 modem histories. 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^taXrijr 8' irvsTiKfaev : it is remarkable that Aristotle regards 
 Ephialtes, and not Pericles, as the founder of the thorough-going 
 
lo6 APISTOTEAOTS 
 
 €v y TrXetora avve^rj ttjv ttoXlv Sia tovs ^rjjxa- 
 ycoyovs a/JLaprdveiv 8ia rrjv rrjs OakaTTTjs (f-PXW- 
 oySorj 5' [^] Tmv TerpaKOVLCov KaTaa-racns, koL fiera 
 Tavrrjv eudrrj 8e [5]i7/AOK/)ar/a wdXiv. SeKarrj 8 rj 
 Tcov TpioLKOVTa Kcu 7} tS>v 8eKa Tvpavvis. ipSeKarr] 
 8' rj fjLerd rrjv otto ^vXrjs kcu Ik Heipatecos Kado8ou, 
 dcj) ^s SiayeyevrjTai p-ixf- '''V^ ^^^ "^^ Trpoa-CTriXa/x- 
 ^dvovaa tco irXriOei tt}v i^ovaiav. diravTcov yap 
 avTOS avTov TreTroiTjKev 6 5^/toy Kvpiou /cat iravra 
 8ioiKeiTai y^r](f)i(rpa(riv /cat SiKacTTTjpioLS, iu oiy 6 
 8rip.6s icTTiv 6 Kparmv' kou yap a[i rj^y ^ovXt]s 
 Kpiaeis els tov 8rjp.ov iXrjXvdaaiv. kcu tovto 
 8oKov(ri TTOielv 6pda>s' ev8ia(l)dopa)T€poL yap oXiyoi 
 T(ou TToXXmu elalv /c[at1 Kep8ei /c[atj ^dpiaiv. fxiaOo- 
 (popov S" iKKXrfcriav to fiev irpatTOv direyvcocrav 
 TTOielw ov a-vXXeyofievcov 8' els Tr]u eKKXrjaiav, 
 dXXa TToXXd yj/rjcpi^ofjievcov twv Trpvravecov, oirays 
 [Col. 21.] TrpocnaTTjTaL to ttXtjOos irpos ttjv eiriKvpaxTLV ttjs 
 
 democracy of Athens. Pericles is not here named, and his reforms in 
 the direction of extending the powers of the law-courts, and the 
 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 Pericles which has been accepted in modem times, mainly, 
 no doubt, on the strong testimony of Thucydides. 
 
 TTfv n-dXiv : 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. 
 
 daKuTTr)! : MS. BaXaXaTTTis, 
 
 6y86ri 8' : MS. oySotjv. 
 
 KaraiTTaa-ts : MS. Karaorao-iv, and after the syllable xa a superfluous 
 repetition of the letters raa- has been erased. 
 oXtyoi : MS. oKiyov, 
 
A©HNAIi2N nOAlTElA. T07 
 
 X^ipoTOvias, wpaTov /xev 'KyvppLOS o^oXou eTropia-ev, 
 ixera Be tovtov 'HpaKXeLdrjs 6 KXa^o/xeviOf 6 
 fiaa-iXevs €iriKaXovp.€vos Suo^oXov, ttoXlv 8' 'Ayvp- 
 pios Tpicol3oXov. 
 
 42. E^ei 5' Tj vvv Karaaraa-is rrjs iToXi.Telas 
 TOvSe TOV TpOTTOU. p-eT^^OVCTLV fiev TrjS TToXiTeias 
 ol i^ dix([)OTep(ou yeyovores acTTav. eyypd^oulrat] 
 5' ely Tovs SrjfjLOTas oKTCoKaiSeKa err] yeyoi/orey' orav 
 8e ypacpcovrai 8La\lrrj(j)i^oi>Tai wepl avratv opocravTes 
 
 'Ayvppws : Agyrrhius flourished in the early part of the fourth century 
 and was (r/parijyds 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. 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 after- 
 wards, and also that the payment rose at once from one to three obols, 
 without passing through the intermediate 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. 
 
 'Hpa(cX«'8ijs o KXafo/ie'wos : nothing seems to be known of this person. 
 
 42. "Exei S' Tj vvv KaTdaraa-is : here the second part of the treatise may 
 be said to begin. The first part is a sketch of the constitutional 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, He^ychius, 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. 
 
 oKTaKoideKa «ti/ : corrected in the MS. from oKTaKaiSeKaereis. 
 
 8ia^ri<l>iCovTai : this passage is referred to by the scholiast on 
 
io8 APISTOTEAOTS 
 
 ol dTjiMOTai, TTpcoTov fiev el doKOva-L yeyov^vat Trjv 
 rjXiKtav TTjv €K Tov vofiov, Kuu fir] So^axTL airepyovraL 
 wdXiv eb TraiSalf, Sjevrepov 8' el eXevOepos eari koL 
 yeyove Kara [ro]uy vofiovs. eTreiT av fxev eirr^r]- 
 (j)i(ra)VTai p,r] ehai eXevOepov, 6 fiev e(l)Lr}cnv els to 
 ^LKaa-T'qpiov, ol 8e SijfioTai Kariqyopovs alpovvrai 
 irevre \av\8pas e^ avrav, kolv p.ev /t^ 86^rj 5t[Kai]ft)y 
 eyypa^\ea\6aL ircoXel tovtov rj ttoXls' eav Be viKrja-:^ 
 Tols [5?;]/Aoraty e-rravayKes eyypdijyeTat,. fiera 8e 
 ravra BoKifid^ei tovs eyypat^^evras ri fiovXr/, kocv tls 
 86^\ri v\eaiTepos OKTCoKaiSeKa erav elvai ^rjiMiol [rovjs 
 BrjfjLOTas Tovs eyypdu^avras. eirav 8e SoKipLO^a-O^oo- 
 (Tiv 01 e(pr}^oi, (TvXXeyevTes ol iraTepes avrav [eijy 
 Tas (pvXds opioaavTes alpovvrai rpels e/c rmv (f)v- 
 Xetav tS)v inrep rerrapaKovTa err] yeyovoToov ovs av 
 ■qymvraL ^eXricTTOvs elvai xai eTTLT-qBeiOTarovs ein- 
 fieXeHcrdai rmv e(f>^l3oov, e/c fie tovtcov 6 8r]p.os eva 
 Trj[s (f>]vXT]s eKaaTTjs )(eipoTOvel crco^povicrTrjv Kal 
 [eTrtp^eXTjT^v e/c rmv aXXcov 'Adrjvalwv eVt iravra. 
 a\yX^a^6vTes S" ovTOt tow e(f)iqPovs, irp&rov p.ev to. 
 lepa TrepirjXOov, eir els Hetpaiea Tropevovrai Kal 
 ^povpovcTLv ol piev TTjv ^ovvv\iav ol 8e rrjv olkttjv. 
 )(eipo[Tovetj 8e Kal TraLBorpifias avrols 8vo Kal 
 fitfiacr/caAouy, [ot'jrti/ey birXopua-^elv Kal ro^eveiv Kal 
 aKovTi^eiv k[ou\ KaraTreXrTjv dipievai SiBda-Kovcnv. 
 SlSoocti 8e Kal els Tpo[<f>rivj tois p.ev (raxppoviaTa'LS 
 
 Aristophanes' Wasps 578) 'ApmroTAijs fie (jtrjaiv on yjni^to ol iyypa^o- 
 fievoi SoKi/id^ovTai, vearepoi, litj irmv Tq elfv (Rose, Frag. 427). The 
 scholiast proceeds, 'laas fi' Av irepi twv Kpivofievaiv naiSav fls roiis yvuviKoiis 
 dyavas Xc'yfi" ovx i>s fv 8iKaoTi)pia> npivo/ievtov dW vno rmv npea^VTepav : 
 but here the subject of \iyet must be Aristophanes, not Aristotle. 
 
A0HNAIi2N nOAlTElA. 109 
 
 Bpax/J-Tjv filav CKaa-Tcp, rots 8' icprj^ois Terrapas 
 ofioXovs CKatrTcp' ra 8e tcov (fjvXermv tSv avrov 
 Xa/jL^avcov 6 crci)(l)povi(rTrjs eKaaros dyopd^ei rd eiri- 
 TTjSeia irdcriv ety to kolvov {(Tvcr(riTov(rL yap Kara 
 ^vXas), Kcu T&v aXXfov iTrifieXeiTai, ttolvtcov. kcll 
 Tov fiev wpayrov iviavrov ofjTcos i^dyovat' tov 8' 
 \yj(rTepov, eKKXrja-ias iv tco dedrpcp yivopiviqs, dwo- 
 Sei^afievoL t^ 8r]pcp rd Trepl rds rd^eis kol Xa^ovres [Col. 22.] 
 a(nrL8a Koi 86pv Trapa ttjs iroXecos irepnroXovo't ttju 
 Xfopav Koi SiaTpi^ovaiv iv tols <j)vXaKT7}pioi,s. 
 (f>povpov(ri 8e ra 8vo erri, yXap.v8as e^ovres, kol 
 dreXeis elal TrdvToov Kot 5tTK7/]i' ovVfe] 8L86aaLV 
 ovT€ Xap^avovcTiv tva prj Trpdypacrt crvpfxiycleu 
 Ti, irXyjv 7rep\ KXiQpov Koi iiriKX^lpov], Koiu tlvl 
 
 Spaxf-fiv ixiav : this sum is not written in words in the MS., but in 
 the common symbol (a. The same sum is also named as the pay of 
 the Sophronistae in Lex. Seg. p. 301, and Photius {s. v. aa^povuTTai). 
 Cf. Boeckh {P. E. II. 16). 
 
 fTrifieXciTM ; MS. eTrijueXT/rai. 
 
 EKKXijo-iaf . . . ct>v\aKTri plots : this passage is quoted by Harpocration 
 {s. V. nepiiroKos) as from Aristotle's 'ABrivalav iroXireia (Rose, Frag. 
 428). Harpocration, however, continues, itapariiprirkov ovv on 6 fitv 
 ^ApuTTOTeKtjs cva <j)ri<rw iviavrov iv toIs jrtpmoKois ylyvecrSai Toiis ctprj^ovs, 
 6 8e AX(r\ivris 8vo' Kai ra;(a Sia tovto eirciivfiaBri tov Trpdy/iaTOS 6 pr/Tcop, 
 Kaiirep Trdvraiv t&v itpfi^oau e| dvdyKjjs jTcpiwoXoivrav, Sri airos 8vo trrj 
 yiyoviv iv rots trepmd'Kois' bio koi fiaprvpav ibfiKaaev avTo. Harpocration's 
 mistake probably arose from taking tov 8' varepov (for which he reads 
 rbv hevTepov ivuivTov) as expressing the whole duration of the service 
 of the Trept'iroXoc ; and he either overlooked or had not before him 
 the continuation of the passage, which shows that Aristotle was in 
 perfect agreement with Aeschines {De Fals. Leg. p. 50). 
 
 TT\s jrdXecor : Harpocration has tov Sr/fiov, 
 
 x\ap.vBas : 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 oKTaKaiScKhav ea-ToKia-ev x^a/iu8i {Anth. Pal. 
 VII. 468). Cf. Liddell and Scott, s. v. 
 
 ■npdyiuuri av/ifuyeUv : the reading is doubtful, especially of the second 
 word, the letters being badly formed. 
 
no APISTOTEAOTS 
 
 Kara to yevos lepcoavur] yeurjTai. Sie^eXdovTCOV 
 8e T&v Svelv irav rj^rj fieTO, twv aXXcou elaiv. ra 
 fieu odv irepi ttjv t5>v ttoXlt&v eyypouprjv kcCI tovs 
 
 €(j)-^l30VS TOVTOV €-)(€L TOV Tp&JTOV. 
 
 43. Tay 5' dp)(as Tas Trepl tt]v eyKvuXiov 8ioiKr]_- 
 (TLV airaaas iroiovcn KXrjpcoTois, irXrjv Tap.iov crrpa- 
 
 TLCOtLK&V Koi T&V cVi Tciv OeCOpiKCOU Kot TOV TOOV 
 
 Kprjvav i7rip.eX7]Tov, tuvtus 8e yeipoTOVOvaiv, Koi 
 oi ■)(^etpoTovr]devTes ap^ovariv Ik Hauadrjpauov els 
 YiavaOrjvaLa. ^€ipoTovov(rt Se kcu Tas Trpos tov 
 TToXep-ov awaaas, ^ovXtj Se KXrjpovTai <p, v airo 
 (pvXrjS €KacrT7)s. TrpvTavevei 8' iv fiepei Tmu <j>vXa>v 
 eKaaTT] Kaff o tl av Xa-^axriv, al p,ev irp&raL t€t- 
 
 UpmiTVPri : MS. lepofTvvr). 
 
 43. KKr)p<i!>Tas : MS. TrXi/pmraj. 
 
 TOV T&u Kprjvav inifjieKrjTov : this title does not occur elsewhere, but is 
 presumably identical with that of cmardTris vSdrav, which Plutarch 
 mentions as having been held by Themistocles (Them. 31). Pollux 
 (VIII. liz) speaks of a Kpr\vo^v\aKiov apxhi 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 Kprivo^vKaKes, who were probably the subordinates 
 of the Kprivav imiif^^tyrris, 
 
 apxovmv in JlavaBijvmav I 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. 
 The archons certainly did so ; as appears, for instance, from Antiphon 
 De Choreut. p. 146. 
 
 npvravevet k.t.\. : Harpocration (s. v. Trpvraveia), after stating the 
 number of days in each prytany, adds, SteiKeKrai. 8e nepl tovtcdu 'Apia-- 
 ToreXris iv Trj 'Adrjvaiav iroXiTfia. 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 creXiji/iji' yap ayoviri toi» imavTov, which 
 occurs below. C/l Rose, Frag. 393. 
 
 at fiiv irparai k.t.\. : this Statement as to the number of days in each 
 prytany is repeated by Photius, but it is at variance with an in- 
 
A0HNAI12N nOAITEIA. in 
 
 Tapes e^ kol A ■^/xepas iKcia-Tr}, ai 8e ?■ at varepai 
 Trevre /cat X i^fiepas eKaa-Tr)' Kara aekrjvrjv yap 
 ayov(nv tov eviavrov. ot Se wpvTavevovT€s avrav 
 Trparov fiev (rvcr(riTov(nu eu ry OoXco, Xa/i^dvovres 
 apyvpiov irapa ttjs iroXecos, e-Treira avvayovcnv els 
 TTjv ^ovXrjv Kcu TOV drjfiov Tyv fiev odu ^ovXrjv 
 oarjfJLepaL, irXrjv idv tls d(f)eaifjLos y, tov 8e drjfJLOv 
 TerpaKis ttJs irpvTaveias eKaaTrjSj kcu oa\a\ SeX 
 ■)(pr]p.aTi^eiv ttjv ^ovXrjv, koX o tl kv eKaaTrj ttj rjjxepa, 
 KCU o TL ov Ka6r)K€L ovTOL 7rpoypd(j)ov(Ti. irpoypdcpovaL 
 
 scription quoted by Clinton {Fast. Hell. II. 345) which contains an 
 account of moneys expended in the archonship of Glaucippus (410 B.C.) ; 
 for there is explicit mention 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. 
 
 a-vvayoviTiv . . eKa(TTris : Harpocration {s. v. Kvpia eKK\ri<Tla) quotes 
 this passage, naming the 'h.8r)vaia>v woKirela as his authority (Rose, 
 Frag. 395). Pollux (VIII. 95, 96) gives a summary of the rest of the 
 chapter and the beginning of the next, generally using Aristotle's 
 words, though without naming him as his authority (Frag. 394). 
 
 Tfjv fiev ovv : Harpocration omits olv, which certainly does not seem 
 to be wanted. 
 
 6ai]\>ipai : MS. apparently oo-at tifiepai, but there does not seem to be 
 classical authority for the phrase. 
 
 idv : MS. fvav. 
 
 XpriliarlCeiv : MS. ;f/)j;/jnrifei. 
 
 KaflijKEi : the fourth and fifth letters are doubtful. If the reading is 
 correct, the meaning is ' what subjects are not suitable.' 
 
 Trpoypdcjjova-t Se k.t.X. : Harpocration, after the passage quoted just 
 above (cf. note on (rwdyovinv k.t.X.) proceeds npoypdcpovai. 8e, (jiria-i, Kal 
 Kvplav eKK\ri<rlav, iv 3 6fZ ras apxas UTroxfipoToveiv 01 SoKOViri firj KoK&s 
 Spx'^u), KW. ntpl (j)v\aK^s 8e rijs x^P"^^' *"' ''"^ elaayyfKlas iv Tavrr] rij 
 rj/jLtpa Toiis jSouXo/iefovr iroiuaBai <j>r)(n Kal ra iirjs, which is a slightly 
 paraphrased version of the present passage (Rose, Frag. 39s). The 
 Lex. rhet. Cantabrig. also refers to Aristotle, s. v. Kvpla ixKKriaia, and 
 quotes the greater part of this passage, including the mention of the 
 oarpoKo^opla below (Rose, Frag. 396). 
 
na APISTOTEAOTS 
 
 8e Kcu TCLS eKKXijo-Las ovtoi, fiiav fiev Kvplav, €V 
 ri del ras apx«-S eirLXiLpOTOvdv el SoKovcrt /caAcoy 
 apx'Ei-i', Kol irepX ctltov kolL irepi (l)vXaKrjs ttjs x^P"'^ 
 Xp-qpxLTL^eLV, Koi ras dcrayyeXias h ravry rrj -qp-epa 
 Tovs ^ovXopeuovs iroieladai, koi tols arroypa^as rcou 
 brjfievopivoav dpayivcoaKeiv, kcu tols Xr)^eis Tm> kXtj- 
 pcov KCU tSsv iTTiKX-qpcov dvayivcocTKeiv, [oTrtaJy firjoeva 
 XdOrj fiTjSev eprjfiov yepofievov. eVi [5e] T7]9 eKTTj? 
 TTpVTaveias irpos to'ls eiprj/jievoif koi irep\ rrjs ocrrpaKO- 
 (l>opias eTrv)(€ipoTOVLav 8i86acriu ei SoKel Troieiv rj p,r}, 
 Koi (rvKocpavTav Trpo^oXds rau 'Adjjuauov /cat rai/ ^e- 
 
 TOLKCOV fl^XP'- '''P''^^ €KaT€p\cOV, idv TLJS VTTOCTXOp^VOS 
 
 Ti {XTj TTOL-qcrr) tco Brjpm. irepav 8e tols LKeTijpiats, 
 
 iv ^ Oeis 6 ^ovXa/xeuos iKerrjpLav §)v av ^ovXrjrai 
 
 [Col. 23.] KcCl ISlcov KOt 8r}p.oa-ia)V SiaXe^erai irpos rov Srjpov. 
 
 Kai tS>v iiitK\ripav: omitted in the Lex. rhet. Cantabrig., which also 
 does not give the words which follow, as far as yfvoiuvov inclusive. 
 
 elprjfiivois : MS. ripriiKvois. 
 
 inixeipoToviav : the Lex. rhet. Cantabrig. gives wpoxaporoviav. 
 
 StSoturiv : or possibly StSaxrtv. 
 
 a-vKo(j)auTcov irpo^oKas : this form of procedure against avKo^avTm is 
 mentioned by Aeschines {De Fals. Leg. p. 47), rStv avKo^avratv i>s 
 KOKoipyau brjfiotria TrpoffoXas iroioifieOa, and Pollux (VIII. 46), npo^oKai, 
 be ri<rav (cai ai Trjs avKoipavTias ypa^al. 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. 
 
 Ti p-T) : the reading is a little uncertain. The original scribe appears 
 to have written fip.ai, and in place of this the corrector has written either 
 Ti pri or Tipr]t. The former is, however, probably in any case the true 
 reading of the passage. 
 
 6 ^ovKofievos : MS. ou ^ov\opevos. The paraphrase of the present 
 passage given by Pollux (VIII. 96) runs, rj be bevnpa iKicKrja-ia avclrai 
 Tiiis ffovKofifVois, iKfTr}piav Oepivois, Xiytiv abiSts irepi Te rSai Ibiav Kai t5>v 
 brip,o(Tiai/, 
 
 biaXe^trai : MS. biabe^erai. 
 
AQHNAmN nOAITEIA. 113 
 
 at Se 8vo Trepl touv aWcov elaiv, iu aly KeXevovcnv oi 
 vofioi Tpia fJLev tepav yjprjiiaTi^eLv, rpla 8e KTjpv^iv kclI 
 •jrpea-^eLais, rpia 8' oaicov, ')(^pr}fiaTL^ov(rt,v S" iviore 
 Kai avev irpo')(€LpoTOVLas. irpoa-ip^ovrai 8e Kol ol 
 
 KT]pVK€S KOi OL TTpior^eLS TOLS 7rpVT0iVe(rLV TrpWTOV, KOL 
 
 OL Tas eTTiCTToXas ^epovres tovtols airoSLSoaa-i. 
 
 44- 'Etrrt '5' ima-TaTrfs Ta>v wpvTavecou ely 6 
 Xa)((ov' ovTos S" iina-TaTei vvktu kol ■^fiepau, kol 
 ovK €(TTLV ovre TrXelco ■)(p6vov ovre 8\s tov avrov 
 yevecOaL. Trjpel 8' OVT09 ras re /cAjjy ray rSv lepav 
 eu 019 ra )(pr]fjLaT iarlu /cat ypafi/xaTa ry iroXei, /cat 
 TTjv 8rifio(riav (r(j)payl8a, kol p,eu€LV avayKolov iu ry 
 doXw Tovrou iariv /cat TpiTTVv tcov TrpvTavewv rjv 
 av oi)Tos KeXevT]. /cat eVetSai' crvvayaycocnu oi 
 TTpVTaveLS Trjv ^ovXrjp rj tov 8riixov ovtos KXrjpoL 
 
 at 8e 8io K.T.'K. I according to Pollux (/. c.) the third ecclesia in each 
 prytany was assigned to the hearing of heralds and embassies, and 
 the fourth to lepa xal Saia, 
 
 rpia ixh K.T.\. : there is nothing in any other author to explain this 
 passage, but it may be interpreted by comparison with the m^'xP' rpiStv 
 €KaTepa>v above. Apparently only three motions or proposals with 
 reference to each of these subjects were allowed in each prytany. The 
 second rpia is a correction in the MS., the scribe having originally 
 written rpia-l, being misled, no doubt, by the dative which follows. 
 
 rpia B' oa-lav : over these words is written in the MS. the extraordinary 
 correction a-vpaKocrtwv. The corrector must have understood this to go 
 with irpe<r^eiais, but, even apart from the parallel passage in Pollux, 
 common sense would show that it is impossible. Either the corrector 
 mis-read the MS. from which the present copy was taken, or he was 
 correcting from a different one, into which this corruption of rpia 
 6' oa-lcov had crept. 
 
 44. ema-Tarijy : Harpocration (s.V.) says, Sio eltriv ol KaSia-Tapevoi, 
 imuTaTm, 6 p^v ek TrpvTaveav KKripovp.evos, 6 8e ix tS>v TrpoeSpav, &v inaTepos 
 rlva SwiKriiTW SioiKft SeSrjKaKfV 6 'Api<TTOTe)irjs iv ' A-Bj^vaiau iroXireia, 
 Suidas (s.V, imaTaTr)s) 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. 
 
 I 
 
114 APISTOTEAOTS 
 
 irpoiSpovs kvvia, tva e/c r^y (j>vXrjs eKaarrjs TrXrjv 
 
 TrpoiSpovs : Harpocration (s. v.) refers to this passage, but misquotes 
 its purport. He says, iK.\r)povvTo t&v irptrrdveaiv Kaff kKcuiTiyv irpvraveiav, 
 els i^ iKaa-Trjs 0uX^j TrXiyv Trjs jrpvTavevovarjs, oItivcs ra rrepl ray eKKkija-ias 
 dicoKovv. eKoKoivTO Se npoeSpoi, fnfiSrjirfp jrporjSpevov rav aXKav ijrdpTiov . . 
 OTi S 6 KoKovpei/os iTniTTaTi)s KKrjpol avTovs, etpr/Kev ' ApKrroxf Xtjs eV 'Adrivaiav 
 TTukmla (Rose, Frag. 398). His error is in stating that the proedri 
 were elected for the prytany, whereas Aristotle' (who is correctly 
 followed by Pollux and Photius) says that they were appointed afresh 
 for each meeting of the Council or Ecclesia. The position of the 
 proedri has been a subject of much discussion (cf. Schomann, De Com. 
 Ath. 83 F-90 G), a considerable difficulty being raised by the second 
 argument to Demosthenes in Androt. This document states that the 
 irpvravevova-a ^uXij was divided into five sections of ten each, which 
 executed the functions of the prytanes for seven days apiece, and 
 that the section on duty was known as TrpoeSpoi. This appears to 
 introduce a second kind of proedri, who were members of the trpvra- 
 veiouo-a </)uX^ and held office for seven days, whereas Aristotle and the 
 grammarians that follow him speak of proedri who were members of 
 every tribe except the irpvTavivovaa and held office for one meeting of 
 the Council or Ecclesia only. Schomann's view, which has been 
 generally followed, is that it was the proedri of the Trpurayfuouo-a ^uX^ 
 who presic^ed at the meetings of the Council and Ecclesia, and that 
 the representatives of the other tribes only sat with them as a check on 
 their action and to prevent jobbery in favour of the tribe in office. 
 This involves rejecting the authority of the grammarians, which 
 might be admissible so long as they stood alone, but which becomes a 
 very different matter now that we have the testimony of Aristotle 
 behind them ; and the question demands reconsideration. 
 
 The strength of Schomann's argument lies in his references to 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 to 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 irpmavivovaa (pvKrj (Plat. Apol. p. 32), and Xenophon 
 (Mem. I. I. 18) calls him cViCTraTijs. 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 
 
AGHNAIflN nOAlTEIA. 115 
 
 r^y irpvTavevova-rjs, koll ttoXlv (k tovtcov eiTLaTaTrjv 
 
 to the vote and otherwise acted as presidents, but the evidence that 
 they were identical with a section of the prytanes rests on a con- 
 jectural emendation of a psephism quoted in Deraosth. i?^ Cor. (p. 235), 
 which, if correct, would show that the tribe to which Demosthenes 
 belonged was the irpvraveiovaa (j)v\r] at a time at which he is stated 
 in the speech of Aeschines in Ctes. to have been an-pdeSpos (Schomann, 
 p. 92 F). This, however, is much too weak a ground on which to 
 contradict Aristotle, to say nothing of the numerous cases in which 
 psephisms contain the names of proedri of tribes other than the 
 TTpvTaveiova-a <f>v\ri. These are admitted by Schomann, but their 
 evidence is rejected as being of late date and insufficient to refute 
 Thucydides, Plato, and Xenophon ; which is true as regards the usage 
 of the fifth century, but does not touch the evidence for the fourth, as 
 to which the weight of authority is the other way. 
 
 The question may be pushed further. Were there ever any proedri 
 of the TrpvTaveiova-a (jyvXrj at all ? No authority ever notices the 
 existence of two classes of proedri. The grammarians (following 
 Aristotle) mention one class, the unknown author of an argument 
 to a speech of Demosthenes mentions another. The orators use the 
 term frequently, but in no case (if we reject the emendation of the 
 passage in Demosthenes spoken of above) need it apply to members 
 of the npvTaviiovcra (^uXij. It is highly improbable a priori that there 
 should be two boards of somewhat similar but distinct natures known 
 by the same name ; and the solitary authority which necessitates 
 such a supposition (the argument to Demosth. in Androt.) is not 
 one to which much weight can be attached. It is certain that the 
 writer of it makes a gross mistake in stating that all elections were 
 held on the last four days of the year ; it is probable that he has made 
 another mistake as to the proedri. 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 eVitn-aTijE, 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 imaTaT-qs. Passages in which the 
 prytanes are spoken of in connection with the business of the Ecclesia 
 (Schomann, 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 errtcn-ari;? of the 
 prytanes, together with one-third of his colleagues, was forbidden to 
 leave the Tholus during his day of office, and therefore could not have 
 appeared in the Ecclesia. The prytanes had considerable administra- 
 tive duties, notably the preparation of business to be submitted to the 
 
 I a 
 
ii6 APIST0TEA0T2 
 
 eva, Koi irapahihcocn to irpoypafx.fm avrolr ol 5e 
 irapaXa^ovT^S rrjs t evKoa-jxias eTn/xeXovvTai, Kai 
 virep S>v bet ^iqpxtTi^iLV irpoTidiacnv, kol tols X^ V" 
 Tovias Kpivova-LV, kcu to. aXXa iravra Slolkovo-iV 
 Kol Tov T a(f)eLvat Kvpioi elcriv. KcCl eTria-TCLTrjcrai 
 fxev ovK e^ea-Tiv irXelov tj awa^ Iv t^ iviavTw, 
 7rpoe8p€veiu 8' e^eariv aira^ eiri rrjs irpvTaveias 
 eKaa-TTjs. iroiovcn 8e kol 8eKapxai-pecria.s arparrjycov 
 KOL LTTTrapxayv kol twv aXXcou tcov irpos tov TroXefiov 
 apxoiv iu Ty iKKXrjcrca, Kaff o tl av tS 8rjp,a> SoKjj' 
 TTOiova-L S" ol fieTO. Trjv ^ irpvTavevovTes icj)' a)v av 
 
 Ecclesia ; but with the actual management of meetings they had, in 
 the fourth century, nothing to do. 
 
 rrpoypaiifia : Suidas reads npayixa, but the present reading is clearly 
 superior, and the corruption is easily intelligible. The irpoypamia 
 is of course the order of business which was to come before the 
 Ecclesia. 
 
 irpondeamv : the corrector has written above the line the words Set 
 Kai, which are apparently intended to be inserted before irpoTiBiaiTiv ; 
 but Set has occurred already in the text, and koi is incompatible with 
 the construction. The insertion must have been due to a misunder- 
 standing of the passage. 
 
 deKapxaipea-las : the word does not occur elsewhere, but its meaning 
 plainly is an election of a board of ten, such as those which are here 
 enumerated. 
 
 ol p.eTa TT]V r TrpvTaveiovTfS : the MS. has oifiera ra Trjv r npvTavfVovrcs, 
 but the TO must be a repetition of the last syllable of the preposition. 
 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 in 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. Wissen- 
 schaften zu Berlin, 1866, p. 343) that the dpxaipe<ria 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 
 fact that the date consequently varied in different years may account 
 for the otherwise rather remarkable silence on the part of all ancient 
 authorities on the subject. 
 
AeHNAIilN nOAITEIA. 1 17 
 
 evarjiila yevrjTat. 8el 8e Trpo^ovXevfia yeveadai /cat 
 Trepl TOVTCov. 
 
 45' 'H 8e fiovXr] wporepov fiev rjv Kvpia koI 
 Xpi^fiaaLV ^r}^ic5(rat /cat SyjaaL /cat aTroKTeluat. /cat 
 Ava-Lfxa^ov avrrjs ayayova-qs a>s tov 8r}p,Lov Ka6r]- 
 fievou r]8r] p.eXkovTa wrrodv-qaKeiv ^v/irjXeiSTjs 6 
 'AXcoTr€KT]deu d(l)€t,X€TO, ov (paaKcov deiv avev SiKaa- 
 Trjpiov yvwa-eois ovSeva tcov ttoXltcov airoOvrjo-KeLv' 
 Kol Kpiaecof iv SiKacrTrjpicp yevofievrjs 6 fiev Avai- 
 fxa^os anre^vyev /cat iTrcavvfxiav et^ei/ 6 airo tov 
 TviravQV, 6 Se Srjfxos a,(f)eLXeTO rrjs ^ovXrjs to 6ava~ 
 Tovv Koi 8elv /cat ■^(prjfiacrL ^rjfiiovv, /cat vofiov edeTO 
 av TLVos ahiKeiv rj ^ovXr) /carayvm ^ ^rjfiiaKrr], Tas 
 KaTayvcoaeis /cat tols iTn^rjfiLcoaeis eladyeiu Toi/s 
 6ecrfJLO0eTas ety to diKacTTrjpLov, /cat o Ti av ol 
 SiKacrTol ^r](f)iacovTai, tovto Kvpiov elvai, Kpivei 
 8e Tas dpxds rj fiovXr] tols TrXeicTTas, pidXiaO* oaai [Col. 24.] 
 ^T^p-ara dia^eip[^ov(riV ov Kvpia 8' rj Kpicns, aAA' 
 e(j>iaLp.os els to 8LKaaTr]piov. e^eaTi 8e /cat tois 
 ISuoTais eiaayyeXXeiv rjv av ^ovXcovtul Tmv dp^av 
 
 45. /SouXij : 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 Eumeleides, 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. 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. 
 
 'AXiojTfK^^ej/ : MS. aKmTTfdrjKcv. 
 
Ii8 API2T0TEA0T2 
 
 M XPW^^'- '"'''^ vojxoLS' €(f)€(ns 8e Koi tovtols icTTiv 
 ds TO SiKaa-Trjpiov iau avrmv rj jSovXt] Karayvm. 
 SoKifxd^ei Se kol tovs ^ovXevras tovs tov va-repov 
 iviavTov ^ovXeva-ovras Koi Toiis ivvea ap-)(ov- 
 ras. KOL irpoTepou fiev rjv diroSoKifJLacrai Kvpia, 
 vvv Se TOVTOis €(l)€ais ioTTiv eif to 8iKacrTr)piov. 
 TOVTOiv fiev oSv aKvpos Icttiv rj jSovXrj. TrpofiovXevei 
 8' eh TOV 8rifiov, Kol ovk e^eaTLV ovSeu wirpo^ov- 
 XevTov ovS" Ti av fir/ irpoypd^coaiv oi irpVTaveLS 
 yjrrjcjiLcraiTdai tco 8-qpim' KaT avTO, yap TavTa evo^os 
 icTTLU 6 VLKrjcras ypa(l>fj irapavop-wv. 
 
 46. 'ETTi/xeAeirat 8e kol twv TreTroirjfieucov Tpirjpwv 
 
 KOL TWU (TK€vS)V KOL T&V VCCOCTOIKCOV, KUL TTOieiTai 
 
 Kaivds TpcrjpeLS ^ TeTpi^peis, oiroTepas av 6 8fjp.os 
 ■)(eipOTOvi^(rrf, Koi a-Kevr} rauraty /cat vecoaoLKOvs ■ 
 yeipoTOvel S' dp-)(iTiKT0va9 o 8rjfio9 iiri Tas vavs' 
 av 8e /JLT) irapaSaxTLV i^eipyacrfieva TavTa tyj via 
 fiovXfj, TTjv 8(op€av OVK ecTTiv avTois Xafieiv. iin 
 [Col. 25.] yap Trj9 vaTepov fiovXrjs Xap-fSavovaiv. TroieiTai 
 
 anpo^ovkeuTOV : MS. aTTpo^ovfivTOV. 
 
 46. tS)u TrenotrjiJLevaiv Tpirjptov : 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 (Saped) of a golden crown. 
 
 Kaivas rpirjpeis : MS. Kaivas he rpirjpfis. The word 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 St. 
 
 napah&atv : the subject of this would naturally be taken to be 01 
 apxtTCKToves, but in the light of the speech of Demosthenes it appears 
 that it is really meant to apply to the Council. 
 
 iroielrai 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 touos. This division of the 
 papyrus has been mentioned and explained in the Introduction. 
 
AeHNAIilN nOAITEIA 119 
 
 8e Tas Tpirjpus, SeKa av8pas i^ ^aTravTcovj iXofieuT] 
 TpiTjpoTTOLOvs. i^erd^ei fie /cat to. oiKodofxr/fiara 
 Ta SrjfjLoa-ia iravra, Kav tls olBlk^Iv avrfj So^rj tS re 
 fi^/iO) TOVTOv [a7r]o0atVei kcu Karayvova-a 7rapa8i8co(rL 
 biKacTT-qpico. 
 
 47- ^vvBiOLKel 8e Kou rals aXkais ap-^ous to, 
 TrAeio-ra. Trparpv fiev yap ol rafilai r^y 'Adrjvas elal 
 fiev SeKou KX\r]pa)To['^, ely e*K r^y ^D^i^y, e'/c irevra- 
 KQ(TLop,^8i^vcov Kara tov SoAcoj/oy vopFoi' — eVt yap 6 
 v\6p,os Kvpios ecTTLV — , ap-)(€L 8' 6 Xa^oav Kav TT aw 
 irevT)s rj. 7rapa}\.a^j3dvov[(ri fie to'^ re ayaX/xa rrjs 
 'Adrjvas Kttt ray viKas /cat tov aXXov Koap^ov koX to, 
 Xp\r}paT\a ivavrlov ttJ^ jSouA^y. cTrei^' 01 TrcoXrjral 
 I fiev elai, KXrjpovrai fi' ely Ik r^y 0[uA^y. p.ia]- 
 Oovai fie Ta p,L(r6a)p.aTa iravTa kcu to, p.€TaXXa 
 TTCoXovcrip /cat tol t^tj [^p^eTa rjou Tap.iov Totv crTpaTca- 
 
 Tpir/poTTotois : Pollux (I. 84) mentions the names of these function- 
 aries, and Demosthenes (in Attdrot. p. 598) refers to the Ta/iias tS>v 
 TpitipoTToiSiv, and in such a way as to show that they were subordinate 
 to the Council, anova 5 avrbv toloutov ipelv Tiva iv vplv \dyov, as ov^ rj 
 ^ovXfj yeyouev alria tov fii) 7reirotij<T6ai ras vais, dXX' 6 rap TpirjpoTTOimv 
 rapias drrodpas (o^€tq e^^av irev6 rjptToXavTa. 
 
 47. 01 raplai Trjs 'Adrjvas : cf. note on ch. 30. 
 
 Kara tov SdXmi/or vopov : cf. ch. 8. 
 
 apx" 8' Xaxajv lAv Trdvv TTcvrjs g : for a similar legal fiction compare 
 ch. 7, sub fin. 
 
 TrapoKapfidvovart . . . ^ovkrjs : quoted by Harpocration s. v. Taptat, as 
 from Aristotle's 'Adrjvaiav. jroXirela (Rose, Froff. 402). 
 
 jriaXijTai : Harpocration refers to the 'Adrjvaiav jroXiTem as containing 
 an account of these ofificials, 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. 
 
 rot) rapiov rStv (tt paTuanKav : this officer, together with the super- 
 intendents of the theorica who are here coupled with him, is considered 
 by Boeckh {P. E. II. 7) to have been first appointed after the Pelopon- 
 nesian war in substitution for the hellenotamiae, who are not mentioned 
 
120 APISTOTEAOTS 
 
 TIKCOU Kol TWV ETTt TO $€0)piKOU ypTJfXeUCOV €Vav\TLOV 
 
 Trjs ^ovXrjs] KaraKvpovcnv orm au rj l3ovXr] j(€Lpo- 
 Tovrja-r)' kou to, irpaOevTa fieTaXXix. ^ocrcij ipyaa-ifia, 
 TO, els Tpia err] Treirpafieva koX to, (rvyKe-)(a)pr]fj.eva ra 
 . . . 7r€7rpap,€va kai ras oixrias t(ov i^ 'Apeiov 
 irdyov (pevyourav /cat rau .... ^evavrlou ttJs 
 0jovX7Js TTCoXovaiv, KaraKvpovai 5' ol 6 apxovres' 
 Koi TO, TeXr] to, els eviavT^vj Trewpap-eva dvaypd- 
 ^avTcs els XeXevmcop^eva ypap,p.aTela top to. irp . . . 
 av 7rp[r]Tai Ty fiovXfj TrapaSiSoaaiu. dvaypa(f)ov(nv 
 8e ^(copls p-ev ovs Sel KaTO. Trpv^rjaveiav eKacTTTjv 
 KaTa^dXXeiv els deKa ypap.p.aTela, -xcopls 8' ovs 
 Te^XovuTps'l evtavTov, ypap-p-aTelov KaTO, ttjv Kara- 
 fioXrjv eKoia-Trjv TroLrja-avTes, X'^P'^s 5' ouy [eVi] Trjs 
 evaTTjs TrpvTaveias, dvaypd(j)ov(n de Koi to. X^P'-"- 
 Kcu TOLS oIkms Wa p^iadcodjevTa Koi wpaOevTa ev tS 
 SiKaaTrjpim' /cat ydp Tavd' ovTOt TrwX^ovcrivj . . 
 Tcov p.ev oIklwv ev e eTeaiv dvayKrj ttjv Tip.r]v 
 dnoSovpai, Toiv 8e ^ffl/Jtcoi' ev fie/ca' KaTafiaXXovcnv 
 8e TavTa eVi Trjs evuTrjs irpvTaveias e . . . [/cara- 
 Kvpol 8e\ Koi 6 ^acnXevs Tas pnardaxreis, tS>v p,ev 
 
 * coj'* dvaypd^as ev ypap.p.aTe[i<Joj (op.evois. 
 
 ecTTL 8e kclI tovtcov rj p.ev pladcoais els eTrj 8eKa, 
 KaTafidXXeTut S" eVi Trjs [^] irpvTaveias' 8l6 kou 
 irXelcTTa x/oiy/iara eVi TUVTrjs crvXXeyeTai Trjs TrpvWaX- 
 veias. el(r(l)epeTaL p,ev odv els Trjv l3ovX^v to. ypap.- 
 fiar[eta] Tas naTa^oXds dvayeypap,p.eva, Trjpel 8' 6 
 
 after that period. Another duty of the same officer is mentioned in 
 the following chapter of the present treatise, viz. a share in the manage- 
 ment of the games at the Panathenaic festival. 
 
A0HNAII2N nOAITEIA. 12I 
 
 Srj/ioaios' orav 5' 17 ■)(p\r)fxdTaiv KaTa0\oXr] irapa- 
 8i8a>ai Tols OLTToSeKTais avra ravra Kade ....... 
 
 iincrTvXLCou a>v eu ravTr) t^ VH-^P?' ''" "j^prjfiaTa 
 KaTa^XT)\d4vTa .... a\iraXei(^6rivai' to. 5' a.XXa 
 
 aTTOKelTUL xcopls tva firj Trpoe . /ca 
 
 48. [Et(ri] 5' UTroSeKTai 8eKa, KeKXripco/xevot Kara 
 (ftvXds' ovToi Se TrapaXa^ovres to. f^ypaj/ifiaTela 
 diraXei^ovai ra Kara^aXXofieva xprjp^ara evavTLOu 
 [r^y jQouAtJs"] Iv r^ fiovXevrrjpia), /cai irdXiv diro8i,- 
 Soaaiv TO. ypap-iiareta WcB SrfjfjLOcria)' Kav tis eAAwrrj 
 Kara^oXrjv ivrevdev yeypairrai, koX 81 rjv ^airlav' 
 Koi a\vdyKT] to [e'AAlet^^ej' Kara^aXXuv rj 8e8e(r6ac, 
 Koi ravra ela7rpd[rT€ti' y ^o]vX^ kcu 8riaaL [KupJ/a 
 Kara rovs v6p,ovs iariv. ry fiev odu irporepaia 
 8e-)(ovrai ra ^pr^/iara] /cat fxepi^ova-i rals dp-)(als, ry 
 8' vcrrepaia rov re fxeptcrfiov ela^ayovja-i ypd^avres 
 ev crauL8i /cat KaraX€yov(riu kv rto ^ovXevrijpup, Kai 
 . . . aaiu iu rfj fiovXfj et ris riva ol8ev d8LK0vvra 
 irepl rov p-eptaffMou rj ap^^ovra ^ 18icott]V, /cat yv(op.as 
 eTnylrTjipL^ovcnv idv ris ri SoKrj d^8iK€lu. KjXrjpovai 
 5e /cat Xoyiaras i^ avrmv ol ^ovXevroiX 5e'/ca rovs 
 XoyLovp.ivovs rfaty dp^-)(als Kara rrjv Trpvraveiav 
 eKacrrTjv. KXrjpovai 8e /cat evOvvovs, eva rrjs (j)vXrjs 
 
 a7raKeicj)6^vai : M S. airdKet(f>r]vai, which may, however, be intended 
 for the second aorist, a7ra\i(j)^vai. 
 
 48. wapaXafioPTes .... dijfioalcf : quoted from the 'Adrjvaiav noKneia by 
 Harpocration, s. v. aitohiKrai (Rose, Frag. 400). 
 
 eiVayouo-i : the reading is not very certain ; the c seems to have been 
 written twice over, or else the word begins with 5«<r . . . 
 
 fvBvvovs : Photius says of this word, apxh ?" "r. i^ Uaa-Trjs be (jivXfis 
 ha K\rjpova-i, Toira fie bio wapiSpovs. Harpocration, after saying that 
 the tu^wot dexa toi/ apiBfiov fjaav avdpes, nap' oh iStSoaav ol irpfa-^evaavTes 
 
1 23 APISTOTEAOTS 
 
 eKaa-TTjs, kcu irapeSpovs |3 €Ka(rTco rav €v6vv(ov, oh 
 avayKOLov eaTi tols ^yop\cus Kara tov iTrcouvfiou tou 
 TTJf (J)vXt]S €KacrTr]S Ka6rj(rdai, Kav Tis j8ou[A77rai] tivl 
 Tav TOLS evOvvas ev Tcp SLKaa-TTjpl^ SeSooKOTCov euros 
 7 l-q/JLepau a^'l ^y eScoKC ray evdvvas evOvvav ava 
 ISiav avTi8\jiKJr][cni''\ ip^aXecr6ai, ypdxf/^as els WLvaKLOV 
 XeXevKcofievov Tovuofxa rovTOV kol to tov (^evyovTOS 
 K(u TO aSiKTjfi o TL oLv iyKaXfj, kol Tifirj/ia ^irapaXja- 
 fiofieuos o TL av avTw SoKy diScocnv tS evOvvco' 6 8e 
 Xaficav TOVTO kcu a[/cou(ray] eav fiev Karayvw irapa- 
 SlScocnv TO, fiev 'ISlu tols diKaa-Tois tols Kara 8\r)fiovs 
 ot] TTjv (j)vXr)v Tavrrju elaayovcTLV, tu 8e 8r]p,oaLa 
 TOLS dea-fJLodeTa^is avdjypdipeL. ol 8e 6eap.o6eTaL eav 
 7rapaXdj3a)aLu ttclXlv eladyovaLV [tt)!/] evdvvav els to 
 8LKacrTrjpiov, kcu o tl av yvaxTLV ol 5i/cao-r[ai 17 
 
 KJpLCTLS eCTTL. 
 
 49. AoKifid^eL 8e KOL tovs lttttovs tj fiovXrj, Kav 
 ■fxev TLS KaA[ray e^cov KaKcos 8oKfj Tpe(peLV, ^"qp-Lol Tw 
 (TLTCp, TOLS 8e fxy SvvafievoLS [rj^e^eii' ^ p,r) OeXovcTL 
 fieveLV dvdyovcn Tpo)(ov eVt r^v .... [/cat 6 rJoOro 
 iraQcov d86KLfj.6s ea-Ti. 8oKLfj.d^ei 8e Kal tovs irp^oSj- 
 [Col. 26.] p\6fJiovs, ot av a^vTjj 8oKa>(rLV eTTLTi^SeLoi 7rpo8po- 
 fjLeveLV elvaL, Kav TLva 7r[/Oo]j(et/)oroi'^cri7 KaTafiefirjKev 
 ovTos. 8oKip,d^eL 8e Kal tovs dvLTnrovs, Kav TLva 
 7rpo)(eLpoTOV7](rri ireTravTai fiiadocftopav ovtos. tovs 
 
 fl ap^avTcs fj SioiKijo-axTcr « rmv Srjitocriav ras eliBivas, adds SteiXeKrat 
 TTepi airav 'ApiororeXi;? ev rrj 'Adrjvaiav 7roXiT«'a (Rose, Frag. 405). 
 
 dvn8lKj]inv : the reading is doubtful. The reading of the MS. is aire- 
 or oKre-, but the e may be a scribe's mistake. 
 
 49. avdyovcri : over the letters va is written a correction, which appears 
 to consist of the letters \y ; but what is intended by the alteration, or 
 what is the whole process spoken of, it is impossible to say. 
 
AQHNAmN nOAITEIA. 133 
 
 8' tTTTreay KaraXeyovcnv 01 KaraXoyeis, ovs av b 
 8rjfjios xeipoTOvrja-y Se'/ca avSpas' ovs 5' au Kara- 
 Xe^coa-L 7rapa8i86a(ri rots hnrap-)(OLs kcu (jivXap^ois, 
 ovTOi 8e wapaXajSovTes elcr^epovcrt t\ov] KaraXoyov 
 els Tr}v ^ovXrjv kou tov irivaKa avoi^avres, iv m Kara- 
 (re(rr]fia(TiJ.€va ra ovop-ara rmu hnremv iaTi, tovs pev 
 i^op-vvpidvovs Tcov Trporepov iyyeypapLpevcov p.rj 8vva- 
 Tovs cluai Tois crmpaa-LV imreveiv e^aXel^ovcn, tovs 
 8e KareiXeyp-evovs [/cJaAoOort, kolv piv ris i^opoa-rjTai 
 p.T] 8vvaa-daL rm acopaTi LTnreveiu rj rfj ovaia tovtov 
 a<pLa(rLV, tov 8e p,r] i^opLvvpievov 8ia^eipoTOi'OV(riv oi 
 fiovXevTol TTOTepov eTnTr)8ei6s icTTiv hnreveLV rj ov. 
 Kav p.€v xeipoTOVT^acocTLV, iyypa(f)ov(TLv els tov irivaKa, 
 ei 5e pir], kcu tovtov a(^Lacriv. eKpivev 8e ttotc Kal 
 Ta TrapaSeiypaTa /cat tov iriirXov rj ^ovXrj, vvv 8e 
 to SiKao-TTjpiov TO XayoV i86Kovv yap ovtol /cara- 
 ■)(apL^e(TdaL ttjv Kpicriv. Kal ttJs iroLTjaems tov vikcov 
 Kal TCOV aOXcov tcov els to, Havadrjvaia avveiripieXeLTai 
 
 irivaKa : the last letter of this word is omitted in the MS., through 
 confusion with the first letter of the following word, avol^avTes. 
 
 Karaaea^fiaa-pieva : after the 17 in the middle of this word the letters o 
 fi{ev) 8 have been written by mistake and then cancelled. 
 
 f^aKe[<f)ov<n : MS. e^aXixjiovai, 
 
 e^o^oVijTat : MS. e^ofirjcrijTai. 
 
 napabeiyiiaTa : 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 iritrKov : the peplus carried in the great Panathenaic procession 
 was woven on each occasion by a number of girls called ipyaa-rivai, 
 under the superintendence of two maidens of superior family known as 
 apprjipopoi. It appears from the present passage that the former must 
 have been selected by the Council and that it was a position of some 
 
134 APISTOTEAOTS 
 
 fxera tov Ta/iiov t&v crTparuoTiKcav . SoKifia^ec oe 
 
 Kcu Tovs dSwdrovs t] fiovXrj' vofJLOS yap ecmv os 
 
 KcXevei. Toi/s Ivtos rpi&u flump KeKTrjfxevovs Kai to 
 
 acofxa 7re7rr]pcop.euov$ ware fir] bwaadai fiTfSeu kpyov 
 
 ipyd^ecrdaL SoKifid^eiv fieu Trjv ^ovXrjv, 8i86vai Se 
 
 drjfiocria. Tpo(l)^v 8vo o^oXoi/s eKaaTO) rrjs rjfiipas' 
 
 KCU rafiias icrrlv avrois KXrjpcoTos. crvvoiKel 8e Kol 
 
 Tals aXXais dpj(ous ra irXelaO', ms kiros ehrelv. ra 
 
 fiev odv VTTO Trjs ^ovXrjs 8iOLKOVfieva ravT eariv. 
 
 50. J^XrjpovvTai 5e kol lepav iTna-KevaaTai 5e/ca 
 
 dv8pes, 01 Xafi^dvovres TpLaKovra fivds irapa tcov 
 
 a7ro[5e]/cr(5i/ iiriaK^vd^ovaiv rd fidXiara 8e6fieua 
 
 TCOV iepav, kol daTVVOfioi 8iKa. tovtcov 8e e yiev\ 
 
 dp^ovaLv iv Heipaiel, irivT€ 8' iv daTei, koL Tas re 
 
 avXrjTpiSas kol ray yjrdXTpias [/cat] tus KiOapiaTpias 
 
 ovTOL aKOTTOvcTLV OTTCos fiT} irXeiovos r] 8veiv 8pa)(jials 
 
 fiiadcodrjaovTai, Kctv irXeiovs ttju avTrjv (nrov8a<T(oaL 
 
 Xafielv ovToi 8iaKXr]pov(TL koI t<^ Xa^ovTi fiicrdovcnv. 
 
 privilege or advantage, since the Council was accused of jobbery in its 
 appointments. 
 
 TOVS aSwdrovs: Harpocration (s.v. aSvi/aroi) refers to this passage, 
 though he mis-quotes part of its purport. His words are oi evros rpiav 
 fxvmv KeKTrjfievoi tA aiifia TtenripoifUvoi. iXafi^avov Se oSroi SoKifUurdevTis 
 iirb Trjs ^ovXrjs /3' ofioXovs T^r fjiicpas fKacTTrjs, rj ojSoXo)/ cos <pr](riv 'ApiCT- 
 ToreXijs ev 'Adijvaiav irohiTfia (Rose, Frag. 430). On the other hand the 
 Lex. Seg. (p. 200, 3) quotes Aristotle as he stands here, eSoKi/idfoj/ro 8e 
 01 aSvvaTOL VTTO TTjs tSip irevraKoo'itav ^ovXrjs koX iXdfi^avov r^s ^pepaSj as 
 piv Av(Tias Xc'yfi, o/SoXAk eva, i)s 6e *i\d;(opos, nevre, 'AptoToreXijs 8c dvo 
 
 Hi- 
 
 50. aaTvv6poi : Harpocration {s. v.), Sciea ^iriv eivai tovs d<TTvv6povs 
 ' A.pitTTori'Ki^s iv tji 'ASrjvaitav TToXiTeia, jreVTt pev iv Ufipaiel, irivTe 8' iv 
 aaTei. tovtois dc (j>ritn, pekfiv wepi re tS>v avKrjTpidav Kaii ^aKTpi&v Ka\ t&v 
 KOTTpoKdyav Koi tS>v toiovtoiv (Rose, Frag. 408). 
 
 ncipaiei : M S. Ilcipaci. 
 
 hm'ai Spaxpais : SO in the MS. The last two letters oiSpaxpaU have 
 been blotted in writing and are re-written above. 
 
AGHNAIilN nOAITEIA. 125 
 
 Kai OTTCos Tcou KOTvpoXoycov nrjSeis ei> tols Trapa, tov 
 rei^ouy Kara^aXeL Koirpov iinfJLeXovvTai, kcu ras 
 080119 KcoXvovac KUTOiKoSoixelp KCU 8pv<j>aKT0vs virep 
 Ta>v ob&v vTrepreiveiv kol o^erovs fierecopovs ely t^v 
 680V eKpovv exo/i[ei'Oi;y] Troielv KoiX ras dvpiSas ety 
 T7]u odou avotyetV kol tovs iv tols 6801s airoyiyvo- 
 fxevovs dvaipova-iv, e^ovrey 8r)poariovs VTrrjperas. 
 
 iu T0I9 jrapu tov relxovs : the original writing runs evroj iSiav tov 
 Teixovs, but the s at the end of evTos and the 8 in idiav appear to be 
 cancelled by dots placed above them, and over the last three letters 
 of i8mv are written the characters s 7r(apa). The latter character is 
 rather doubtful and might be read as ra. 
 
 KaTo^aXel : the last four letters are very faint, and there has been 
 some alteration made in them. Apparently KaTa/3a\i;t was written first 
 and the ij corrected to e. 
 
 iTTifieXovvTai : MS. fTTififXovTai, but as the form inifieKiojiai is else- 
 where used in this MS. it seems better to adopt it here also. 
 
 KM Tas odoiis k.t.X. : one of the excerpts from Heraclides nepl jroXireias 
 'Adrjvalmv runs Kai t&v oSSiv tnifieXovvTai ottcoj fiij nves dvoiKoSoiiwinv 
 aiiTas rj 8pv(j>dKTovs vnepTcivoKTiv (Rose, ed. 1886, Frag. 61 1). 
 
 Tas dvpiSas els Tr)v oBov avoiyeiv : 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 {PopUc. 20), where he says rar 8' 
 'EXXi/wkos jrpoTepou ovtios ex^'" (^''- f'"™^ dnayeaSai ttjv atXeiov) cmdcrag 
 \eyov<Tiv dno ratv Ka/icoSiSiv Xa/i^vovTcs, Sti kotttouo-i koi >f'O0oi)(7t ray 
 avT&v 6vpas evSoSev oi wpoXevai p,fWovTes, onas aiirdrja'is e^io yivoiTO rots 
 napepxap-evois rj Ttpoe^rrSxri Kai jit) KaToKafi^avoiVTO irpoloia'ais Tois KkeKTiacriv 
 eh Tou (TTcvairov. There are also several passages in the grammarians 
 in which \^o0e<o is distinguished as being used for the knocking at the 
 door by a person coming out, and Kpova or kowtoj for that of a person 
 going in. Bekker however {Charicles, Excurs. to 3rd Chapter) argues 
 that ■\lro(j)e<o 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 is proved by 
 the present passage of Aristotle, which shows that it was made the 
 duty of a magistrate to stop the practice, and by the fact quoted by 
 the same writer in the Economics (11. 4) that Hippias the tyrant put 
 a tax on doors which opened in that way. Whether that measure was 
 ppntinued after the expulsion of the Pisistratidae we do not know ; 
 
136 APISTOTEAOTS 
 
 5 1 . KXrjpo^yvTaL 8e koI ayopavqjioi, irivre /xev els 
 Tleipatea, e S" els aarv. tovtois Se vtto t5)v vofuov 
 irpoaTeTaKTai tS)v w^viai^v eirifieXe'icrdai iravTcov oircos 
 KaOapa kou aKL^8rjXa ircoXrjTaL. KXrjpovvTaL 8e kul 
 fjueTpovo/xoi, irevre fxev els aarv, e 8e els Heipaiea' Kui 
 ovTOL t5)v pierpcov koL t&v araOpxov eTTifieXovvTaL ivav- 
 Tcov oircos 01 TTcoXovvTes XpTjcrcovTai 8iKai,0LS. ijcrav 8e 
 Kol (TLTOCjivXaKes KXrjpcoToi, Tvevre p.ev els Ueipaiea, 
 
 but it seems certain that in the course of the fifth century 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 subsequent 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. 
 
 51. dyopavojjioi : Harpocration (s.v.) refers to this treatise for the 
 number of these officials (Rose, Frag. 409). 
 
 Iierpovoiioi. : the MSS. of Harpocration (s. v.) read ^a-av 8e tov apiSfiov 
 n, els fih TOV Ueipaia i, e 8' tls atrru, 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 {P. E. I. 9) accepts the total 
 fifteen, which he thinks is supported, as against the ten given by 
 Photius, 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 r^aav hi tov apiQuov i, e p,ev 
 €is TOV rieipaia, e' 8' els aa-ru. 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 i and e being combined, an 
 additional number being supplied afterwards for the magistrates in 
 Piraeus, in accordance with this total. 
 
 (nTo(j)i\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 ^o-ai/ be toi' apiS/iov 
 te p.ev iv aa-Tei, e 8' iv Tletpmet, where all that is necessary is to divide the 
 number Te into the two numbers i' and e', which is done by Dindorf in 
 his edition. Instead of this, Boeckh {P. E.l.is) and Rose (Frag. 411) 
 retain the total Te and insert i' after it ; in which they have the partial 
 
-AQHNAIiiN nOAITEIA. 127 
 
 Trevre 8 els acrrv, vvv 5' eiKoai jxeu els aarv, 
 TrepTeicaiSeKa S" els Heipaiea. ovtol S" eTTLfieXovvTai, 
 irpcarov jxev ottcos o ev ayopa crlros dpyos mvLos ecrraL 
 SiKaiws, eireiff ottcos ol re fivXcodpol irpos ras rifias 
 t5>v Kpi6(ov ra aX(f>iTa TrcoXrjaovcnv kol ol apToirmXai 
 irpos ras Tifxas Ta>v irvpoav tovs aprovs, /cat tov 
 araOpxiv ayovras oaov av ovtol Ta^axriv 6 yap 
 vopos TovTovs KeXevei Tarreiv. epiropiov S" eiri- 
 /jLeXrjTas SeKa KXyjpovcnv tovtols 8e TrpocrTeTaKrat 
 Tcov T efiTTOpLcov emfxeXelorOat,, kol tov ctltov tov 
 KUTairXeovTos els to (tltlkov ifiTroptov to. 8vo fiepi] 
 tovs epiropovs avayKa^eiv els to aoTV Kopi^eiv. 
 
 52. Ka^iO"racri fie kolI tovs evSeKa KXrjpcoTovs, 
 eiripeX'qa'opevovs twv ev rc5 SeapxoTijpico, kol tovs 
 aTrayop,evovs KXewTas kcu tovs av^pawo^LaTas kcu 
 tovs XcoTTodvTas, av pev ^opoXoyajcri, OavaTco ^rjpuo- 
 
 support of Photius, who has iio-av 8e tov apiBuhv ttoKm /lev nevTeKmSena iv 
 aa-rei, e' 8' ev Ilfipaiet, which they emend by inserting i' before iv aa-ret. 
 The text of Aristotle supports DindorPs reading in Harpocration, and 
 has analogy on its side. Photius may have been misled by Harpocra- 
 tion, and his authority is weakened by his subsequent statement, 
 varepov Se X fiev iv aaTft, e' 8' iv Ueipaiei, where he has the total, thirty- 
 five, correct, but the division wrong. 
 
 apyos : the reading is a little doubtful. The meaning would be * un- 
 prepared corn,' in which sense the word is used by Hippocrates (irvpol 
 apyoi, Vet. Med. 12). 
 
 ifnTopiav i7rifie\T]Tas . . . Kofii^etv : Harpocration quotes this passage 
 as from Aristotle, but with the variant 'Attikov for o-iniedy (Rose, Frag. 
 410). The Lex. Seg. (p. 255) gives, substantially the same words, but 
 has axrciKov for ^Attikov. The name given by Aristotle is more 
 probable. The ' Corn-market ' is an intelligible and distinctive title, 
 while the ' Attic-market ' would be vague and unmeaning. 
 
 52. o/ioXoySo-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), o* €v8eKa Toiis (cXejTTar Kal tovs \ano8vTas Kai avSpairoSurTas ofioXo- 
 yovvras /uv aTTOKTivvvovcriv, avriKiyovTas 8e ft<rdyov<nv els to SiKaaT^piov, 
 
128 APISTOTEAOTS 
 
 aovras, av S" afi^icr^yiTmcnv elaa^ovTas ely to 
 StKaa-TrfpLov, kolv fiev awo^vycoa-iv a<l)ri(rovTas, el 
 fie fir] Tore OavaraxrovTas, k<u to, [aJ7roypa(j)6fj,ei>a 
 ^oapla Koi o'lKias elcra^ovTas els to SiKacrTi^piov, 
 Koi TO. So^avTa S^r]p,j6(na eivai wapa^axrovTas Tols 
 ttooXtjtols, Koi Ta9 evSei^eis elcrd^ovTas' KoiX yap 
 TavTUs elaayovaiv ol evSeKa. eia-ayovai 8e Tmv 
 ivSeL^ecop Tivas kol ol 6e(rp,o0eTai. v KXTjpovat Se 
 Koi elcraycoyeas e av8pas, oi Tas ififirjvovs ela-ayova-c 
 BiKas, bvolv (f)vXaiu €KacrTos. elcri 8' e/xfirjuoi 
 TrpoLKos, eav Tis o^eiXcov firj airo8m, kolv tis eVi 
 Spaxfly 8av€ca-ap,€uos diroaTepy, Kav tls iu dyopa 
 fiovX6p,ei>os ipyd^eadaL 8ai>e[crr}Tai Trapd tlvos d(j)op- 
 firjv, eTi 8' aiKeias kol ipaviKas kcu KoivcoviKas kou 
 dv8paTr68cov koX v7ro^vy[icojv kol Tpirjpap^Las koX 
 Tpaire^LTiKOLS. ovtoi fiev odu rauray 8iKd^ov(nv i/x- 
 
 and Pollux (VIII. 102), ot evScKa . . . eVefteXoOi/ro rav eu ra beaixaiTqpia 
 Kai aTrrjyov KKewras ap8pairo8i(rTas XanoSiras, ft fiev ofioKoyoiev BavarairouTcs, 
 el Se fifj eltrd^ovres els ra BiKaaTfjpia k&v &XSi<nv aTTOKTevovvTes. 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. 
 
 ^riiuaxrovTas : MS. (rnxicoBrja-ovTas, evidently a confusion between 
 ^TnuaxTOvras and ^ruiiadrfaoiiivovs. 
 
 hv&': MS. evh'. 
 
 e/x/xj/voi : 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 that elsewhere given. Pollux (VIII. loi), s.v. 
 errayoyels, says ^(rav 8e irpoiKds, cpavmai, eiiTropiKcd. Harpocration (s. v. 
 ffifirivot SUm) 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 {c/. Boeckh's treatise on the silver 
 mines of Laurium, Denkschr. d. Berl. Akad. 1815). 
 
 Savei(Tdp.€vos : MS. SavKrafievos, and again a few words later, Sawo-ijrat. 
 
 eu dyopa ; the MS. has eav for fc, the mistake being doubtless caused 
 by the fact that tav occurs immediately above it in the .preceding line. 
 
A©HNAmN nOAlTE[A. 139 
 
 firjvovs eiaay^ovjTes, ot 5' OLTrodeKTai toIs reXavais 
 KcCi Kara ratv TeXaivwv, ra fiev ti^Xf- ^^'^^ Spa^av 
 ovres KvpioL, ra 8' aAA' ety to SiKaaTripiop ei(rd- 
 yovres tp.fir)va. 
 
 53. J^Xrjpovcri 5e /cat TerrapaKOVTa, rerrapas e^ 
 eKacTTTjs (j)vXrjs, wpos ohs ras aXXas BIkus Xay^avov- 
 aiv ot Trporep^ovj fiev rjaap rpiaKOVTa, koX Kara 
 BrjiJLOVs Trepuovres iSiKa^ov, fiera Se ttjv eVi twv 
 rpiaKOVTa oXiyap^ia^vl TCTTapaKovTa yeyovacriv. 
 /cat Ta p.ev p-^XP'' ^^'^'^ 8pa^a>v avTOTeXeis etcrt [Col. 27 ] 
 [/c^iVetJi', TO, 8' virep tovto to Tipr^pia toIs diaiTr/Tals 
 7rapa8i86a<Tiv . ol 8e irapaXa^ovTes, [ejaj/ pLrj 8v- 
 
 bpaxiiav : represented in the MS. by its symbol (. 
 
 53. TeTTapcLKovra : the name of these magistrates, which Aristotle 
 omits, was Kara Srjfiovs SiKacrrai, as appears from Harpocration and 
 Pollux. Harpocration (s. v.) says Trepi tS>v Kara Srjiiovs StKaa-riov, a>t 
 irpoTepov fiiv r^trav X Kai Kara Brjfiovs Trepuovres ediKa^oVj etVa iyivovTO ^ , 
 iiprfKev 'ApKTTOTeXrjs ev rf/ noKtreia. Pollux (VIII. loo) mentions the 
 ten-drachma limit, ot 8e TerrapaKovTa npoTipov p,iv rfirav Tpiaxoi/ra, oi 
 TTcpuoVTes Kara STjfiovs ra y^ej^pi bpaxf^ov bi<a fdUa^ov, to. 8( vnep ravra 
 diaiTrjTols jrapedi^oa'av' fiera 8e rrjv tS>u TpiaKovTa oXtyapxi-ftv fiiiret tov 
 apiBjiov TOV rpiaKOVTa rfrrapaKovra iytvovro (Rose, Frag. 413). They 
 were instituted by Pisistratus, as is recorded in ch. 16, but apparently 
 the ofifice fell into disuse after the fall of the tyranny and was re- 
 established in 453 B.C., as is stated in ch. 26. 
 
 e| fKcia-rris (j)vX^s : this seems to have been at first intended to be 
 written (k rrjs (pvX^s iKda-rrjs or ck rav (j)v\S>v, but after ek t there is a 
 blot which is followed by the word iKaartjs, while (fivXijs is inserted at 
 the beginning of the next line. This makes it necessary to alter ex 
 into e|. 
 
 \ayxdvovaiv : Xayxdvetv hUrjv 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 Xayxdvovtrw here is some word 
 meaning ' suitors.' 
 
 Trepuovres: MS. ■jrepiovres. This elision is found in the comedians 
 (c/. Liddell and Scott), but does not appear to be justified in a historian. 
 
 Toij SuuTrjrais : cf. Harpocration (s. v.), who cites Aristotle (Aeyet fie 
 irepX avrav ' ApiaroreKrjs ev 'Adrivalav iroXireia), and Pollux (VHI. 126). 
 Rose, Frag-. 414. 
 
 K 
 
I30 APISTOTEAOTS 
 
 vwvTai SiaXvaaL, yLyvcocTKOvcn, kcLv fiev afi(l)OTepoi9 
 dpea-Ky to, yvcocrOevTa \kou\ efijxivaxriv, exet TeAoy 77 
 Slkt}. av 8' 6 eT€po9 ((py rav olvtiSlkcov els to 
 8tKa(TTr]pL0v, ep^akovres ray paprvplas kcu ras 
 irpoKXrjcreis kcu tovs v6p,ovs els e\ivovs, \cop\s p-ev 
 Tas Tov 8l(okovtos xcopXs Be ras rov (l)€vyovTOS, kcu 
 TovTovs KaTacrrjprjvdpevoL kcu ttjp Kpiaiv tov Sluitt]- 
 Tov yeypapp^evriv iv ypap,p,aTe[a) irpocrapTrjaavTes, 
 irapaSiBoacrt, toIs eVt Tols Trjs (f)vXrJ9 tov (l)evyovTos 
 SiKoi^ovaiV ol 8e TrapaXa^ovres eicrdyovcriu ely to 
 SiKaaTypiov, [to. p.€v ejvTos ^iXlcov ■cly eva KcCi 
 SiaKocTLOVs, TO, 8' virep \c,Xias ety eva koL TeTpa- 
 Kocriovs. ovK e^ecryn 8" ovJTe v6p.OLs ovtc irpo- 
 KXrjcrecri ovt^ papTvplais aAA' 97 raty irapa tov 
 Bluittjtov )(prj(rO\ju tols ety] rouy e^ipovs ip-fie^Xr]- 
 p,evaLS. 8LaiTr]Tai 8" elcrlv ols av e^r}KoaTov €tos 
 y. tovto 8e StjXov [el/c Tav dp^ovTcov /cat tcov 
 ewcovvpcov. elcTL yap iircovvpLot 8eKa pev oi tSiv 
 (pvXav, 8vo Se Kal TeTTapaKovTa ot toiv yXiKimV oi 8' 
 
 ep^iVous : cf. Harpocration (s. v.), tari iiiv ayyos ti eU h ra ypafifiarela 
 
 ra TTpos Tas biicas irlBcvTO fivrjiiovevei tov ayyovs tovtov kqI 
 
 ' ApKTTOTeXrjs eV Trj 'hdrjvaiaiv TroKiTeia Koi 'Api<TTO<j>dvris Aavato'W (Rose, 
 I^rag-. 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 couirts. 
 
 Tois iirl: the reading is rather doubtful. In ch. 58 these persons are 
 described as 01 ttjv (f>v\fiv SiKd^ovres, but the meaning of the phrase is 
 not clear. In both places, however, they are spoken of in connection 
 with the ScaiTTjTal, and it would appear that they were local magistrates 
 whose functions were intermediate between the 6iaiTij7-ai and the 
 8iKa(TTrjpin at Athens. 
 
 8vo di Kal TfTTapaKovra oi tS>v fjXiKiSiv : the subject of these inavvfioi. 
 tS>v rjKiKimv is obscure. Harpocration {s. v. orpaTeia iv tois iiravv/iois) 
 quotes the present passage, saying ti's yv f) iv toIs iiravvfiois o-TpaTeia 
 Se8rj\aKev 'ApKXTOTiXrjS iv 'Adtjvaiav rroXiTfia \4yav, " flal yap .... 
 
AGHNAIilN nOAITEIA. 131 
 
 e^r)fioL iyypa(j)6fievoL Trporepou jxlv els XekevKWfiiva 
 ypafXfiarela iveypacpovro, Koi eireypatpopTO avrois 
 o T apxwv €0' ov iveypdcprjaav /cat 6 eTrcovvfJLOs 6 
 
 avaypd^ovTai' " Kai fier oXlya " ■)(pSivrai he Tois iiraviiiois . . . crrpaTeveaOai " 
 (vtd. infra). He also says {s. v, inwvvp.oC), diTToi elcnv oi iiriivvnoi, 01 
 fiev I Toy apiOfiov, a<}) S>v a'l (f)v\m, erepoi he jS" Kal jx, dcj)' S>v ai f/XiKlai irpotra- 
 yopevovrai tSiv itoKit&v Kad' eKacrrov fros mo Trj irav /le'xp' |' (Rose, Frag. 
 429)- The Etym. Magn. says iwi)vvp.oi,' Sittoi el<nv oJtoi, oi piev Xeyoiuvoi 
 TavTjKiKiSiv, Kal cl(ri Siio koi TeaaapaKovTa, ol KaXovvrai Kal Xrj^eiov iirawfioi' 
 m Se 8sKa, acf) &v al ^vXai irpoa'T^yopevBrjixav, olov 'Epe^dcis, k.t.X. Some 
 writers (e.g. Smith's Dicf. Ant. s.-v. Eponymus; Schomann, Antiquities 
 0/ 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 Siomtjttjs or arbitrator. 
 
 o T apxcDV . . . Kal 6 cTTwvvpios : this phrase alone is enough to show 
 that the archon and the eponymus cannot be the same, i. e. that the 
 
 K a 
 
133 API2T0TEA0T2 
 
 rm TTporepco [eVet] SeSiaiTrjKcos, vvv 5' els (tttjXtjv 
 \aXKriv avaypd(j)ovTai, koI lararat rj crTrjXrj irpo tou 
 fiovXefyrJTjpLov irepl tovs iircovvp.ovs. tov 8e reXev- 
 Toiov TWV eTTOovvp-wv Xafi6vT€S 01 ^T€TTJapaKOVTa 
 Stavep^ovcriv avrots tols Sialras, kol eirLKXripoixrit/ 
 as cKaaros StaiTi^aef kol avayKolov as av eKaa-Tos 
 XdxD dialras eKSiaiTdv. 6 yap v6p,os, av Tis prj 
 yeuTjraL BiaiT-qrrjs ttJs rjXLKLas avT^ KadrjKovcrrjs, 
 artfiov elvai KcXevei, irXrjv kav rvxj) dpxv^ ^PXl^}'^ 
 [aXXrflv CKeivcp ra iviavrS rj diroB'qpxav . ovtol 5' 
 areXeiy elal p^ovoi. ecmv 8e kcll elaayyeXXeiv el? 
 Tovs ^LKaaras iav tis dSiKrjdfj vtto tov SiaiTTjTOv, 
 
 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 o re apxov . . 6 inawnos koI 6 k.t.X. Such an alteration 
 is, however, clearly unauthorised. 
 
 deSiaiTTjKas : in Demosthenes (pp. 542, 902) the perfect is SfSiJjTi;- 
 Kevat, but the form given in the MS. is preserved here. The MSS. of 
 Harpocration mostly read SeSetKTiKas, which Dindorf (after Aldus) 
 corrects to 8eSir)Tr]Kas, Rose to SeSuoKriKas. Photius and Suidas give 
 imSeSriiirjKas, 
 
 TeepiTovs inavvfiovs : i. e. near the statues of the ten eponymous heroes 
 of the tribes ; cf. note on ch. 3, aKr/a-av k.t.\. It may be questioned 
 whether n-epi (which is written in contracted form, tt') is not a scribe's 
 error for napd (n). After these words the phrase koi tov TeXevrdiov has 
 been written and cancelled, tov 8i TeKevToiov being then written instead. 
 
 t6v 8e TfXevToiov k.t.\. : 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 hiamyrat. which they are to undertake 
 during the following year. 
 
 Kai dvayxaiov k.t.'K. : cf. Pollux (VIII. I26), iireKKripovvTO avTols a'l 
 SiaiTai, Kai dn/Jila a^aptiTTO tiS ^17 SiaiT^cravrt Trjv iiriKKr)pa6fA,crav hiavrav. 
 
 diKaards : MS. SiaiTijrar, clearly a confusion with the Siair^roO 
 following. The true reading is recoverable from Harpocration {s.v. 
 el(rayye\ia), dWrj 8' elaayyfXia eVri Kara tS>v SiatTrjTaV el ydp ns vjr& 
 8iaiT>)Tov aSiKrjBelrj, e^fjv tovtov flaayyeWeiv vpos Tois 8iKa<TTds, Kai iXoiis 
 
 JITl/lOVTO, 
 
AQHNAmN nOAITEIA. 133 
 
 Kav Tivos Karayvaxriv arifJLOva-dai KcXevovaiv oi 
 vofioi. €(f)e(rLS 5' eort Koi tovtols. x/"*^"'""' ^^ ''oif 
 iwavvfiois Koi irpos ras a-rpareias, Koi orav rjXiKiav 
 eKTrefiTTOxri irpoypaipova-LV airo rivos ap-)(ovTos kol 
 iTTCov^jjfjLov /".Je'x/" TLvoav del a-TpaTeveadaL. 
 
 54- ^XrjpovaL 8e KcuTaa-be ras ap^ds' oSoiroiovs 
 ^evre, ois TrpoaTeTaKTai Srjp.oo'Lovs ipyaras e^ov<ri 
 Tas 680VS iTTiaKevd^eii', kclI XoyuTTas fiexa kou 
 (Tvvqyopovs tovtols SeKU, Trpos ovs aTravras dvayKi) 
 Tovs ray dp^ds ydp^avTyts \6yov dircveyKelv. ovtol 
 yap €i(ri p.6voi toIs virevOvvois Xoyi^6p,evoi koi Tag 
 €v6vvas €is TO 8iKaa-Tr]piov elaayovTes. Kav fiev 
 TLva KXeiTTOVT i^eXey^coai, kXott^v 01 diKaaTal 
 KaTayLVQ}crKov(Ti Kal to yvmadev diroTLveTai ScKa- 
 ttXovV iav Se Tiva BS>pa Xa/SovTa einBei^coa-iv koi 
 KarayvaxTLV 01 SiKaaTai, Scopcov TLp.a>anv, dTroTiveTai 
 
 ano : SO Harpocration ; in the MS. the a is, by some confusion, 
 followed by the sign which is often used to denote the termination at 
 of a verb. 
 
 Tivinv : rivos Harpocration. 
 
 54. \oyL(TTas SeKa kai (rvvr)y6povs : Harpocration {s. V. Xoyia-ral) says 
 apx^ Tis Trap' 'Adrivalots ovtoi Kakovfiivrj' EiVl Sf top dpidinov SeKa, ot ras eidi- 
 vas t5)V diaKTjiifvav exXoyifoi/rat c'v fjnipais TpiaKovTaoTav ras ap)(as airoBavrai 
 ot apxovres, . . SieiAexTat jrepi tovtwv 'ApKrroTeXrjs iv tj 'ABrjvalav naiXiTeia, 
 tv6a SeiKvvTai Sn 8mcj)epovtri ratv ev6ivwv (Rose, Frag. 406). The Lex. 
 rhet. Cantabrig. p. 672, 20, 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 in- 
 correct. The passage runs thus, 'AptororeXijy iv rrj 'X6r)vaia>v TroXircia 
 ovT<os \iyu' \oyi(TTaX bk aipoivrai Seiea, nap ots SiaXoyi^ovTai iracai ai 
 apxal TO. T€ XTju/iara Kal ras yeyevr/iievas Sajravas' koi aXXoi Sexa (Tvvfjyopoi 
 otTives trvvavaKpivovfTi. tovtols, kcX oi Tas evdvvas StSovres irapa Tovrots 
 avaxplvovTai nparov, ilra i(jiievTai ei's t6 hiKa(TTr]piov, els eva Kal ({>' (Rose, 
 Frag. &,&]). 
 
 KaTayiva)(TKov<ri : at first written KaTayivaia-Kovtri in the MS., but the 
 superfluous i is cancelled by a dot above it. 
 
134 APISTOTEAOrS 
 
 fie /cat TovTO deKaTrXovv av d' aSiKeiu KaTayvmcnv, 
 aSiKLOV TLfiaxTLV, oLTTOTiveTaL 8e Tovd' airXovu eav 
 [tt/oo Trjs] 6 TrpvTaveias eKTiarj tis, el Se fir], SnrXov- 
 rar to {8e) SeKaTrXovv ov ScTrXovTaL. ^ KXrjpovcn 
 8e Koi ypafifiaTea tov Kara TrpyTaveicnv KoXovfJ-evou, 
 OS t5>v ypap.pxx.ri(av ia-rl KvpLos kol to. ^yjrrij(pL(rfiaTa 
 TO. yivofievci ^vXaTret,, kol rdXXa iravra avriypa- 
 (jyerai. /cat TrapaKadrjTai rfj ^ovXfji irporepov fiev 
 odv ovTos Tjv ^eLpoTOvrjTOS, /cat rovs ivSo^OTarovs 
 
 aSiKiov : 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 almo'st verbally, though without referring to Aristotle by 
 name. His words are, iarl 8i Svona dixi/r. aTroTiuvrai 8e rovTo dirXovf, 
 eav wpb Trjs ff irpvravelas airoBoOij' el Se iifj, SmXovv Kara|3a\Xcrai. Plu- 
 tarch (Pericl. 32) mentions it in reference to the charge brought against 
 Pericles regarding his expenditure of the public money, "Ayvav de 
 TOVTO iiev dcjifTKe tov yjni(j)i(TiiaTos, KpivetrBai 8e tt/v Sikhju typayJAev iv 
 hiKatTTois ;(i\ioij kcu irevTaKoiriois, Are kKotttis kqI hiapav evr dSixlov 
 ^ovKoit6 ns ovofxa^eiv Ttjv bia^iv. 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. 
 
 t6 8e deKairkovv : it seems necessary to insert the 8e, the omission of 
 which is easily explicable from the recurrence of the same two letters 
 at the beginning of the following word. 
 
 ypap.p,aTea tov KaTa irpvraveiav KaXovfievov : Harpocration (s. v. ypapt- 
 fuiTevs) quotes this passage, from tS>v ypafifuneav to ^ovXij, reading, 
 hovitwer, ypap,p,aTav iox ypap,p.aTeav. Pollux (VIII. 98) mentions both 
 this ypajip.aTevs and the others whom Aristotle describes below, ypafi- 
 fiarevi 6 Kara irpvTaveiav KKr)pa6e\s vir6 TrJ! /SovX^r £7rl t^ to ypdjujuara 
 0i;XdTT€ii/ Koi TO ^rj^itrpara.' Ka\ eTepos eir\ tovs vonovg vit6 t^s ^otiX^j 
 XnpoTovovpevos, 6 8' viro toC Sij^ou aipeBets ypaiip.aTevs avayivuMTKei tS 
 
 re 8))ficj) Koi. Tg ^ov\jj (Rose, Frag: 399). 
 
AQHNAmN nOAITEIA. 135 
 
 Kol TnaTOTOLTOvs [e'xei/ojoroj'oi;!'* KoiX yap iv rals 
 (TT-qXais Trpos rats crvfifxa)(^lais kol Trpo^evlfaijs kol 
 iroXiTeiaLS ovtos auaypa(f)eTai' vvv Se yeyove kXt]- 
 pcoTos. KXr]pov(rt 8e kol eVi row vofiovs erepov os 
 TrapaKadrjTai ry ^ovAjj, /cat avTLypa(l>eTaL kou ovtos 
 •jravras. ^eipoTOvel 5e /cat 6 brjfios ypap-fiarea top ava^ 
 yvacrofxevov avTW koL Ty ^ovXfj, /cat ovtos ovSevos 
 ecTTi Kvpios aAAa tov avayvStvai. \ KXrjpol de kol 
 lepoiroiovs deKU, tovs iirl Ta eKdvfiaTa KaXovfxevovs, 
 
 maroTaTovs : the MS. appears to read an-toTOTarovr, though the 
 third, fourth, and fifth letters are open to question. It is of course 
 impossible that this should be the genuine word, and it is simplest to 
 emend it by omitting the a. koi is written in the MS. in its usual 
 contraction ; and it appears possible that the a may be due to som^e 
 confusion with the second letter of Kai in its uncontracted form. The 
 original from which this MS. was copied would haye had (caiTrio-Toro- 
 Tovs, which the copyist has reproduced as KaiturTOTarovs. 
 
 noKiTfiais : the fourth and fifth letters in the MS. are doubtful, but 
 it does not appear possible that the word can be other than that here 
 read, though the use of it, apparently as indicating public measures in 
 general, is strange, and only partly paralleled by Demosthenes {De 
 Cor. p. 254), o *iXijr7ros i^rjKaBr) . . . .Tjj de TTokiTfia Koi rois ■^r]^i<T)i.a<ri . . 
 VTT ifiov. 
 
 iiri Toiis voyiovs erepov: the MS. reading apparently is ejri Touroir 
 v[o]ixov erepov, which of course must be a scribe's blunder. The ofificial 
 mentioned 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 
 avTiypa<f)evs mentioned by Pollux and Harpocration. Pollux (i.e.) says 
 aVTiypa(fievs irporepov iiev alperos, aidis 8e KXrjparos ^i> Koi navra dvre-^ 
 ypd(j)eTO wapaKadrjfievos rfj fiovkfj. 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 avTiypa(j)evs t^s fiovKrjs in this treatise, and the 
 use of the word avTiypaxperai 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 Irtpos ypaiifuvrevg 
 OS • . • dvnypd(j>fTai, 
 
 ■ndvras : sc. vo/iovs, which confirms the enjendation em Toir vdjiovs at 
 the beginning of the sentence. 
 
 iepmowis : the Etym. Magn. quotes this description, as far as nXiju 
 
136 AP12T0TEA0TS 
 
 [oi] TO, T€ [fiav]TevTa lepa dvovaiu, Koiv tl KaXXieprj- 
 aai Serj KaXXiepovcn fxera twv fiavTe\cov\. KXrjpol 
 Se Kol erepovs SeKa, tovs kut iviavTOV KaXovfievovs, 
 ot dvcrlas re rivas dvovai [/cat ray 'n-evT€\Tripi8as 
 airaaras SioiKOvaiv wXrjv Ylavadrjvaicov . \dcr\ 5e] 
 TrevTerrjpldef, fiia [fiei/ rj ei]y ArjXov {ecm fie kcu 
 
 Uavadrjvatiovj almost verbally, and refers to this treatise as its au- 
 thority, but it makes Ho mention of the two different boards of ten of 
 which Aristotle speaks, combining the functions of both under one 
 head (Rose, I<'rag: 404). 
 
 TO T« fuxvTfVTO. Upo. Bvovoriv : the E. M. reads to re iiavTeviiara Upo- 
 Birova-i (ofte MS. Upo6vTov<n), but the reading of the MS. here is 
 confirmed by the Lex. Demosth. Fatm. (p. 11, ed. Sakk.) which has 01 
 TO liavreijiara lepa diovaiv. It is not impossible that fiavTevra here is a 
 slip for jxavTeviiwra ; otherwise Upa is of course the substantive and 
 irnvrevra means ' appointed by oracle.' 
 
 wevTerripiSes : Pollux (VIII. 107) also enumerates these festivals in 
 connection with the Upoiroioi, whom he describes thus, Sexa ovres oSrot 
 cdvov dvtrias ras ^vop,i(oiievas Kai} TrcvTfTripiSas ^8ioi(co0(ri), rf/v els ArfKov, 
 Tqv iv Bpavp&vt, Tr]V tSiv 'HpaieKelav (MS. 'HpaKKeiSaii'), ttjV 'EXfUO-iM. 
 The corrections (indica:ted by the brackets) made by Rose are justified 
 by the text of Aristotle, though it would be preferable to insert rds 
 before nevrfTtipiSas, which would help to explain the omission of the 
 phrase in the archetypal MS.' Of the four festivals mentioned, that at 
 Delos (called ds A^Xof from its involving a 6eapLa from Athens to the 
 island) is the one of which the re-establishment is recorded by Thucy- 
 dides (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 mentioned by Herodotus (VI. 138), and was the oc- 
 casion of the curious ceremony in which the Athenian girls imitated bears 
 and were denominated apxroi. Of the Heracleia little is known. Har- 
 pocration (s. v.) refers to Demosthenes {De Fals. Leg. pp. 368, 379), and 
 adds TToXXmi' SvTiov rSiv Kara ttjv 'Attik^v 'HpaKKelav, viJv hv 6 Ar]no(r6evt]s 
 fivrjiiopevoi rJTOi rS>v iv Mapadavi rj t&v cv Kwoo-apyet* Tavra yap judXio'T-a 
 81a. Tiiirjs elxov 'Adrjvaiot. 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 is, as the 
 words of Aristotle show, the great Panathenaea, the special feature of 
 which was the procession with the TrcTrXor of Athena to the temple of 
 Demeter at Eleusis and thence back to the Acropolis. 
 
AGHNAmN nOAITEIA. 137 
 
 e7r[rajr7?/)ty ivravda), Sevrepa 5e Bpavpcovia, rpiTr] 
 [5e 'HpoLKXeija, TerapTr] 8e to, '^XevaivaSe Tlava- 
 drjvaia' kou tovtcov ov8ep.La ev tS avrm eyyifueTai]. 
 . . 5e TTpoKeirai . . ais . . . eVi K.r)(l)L(ro(l)aivT09 
 ap')(ovTos. KXripovaL 8e kol els ^aXaplva ap^ovra, 
 Kcu ely nei[/3afje'a 8y]p^p^ov, oX rd re Aiovva-ia ttol- 
 ovcTL eKarepcodL kol ^opr^yovs KaQicrTaaiV kv 2aAa- 
 [/xti'tj 5e /cat TO [6Vjo/ia tov oipypvTos dvaypa(j)€Tai. 
 
 55- A.vTai fiev odu at dp^al KXrjpcorai re kol 
 Kvpiai Ta>v yeLprj^p.4va)v ^Trpayp-dr^cov ela-iv. 01 5e 
 KaXovp,€POi ivvea ap^ovres, to fxev i^ dp^rjs ov 
 TpoTTOv KadiaTavTO ^e'lprjTai -qdrj' vvi>j 8e KXrjpovaLv 
 
 iv T(S avTa iyyiverai : the reading is a little doubtful. The MS. 
 apparently at first had ev rat avrmi yiverat, but above the beginning of 
 the last word an addition has been made in the same hand which 
 appears to be the letters iv. If the reading is correct, iv t» air^ 
 presumably means ' in the same place.' It might conceivably be 
 taken to mean ' in the same year,' but against this conjecture it may 
 be noticed that 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 ; and presumably it 
 continued to be celebrated in the same year afterwards. The Heracleia 
 appears from the passages in Demosthenes also to have fallen in the 
 third year of the Olympiad, in the month Hecatombaeon ; but the date 
 of the Brauronia is unknown. 
 
 em Kricj)tcro(l>S)i'Tos apxopTos: i.e. 329 B.C. The sentence is hopelessly 
 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 either <^ 
 or p ; if it is the former, the word is probably ypatfiais, and the sentence 
 may have stood, tovto 8e irpoKeiTai ypa^ais rais iiri K. HpxovTos, 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 Hokireiai 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. 
 
 55. iipriTai, rj8ri : see chapters 3, 8, 22, 26. 
 
138 API2T0TEA0TS 
 
 decTfioBeTas fiev e^ koL ypafifiarea tovtols, eri h 
 apypvTa kol ^acri[Aea] koL iroXe^ap^ov, Kara fiepos 
 i^ eKOLCTTris (jivXrjs. doKifid^ovrai 8' ovtol Trpcorov 
 fi€v iv TTJ ^fiovXffj Tols 0, irXrjv tov ypafifiarecos, 
 ovTos S" iu 8i.Ka(rTrjpLa> fiovov mairep oi aXXoi ap\ov- 
 [rey] (7r[ai/rey yap /cat] 01 KXrjpooTol kol ol X^''P^~ 
 TovrjTol BoKLpLaaOevres ap^ovaLv), ol 5' ivvea \ap- 
 ■)(\ovTes [eV] re rfj ^ovXfj kcu ttoXlv eV hiKaaTrfpicp. 
 Kol irporepov p.ev ovk r/p-^^ev ovt\j,v aJ7ro8oKip,a(r€L€v 
 7] fiovXr], vvv 8' e(f)€(ri9 iariv els to 8iKaaTr]pLov, kul 
 TOVTO KvpLov iaTi rrjs 5oKi[fiaJo'/ay. e\Tr€^p(OTCo<TLV 5' 
 [Col. 28.] orav 8oKip-d^(ocnv, Trpcorov /xev ris croi irarrjp Kaiirodev 
 T&v 8rjpcov, KoX Tis Trarpos irarrjp, koX tls p.r]Tr]p, kul 
 TLS p-TjTpos Trarrjp koL iroOev twv 8r]pMV p,€Ta 5e ravra 
 el etTTiv avTcp AttoXXcov Trarpaos kol Zeuy epKelos, 
 KOL TTOV ravra ra lepa icrriv, eira rjpia ei kartv Kat 
 
 QeaixoBfTas . . . e'l eKaorijs i/)vXns ; Schomann (Ant. of Greece, Engj 
 Tr. p. 410), following Sauppe (De creatione archontum), suggests that 
 the nine archons were chosen from nine of the tribes selected by lotj 
 the tenth electing none. The present passage shows that the tenth 
 was compensated by having the election of the Secretary to the 
 archons. 
 
 wpSiTov )ifv K.T.\.: a summary of the passage which follows is 
 given by Pollux (VIII. 85, 86), eVaXeiTo 8e rir Bea-fioBirStv avaKpuris, el 
 'ti.6rpiaioi ela-iv iKarepadev ix rpiyovias Kal tAk Srjuov ir66ev fcai el 'AiroKXai) 
 fOTiv avTois narpaos koI Zeis epxeios Kal el tovs yoveas eS jroiovai (cat 
 el ecTpdrevvTai mrep Trjs Trarpidos Kal el to Tijafp,a ecrriv avTois (Rose, Ffag, _ 
 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). 
 
 irarpos iTaTj]p : MS. iraTqp irarpos, but a dot and a line placed above 
 each of these words indicate that they are to be transposed. 
 
 ijpia: cf. Dem. in Eubul., p. 131 9) oikcioi Tives elvai fiaprvpovaiU 
 aira ; iravv ye, irpStrov p,ev ye Terrapes ave^iol, eir a.ve'^iaSovs, eid' oi ras 
 aveyjrias Xa^ovres avTmv, eira (pparepes, eiT ' AnSWavos narpaov Kal Aios 
 epKeiov yevv^Tai, el6' ols ijpla Tavra, elff ol hr)p,6Tai k.tX. The present 
 passage confirms the emendation ijpla for iepa in Dinarch. contr. 
 Arist. p. 107, avaKpivaVTes tovs tSiv Koivav ti peWovTus SioiKeiv, ris eoTOi 
 
A0HNAmN nOAITEIA. 139 
 
 TTOv ravra, eireLTa yovias €t e5 Troiei [/cai] to. riXri 
 reXel, koL ras aTpariias el ea-TpdrevTai. ravra 8' 
 avepcoTTjcras, /c[a]Aei, (f)r]ariv, rovrcdv rovs txaprvpas4 
 iireiBav fie Trapda-xrjrai rovs fidprvpas eTrepcord, 
 rovrov ^ovXerai ris Karijyopeiv ; kScv jxev y rLS 
 Karrjyopos, dovs Karrjyopiav Kal diroXoyiav, ovrco 
 StScocTLV iv p.€v ry fiovXfj rrjv einxeiporovLav, kv 8e 
 rm SiKaa-rrjpio) rrjv ■>^ri(pov lav h\ fj.r]8els ^ovXrjraL 
 Karrjyopelv, ev0vs Sidcocri rrjv -^rjcftov Kal irporepou 
 p.€v eiy eVe/3aAXe r^v [^J^^ov, uvu 8' dudyKr] wdvrasi 
 eari oe yjrrjCpL^eadat Trepl avra>v, tva dv ris Trovrjpos 
 iav aTraXXa^j] rovs Karrjyopovs eVi rols 8iKaarais 
 yeurjrai rovrov d7ro8oKifida-ai. 8oKifjiaa-6€v 8e rovrov 
 rov rpoTTOv, fiaSi^ovari irpos rov Xidov v(f)' [w] rd 
 rap.L€ia eariv, i(j) ov Kal 01 8iaLrr)ral opLoaavres 
 airoipaivovraL ras 8tairas Kal 01 p.dprvpes i^ofivvvrai 
 ras fiaprvpias. dvafiavres 8' eVt rovrov op-vvovariv 
 SiKalcos dp^eiv Kal Kard rovs vofiovs, Kal 8apa p,r) 
 X-rj^lrea-Oai rrjs dp^rjs evcKa, Kav ri Xdficoa-iv dv- 
 
 Tov idiov rponov, el yoveas ev iroiei, « ras irrpareias vnep T^y TroXeas 
 cfrrpaTevTat) el iepa irarpaa eirnv, el ra TeXrj reXei, 
 
 fioiXeTai : MS. ^ovXevrm. 
 
 irpos t6v Xidov : cf. Harpocration (s.v. \idos), eoUaa-i S' 'ASrivaloi irpbs 
 Tivl Xida Tois opKovs noieiadm, its 'Apio'ToreXrjs ev rrj 'A6r]vdla>v TroXtreia 
 (Rose, F-rag: 377). 
 
 Tapiela : MS. Tapi. 
 
 opvvovo-iv K.T.X. : the passage in Pollux (VIII. 86) quoted above 
 continues ejrtjpaTa S' i; /3ouXij, &p.vvov &' odroi irpos tij ffaaiXeico o'toS, eVi 
 Tov Xidov v<f>' a TO rapiela, (rup^vXa^eiv tovs vopovs Km prj dapoSoKrjaeiv ^ 
 Xpv(rovv dvdpiavTa anonirai. elra iinevBev els aKpoiroXiv aveXBovres apvvov 
 Taird. Further, in the excerpts from Heraclides vepl noXireias 'Adtj- 
 vaiav {cf. Rose, ed. 1886, Frag. 611), which was evidently an epitome 
 of Aristotle, we have the sentence ela\ be koI iwia apxovres OeapoBerai, 
 01 boKipaaBevres opviovai SiKaias ap^eiv fcai Sapa pri Xrjyjfeadai ij dv&pidvTa 
 Xpvcoiv dvadijireai. 
 
I40 APIST0TEA0T2 
 
 SpiavTU avaOrjaeiv ■)(pvaovv. evrevdev 8' bfJLoa-avTfs 
 els OLKpoTToXiv ^aSl^ovaLV Kcu iraXLV €K€l ravra 
 ofivvova-i, Koi fJieTo, ravra ely r^f apxrjv daipxovTai. 
 56. Kap^fiavovcn 8e koX irapiBpovs o re ap^cov 
 KoX b fiacriXevs koX 6 iroXepiapyps 8vo eKarepos ov9 
 iav fSovXjjTai, /cat ovtol BoKLfxa^ovTaL iv t<S StKaa- 
 TTjpico irplv irapeSpeveiP, Ka\ evdvvas 8i,d6a(nu iirav 
 irapeBpevacoaLv. koX 6 p.ev ap-)(cov evOvs elcreXdcov 
 Trpmrov fxev KrjpvTTei oaa tls et^c irpiv avrov 
 elaeXdelv ety rrjv ap)(^v, ravr exeiu Kal Kpareiv 
 p-^Xpi- oi'PXV^ reXovs. eTreira ^opyjyovs TpaycoSois 
 KaOiarrjai rpels ef aTrdvTcou 'Adrjuauav tow irXov- 
 (ricoTaTovs' Trporepov 8e Kal Ka)iJim8ols KadicrTJ] 
 Trevre, vvv 8e tovtois at (pvXal (pepovcriu. eTreira 
 TrapaXajSmv tovs xoprjyovs tovs evTjveyfievovs vtto 
 Twv (pvXau ety ^lovvarLa av8paaiv Kal Traicrlv Kal 
 Kcopa)8o[t]s, Kal els Qapy^Xia au8pdaiu Kal iraialv 
 (ilal 5' ol fikv ety ALOvva-ia Kara (})vXds, els <5e) 
 QapyrjXia Sveiv (pvXalv els' irape^ei 8' ev //,[e)o€t] 
 
 56. \afi^avovcn . . . TrapcSpciiraxnv : Harpocration (j'.Z'.rrdpfSpos) quotes 
 this passage as from Aristotle iv Tjj 'AOrjvaiav woXireta, with the excep- 
 tion that he (or his MSS.) omits the words koi 6 jSao-iXeus (Rose, Frag. 
 389). That the king archon had two rrapeSpoi as well as the archon 
 and the polemarch is confirmed by Pollux (VIII. 92). 
 
 TreVre : 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, Aiiic Theatre, pp. 30, 31). 
 
 a.vhpa.aw koi naiaiv : these are the choruses for the dithyrambic 
 competitions, in which the tribes competed against one another. 
 
 eapyi'i'hia : the dithyrambic chorus for men at this festival is 
 mentioned by Lysias (De Dono, 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. p. 142). As to the duties of the 
 archon in respect of the Thargelia, Pollux (VIII. 89) says d 8e apx<m> 
 dtaTiBrjin fifv Aiovvaia xal QapyrjKia /icrd rS>v eVt/ieXijraiv, and the Lex. 
 
AQHNAmN nOAITEIA. ' 141 
 
 eKarepa tcov ^vXwv tovtois), ras duTiSocreis rroiei /cat 
 
 ray orKTqyjreLS eia^ayec iaju tis rj Xe r] 
 
 TT^jOoy] erepov TavTrjv ttjv XriLTOvpy\l,av\ 
 
 [ejre^av XrfLtovpyiav kol tS>v ^povcov avrS . . . 
 
 eias jxr) i^ eV?; p,r] yeyovivac Set yap 
 
 Tov To'is TraL^ali' xopvjy^^^''''^ virep TeTTapd^KOvjra 
 €TT] yeyovevai. KaOia-Trjai 8e kol eiy ArjXov X'^PV~ 
 yoi/s KOL dp^iepeco^v tov rjw TpiaKovTopico r^ tovs 
 TfLdeovs ayovTL. irofiirmv 8' eTrepeXelTO [rijy re] tS 
 'AaKXrjTTiS yivofievqs orav o'lKovpcocn pv^ajrai, kol 
 Trjs AiovvaLcoi' Ta>v [/ieycTJAoJi' p-erd tcov eTripeXrjTav, 
 ovs irpoTepov pev 6 Srjpos ix^i'POTOvei SeKa ovTas, 
 [/cat Taj ety tt/v Tropir^v dvaXcopaTa Trap' avTwv 
 ^i'[eyAcjoj', vvv 5' iva Trjs ^^^[^y iKojaTrjs KXrjpol 
 KOL 8[8cocrtv eiy ttjv KaTaaKevrjv eKUTOv pvds. eVt- 
 /ieX[errat] 81 Koi ttjs ety QapyyXia kol ttJs tS Ail 
 Tco ^ooTrjpi. fitoi/cei fie Kat tov dyaiva tw^v AlovIv- 
 (Tixov ovTOS KOL Twv Qapyr]Xtcov. eopTcov pev ovv 
 eTTipeXeLTaL tovtcov. ypacpal fife /cat 5]i/cat Xay^d- 
 
 rhet. Cantabrig. (p. 670, 4) e)(ei 8e imfieKeiav p^opijyoij Karaa-Trjirm els 
 Aiopi(rta Koi QapyrjKia, imiieKeiTai, be kol tSiv els ArjXov Kai tSiV aK\ax6(Te 
 ireforofJieiKov 'Ad^vr}dep -xop^" (Rose, Frag. 381). 
 
 Tar (TKfi-\jfeis : for rds the abbreviation for rrjs seems to have been 
 written first, and then an a has been inserted without the corrector 
 perceiving that another o- was necessary, so that the words stand 
 in the MS. as Tao-xiji/retj. 
 
 \r]iTovf>ylav : written XeiTovpyiav, but corrected to Xijit-, which is 
 the form employed elsewhere in the MS. Cf. ch. 27 and note. 
 
 del yap k.tX. : Harpocration (s. v. on vofios) refers to this passage, 
 OTL vo/jios iariv imep p,' eTij yev6p,evov \opj]yelv iraia-Xv AiVx""?* Te ev t<S 
 Kara TLp.apxpv (j)i]a-'i Koi 'ApioroTeXTjs ev rij 'A6r)vaiav jroXiTcia (Rose, 
 Frag. 431). 
 
 ypa<t>ai 8c k.t.X. : a summary of the following passage is given by 
 Pollux (VIII. 89), SiKoi Se Trpos avTov Xayxavovrai. KOKaireas, napavoLas, 
 
142 APISTOTEAOTS 
 
 vovrai TTpos avrov, as avaKpivas eiT [eiy SiJKacrrrjpioi' 
 elcrdjj^eij, vecov KUKOxrecos {avrai 84 elaiv d^rjfiLoi tw 
 ^ovXop.€vcp SFttBAcJetJ'), 6p(j>avS»v /c[a/ccBjo-e£BS' {clvtul 
 8' eicrl Kara t5>v iirLTpoircov), iiriKXrjpov Ka/c(B(re[&)y] 
 {aivTai 8e elcri Kara \twv] eTrcTpoTrcov kcu tcov crvuoi- 
 KovvTcov), o'lkov 6p(j)avLK0v KaKcocrecos (eltri 8e kol 
 [avTaL Kara tcovJ iTrtTpo^Trjcov) , irapavoias, idv tls 
 OLTiaTai TLva irapavoovvra r^a iavTOv KTrjpLara 
 aWoXkvv^ai^, els SarrjTcov aXpeaiv, idv tls firj d^Xy 
 [/cloii/a Wd. ovra v€fi€(rdai^yels eTnTpoirrjs KardtrTaatv, 
 els eTnrpoTrrjs 8ia8iKaaiai', el ^TrXeloues rrjs avrrjs 
 6eXov(r\Lv eiriTpoTrov avrov iyypd^ai, KXrjpcov koX 
 eiriKXripcov eTn^SiKaa-iai. eVt/tieAeirjat 8e kou t&v 
 ^pcf^avav Kal rav eTriKXrjpav koX tcov yvvaiKmv 
 ocrai av TeXevyrrja-avTos tov dvSp'^os o-k^ItttcoIv- 
 TaL Kveiv Kal Kvpios iart rois dSiKovaiv eTn^dXlXeiv 
 ^T^fxiav rj dyeiv ety] r)) 8iK(j^Tri\pLov . pacrdoi 8e 
 Koi Tovs o'lKovs Twv 6p(f)avS)v Kal TCOV eTrtfKXi^pcov] 
 
 a Kal 8^aT7]JTris yevTjTai Kal ra aTrori/A^/tara 
 
 Xap^dv^eij, av p. . . [fii]5a)o-i tols vraicrlv 
 
 eis SaTrjTmv atp€<nv, eVirpoTrijs 6p(f>avZv, imTpoirav KaTaardcreis, KKr/pav 
 KOL €7riK\T]pQiv eTTiStKao'iai. eVtjLteXeirat 8e Kal rav yvvaiKoiv at hv dymo'tu 
 iir dvSpds reXevrij Kveiv, Ka\ Toiy diKovs fKpiadoi tS>v 6pif>avS)V (Rose, 
 Frag. 381). Under the head of eir ifn^avav KaTaaratrui Harpocration 
 says, 6 bk 'ApiororeXijj iv Trj 'Adrjvaiav TroXireig. npbs rbv apj^ovrd cfyr/o-i 
 \ayxdve<Tdai TaiTrjV ttjv biKqv, rhv 8c avaKpivovra ela-dyeiv els to diKaa-rripiov 
 (.Frag. 382). 
 
 eis haTTjxav alpia-iv : Harpocration explains the phrase, and refers to 
 Aristotle as using it iv rfi 'ABrivaiav noKiTua. The Lex. rhet. Cantabrig. 
 quotes Aristotle nearly verbally, fVi tS>v btaveiiovrav to. Koivd tutiv, as 
 'ApioTOTfXi;s eV r^ 'A6r)vai<av noXireia, SiKai Xay^dj/oyTat irpos top apyovra 
 aXXai Tivh Kal fis 8aT7)TSj» alpea-iu, OTav p^ 6e\r] Koiva ra ovra vipeaSai 
 (Rose, Frag. 383). The MS. reads SiaiTTjrav, but these quotations 
 make it practically certain that it is merely a scribe's blunder. 
 
AQHNAmN nOAITETA. 143 
 
 Tov (tItov ovtos elcTTrpoLTTei. KOI ofSroy fjiev ovu 
 
 57- [0 8ej jSacrtXeiiy irpmrou ix€v fiva-TrjpLcoi' 
 e7rt)U,eAet[rai fiera tcov iTriiJLeXrjTcov ouy] 6 Stj/i'^os 
 €-)(jeLpOT6v€i, 8vo pev i^ 'Adrjvaiwv UTravTcov, eva 
 5' [Ey/ioATTtSwy, eva\ 5e Y>.r]p^Kco\v. eiretTa 
 Aiovvacav tcou^ eiri Arjvauow ravra 8' Icttl .... 
 [ravTT^j'] pilv ovv Trop/wrjv Koivfj TripTTOvcTLV o re [Col. 29.] 
 fiaaiXevs kol ol i7rtp.€Xr]Tat,' tov Se dycova dtari- 
 6r](Tiu 6 jSacrtAeuy. ridrjaL 8e /cat roiis rSv Xap- 
 ■7ra8cov aycovas airavTas' My 5' cTroy eiTreiv kal 
 ray irarpiovs dva-ias 8lolk€l ovtos waaas. ■ypa(f)al 
 Se Xay^auourai Trpos avTov acre^Se/ay, Kav ti? 
 lepcoavvrjs dpL(pi.o-firjTy TrpoaTipa' [SiaSiJ/ca^et 8e 
 
 (TiTov. Harpocration (s.v.) says (tItos KoKe'irm fj biSofievrj wp6(roSo9 (Is 
 Tpo<j)riv Tois yvvat^lv rj ToTr op(pavols, ms e| aXKav fiadeiv ccrn Kal ek tov 
 'SoKaivos a a^ovos Ka eK Trjs 'ApioToreXous 'ABrjvaicov TroXireins (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 suggest how to fill up the 
 lacuna consistently with the visible remains. 
 
 57. 'O Se ^aa-tXevs . . . Kij/jucmv : quoted by Harpocration, s.v. iwi- 
 fieXtjTqs Tmv fjLva-Trjpimv (Rose, Frag. 386). The MSS. of Harpocration 
 insert e| before 'E-vfiokinhav and Ik before Kr/pvKav, but the latter is cer- 
 tainly not in the present MS. and therefore presumably not the former. 
 
 Aiovvcriav twv inl Arivaiiov : Pollux (VHI. 90) says 6 8e fiaaiKfis 
 fivcTTripitov JTpoea'TriKe jjiCTa rmv imfieXriTSiv Kal Arjvalav Kal aymvav twv 
 «V1 Xa/iTrdSt, Kal to Trepl ras iraTpLovs 6v(rias Sioikei (Rose, Frag. 385)- 
 
 ypa^aX hi k.t.X. : the passage of Pollux just quoted gives a summary of 
 the present section, S/xai 8e irpos airov Xayxavovrai da-efieias Kal iepaxrvvrjs 
 aficj>i<r^riT^(Tea>s. Kal tois yev€(n Kal vols Upevcri (MSS. lepois) naaLv airos 
 SiKofei, Kal Tcis TOV (povov Sixas els"Apfiov itdyov dtrayei Ksxi tov a-re^avov 
 dirodefievos trvv avTois Siicdfei. npoayopeiei 8e to'is iv alTia aTrex^o'dai 
 fivcrTrjpiwv Kal Tcbv aXKcov vofiiiuav. diKa^ci Be Kal ray Tav d-^vxtov SUas. 
 The Lex. Seg. (p. 219, 14) quotes verbally from ypacpai to Trpos tovtov, 
 though without acknowledging the source (Rose, Frag. 385). 
 
 Ttpocmiia : the reading in the MS., which is very faint, rather resem- 
 bles Trpos Tiva, but it seems better to follow the quotation in the Lex. Seg. 
 
144 API2T0TEA0T2 
 
 /cat Tols yeueai kou toIs lepeva-i ras diJ.(j)L(T^rjTr}(reLS 
 TOLS wrep lTan> yejpcov airdaas ovtos. Xay^dpovrai 
 Be Kol at Tov (jiovov BUat irdcrai irpos tovtov, 
 KoiX 6 wpoayopevcov elpyecrdai tSsv vofiipxou oiiTOS 
 ia-Tiv. elal [5e (pouovj Slkui kcu rpavfiaros' av 
 fiev eK irpovoias diroKTeivrj, eyyp^a^eTaij ev 'hpeico 
 iraycp, kcu ^apfiaKou iav diroKT^ivr) 8ovs, kol 
 TTvpKaids' ^rav^ra 8' rj ^ovXrj /xova SiKoi^ei' rav 
 8' aKovaicav KcCl ^ovXevaecos Kav oIkcttju (XTroKTeivrj 
 TLS rj fjLCTOiKou ^ ^^vov, [eV T^ eTri Ilja^XX^aSlco' idv 
 5' diroKTelvai fiev tls ofioXoyfj, (pfj 8e Kara, tovs v6- 
 /JLOVS, o^LOVJ fioixov Xa^mv rj eV woXefiq) dyvorjcras r] 
 iv adXcp dycovi^ofJLivos, to^vtco eV tS eVi] AeA^w'tm 
 Slkcl^ovo-iv idv 5e (f>evya)i/ (pvyrjv mv al8e(ris icmv 
 
 iirdtras oStos : omitted in the Lex. Seg. 
 
 av fiev eK npovoias k.tX. : Pollux (VIII. 117) evidently draws from 
 this passage. "Apeios jrdyos' iSUa^e 8e (f)6vov Kal Tpavfiaros ex irpovoias 
 Koi iTvpKaias Kal cjiapfidKav idv ns airoKTcivrj hois. 
 
 raiv 8' aKov<ria>v Ka\ /SouXeiJo-etor : Harpocration {s. V, ini IlaXXaSib)), 
 hiKaiTTr)pi6v i(TTiv outo) Ka\oifi(vov, as Kal ' ApuTTOTfXrjs iv 'Adrivatav 
 noXiTfia, f'v a SiKd^oviriv dKov(rLov (j>6vov Kal ^ouXeucrecos 01 itpirai (Rose, 
 Frag. 417). The i^hai are also mentioned in this connection by 
 Hesychius and Eustathius, but Aristotle does not appear to have 
 noticed them, unless the MS. is faulty here. Pollux too (VIII. 118) 
 does not refer to them. Harpocration also refers in another place 
 (s. V. (3ouXeuo-fQ)s) to Aristotle as stating that trials of this description 
 took place in the Palladium (Rose, Frag. 418). 
 
 ern AeX^iWo) : Harpocration (s. v.), hiKd^ovrai S ivravBa oi o/ioXo- 
 •yoJi'Tfs fiiv direKTOvevai, SiKaias 8e irenon]Kevai tovto \iyovT€s, as Atj/io- 
 irBevrjs iv tm Kar Apia-TOKparovs StjXoi Kal 'ApioTOTeXjjr iv rfi 'Adrjvaiav 
 mXireia (Rose, Frag. 419). Pollux (VIII. 119), Suidas, Eustathius, 
 eU., say substantially the same. 
 
 ai8«ns : some correction has been made in the MS., but it is 
 not clear what is intended. It appears to be a <t, written above the 
 line over the fi; but it may be meant for a p, in which case the corrector 
 has altered the rare word atSecris into one more familiar to him, alpeaks, 
 which, however, makes nonsense of the passage. The corresponding 
 
AQHNAmN nOAlTEIA. 145 
 
 [atrial/ TrpocrXd^rfj Kreivai 7/ Tpwa-al riva, tovtco 
 S" iv ^peaTTOL 8LKa^ov\_(TL' Koi 6 fiev aTToAoyJetrai 
 Trpoa-op/JLicrafjLevos Iv irXoico, ^LKa^ovat 8' ol XciyovTes 
 Ta\yTa e^eVatJ ttA^i' rSiv eV 'Apeico irayco ytyvo- 
 p.iv(ov' elcrdyeL 8' 6 fiacnXew koL SiKci^o^vaiv] 
 . . at[o]i Koi vTralOpLoi. kcu 6 ^aaiXevf orav 
 SiKaQ] TrepLaipelrai top aTe(f)avou. 6 8e ttju alrtav 
 €)(cov Tov p.€v aXXov yfiovov elpyeraL tcov lepav kolI 
 ov8eis Trjv a[tri]ai' S^vvarac ejfx^aXelu avrS' Tore S" 
 ety TO lepov elaeXdcov diroXoyelTai, orav 8e [tIis 
 etTrrj tov iroLrjaavTa rw 8pdcravTi Xay^^avet. 8iKd^€L 
 8 o jSacriAeuy /cat oi ^uAojSatrtAety koi Tas tcov 
 d^vxcov KOL tS)v aXXav ^cocov. 
 
 58. 'O 8e 7roX4p.ap^os TroieiTai 6v(rias Trjv Te 
 
 phrase in Demosthenes {in Arisiocr. p. 645), where he is explaining 
 the character of the court iv ^pearTol, runs cV aKovaim <j)6vco 7re0euya>r, 
 lifjirai Tap eK^aKovTav airov ^Sea-fiivav. The meaning therefore is that 
 the party has committed an involuntary homicide, but has to remain 
 in exile during the resentment 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 atSeo-ts), but at the time supposed they have not yet relented and 
 therefore he is still in exile. 
 
 0peaTTOi : MS. (ppcarov. 
 
 e<peTai : cf. Harpocration {s. v. l^iraC), ol biKa^ovres ras i^ oljiaTi 
 Kp'ureis c!r< KoXXadira Kot eirt Upvraveia Koi inl Aek<JM'i<o koI iv ^peaTTOi 
 c^erai efcaXoCwo. 
 
 ircpiaipclTai tov ariifiavov : cf. the quotation from Pollux (VIII. 90) 
 given above, in note on ypatpai 8e k.t.X. 
 
 TTjv alnav : the reading is doubtful, as the abbreviation for rijs seems to 
 have been written in place of that for ttiv, and the letters are very faint. 
 
 orav 8c ns eiirrj : the reading is doubtful, as the letters are much 
 rubbed, and the sense of the passage remains rather obscure. 
 
 58. 'O de TroXefiapxos k.tX. : Pollux (VIII. 91) paraphrases the 
 passage thus, 6 fie iro\eiiapxos 6vei fiiv 'ApTefuBi ayporep^ Koi ra 
 'Ewa\ia, Siaridritri fie roi' imTosjiiov dymva tS>v iv iroXefUO cmoBavovrav , 
 KCU. To'is irepX 'Ap/ioSiov evayifei. dUai fie jrpbs avTW 'Kayxavovrai /leToiKav, 
 
 L 
 
146 API2T0TEA0TS 
 
 Ty 'AprffxtSi Ty ayporepa kolL tw 'lEuvaXim, SiaTidrjcn 
 8' dyava tov e7nTd(f)iov toIs TETeXevTrjKoaLV ev rip 
 TToXefMcp, Kol 'ApfJLo8i^ /cat 'ApiCTToyeLTOPi evayicTfiaTa 
 TTOiei. SUai Se XayyavovraL irpos avrov 'iSiai. fieu at 
 re Tols fieroiKOLs kcll toIs IcroreXecn Koi tois tt/jo- 
 ^euois yiyvofxevai. kol Bel tovtov Xa^ovra kcu 8ia- 
 veLfxavra SeKa fiepr], to Xa^ov cKacrTr} ry (f)vXy fiepos 
 irpocrBelvai, tovs 5e Tr)v (jyvXr/u SiKa^oUTas ropy] 
 SiaiTTjTal^ diroBovvai. avTOS 5' clcrayiL Slkus ras re 
 TOV a[7rocrra(r]ioy kou dTrpo(TTa(TL\ov\ Koi KXypcov koX 
 
 eTTLKXypCOV Tols IX€T0LK0L9, KOL TCcXX' OCa Tols TToXtTaiS 
 
 6 dpycov TavTa toIs ixeToiKois 6 iroXepiapyos. 
 
 59. Oi Be OecrfiodeTai irpS>TOv fieu tov irpoypa^aL 
 TO, BtKacrTypid ela-i Kvpioi tictlv yp-epais Bel BiKa^eip, 
 [e7r]e[tra] tov Bovvai tols dp^ais' kuBoti ydp av 
 ovToc BaxTLV, KUTa TOVTO yjpwvTaL. eTL Be Tas 
 
 Icrorekaii, irpo^kvav (Rose's addition ^evav is shown by the text of 
 Aristotle to be unnecessary), (cai Siavefiei to \axov, iKaarn <j)vK^ n 
 fiepos, TO fiev SiaiTTjTois napaBiSovs, elcraymv fie hinas dirocTTacriov, anpoa- 
 Ta<Tiov, KKripav p,eToiKav (Rose, Frag. 387). 
 
 ''Emakia : this appears to have been altered in the MS. to 'Eyua>, but 
 unnecessarily, as the passage just quoted from Pollux shows. 
 
 Toij T-cTeXeuTTjKdo-o' : the MS. prefixes Kai, but it must be a mere 
 clerical blunder. 
 
 'Apto-royciVoi'i : MS. Apio-Toyirow, but in ch. 1 8 the more correct form 
 is used. 
 
 avToi &' iladyei : Harpocration (s. v. Tr6\epapxos) quotes this passage 
 verbally, introducing it with the words 'ApHTTore'X);? 6' ev ttj 'Adr/vaiav 
 TToXiTcia Sif^e\6a>v Saa Bioixel 6 iro\e jiap^os, wpos ToOra <jiri<Tiv " aiiTos re 
 EiVdyfi . . . . d iroXe/iapxos." The first part, as far as imKKrjpav, is again 
 quoted s.v. arroaTamov, with the difference that oStos fie stands in 
 place of avT6s re (Rose, Frag. 388). 
 
 59. Oi fie deufioeerai. : Pollux (VIII. 87, 88) quotes the whole of this 
 passage almost verbally, as far as to yfrevSofiapTvpia i^ 'Apiiov wdyov, 
 and Harpocration (s. v. 6f<Tiio6iTai) says 6 fie 'ApKrroTeXrjs ev rrj 
 'ABtjvaiav iroXiTciif Siepxtrai o<ra oStoi itpaTTOvdiv (Rose, Frag, 378). 
 
AeHNAIQN nOAlTEIA. 147 
 
 elcrayyeXiay elaayyeXXovaiv els tov Srjjjiov kcll tols 
 KaTa-)(€LpoTovLas Koi TOLS Tvpo^oXas aTrdaa\s\ daa- 
 yova-LV ov\tol\ koX ypa(f)as irapavopxov Kol vofiov /xtj 
 eTTiTTjSfiov Oelvai kou irpoebpiKrjv kol iTncrTaTiKrju 
 /cat (TTpafriyois evdvvas. elal 8e koI ypa(j)al irpos 
 avTovs S)v TrapacTTaais TiOerai,, ^evias koX Scopo^evlas, 
 av Tts Satpa 8ovs airo^vyy ttjv ^eviav, kcu (tvko- 
 (pavTLas /cat Scopcov /cat ^evSeyypa^rjs kcu yfrevSo- 
 KXrjTeias /cat fiovXevaecos /cat dypa<pLOV /cat /iot^eiay. 
 elaayovcLV 8e /cat ray So/ct/xacrriaJ? raty dp')(als 
 aTraaais /cat royy d.Tre'^rjcpLa-fiepovs vtto twv dr]p.0Tav 
 KOL Tag Karayvaxreis [r]ay e/c rrjs ^ovXrjs. elordyovcn 
 5e /cat 5i/cay tStay, ip-iropiKas /cat peToXXiKas kol 
 SovXcou, dv TLS TOV iXevdepov /ca/cc5y Xeyy. kcu 
 eirLKXripovcTL rals dp-)(cus irdvTa SiKaarrfpia ra iSia 
 /cat Ta Sr]p.6(Tia' kcu ra avp^oXa ra irpos Tas iroXeis 
 ovTOi Kvpovai, /cat ray 5t/cay ray diro tcou crvp,^6Xcov 
 elcrdyovai, kol rd -^evSopaprvpia e[^] 'Apetov Trdyov. 
 
 eio-l 8e Koi ypafjial . . . ^eviav : this passage is quoted in the Lex. rhet. 
 Cantabrig., being introduced by the words 'Apio-TOTe'\?;r iv rij 'K6t)vaiav 
 TToXiTila ^Tjal Trepl tSiv 6e(Tfio6eT&v diaXeyofievos. There is, however, an 
 addition, for after bapo^tvlas occur the words ^evias /iep idv ni Karrj- 
 yoprJTai ^evos fhai, Siopo^evias 8e iav tis Sapa k.t.X. The repetition of 
 the words ^evias and bapo^evias would make it easy to suppose that the 
 clause ^tvias . . . Scopo^evias 8e had accidentally dropped out of the 
 present MS. of Aristotle ; but Harpocration {s. w. napdiTTaa-ts and 
 Sapn^evia) 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. fjyep.ovta diKaa-rripiov) quotes 
 the other classes of cases down to /loix^ias (Rose, Frag: yj9)- 
 
 TO. avfi^oXa : it is perhaps to this passage that the Lex. Seg. 
 refers {s. v. diro a-u/i|3oX<oj' fiiKofet), 'Adt]valoi dno a-vfi^oXav eSUaCov Tois 
 vrrriKoois. outcos 'Ap«rTorc\>;s (Rose, Frag. 380). Harpocration ex- 
 plains the word (riiJ^oXa as ras avvdfjKas as av dXXijXais al ttoXsis Befiei/ai 
 TaTTaai rots TToXiVais fflore diSovai kol Xafi^dveiv Ta dUaia, 
 
 L 3 
 
148 APISTOTEAOTS 
 
 Tovs fie ^iKaa-TOLS KXrjpoua-t iravTas oi evvea ap- 
 Xovres, SeKaros 8' 6 ypafijxaTevs 6 tS>v decrfioueTcov, 
 Toi/s TTjs avTov (l)vXrjs enaaTos. ra fiev oiv trepi 
 TOVS 6 ap)(ovTas tovtou k^ei rov rpoTrov. 
 
 60. KXypovai Se /cat aOXoderas SeKa [a]u8pas, 
 eva TTjs (l)vXrjs eKoia-TTjs. ovtol 8e SoKifiaadevTes 
 apxovcri TeTTap[a eJrTy, /cat SiotKovcri Tr]v re Tropnrrjv 
 TUiv HavadTjvaicov kcu tou aymva rrjs fiovcTLKrjs Kai 
 rov yvfJiVLKOv ayStva kcu rrjv LTnroSpofiiav, /cat tov 
 iriirXov troLovvTai Koi tovs d/Kpopeis woiovvTat fxera 
 TTJs ^ovXtjs, kol to eXaiop toIs adXrjTOLS airo- 
 SiSoaa-i. a-vXXeyerai to S" eXatou [ajiro twv p-opiStV 
 ela-TTpaTTei 8e tovs to. xcopia KeKTijixepovs iu ols 
 at fiopMi elcriv 6 ap^fov, Tpia rjfjLiKOTvXia airo tov 
 (TTeXe^ovs eKoicrTov. wpoTepov 8' eirmXei tov Kapwov 
 rj TToXis' /cat et Tis e^opv^eiev iXalav fioplav rj 
 KaTcc^eiev, eKpivev rj e^ 'Apeiov irayov fiovXr], /cat 
 
 inivTas : it may be suspected that the right reading here is iravres, 
 this duty which belonged to all the nine archons being contrasted with 
 the others mentioned in this chapter, which apply only to the six 
 thesmothetae ; while as an epithet of fintaoras it has no force. 
 
 60. aSKoBdras : cf. Pollux (VIII. 93), aSKoBcrai Sem fUv elaiv, fis Kara 
 (j)v\riv, hoKifiairBivTis be apxov<n Terrapa crri, e'jri tm SiaSeivai to. Uavaoii- 
 vaia, TOU Tf fioviTiKov Koi tAj/ yvfiviKou Koi TrjV iinroSpofiiav. 
 
 TO eXniov : the scholiast on Oed. Col. 701 refers to this passage, 6 be 
 'ApKTToreXris Kai rots vixijcrao't to Havadrjvaia i\aiov tov ck tS>v fiopiav 
 yiuofievov blhoarBai (prjaiv (Rose, Frag. 345)' 
 
 Tpia : MS. Tpi, as if the writer had intended to make one word of it, 
 
 Tpir)lUKOTvklOV. 
 
 enaXei : the third and fourth letters are a little doubtful. If this is 
 the right reading, the meaning is that formerly the state managed the 
 cultivation of the 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. 
 
A0HNAII2N nOAITEIA. 149 
 
 el KaTayvoir), Oavdrm tovtov e^-qfiiovv. i^ ov 8e 
 TO eXaiov 6 to •)(aipiov KeKTrjfievos diroTLuei, 6 fiev [Col. 30.] 
 vofios eaTtv, rj 81 Kpiaris KUTaXeXvTaL. to 8' eXFaiov] 
 €K Tov KXrjfiaTos, ovK ttTTO TO)]/ (TTeXe^mv, eaTL Trj 
 TToAei. avXXe^as ovv 6 dpywv to i(j) iavlrov] 
 yiyvofievov, toIs Tafiiais 7rap[a8i8j^coo-Lv ety 'A/cpo- 
 iroXiv, Koi OVK e<TTLV dva^rjvai irpoTepov els ["Apejtoi' 
 irayov irpXv dv dirav rrapaSw toIs Tafxiais. ol 8e 
 
 TUflLUL TOV p.€U oiXXoV •)(^p6vOV TTJpOVCni' €V 'A/C/)0- 
 
 TToXei, roty 8e YlavaOrjvaioLS dirop,eTpov(rL toIs dOXo- 
 OeTais, ol 8' dOXoOeTau toIs vlkSxti, tcdv dywvLaTcov. 
 ea-TL yap dOXa toIs fxev ttjv /jLovaiKyi/ vlkoxtlv 
 apyvpia /cat ^vaa, tols 8e ttjv evavSplav dcnriSes, 
 TOLS 8e tov yv/xvLKov dycova koL ttjv l7rwo8poixLav 
 eXaiov. 
 
 61. ^eipoTovovcrt 8e koL tus irpos tov iroXefiov 
 dp-)(as dwacras, (TTpaTrjyovs 8e koL TrpoTepov /xev 
 d<p' (e/cao-rT^y) (pvXrjs eva, vvv 8' i^ diravTcov Koi 
 
 irplv hv arrav irapaSm rols rafiiais : 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 ra/ji'ai all the oil due for the year. 
 
 61. o-Tparrjyois : Harpocration (s.v.) mentions Aristotle's 'ti.6r]vamv 
 TTokiTeta as his authority for the fact that ol icad' e<aaTov iviavrbv 
 XeipoTovovfifvoi aTparqyoi dcKa riaav (Rose, Frag. 390) ; and it is possible 
 that the words 8e koi, which are undoubtedly awkward as they stand, 
 are a corruption of Sexa. Unless this is the case, Aristotle does not 
 mention the total number of the strategi (except where he records the 
 institution of the board in ch. 22) ; and this would be contrary to his 
 invariable practice. 
 
 d(^' iKda-Tr/s (jiv^rjs : MS. a(j)(f)vKrjs, which is simply explained by 
 supposing iKaa-Tt]s to have been omitted accidentally. 
 
 vvv 8' i^ inavTav : 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 
 
I50 APIST0TEA0T2 
 
 TOVTOvs dLaraTTOVcri rrj ')(€ipoTovia, eva fieu ctti 
 T0V9 OTrXiras, oy r^yeiraL twv B^fio^rcov av i^icoai, 
 eva 8' eVi ttjv ^(copav os (jyvXarrei, Kav iroXepLOS tv 
 rfj X'^PI '/'■vrjraL iroXefiel ovtos' Svo 8' eVt tou 
 Yleipaiea, tov fieu els ttjv M.ovvv)(Lav, tov 8' els rrjv 
 aKTTjv, o\ Trjs $[u]A^y eTrifieXovurai kcu tcov ev Ilet- 
 
 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^ fmavTav. Both statements are 
 true, but of different periods, and Aristotle does not tell us when the 
 change was made. 
 
 biaTCLTTovin: 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. 
 
 evil fj.ev eVl tovs oirXtTas : MS. OTrXetraff, The aTpaTqyhs iiii twu 07r\o}V 
 is mentioned in the decree in Demosthenes £>e Cor. p. 238, and again 
 p. 265, where he is coupled with 6 eVI raw iirireav. The latter, however, 
 is not called a-rpaTTjyos, and from the present passage it appears that 
 he must have been one of the hipparchi. In Philipp. I. p. 47, Demos- 
 thenes complains of the inaction of the strategi, saying that except 
 one, ov &v fXTrc'^i/")" fVi row nokeixov {i.e. the arpaTrjyos eVi roiis dn-XiVas), 
 they all stay at home and do nothing but attend to sacrificial cere- 
 monies. Schomann (Anf. Jur. Publ. p. 252) unnecessarily mis- 
 represents this passage, as though Demosthenes had there mentioned 
 a a-Tparrjyos eVi rai/ 'nrnewv and had coupled him with the oTparijyos eVl 
 tS)v ottKoiv as going to war while the rest stayed at home. From 
 several inscriptions (C /. G. 186, 189, 191, 192) it appears that the 
 (TTparriyos eVl tSiv SnXiov was the most important of the board of 
 strategi, as his name is given with that of the archon eponymus to 
 indicate the year. 
 
 eva 8' eVi Tiji/ x^pi^" '■ this officer is mentioned by Plutarch {Phoc. 32) 
 as arpa.Tr\yos lin t^s x^P'^'- 
 
 els Tfjv Movwxiav : cf. Deinarchus in Philocl. p. 108, a-Tparriyos i<^' 
 ifiav eirl Trjv Movvvxiav Kal to veitpia Kexetporovrifievos. 
 
 els rfiv ciKTiji/: in the Corpus Inscr. Graec. Nos. 178, 179 there is 
 mention of a aTpaTrjybs eVi Trjv x<»p<"' rijw napaXiav, who is probably 
 the officer here described as 6 els ttjv oKTrjv rather than 6 eirl t^v x^pav. 
 
 ivX^s : it is very strange that Phyle should be placed under the 
 
A0HNAII2N nOAlTEIA. 151 
 
 pauet' eva 5' eVt ras <ri'/>i[/u,o]/)iay os tovs re 
 TpLT)pap\ovs KaraXeyei kcu ray avTiSoaeis avrols 
 TTOLet /cat ray ^laBiKacrias afurloty elcrdyw tovs 8' 
 aXXovs irpos ra irapovra irpdyp^aTa eKiripjirovaLV. 
 iirL\€LpoTOvia 8' a^vJTCov icrrl kotcl Tr\v irpVTaveiav 
 eKaa-TTju, et 8okov(tlv KaXcos ap^eiv kocu riva drro- 
 Xetporoj'[^Jo"Ci)(rti', KpivovaLV iv rro 8LKacrTr}pi(p, kolv 
 p-eu dX(S, Tipwcriv 6 tl )(py iraOeiv rj aTTOT^a-jai, av 
 8' diro(f)vyri rd [AotTra] ap^u. Kvpioi 84 elcnv orav 
 rjymvTai Kal 8rj(raL riv ouraKTOvvTa kclI [/CT/J/jO^at 
 KoX eTTifioXiqv iirifiaXXeLV ovk elcodacn 8e eVtjSaAXetj/. 
 XetpoTovovai Se /cat Ta^[ia]pxovs 8eKa, eva rrjs 
 
 strategi of Piraeus ; but it does not seem possible to make anything 
 else of the MS. It may, however, be suggested that the word is a 
 corruption of (juAaKfjs. 
 
 enl Tas crvufioplas : this officer is mentioned in one of the documents 
 collected by Boeckh in his Urkunden iiber das Seewesen des Attis- 
 chen Staates, xiv a. 215, p. 465, ra a-Tparrj-ym TM eVl Tas (rvfifiopias 
 ^prj/iipa. 
 
 Toiis S' aWovs : from the decrees in Demosthenes already quoted 
 (De Cor. pp. 238, 265) Boeckh and Schomann gather that one of 
 the strategi was known as 6 tVi t^s SioiKijo-eas. The officer there 
 spoken of is not, however, actually called oTpari/yor, and as Aristotle 
 does not mention him here it may be concluded that, if the decrees 
 are genuine, the Ta/iias rrjs SioiKrja-eas is spoken of, and not one of the 
 strategi. 
 
 ernxftpoTovia b'airav io-ri k.tX. : cf. Pollux, VIII. 87, where he includes 
 among the duties of the archons a-Tparrj-yovs p^eipoToveij' e'^ iiravTcov Kal 
 Kaff CKaaTTjv irpvTaveiav ewepmTav el SoKi'i. xaXZs apx^i-v eKaa-ros' to!/ &' 
 anoxeipoTovrjBevTa Kpivovtri. 
 
 oKa : MS. aXXtot, corrected apparently from aXXot. 
 
 icqpv^ai : 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 service. We can hardly suppose that he had an autocratic 
 power of selling into slavery, which is another possible meaning of the 
 word ; moreover the position in which it stands suggests that it was 
 an intermediate penalty between placing under arrest and the rarely 
 used infliction of a fine. 
 
152 APISTOTEAOTS 
 
 ^vXrjs eKaa-TTjs' ovtos S" TjyeiTai twv (f)vXeTav Kai 
 Xo)(ayov9 KadiaW^'qcrLV. ^(eipoTovova-L 8e Kat iinrap- 
 \ovs Bvo ef arravTcov ovtol 5' 'Qyovurai rcav vmreaiv, 
 5ieAo/A[et'ot] ras (f)vXas e eKorepos' Kvpioi 8e tcov 
 avT&u oavirep elcTLv ot (TTpaTrjyoi Kara twu ottXl^twv. 
 iin.\€ipo\Tovia 8e yiverai tovtcov. •)(eLpoTovovaL 8e 
 Kol (j>vXdpxov9, eva ttjs ^vXrjs, top -qy^rjaojiJievo^yj 
 {rav LTTTrecovy axnrep ol Ta^iap-)(OL t&v ottXlt&v. 
 ■)(€ipoTovov(ri 8e kol ety Arjp.vou hnrap-^ov, os em- 
 //.[eXjetrai tSuv hnrecov rSsv iv h.r)p,vw. ^eipoTOvovai 
 Se Kou rafiiav ttjs TlapaXov kcu aXXov r^y \tov 
 "A^fxpxovos. 
 
 Inirdpxovs : Harpocration quotes the 'Kdtjvalav TroKirela for the number 
 of these officers, and Photius says dvo rjaav oJ t&v IniTiaiv fjyovvTO 
 dieXofievot ras (j)v\as eKarepos ava . Trevre. f 7rifieXi;ral fie eicri tSiv iTTiriav, 
 Kaddirep oi ra^lapxoi Sexa o'lrts, €1? d(^' cfcatrTijs <j)v\rjs, rav oirKirav. 
 (Rose, Frag. 391). Rose inserts 01 (^vkapxoi, after hrneav 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 lirwapxoi 
 a phrase which Aristotle attached to the (fyiXapxot. 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. 
 
 ottXitSv : MS. oirXeiTav, and so again below. 
 
 ^vXdpxovs : Harpocration (j. v.), (fivKapxos icmv 6 Kara ^vKfjv iKaarriv 
 Tov lirTTLKOv apxt^Vj vTroTSTayfievos 8e tw linrdpx^, o>s ApiaToreXTjs ev Tjj 
 'Adrivattou irokiTiia t^rjcrl (Rose, Frag. 392). 
 
 tSv Imreav : it seems necessary to insert these words to complete the 
 sense of the passage ; and the insertion is confirmed by Pollux (VIII. 
 94), ol Be (fivKapxoi SeKa, els Atto t^s ^vXrjs e/cdoTi)r, rSav Imtetav Trpoiorairat, 
 KaBdnep ol ra^iapxot ray OTrXtTwv. 
 
 els Afjfivov liTirapxov : cf. Hyperides {pro Lye. pp. 4, 5, ed. Babington), 
 vp,e'is yap ep,e . . irparov fiev cjivXapxov exeiporovrjcraTe, eveiTa els Arjiivov 
 iimapxov, Kai rjp^a pev avToBi Sv eTt] rav irimod' iimapx^Kdrav povos. 
 Cf. also Demosthenes {Phil. I. p. 47)) °^ ^'^ Z*^" Aj\pvov tov wap' vpS>u 
 'vnirapxov belv TrKelv. Mr. Babington misunderstood the passage in 
 Hyperides as meaning that one of the two hipparchs mentioned above 
 was sent to Lemnos. 
 
 rapiav rrjs UapaKov k.t.\. : Harpocration {s.v. rapias), after mention- 
 
A©HNAIi2N nOAITEIA. 153 
 
 62. Ai 8e KXrjpcoTai a[/)^]ai vporepov {xev rjaav 
 ai jxfu ixeT iuvea ap^ovrmv eT/cl Trjs (l>vXrJ9 oXr]s 
 KXr/pov/xevai, ai 8' iv Qrjcreia) KXr/povfievai SirjpovvTO 
 
 ing the rafiiai Trjs 6eov and quoting Aristotle's 'ABrjvaiiov TroXirela as his 
 authority, adds eiVl 8e rives koI t5>v UpS>v Tpirjpmv Tafilai, i>s 6 airos 
 (/xXoo-o^ds (j>r](nv. The Lex. rhet. Cantabrig. (p. 675, 28) s. v. ndpaXos 
 KOi SaKafuvia says ravras ras Tpir]peis eixov dia iravTos npos ras ineiyovcras 
 
 vnrjpea-ias, i<f) ais Kal Tap,lai nvis ixeipoTovovvro Trjs fikv Hapakov Kai 
 
 "SidKajiivlas iv rpirri fivrj/ioveiei GoukuSiSijs koI ' ApKTTOCJidvris iv "Opviiriv, 
 'ApitrroTeXris 8e 'Apiiavidda Kal IldpaKov oiSe koI Aeivap)(os iv tw Kara 
 TifioKpdrovs. ^iKoxopos 8e cv tjI r TCTrapas airds otSe, irparas /iev hvo 
 A/ifiavidSa Kal ndpaXov, 7rpo(Tyevop,evas 8e Aij/ii/rptaSa Kal 'AvTiyovida. 
 Photius (s. V. UdpaXoL) mentioning the ^aXa/uvia says (according to the 
 probable correction of the passage by Rose, ed. 1886) Xeyerai 8e fj airfi 
 «cai ' Aiifiavids, while s. V, rapiai, after mentioning the raplai Tfjs 'AOrjvas, 
 he proceeds ela\ Si koL oXXol rafiim, apxovres p^eipoT-ovi/Tol «ri raj Upas 
 Koi Sijiioalas Tpirjpeis, fiiv eVi rffv TidpaXov, 6 8e eVi T17V tov "Apfiavos. 
 Harpocration (s.v. 'Afifunvls) says 17 tov" Ajiiiavos lepd rpiriprjs, and does 
 not mention the Paralus or Salaminia. Finally the Lex. Demosth. 
 Patm. (p. 150) and the scholiast on Demosth. p. 636 explain the name 
 'Aixjuovids 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 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. 
 
 62. ai phi pep ivvea apxovrav : there does not appear to be anything 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. 
 
 ai 8' iv erja-eia KXrjpovpevai : 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. 
 ch. 13, p. SS), in which all magistracies {dpxal) are divided into those 
 as oi dea-poderai cmoKXrjpovcnv iv ra eijo-fio), and those as 6 brjpos el'oofle 
 XeipoTovelv iv dpxaipeirlais. 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. 
 , dijjpovvTo els Tovs Srjfiovs: i.e. the election was committed to the 
 
154 API2T0TEA0TS 
 
 ety Tovs 8rifjL[ojvs' iireidrj 8' iircoXovv oi drjfioc, /cat 
 Tavras Ik ttjs (J)vXtJs oXrjs KXrjpovcrL ttXtju fiovXevrmv 
 Koi (f)povpcc>v TOVTOVS 8' els Tovs 8r]fi6Tas a7ro8i86a<Ti,. 
 ficcrOocpopovcn 8e irparov \jJilv 6 5^)u.of] raty fieu 
 
 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 ; c/. ch. & and 22, and note on latter place. 
 
 TrXljv fiovKevTav: 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 fifteen in each tribe, supposing them 
 to have been distributed equally among the tribes, which may or 
 may not have been the case then, but cannot always have been so ; 
 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. 
 
 0poup£c : presumably the 500 (f)povpoi vtaplav mentioned in con- 
 junction with the ^ovXevrac in ch. 24. 
 
 lj.i(rdo<f>opov(n 8e k.t.\. : 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 
 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 Ecdesiazusae 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 ecdesia was that of the <ruvr\yopai 
 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 8^/ior. 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 
 
A0HNAmN nOAITEIA. 155 
 
 aXXais iKKXrjacais Bpayjirjv, rfj fie Kvpia Ivvia' 
 CTretra to. 5tK[acrr^/)£a] rpeis o^oXovs' elO' tj fiovXr) 
 TTfvre ojSoXovs. toIs Se irpvTavevovaiv els (rLTr](nv * 
 • • ' ' [7r]/)oo-rt^erat Se'xa 7rpo(rTi0€VTai *, erreiT els 
 (riTT](TLv Xajx^avova-LV evv^a ap^ov\Tes TeTTa^pas\ 
 
 service in the ecclesia should be doubled, and it is highly probable 
 that such a proposal would have been accepted by that body. 
 
 ivvea : sc. o^oKois, i. e. a drachma and a half. 
 
 TO. &iKa>TTrjpta rpeis o^oXois : the institution by Pericles of pay for 
 services in the law-courts is mentioned in ch. 27, 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 : rovs rpels ojSoXous" toi* <p6pov Xe'yei, d<^' S)v eSiSoro to Tpim^oKov. 
 TOVTO de aXXore aXXa)ff efitSoTo, ratv drjfjLayatyav Ta 7r\r}&r] KoKaKevovTCOU, &9 
 (prjiTiv 'ApurToreXtjs iv woXirelms (Rose, Fra^. 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. 
 SiKaa-TTjpiov) uses the same phrase about the variation of the rate 
 of pay, aWoTs aWas eSiSoTo. In the passage of Pollux (VIII. 113) 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 SiKatrTiKov alone, or to to BecupiKov and to eKKXtjcriaaTiKov as 
 well. 
 
 TTEKTe o(3oXoiJs : Hcsychlus (j.^/. ;8ovX^s Xa;feiv) states that the members 
 of the Council received a drachma a day, but there is not much dif- 
 ference between that sum and the five obols mentioned by Aristotle, 
 and the latter is most likely to be correct. 
 
 Toiy 8e npvTavfvovaiv k.t.X. : this passage is certainly corrupt, and 
 probably some words have fallen out, but in the uncertain state of 
 our knowledge of the subject it would not be safe to attempt to 
 restore it. 
 
 apxopTes : that this is the proper word to fill the lacuna in the MS., in 
 spite of the omission of the article before ewEo (which occurs again at the 
 beginning of this chapter), is indicated by the mention of the Kijpv^ and 
 av\.j]Tj]s (see following note). It is very unfortunate that this chapter is 
 so mutilated, as it would have done much to clear up the question of the 
 payment of the Athenian ofiScials. It does, however, make it clear that 
 several of the magistrates received payment, which is contrary to the 
 view that has been generally held. It is, for instance, directly stated 
 by Schomann that the magistrates {ap^ovm, or holders of apxai), as 
 
156 AP1ST0TEA0T2 
 
 ojSoAoiiy cKacTTOs koI irapaTpe^ovat KrjpvKa Kai 
 avXrjTTjv, eTTeLT ap^mv [ety ^aXa]^plva Bpa-^^fnqv^ rrjs 
 rjfiipas. aOXoOerai 8' iv irpvTaveico SeLTrvovai rou 
 eK\aTOfJL0jaLaua firjua ^ av y ra TIavadyvaia, dp^a- 
 pevoL dwo rrjs TerpaBos larapivov. ' Kp^ipt^nTvoves 
 els ArjXov Bpa-^QiTjv rrjs rjpepas eKcurTrjs e/c ArjXov 
 (^Xap^dvovai} . Xapfiavovai 8e koL otrai diro- 
 (TTeXXovTai dp^al ely ^apou rj ^Kvpou r] Arjpvov rj 
 "Ipfipov ely CTLTrja-iv dpyvpiou. dpy(eiv de ray peu 
 Kara iroXepov dpyas e[^ea"]ri irXeovaKiS, rwv 8' 
 dXXcov ov8€piav, irXrjv ^ovXevcrai, 8[f. 
 
 well as most of the em/ifXi/Tat, served without pay (Ant. of Greece, 
 Eng. Tr. pp. 401, 402; Ant. Jur. Publ., p. 237); but he gives no 
 authorities for his statement. On the other side we have more than 
 one passage of the present treatise. In ch. 24, among the various 
 services for which the populace of Athens received pay, and thereby 
 supported itself in the city, are the apx""' ei'Sijfiot to the number of seven 
 hundred, which must apparently include all magistracieSv great and 
 small. In ch. 29 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 ap^as ajiltrBovs ap)(eiv mratras ccos 6 noXf/ios fi, TrXiyv tS>v ivvia 
 dpxovrav Kal tS>v TrpvTaveav oi &v &(tiv, tovtovs Se (pepfiv rpels d/3oXour 
 eKauTov T^s r)p,epas. 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 more than probable, however, 
 that it applied to the archons. 
 
 KTjpvKa Koi avKrjTrjv : a KTjpv^ ra ap\ovTi and an av\r)Tfis are mentioned 
 side by side in two inscriptions (C /. G. 181, 182), and it is probable 
 that these are the officials here referred to. 
 
 apxav els 2a\apii>a : this is the officer mentioned in ch. 54. 
 
 SemvoviTi : MS. Smpovan. 
 
A0HNAII2N nOAITEIA. 157 
 
 63. Ta fie biKaarripia ^jc^rj^pova-Lv^ ol d ap- 
 [xo]z/rey Kara 0i;Aay, 6 fie ypafXfxaTevs tS>v Q^crp-o- 
 \6eTa)v r^y] BeKaTrjs (jivXrjs. elaoSoi fie' elaiv eiy to. 
 diKa(r[TTQJpia 8eKa, p.ia rfj (pvXfj eKoicrTrj, /cat KXrj^pco- 
 Trjpia\ €LKO(ri, fi[uo v^yj 0j;A^y eKaaTr^s, /cat Ki^coria 
 iKarov, 8eKa ry ^vXfj iKaarr}, /cat erepa KL^cori^a 
 fie/ca, oiy eJjti^aAAerat tcop Xa^ovrcov fit/cafcrlroji' ra 
 TT^ivaJKLa' /cat vSplai 8vo /cat ^aKTijplai TrapaTiOevTai 
 Kara ttjv e^laoSovj eKaanqv oaonrep ol fit/cafcrlrat, 
 /cat j3aXavot els ttju vSpiav ipL^aXXovTai 'la-ai rals 
 ^aKTTjplais, \y\iypaTrTaL fie ev raiy ^aXdvois [ra] 
 aTOi.-)(eta otto tov ivSeKUTOV, rov A, oaairep iav 
 
 63. To 8e : MS. TO 8e TO. 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 not quite clear, but the 
 general outline is already known from the scattered statements of 
 orators and grammarians. The subject is fully treated of by Meier 
 {Atiische Process, II. l), and from him in the various dictionaries of 
 antiquities, so that it is not necessary to describe it at length here. 
 
 jSafCTijpiai : MS. ^aKnjpta. 
 
 StTOtirep : MS. ovs oavep. 
 
 iCT-ai : in the MS. a <r has been written before this word, but has 
 been struck out. 
 
 TO (TToixila diro tov cvdeKarov : the text has been confused in the MS., 
 but the tneaning is clear. In the MS. the words at first written appear 
 to have been arro rov evSeKarov tov rpiaKoixTov. Then tov Tpianoarov is 
 cancelled, and above the last syllable of ev&cKarov and the cancelled 
 words is written tov X" TpiaKoa-rov: It is clear that the insertion of 
 TputKo<TTJOv is a mistake, though apparently it must have occurred in the 
 text from which this was copied. 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 courts required on the day in question, and lettered 
 from X (the eleventh letter in the alphabet) upwards. The reason 
 
158 APISTOTEAOTS 
 
 fji€\Xrf [rja SiKacrT-^pi-a irXrjpoodrjcreaOai. SiKa^eiv 8' 
 e^ecTTtv Tols inrep X err] yeyovocnv, oaoi avT&v [/ij'7 
 6(j>€LXovcnv Tw 8r)fio(ria> ^ aTifioi eXcrtV eau 8e tls 
 8i.Kd^r) ols firj e^ecTTLV, evSeiKwrat Kara to 8iKa(r- 
 TrjpLov elirayyeXi^a^, iav 5' aXm Trpoa-Tip^axTLv avry^ 
 ol 8LKaaTCU o tl av 8oKy a^ios eivai Trade^uj rj 
 oLTTorlcraL. iau 8e apyvpiov Ti/JLrjB^ 5et avrov 8e- 
 Se^adaij ecos av eKTiarj to re irpoTepov o^X'qf^a e]^' 
 ca iv€8ei)(d7] k<u o tl av avTm Trpoa-TL/xyari t^o 
 
 for beginning with \ is that the first ten letters, from a to k, were 
 already used to distinguish 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 n (or less, if not all the ten courts were required) 
 the courts in which they were to sit. Thus if y was drawn from the one 
 urn simultaneously with r from the other, it showed that group y was 
 to sit in court t. Then, as the last words of this part of the MS. tell 
 us, one of the officials hung up the letter y on the court t, to show 
 which group was sitting there. But a further security against un- 
 authorised persons intruding was required. The group y might 
 possibly not have its full complement of members, in which case it 
 would have to be filled up from the 1000 reserve dicasts who were 
 not assigned to any of the ten groups ; and as these reserve members 
 would not have the same ticket as the members of group y it was 
 not sufficient to direct the attendants to admit to court t only the 
 persons who produced a dicast's ticket lettered y. The device adopted 
 is described in col. 32 (=Frag. 420). Each court had a certain colour 
 painted on a projecting stone or stake (o-^j/kiVkos) at its entrance. 
 Supposing that colour to be dark blue in the case of court t, 
 as soon as the group y had been made up to its full strength by 
 drawing members from the reserve, each person received a stafif also 
 coloured dark blue, and the attendants would admit to the court only 
 those who could produce this staff. Each person thus qualified, as he 
 entered the court, received a voucher (frvn^oKov), and on presenting 
 this at the end of the day he drew the pay to which he was entitled 
 for his services. 
 
 The reason for the corrupt insertion of TpiaKoaroS in the text is simply 
 that A 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 incorporated in the text. 
 
AQHNAmN nOAITEIA. 159 
 
 hiKyuTT-qpLOv. e)(€L S" cKacTTOf SiKaa-Trjf ttlvolklov 
 TTV^LVOV, iiriyeypafifjLevov to ouo/xa to iavTov ira- 
 TpoOev Koi Tov 8rjixov koX ypdfi\jJL(ij eu twv a-Toi^eicav 
 p-eXP'- ''"O'^ ''' vevep.r)VTaL yap KaTa (f)vXa9 SeKa fieprj 
 ol SLKaaTai, TrapaTrX^rjcrLJcos 'icroi ev €Ka.o-Ta> tco 
 ypap^pLoi^TL. eTreiSav Be 6 deap-odeTr]? iTriKX-qpaxry 
 TO. yjo[a/Aj/iara a bet irpoa-irapayiveadaL toIs SiKacr- 
 
 mvaKiov : 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. 
 
 vevcfirjin-ai yap Kara (fivXas SeKa /leprj k.t.\. : this does not mean that 
 each group consisted of members of a single tribe, which is inconsistent 
 with all the evidence we have on the subject and is disproved by the 
 existing irivaKia 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 the 
 contrary, that each group contained, roughly speaking, an equal 
 number of representatives from each of the ten tribes. 
 
 TO "kaxov. 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 lipe, 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 Sixao-Tijpia. 
 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 
 
i6o APISTOTEAOTS 
 
 TrjpioLS, iTTedfjKe (j)€pa)j/ 6 vTrrjperrjs e(j) eKaarT[ov 
 diKJaaTrjpLOv to ypdppM to Xa^ov. 
 
 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 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. 
 
A©HNAIi2N nOAITEIA. i6i 
 
 FRAGMENTS. 
 
 •^^f [Col. 31.] 
 
 ypov[vTo] .... [KJaff eKaaTTjv Tri\y 0u] 
 
 Xrfv iTnye^ypafifjLevas] eV avTwv to. (ttol 
 
 Xeia fiexpt .... [eVjeiSai/ 8' i/jL^dXa)(rLi> tS> 
 
 V hiKa(TT\5iv TO. TTivaKJia els to Ki^coTifov] 
 
 €0' ov . . 7) ^yeypajixfj.euov to ypap\ji(x\ 
 
 TO avTo b eVp tS TrjivaKLcp eaTlv a . . 
 
 Tav crTOi)([^^(ovj . . aeicravTos tov yfTr?;] 
 
 peTov eA[/cet 6 decrpo^OeT-qs i^ eKacTTOv 
 
 TOV KL^coyrLov TnvaJKiop eu. ovtos 8e 
 
 KuXei ..€,... vs KOLL ipiryyvva-t 
 
 TO, TTlVaKia . . . ^Tojv KlficOTlOV els TTjV 
 
 KavoviBa . . . [ro ajvTO ypdppa eirecrTiu 
 
 31. ^ Se : this is the first word visible on the fragments which now 
 represent what was originally the last roll of the MS. A few letters 
 remaining to the left of this column show that at least one column 
 has been lost from its beginning. Then follow two columns 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 fragmentary text into 
 chapters, especially as it is all concerned with one subject, and the 
 numbers of the columns afford sufficient means of reference. 
 
 ifi^oKaxTiv : so, apparently, as a correction of ^Xafima-iv. 
 
 Kavoviha : corrected from Kavaviha, and so again below, Kavovides, 
 
 M 
 
i6a APISTOTEAOTS 
 
 owep eVi Tov .... ovtos tva firj del 
 
 6 avTOS iijL7r[r)yvvTrjs cbuj KaKOvpyy. elal Se 
 
 KavoulSes [ejv eKacTTCo rmv kXt] 
 
 pcoTTjpmv .... [ejp^dXr) tovs kv^ovs 6 apycov rrjv 
 
 ^vXtju ^KJXrjpcoTT^piov. elal 
 
 Se Kv^oi . . . [/xeJAaj'ey Kal XevKol, 
 
 ocrovs 8' av 5e[ij eKaaTOTe^ ^iKaards, Toaov 
 
 TOVS e^aXXov .... /cat Kara irevre 
 
 TTivaKia els . . . [/ieAJaz/cy tov avTou Tpo 
 
 TTOV. eireiSdv 8e . . . tovs kv^ovs KoXel 
 
 TOVS elXij^oTas 6 ^vTrrjpeTijs^. virdp^ei 8e Kol 6 ifi 
 
 irrjyvvTrjs els ... 6 8e KXrjdels kol 
 
 e/c Trjs v8pLas 
 
 Koi . p . e^as avTri^v] . . . wv to ypdp.pa 5[ei] 
 KvvcTLV 7rpcoT[ov pev\ . . T<^ dpxovTL TCO e\(f\e(T 
 TTjKOTL, 6 8e V 'i8r) epfiaXXei to 
 
 TTtVOLKLOV ^K^L^mTLOV OTTOV 
 
 . ev yfp^e, eireiTa . . . ov to uvtov (TTOi)(ei 
 ov oirep ev Ty ^aX^dvaj . . els olov av Xdxy 
 ela-eir] koX pr/ elcr . . . av ^ovXt/jtul p,i]8els 
 j7 avvayayelv , . . SiKacTTrjpiov ovs av 
 ^ovXrjTai tis . . . rat fie r^ ap^ovTi kl 
 jQwrta oar' av . . ^pjeXXy to. 8LKa(TTrjpLa 
 irX-qpcoOrjaeaOaL . . vtus OTOL')(elov e 
 Kaa-Tov oirep a . . tov 8iKa(rTT]pL0V eKatr 
 
 [Col. 32.] [tov'\ . eix 
 
 ^v^TrrjpeTr] et 
 
 Toiis Kv^ovs : added above the line. 
 
 OTTOV : before this word on has been written, but it is struck out. 
 
 elueiij : qu. for ela^ei ? 
 
AGHNAmN nOAITEIA. 163 
 
 oy 6 8e V7rrjp[€Trii\ . . . [t^v fiaK]TT}pia[u rrjv'j 
 
 [ojfioxptov Tcp e/ca[(rrov] 
 
 . . oirep h Tj) fiaXavm koL avrm . . 
 
 . . eXdeiv els iav to, 
 
 . . erepov ei 
 
 • • iJjVS fiaKTTjpias. [roty yap 8iKaaTT]pjiocs XP^ 
 [/A]a[r]a iTnyeypaTrrlai i(j)' e/cao-rra] eVi tS o-(pr] 
 \_KJL<TKa) TTjs €la]^68ov 6 8e XajBav t^v] fiaKTrjp 
 \iavj fiaSi^et els [roj BiKo^a-TrjpLOV to^ opoxpcov 
 fieu Trj fiaKT^rjpQa e[xov 5e to avTo] ypdppa 
 [oTrepj iv rrj fiaXdvcp. e7r[eifiav 5e elaeXOrj^, TrapaXapj3 
 avei avpjSoXov drj^p-oa-iaj irapa tov elXi] 
 [xojToy ravTTjv ttjv 6^pxT]v\- . . ra . rjv ra . . 
 
 . . TTjv fiaKTrjpcau rr] . . 
 
 . . . Tpoirov res toIs ■ . 
 
 . . . ouy 8l . . . OL K . Trep . k . . 
 
 . iri . . aKTjX 8r]fio(rLa 
 
 [r^Jy (jivXrjs eKdo-rrjs d.^va8LJ86a(nv rapy] 
 . . . eve . . TO 5iKa[crr^^]£0i' eKaaTOV . . 
 
 . . eCTLV Ta (f)vXT]9 TCOV . . 
 
 eveKa 6 tco . . . Ka . . . 7ra/3a5t5oa[o"iJ 
 
 8e Tols elXr]^6cnv\ . . . 8ovai, tols 8' l8^L(oj 
 
 Tais eKacTTCp W]^ dpiOp^co r . . 
 
 irapa tc^ . . tovtov . . . vv . . s a7ro[5i] 
 
 32. rois yap hKa^rTrjpiois k.t.\. : this passage is quoted verbally by the 
 scholiast on Aristoph. P/ut 278, who introduces it with the words, 
 jrepi TOV wapaSiSonevov tois fl<nov(Tiv els to SiKacrTrjpiov crvp^6\ov 'Apur- 
 TOTeXrjs iv Tjj 'A6r]valav noKiTfia ouro) ypdipei (Rose, Frag. 420). In the 
 scholium XP''>H^ is read instead of p^paifiaTa, and a lacuna is indicated 
 between it and imyeypaiTTai, 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. 
 
 M a 
 
1 64 APIST0TEA0T2 
 
 Bcoai T . . . 00V 5e iravra . . . 
 
 Kara SiKacrTrjpia rp . . ev tco v 
 
 5tKa(rr^/)[t]o[v] . . . . la koL x 
 
 eiu €iT €7n ra 
 
 /cat erepoi Kv^fioji iu oI[y] . . . av dp . . v t . 
 Tw e . . . ^ . . era . . . to . . tS>v [^etr/ioj 
 
 Oerav tovs /ci;[/3ouy] 
 
 ISaXXovcriv 6 irevr [Si/cacr] 
 
 T-qpiov 6 Be rmv dp^xouTcovj 
 
 . . 8av . . . TT) a . . . dp-)(a>v 
 
 . . . Krjpv 
 
 [Col. 33.] ["aj/a^wj/ T 
 . evrep . , 
 
 e/xia . . at 
 au Xa . . . 
 
 H 
 
 . cos K 
 
 . rat ^ a/OX'7 [5tKa] 
 
 ^<rJTr]p[<p eKOLCTTCp 
 
 TlOV TTLVaKLOV 
 
 KaaTTjs Trjs 
 
 erepov Kevov 
 
 TOVS irpcoTOvs 
 
 Se . p . Tes Tvapa 
 
 firjSels irapa 
 
 . . 5a)/)[a] fxrjTe 
 
 . . T}Ta . . apea 
 
 33. Of this column only a strip remains, containing the beginnings 
 of the lines ; and even this is considerably rubbed, so that it is not 
 possible to obtain any connected sense out of it. The last five lines 
 of the column are completely illegible. 
 
AQHNAmN nOAITEIA. 165 
 
 . . Aa^oj/ 
 
 aTToXafifidpolya-L] 
 
 Tov ixLcrOov 
 
 rat, at ^vXal [eVetl 
 
 8av diKdo-cocrli] 
 
 Bias a TOV 
 
 TovTO aw 
 
 ravra 
 
 orav fiej^ 
 
 Tm dpidfi^mj ....... 
 
 . . TOV vofio^vj 
 
 els avTO TO TT 
 
 [/3a]o-tAeuy 
 
 . . (TL . elcri SFe] 
 
 . . poys 
 
 . . Tas 
 
i66 
 
 [Col. 34.] 
 
 (0 
 
 (3) 
 
 KaCTTOL ... 
 
 . . va . . . 
 
 TrevSoi ... 
 
 . . fxap . . . 
 
 detv TOVS ... 
 
 . . VWK . . . 
 
 Xafifia ... 
 
 . . COS rpr} . . . 
 
 /)0f roty 8 . . 
 cj/ oe roty . . 
 
 . . [eJTTtAajLi/S . . . 
 . . ro) re /c . . . 
 
 . ft)i Siacj) ... 
 
 . . 810. fiev . . . 
 
 e TTi roty ... 
 
 . . Secov OS • • • 
 
 e (rrt 5e . . . 
 
 . . XP^^ '" • • 
 
 ;x>^Ma'- • • • 
 
 
 ttTTo r^ y ... 
 
 (4) 
 
 
 . . [ro]vy . . 8as 
 
 
 . . . 18lovs 
 
 (2) " ■ ' 
 . . . crTr]p . . 
 
 . . . (OV T CO V 
 
 . . A . . . 
 
 . . . rey . . . 
 
 . . 5e raS . . 
 
 . . . fir)T€ ... 
 
 
 ■ • • fi'OX • • • 
 . . . overt re . . . 
 
 . . xowy • • • 
 
 . . y Set . Tov 
 
 . . . rouy . . . 
 . . . V 81K . . . 
 
 . . . . OV TOLS ep 
 
 
 . . iirraxovs 8e 
 
 
 . . cov Koi 8l-)(0VS 
 
 
 . . 8l)(^ovs i^d^ovs 
 
 
 . . epov . . . (TOV . 
 
 
 . . cos eirikafi^dveL 
 
 34. A few detached fragments are given here which belong 
 either to this column or to those which immediately precede and 
 
AQHNAmN nOAITEIA. 167 
 
 fO""" av [Col. 35.] 
 
 5e5e eij/ 
 
 ^^^ evrjv fxev 
 
 Ta V 
 
 Tpi€ . . . [■\//'^0oi 8e elo-t x^^f"'] auAt'o- 
 Kov [expva-aL iv r^ /J-eaa, at fieu TJ^ixia-eiaL re 
 Tpv^TrrjfievaL at 8e rjixia-eLai irXrjpeis. oi] 5e Aa 
 Xovres [eVt ray ylri^^ovs, iTreidav eiprj/Mejvot 
 maiv [ol Xoyoi, TrapaSiSoacnv ^Kaarm tJcbj/ 
 SiKaa-T^atv 8vo ■^rjcftovs, TeTpvTrr/fievTjji' kou 
 irXrjpr], ^avepas bpav tols olvtiSlkols f\va fi-q 
 T€ TrXrjyjeis fi-Qve TerpvTrijfjLevas dfi^oJTepas 
 
 Xaixfi^dvcoa-Lvj [A]a;(tB . . 
 
 mroXa 
 
 ^#ir 
 
 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 two next contain the middles of lines, 
 and may therefore be placed anywhere in columns 33-35. Then is 
 given the fragment containing the bottom of col. 34, which is on one 
 piece of papyrus with the left-hand bottom comer of col. 35. 
 
 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. TeTpvTrrnjicvr], and it is 
 prefaced by the words, 'ApKTTOTeXrjs iv 'Adr/vmav iroKireia ypd(j}ei ravTi. 
 The only variation in the text is the addition of afii^onpas at the end 
 of the quotation, which is a distinct improvement. 
 
1 68 APISTOTEAOTS 
 
 [Col. 36.] . . Tov y airoSiS . . . [yjap y Xa t/^r^^i 
 
 . . 7rdvT€s ol . , pas tl Xa opov 
 
 . iav fir] \lrr](f)i^'ijTai els . . ap,(f)opels 
 
 [8vo ta-TJavTat. eV t^ SiKaa-TTjpia, 6 fieu ^a'jXKOVs 
 
 [6 8e ^vjXivos, Siaiperoi [oJttw^ [7r]aj'[rey] . . . VTrq 
 
 aXXcou 
 . . ely ovs yl/r](j)i^ovTai [e0'] eKaara, 6 p-ev 
 [xaA/coOJy Kvpios, 6 8e ^vXivos aKvpos, exe[t 5' 6j 
 
 \kovs iyriOripa Siepp^ivrjjpevov oxtt av^TJriv 
 ^povTjjv ■)(<opelv TTji/ yfAjj(j)ou, 7]v [5e] 01 8vo \TOVJ 
 
 avTov 
 
 . . rj. eirtibav 8e 5ia\/rj^^t[^e(r^ai] peXXwaiv 
 . . ra 6 KTjpv^ dyopd^ei, wpS>TOv hy ela-Ka 
 Xavrai ol dvTtStKoi rds paprvpias' [rajy yap 
 . . i'jna'Ki^yjraa'dai ra . . ^TrjdvT d^vayjpa'^ 
 . . dai. ejreLTa irdXiv [6 Krjpv^ /(97/3]i;7-r[et], rj re 
 [rpvTrrjjpevTj tov 7rp[oJT€po^v XeyovTos^ i? [pej irXr] 
 \pr]s. To\v v<TTepov XiyovTOS .... acrr . . ra 
 . . TOV Xv\veiov tols yjnjcjjovs [EJi't efAcao'Jroi' 
 . . TT]s ^ri(j)ov Kal 6 SeLKvvoDU . . era 
 
 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. 
 
 afi<j)opels : this passage is quoted, with slight variation of language, 
 by the scholiast on Aristoph. Knights 1150, . . iltrTepov 8e a/ixftopeis 860 
 "uTTavTO iv ToiE SiKacrTijpioif, 6 fikv )(a\Kovs, 6 8e ^iXivos' xai 6 /lec Kvpiof 
 rjv, 6 6f aKvpos, ?;(ct fie Ka) 6 )(a\Kovs, &s (j)t](n,v 'ApKTTOTeXrp, huppivrijievov 
 inWfffia, eh rh avrijv povrjv Tr)V yjnj(j)ov KaQUirdai. Pollux also (VIII. 123) 
 draws from Aristotle, yjffjtfiovs fi' eix°'' X"'^*"^ ^^°> rerpxmrifjLevrjv Koi 
 aTpinrjTov, Kal KaSov if Kr/pos cVficfiTO 81' oJ KaBUro r/ ^rjtj^os' aSBis 8e 
 bvo dp(j>opeU, 6 ph p^aXxoCr, d he ^iXivos, 6 pev Kvpios, 6 8e aKvpos' ra 8e 
 XoKk^ iirrjv inidrjfia pla ylfrjtfia xo>pav e\ov (Rose, Frag, 426). 
 
AQHNAmN nOAITEIA. 169 
 
 . fxev 01 . TO T€Tpv7rr]iJi,e[y]ov 
 
 . TrX^pes fiaXXet Trjv . . ev . . eiy 
 
 . OVV a fJL . , TT] . . . po . . €IS 
 
 . vov irXa cf 
 
 . fievoL Xa^€Lv ras vTr\r}peT . . 
 
 a])Li0o/)ea tov Kvpiov . . cos . . . ava 
 
 . 7rr)p,aTa . . . ra aiprj 
 
 . avra cua $p.oi 
 
 • e/c VP • V ^V^ 
 
 . TL 8 ovs [et]A.77 
 
 [xoray] 8ia . . ras . . . fov a . . a . is 
 
 fjL€ . . . eis X ^f ravT e 
 
 p.ev . . av . . pe . . K . . tov 
 
 (ov T(ov ^rj(j)eai' tov jxev Sia> 
 [^KOujTos Tas T€Tpv7n]p-evas, tov 8e (jifevyovTOsJ 
 [rajs irXrjpeLS' biroTipa 5' [av TrXelco yjevr] 
 [rat ovJTOs vlko.. av 5e [tVai, a7ro0ei;yei. etVja ttcc 
 Xiv Tip.S)(ri, av 8€ri Tip^rjaai, tov uvtov [Col. 37.] 
 
 TpOTTOV ■^Tjijil^Op.eVOL, TO flCV (TVpL^oXoV 
 
 dTro8t86vTes ^aKTrjplav 8e irdXiv irapaXap, 
 
 Tav yffrjtfxov : this passage is quoted in the Lex. rhet. Cantabrig. 
 p. 670, 30, s. v. i(Tm al ^TJ(j)oi avTav : iyevovro 8c 'laai ^jArj(|}ol, ws ' Api(TTOTe\rjs 
 iv Tj 'Adrjuaiau TroXiTft'a" Kai rjirav tov fiiv BiaKOVTOs ai TiTpynrnievai, tov 
 8e cfyevyovTOS ai jrXfipeis' oiroTepca S' &v ttXcIovs yevcovTai, ovtos ivlna' ore 
 8' urai, 6 (jievyav dnecfivyev, as Koi QeoSeKTiyj iv Trj SaKparovs aTToXoyia 
 (Rose, Frag-. 425). The words 6 cjjcvyav have dropped out of this MS., 
 and, though the sense is clear without them, it would probably be 
 better to restore them. 
 
 VLKO : MS. VeiKO. 
 
 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 flourish is executed, such as we 
 
I70 APISTOTEAOTS AQHNAmN nOAITEIA. 
 
 fiduovTCS. rj 8e TifXTjals icrriv irpos rjfii^ovv 
 S8aT09 eKarepcov. eTreiSav fie avrols j) 8e 
 SiKoa-fieva ra e'/c twv vofjucov, anroXap, 
 ^avovaiv tov /XLcrdov iv t^ fiepei ov 
 eXaxov eKacTTOi.. 
 
 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. 
 TinSxn : MS. Tciiiaxri, and so again below, reiiMriaai, Teiiir]ais. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 Fragments of the 'Mnvamv noXtreta previously 
 
 KNOWN FROM QUOTATIONS IN OTHER AUTHORS ^ 
 
 343- 
 
 Harpocration j.z;. 'Awo'AAcoywarpoior 6ni6ios. irpoa-riyopCa 
 Tis eoTi Tov deov TtoXX&v Kal SWcoz; ow&v. tov 8e 'AwoWcoi-a 
 KOLvSs Trarp&ov tijx&ctiv 'AOrjvaiot airb 'Icovor tovtov yap 
 oUrja-avTos TrfV 'Attlktiv, w? ' Apia-TOTfkrjs ^Tjo-t, rovs 'AdrjvaCovs 
 latvas KkriOrjvat koL AiroWco itarpaov avrois 6voiJ,a(T6rjvai,. 
 
 Exc. Polit. Heradid. § i : 'Aertvaioi rb jxiv e£ apxrjs 
 exp&VTo jSaaLXeCa, avvoiKT^a-avros be "loavos avrois, Tore iTp&TOv 
 'loaves eKkrid-qa-av. YlAvboiv (1. UavUutv) be ^acriXevtras jixera 
 'EpexOea bUveifie Trjv ap^Jiv tois vlois. kol biereXovv ovroi 
 cTTaa-idCovTes. 
 
 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 noAi«rai of Heraclides is given because 
 that work was evidently a compilation from Aristotle (cf. note on ch. 18, 
 mp' ov Kal avve0rj k.t.K.). The first part of it, as far as iK>J]9rjaav, 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, 'leura. 
 
 ^ The quotation is given in ftill 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. The numbers are, as before, those of 
 the 1870 edition of Rose's collection, in the Berlin Academy edition of Aristotle. 
 
173 APPENDIX. 
 
 344- 
 
 PHnius, N. H., VII. 305 : Gyges Lydus picturam Aegypti 
 (condere instituit) et in Graecia Euchir Daedali cognatus, 
 ut Aristoteli placet, ut Theophrasto, Polygnotus Athe- 
 niensis. 
 
 345- 
 
 See ch. 60 and note on to IXaior. 
 
 346. 
 
 Plutarch, Thes. 25: «ti 6e naWov av^rja-ai rrjv irokiv 
 ^ovXojievos fKaXei irdvTas eitl Tois tcroiy, Koi to " bevp' ^re iravTes 
 Xeo)" KTipvyiia &r)(Teu>syevi<rdai (pairi iravbrjixLav Tiva KadiaravTOS. 
 ov ii-qv &TaKTov ovbe fiep.iyfj.iv'qv wepieibfv vTrb it\r]6ovs i7nx»- 
 OevTos cLKpLTov yefOju^i'Tji' ttjv brjuoKpaTiav, aWa TtpStTOS aTioKplvas 
 )(wpls eviraTpCbas koI yea>iJ,6povs nal brjixiovpyovs, fviraTpibais 8e 
 yiv<acrKeiv to, OeZa koX vapeyeiv hpyovTas amobovs Kai v6iJ,(ov 
 Maa-KdXovs etvai, Koi Q<ri(ov koi lep&v e^yrjTtis, tois aXKois 
 TToAirats Sa-irep els tcrov Kareorrjo-e, 8o£j) p.ev evitaTpibStv XP^'? 
 6e yeaifioprnv irXriOei, be brifj,iovpy&v inepe^eiv boKovvraiv. on 
 be TTp&Tos aireKMve Trpbs tov o)(\oy, as 'Apioror^Xr/s ^rjo-i, 
 Koi a(j)r]Ke TO ixovapxelv, eoiKe p.apTvpeiv Kat "OpiJjpos ev ve5>v 
 KaTokoyto fiovovs ' AOrjvaiovs bfjp,ov irpofrayopeva-as. 
 
 Exc. Polit. Heraclid. § i : ©rjo-eiiy be enripv^e km (rvve^L" 
 I3a(re rot/rouj Itt' tcrrj koi 6p,ola jxoipa. oSros eXOuiv eh "SiKvpov 
 eTeXevTr)a-ev axrOeii Kara Trerprnv xrnb AvKop,7\bovs, (po^rjdivTOs 
 IJ,r] (T^eTepio'TiTaL ttjv vrjcrov. 'AOrjvaioi be ijcrTepov Trepi to, 
 MrjbiKCt ixeTSKopticrav ovtov to, oara. airb bi Kobpib&v ovKiTi 
 ^aa-iXeis fjpovvTO bia Tb hoKelv Tpv<pav koL p,aXaKovs yeyovevai. 
 'liTTToiJ.evris be els tcov KobpibSv fiovX6p,evos a/TTcaa-acrOai ttiv 
 hia^oXrjv, Xa^lbv firl Ty OvyaTpX A.ei.p.ivr) p,oi)(6v, eKeivop ixev 
 aveiXev vi:oCev^as /ixeTa ttjs Ovyarpbs t(3 6.pp,aTi, ttjv be foiro) 
 ovveKXeicrev 'ecus diro'XTjrat, 
 
 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 'AStjvaiaiv iroKireia. 
 
 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'? 
 
Appendix. 173 
 
 347- 
 
 Schol. in Plat. Axioch. p. 465 (cf. Moeris att. p. 193, 16) 
 yevvqTy : 'Ajoto-ToreXr/s ^jjcrt tov oKov itXtjSovs birjp-qixivov 'Adri- 
 vq<nv els re tovs yecopyovs Koi roiis ^Tj/^ioupyois (f)vX.as avrSiv 
 etvai Tea-aapas, t&v S^ ^vX&v eKaorjjs juotpas elvai rpeis, hs 
 rpiTTuas re KoKovcn koI <j)parpias, eKda-rrjs be tovtmv rpi&KOVTa 
 eXvai yem\, to he yivos €k TpL&KovTa tKOcrrov avbp&v crvveardvai. 
 to'6tovs brj TOVS els tcl yivq TeTayp,evovs yevvqTas koKovci. 
 
 Lex. Demosth. Patm. p. 153, ed. Sakkelion, yewrJTat, : irdkai 
 to t&v 'A6r)vaici)V irX^flos, "nplv rj KXeia-devr] Stot/cijo-acr^ot to, 
 irepl Ths 4>vXds, 6ir/petro eis yewpyovs Koi btjiJLLOvpyovs. kol (j)vka\ 
 tovtcov rjcrav 8', t&v be (j)vX&v eKaarri fj-oCpas el^e y , hs (jiparpCas 
 KOL TpiTTvas enaXow. tovtmv b' eKaiTTri orvveia-TriKeL eK TpiuKovra 
 yev&v /cat yevos enacrTov avbpas ei^e TpiaKOVTa tovi els to, yivq 
 TeTaypLevovs, oiTives yevvrJTM knaXovvTo, S>v al leponruvai e/cdo-rots 
 
 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 
 722 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 Plato, Moeris, and the Lexicon 
 Demosthenicum 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 himi. 
 
 The Lexicon Demosthenicum appears to contain the fullest citation from 
 Aristotle. The comparison of the numbers of the <pv\ai, (pparp'uu and yivr] 
 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 yevv^rat, but he adds nothing to the quotations already given. 
 The same is the case with Pollux (VIII. 11 1), but he does not follow Aristotle 
 verbally. 
 
r74 APPENDIX. 
 
 Trpoa-T^KOva-at, eKXrjpovvro, olov Ev/*oA.Tri8at koX Ki^pvKes koX 'Ereo- 
 ^ovrdbai, &s JoTopei Iv rrj 'AOrjvaCoiv iroXiTeCa 'AptoToreAjjs 
 Aeycor oi!ra)s. <l)v\as be avrmv avvvevenrjadai, 8' a/noiunrfvafihiutv 
 ras Iv rots ^z/taurots &pas. kKacTTr\v h\ bijiprja-Oai els rpla p-ipr] 
 t5)v <pv\&v, Sttuis yivrjTai ra irdvTa bdhena fiepr}, KaQi/nep ol 
 IJifjves els rhv eviavTov, KaXeia-dai be avra rpirrvs /cat <i)parplas. 
 els be Trjv (j>paTpiav rpidKOvra yivrj ^MKeKOcrp/qcrQai, Kaddirep at 
 ■qjxepai els top jxrjva, to be yevos eXvai TptaKovra avbp&v. 
 
 Harpocration s. v. Tpvrris : rpurrus kcni ro rpCrov fjJpos 
 rrjs (t)v\rjs' avT-q yap bifjprjrai els rpla pAprf, rpirrvs Koi edvT] 
 KM (^parplas, &s (jjricnv ' ApLtrrorikrjs ev rfj 'Adr]vaLa)V noXurelq. 
 
 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. aai, 8 s.v. BovCvyCa: yivos n ' kOriv7)(Tiv, 
 lep<£icruvr)v rivcL exov 'SovQuyr]s yap ris r&v ■^pcawv irp&TOs 
 l3ovs C^i^as rriv yijv rjpoa-e Kal els yempylav eiriTjjSetoz' e-noCrjcrev, 
 a(ji oS yevos Kakelrai BovCvyCa. 
 
 349- 
 
 See ch. 8 and note on </)ii\al 8' ^aav. 
 
 350. 
 See ch. 7 and note on Tt/x^)nara. 
 
 351- 
 
 See ch. 2 and note on ■ne\drai. 
 
 352. 
 See ch. 7 and note on avaypafavres. 
 
 353- 
 
 See ch. 8 and note on vofxov i6riKe. 
 
 Frag. 348. There appears to be no sufficient reason for assigning this 
 quotation to the 'ABrjvaiaiv iro\tTeitt, unless Aristotle had any occasion to 
 mention the family of Bovivyla, 
 
APPENDIX. 175 
 
 354- 
 Plutarch, Solon 3a : ^8^ 8r) biacnropa KaranavOivTOs avrov 
 (^okcovos) TTJs ricppas wepl T-qv '2a\afuvCMV vfja-ov eari fxev 8ia 
 TTjv axoitiav b/nidavos iravrditaai kol iivdtabrjs, avayeypairrai, 
 8' VTTO re SWmii avbp&v a^ioXoymv koI ' Apia-ToreXovs rod (j)i\o- 
 (r6(j)ov. 
 
 355- 
 
 See ch. 15 and note on ttjv em UaWrivCbi. lidxnv. 
 
 356. 
 See ch. 19 and note on Ai'^bpiov. 
 
 357- 
 
 See ch. 19 and note on Ai^bpiov. 
 
 358. 
 See ch. 19 and note on hbs 8et irevrriKovTa. 
 
 359- 
 
 See ch. ai and note on KoreoTTjo-e. 
 
 360. 
 
 See ch. 23 and note on 8ta to yevia-Oai. 
 
 361. 
 
 See ch. 33 and note on 8ia to. yevia-Oai. 
 
 362. 
 See ch. 30 and note on eXA.?jj;ora/xtas. 
 
 363- 
 
 See ch. a; and note on AaKiab&v. 
 
 Frag. 354. Plutarch does not state that this quotation is from the 'Affrivaiwv 
 noXirda, and it is a story which may have been alluded to in any other work 
 almost as well. 
 
176 Appendix. 
 
 364- 
 
 Plutarch, Pericl. 4 : 'Aptorore'XTjs 6^ irapa UvdoKXeibrj ixova-i- 
 K-qv biaTrovqOrjvai tov avbpa (jyrjirlv (tov TlepiKXia). 
 
 365- 
 
 See ch. 27 and note on a-vix^ovKevovTos. 
 
 366. 
 
 See ch. 25 and note on (rvvaiTiov. 
 
 367- 
 
 See ch. 25 and note on 81' ' Apia-robUov. 
 
 368. 
 
 See ch. 38 and note on ireptfiuo-d/xei/oy. 
 
 369. 
 
 See ch. 28 and note on Nt/cias. 
 
 370- 
 See ch. 34 and note on viro Kkeocfy&vm. 
 
 371- 
 
 See ch. 27 and note on 'Avvtov. 
 
 372. 
 See ch. 33 and note on pLrjvas. 
 
 373- 
 
 See ch. 34 and note on ApaKovTibrjs. 
 
 374- 
 
 See ch. 55 and note on -np&Tov p.iv. 
 
 375- 
 
 See ch. 55 and notes on -npSiTov p^iv and 6pv6ovcnv. 
 
 Frag. 364. It is evident that this quotation is out of keeping with the 
 character of the 'ASrjvaiaiv iroKtreia and may well have been taken from some 
 other vf ork. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 177 
 
 376- 
 Pollux, III. 17 : 6 6e irdir'nov rj 7?j0?js warTJ/) irpo-aainos' raxa 
 8' &v TovTov eiirois rpiTovaTopa, its 'ApL(TTOTe\r]s. 
 
 377- 
 
 See ch. 55 and note on Trpos tov XiOov. 
 
 378. 
 See ch.,59 and note on 01 he 0e(rij,odfTai. 
 
 379- 
 
 See ch. 59 and note on eio-t be km. 
 
 380. 
 
 See ch. 59 and note on ra crv/i^oXa, 
 
 381. 
 
 See ch. 56 and notes on ©apyrikia and ypa<^ai. 
 
 382. 
 See ch. ^6 and note on ypa(\>ai. 
 
 383- 
 
 See ch. ^6 and note on els baTrjT&v atpecriv. 
 
 384- 
 See ch. 56 and note on airov. 
 
 385. 
 See ch. 57 and notes on AiovvcrCoov and ypa<^aL 
 
 386. 
 
 See ch. ^'] and note on 6 8e ^acnkevs. 
 
 387. 
 See ch. 58 and note on 6 8e TroXepLapxos. 
 
 Frag. 376. As the word TpiTowarap does not occnr in the 0eaixo$(Twi> dva/rpia-is, 
 to which Rose no doubt imagined it to belong, there is no reason to suppose that 
 it is taken from the 'AStjvaltmi itoXneia at all. 
 
 N 
 
178 APPENDIX. 
 
 388. 
 
 See ch. 58 and note on avros 8' da-dyei. 
 
 389- 
 
 See ch. 56 and note on kafx^avovn. 
 
 390- 
 
 See ch. 61 and note on aTpaTrjyovs. 
 
 391- 
 
 See ch; 6r and note on iTrTrapxovs. 
 
 392- 
 
 See ch. 61 and note on (f)vkAp\ovs. 
 
 393- 
 
 See ch. 43 and note on irpvTavevei. 
 
 394- 
 
 See ch. 43 and note on crwdyova-Lv. 
 
 395- 
 
 See ch. 43 and notes on avvdyovcnv and upoypd^ovcn. 
 
 396- 
 
 See ch. 43 and note on 'i:poypd<f>ov(n. 
 
 397- 
 
 See ch. 44 and note on eTrtardr?]?. 
 
 398. 
 
 See ch. 44 and note on irpoebpovs. 
 
 399- 
 
 See ch. 54 and notes on ypai^ixaria and ewl tovs vojxovs. 
 
 400. 
 
 See ch. 48 and note on irapaXa^ovrfs. 
 
 401. 
 See ch. 47 and note on itwXriTal. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 179 
 
 402. 
 See ch. 47 and note on -napaXaix^dvova-i, and ch. 61 and 
 note on Ta^iiav t?js Ylap&Xov. 
 
 403- 
 
 See ch. 61 and note on rajxiav rrjs UapdKov. 
 
 404. 
 See ch. 54 and note on Uponoiovs. 
 
 405. 
 See ch. 48 and note on evdvvovs. 
 
 406. 
 See ch. 54 and note on Xoyiards: 
 
 407. 
 See ch. 54 and note on koyia-Tas. 
 
 408. 
 See ch. 50 and note on da-rvvoixoi.. 
 
 409. 
 
 See ch. 51 and note on ayopavoixoi. 
 
 410. 
 See ch. 51 and note on l/xwoptov ewtjaeX?jras. 
 
 411. 
 
 See ch. 51 and note on (nTO(f>v\aKes. 
 
 412. 
 See ch. 51 and note on ixerpovoixoi. 
 
 413-^ 
 See ch. 53 and note on rerrapaKovTa. 
 
 414. 
 See ch. ^^ and note on rots Statrijraty. 
 
 N a 
 
i8o APPENDIX. 
 
 415- 
 See ch. 5;^ and note on ex^vovs. 
 
 416. 
 Pollux, VIII. 62 : e^eo-ts 8^ ecrriv orav tis uttc) 8iatTrjr5i' 17 
 apxpvTMV ri br\iioTS)V ewi Sikoot^v e^^, 17 a-no ^ovXfjs fin S^/xor, 
 ^ a-KO briixov em biKacrT-qpiov, ri cltto bLKa<TT&v eirl £eviKov SiKatr- 
 Trtpiov' i(/)e(rtjuios 5' avoixdC^ro fj 8ikjj. aSrat 5e Kai ^KKXf)TOi 
 bUai ^KaXovvTo. to be TrapaKara^aWo^evov lirt t&v ((jyeaeoiv, 
 oirep 01 vvv irapajSokiov xaAoCo-t, -napa^okov 'AptororeATjy Xeyet. 
 
 417. 
 See ch. 57 '^nd note on r<3y S' aKovaioiv. 
 
 418. 
 
 See ch. 57 and note on r&v 8' aKova-icov. 
 
 419. 
 
 See ch. 57 and note on eirl /^ek(f>ivm. 
 
 420. 
 
 See Fragments, col. 33, and note on rois yap biKaa-T-qpCoi-s. 
 
 421. 
 
 See ch. 62 and note on to, biKaa-r-qpia. 
 
 422. 
 
 See note on ch. 38, rrjy biui^okCav, 
 
 423- 
 Harpocration s. v. Sta/nefteTprjjoteVjj fjixepa : ixirpov ti e(7rti> 
 i'Saros Trpos iJ.eiJi,eTprip,ivov fjnepas bidarrnxa piov. kp.eTpv.ro be 
 
 Frag. 416. If this citation is from the 'ABrjvaiwv TroXireia, 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 no doubt belongs to one of the more mutilated 
 columns containing the description of the procedure in the law-courts. 
 
APPENDIX. i8i 
 
 r(5 ITotreiSecSi't /xijiii. irpos Stj toCto jjycovi^ofTo oi ixeyia-roi xal 
 ■77ept Twi) jxeyLo-Taiv &yS>ves. StevejueTO 8e eJs rpta jxepr] to vbuip, 
 rb fjiev T<5 Stu/coi'ri, to 6e tu ^evyovri, to 8e rpirov toIs 6iK(i^o»;o-i. 
 Taiira 8e (Ta(f>4(rTaTa avrol ol p-qropes SeSijAtoKacrti' . . . 'Apioro- 
 TeA.Tjs 8' ev rrj 'A6r]vaCa)V TroAtreta 8i6a(r(cei wept tovtwv. 
 
 424. 
 See Fragments, col. 35, and note. 
 
 425- 
 See Fragments, col. 36, and note on t&v yjrrjcfxav. 
 
 426. 
 See Fragments, col. 36, and note on aiJ.(j)opeis. 
 
 - 427- 
 See ch. 42 and note on bia\}/r)(f>iCovTai.. 
 
 428. 
 See ch. 4a and note on eKxA-Tjo-tay. 
 
 429. 
 
 See ch. 5s ^"^ note on bvo be nal reTTapaKOvra. 
 
 430. 
 
 See ch. 49 and note on tovs abwdrovs. 
 
 431- 
 
 See ch. 56 and note on 8eT yap. 
 
 In the latest edition of Rose (1886) two additional 
 passages are cited, viz. : — 
 
 413 (1886). 
 See ch. 3 and notes on wKijo-az^ and Kvpioi 8' wav. 
 
 429 (1886). 
 See ch. 5 a and note on ojxoXoySxn. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 ACASTUS, kingof Athensjsuccessor 
 of Medon, 6. 
 
 'ASvvciToi, supported by the state, 
 124. 
 
 Aegospotami, battle of, 92. 
 
 Agoranomi, 126. 
 
 "AypniKoi, early division of the 
 Athenian people, 34. 
 
 Agyrrhius, establishes pay for 
 attendance at Ecclesia, 107. 
 Raises it to three obols, ii. 
 
 Alcmaeonidae, expelled from 
 Athens for the Cylonian sacri- 
 lege, I. Leaders of exiles 
 against Pisistratidae, 49 ff. 
 
 Alexias, archon, 405 B. c, 92. 
 
 Ammonias, sacred trireme, rafilas 
 of, 152. 
 
 Amnesty after expulsion of the 
 Thirty and the Ten, loi. En- 
 forced, 103. 
 
 'AficpiKTvoves els A,fj\ov, 1 56. 
 
 Anacreon, invited to Athens by 
 Hipparchus, 46. 
 
 Anchimolus, of Sparta, killed in 
 unsuccessful attempt to expel 
 Pisistratidae, 51. 
 
 'AvTiSoa-is, 141. 
 
 Antidotus, archon, 45 1 B. C, 74. 
 
 'AvTiypa<f>evs, clerk to the Council, 
 135 and note. 
 
 Antiphon, leader of the Four 
 Hundred, 88. 
 
 Anytus, loses Pylus, 76. Bribes 
 the dicasts, id. One of the 
 leaders of the moderate party 
 after the fall of Athens, 93. 
 
 ' AiToSeKTai, 121, 129. 
 
 Archestratus, author of laws re- 
 
 specting the council of Areo- 
 pagus, 94. 
 
 Archinus, of Ambracia, Cypselid, 
 first husband of Pisistratus' 
 second wife, 46. 
 
 Archinus, one of the leaders of 
 the moderate party after the 
 fall of Athens, 93. Prevents 
 large secession on re-establish- 
 ment of the democracy, 102. 
 Opposes extension of citizen- 
 ship to all who assisted in return 
 of the exiles, 103. Enforces 
 amnesty, ti. 
 
 ' ApxiTiKToves, for ship-building, 
 118. 
 
 Archon ^aa-iKeis, see King-archon. 
 
 Archon eponymus, origin of, 6. 
 Residence, 7. Duties, 140 ff. 
 
 Archons, the nine, origin of, 4 ff. 
 Residences, 7. Election under 
 pre-Draconian constitution, 9, 
 22 ; under Draconian constitu- 
 tion, 10 ; under Solonian con- 
 stitution, 21 f. ; under Cleisthe- 
 nean constitution, 59, note. 
 Election by lot finally estab- 
 lished, 59 f. Zeugitae made 
 eligible, 73. Examination and 
 duties, 137 ff. Oath on taking 
 office, 6, 17, 139. Pay, 155. 
 
 , secretary to, 138. 
 
 Areopagus, Council of, under pre- 
 Draconian constitution, 8, «2 ; 
 under Draconian constitution, 
 13 ; under Solonian constitu- 
 tion, 24. Revival of power after 
 Persian wars, 65 ; its supre- 
 macy at this time the sixth 
 
i84 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 change in Athenian consti- 
 tution, 105. Overthrown by 
 Ephialtes, 69 ff. Tries cases of 
 intentional homicide and arson, 
 144. 
 
 Arginusae, battle of, 91. Trial of 
 the generals commanding there, 
 ib. 
 
 Argos, assists Pisistratus to recover 
 tyranny, 46. Its alliance with 
 Athens a cause of jealousy to 
 Sparta, 51. 
 
 Aristaichmes, archon, circ. 621 
 B. c, 9. 
 
 Aristides, ostracised, 64. Recalled, 
 ib, TrpoaTaTrjs rov dq/xoVj 66. 
 Assists in building walls of 
 Athens, ib. Makes confederacy 
 with lonians, ib. Counsels 
 people to congregate in Athens 
 and assume control of politics, 
 67. His reforms the seventh 
 change in Athenian constitu- 
 tion, 105. 
 
 Aristion, proposes bodyguard for 
 Pisistratus, 38. 
 
 Aristocrates, assists to overthrow 
 the Four Hundred, 90. 
 
 Aristodicus, of Tanagra, murderer 
 of Ephialtes, 72. 
 
 Aristogeiton, conspiracy against 
 the Pisistratidae, 47 ff. Executed 
 with torture, 48. 
 
 Aristomachus, presides at Ec- 
 clesia which establishes the 
 Four Hundred, 88. 
 
 Asclepius, festival of, 14 1. 
 
 'AcTTUi'dfioi, 124. 
 
 'AffKoderm, 148. Maintained in 
 Prytaneum during the Pana- 
 thenaea, 156. 
 
 BouXij, see Council. 
 Boufuyia, priestly family in primi- 
 tive Athens, 174. 
 Brauronia, festival of, 137. 
 
 Callias, archon, 412 B.C., 88. 
 Callias, archon, 406 B. c, 91. 
 Callibius, harmost of Spartan 
 
 garrison in Athens, 98. Assists 
 
 the Ten to establish reign of 
 
 terror, 99. 
 Callicrates, increases amount of 
 
 the fitu^oXiu, 78. Executed, 79. 
 
 Cavalry, inspection of, by the 
 Council, 122. 
 
 Cedon, leader of attack on Pisis- 
 tratidae, 53. Scolion on, ib. 
 
 Cephisophon, archon, 329 B.C., 
 
 137- 
 
 XeiporoyjjToi apx^i, date of entry 
 into office, no. 
 
 Choregi, appointed by the archon, 
 140. 
 
 Cimon, son of Miltiades, leader 
 of aristocratical party, 72, 77. 
 Munificence of, 75. 
 
 Cineas, of Thessaly, assists Pisis- 
 tratidae against Spartan inva- 
 sions, 51. 
 
 Citizenship, qualification for, 74, 
 107. Examination of candid- 
 ates, 108. 
 
 Cleisthenes, Alcmaeonid, party 
 leader, 52. Expelled by Spar- 
 tans, ib. Restored, 53. Consti- 
 tution of, 53 ff. His reforms the 
 fifth change in Athenian consti- 
 tution, 105. 
 
 Cleitophon, motion on institution 
 of the Four Hundred, 81. One 
 of the leaders of the moderate 
 party after the fall of Athens, 
 
 93- 
 
 Cleomenes, king of Sparta, expels 
 Pisistratidae, 49, 51. Restores 
 Isagoras, 52. Besieged in acro- 
 polis and capitulates, 53. 
 
 Cleon, irpocrTaTTis rov Stj/iov, yy. 
 
 Cleophon, TvpovTorr^s tov drjfjiov, 
 78. Institutes 8itn|3oXia, ib. 
 Opposes peace with Sparta 
 after Arginusae, 92. Executed, 
 
 79- 
 
 Colacretae, 19. 
 
 Comeas, archon, 560 B.C., 38. 
 
 Comedy, choregi appointed for, 
 140. 
 
 Conon, archon, 462 B.C., 69. 
 
 Corn-laws, 127. 
 
 Council, of Four Hundred, under 
 Draconian constitution, 11 ; 
 under Solonian constitution, 
 24. 
 
 , of Five Hundred, instituted 
 
 by Cleisthenes, 54. Elected 
 by lot, 1 10. Liability to corrup- 
 tion, 106, 123. Summary juris- 
 diction of, 117. Appeals from 
 
INDEX. 
 
 185 
 
 its jurisdiction, 117 f. Reviews 
 business to be submitted to 
 Ecclesia, 118. Superintends 
 ship-building, ib. ; also public 
 buildings, 119. Miscellaneous 
 duties in conjunction with var- 
 ious magistrates, 119-124. Pay 
 for service in, 155. 
 Cylon, conspiracy of, I. 
 
 Damasias, attempts to establish 
 a tyranny, 33 f. 
 
 Damonides, adviser of Pericles, 
 76. Ostracised, ib. 
 
 Delos, festival at, 136, 141. 
 
 Delphinium, court of, tries cases 
 of justifiable homicide, 144. 
 
 Demagogues, character of, 77 ff. 
 Disastrous naval policy, 106. 
 
 Demes, division of, among tribes 
 in Cleisthenean constitution, 55. 
 
 Arj/iiovpyoi, early division of Athe- 
 nian people, 34. 
 
 Democracy, re-establishment of, 
 after the Four Hundred, the 
 ninth change in Athenian con- 
 stitution, 106. Its re-establish- 
 ment after expulsion of the 
 Thirty and the Ten, 100 ff.; the 
 eleventh change in Athenian 
 constitution, 106. Its subse- 
 quent development, ib. 
 
 AiaiTijTui, duties of, 129 ff. 
 
 Aidxpiot, party-division in Attica, 
 
 Aixao-Tai Kara Sij^ovf, instituted by 
 Pisistratus, 43. Re-established, 
 74. Their duties, 129. 
 
 AiKoarripia, mentioned under So- 
 lonian constitution, 26. Pay for 
 service in, instituted by Pericles, 
 75 ; its amount, 155. Sittings 
 regulated by the thesmothetae, 
 146. Procedure in, 157 ff. 
 
 Auo^oKia, instituted by Cleophon, 
 78. Increased by CaUicrates, 
 ib. 
 
 Dionysia, festival of, i4of. 
 
 , at Salamis and Piraeus, 137. 
 
 Diphilus, statue of, with inscrip- 
 tion, 20. 
 
 AoKt/iao-id, of the archons, 138 ff. 
 
 Doors, legislation against their 
 opening outwards, 125. 
 
 Draco, constitution of, 9 ff. His 
 laws abrogated by Solon, except 
 those relating to murder, 16. 
 His reforms the second change 
 in Athenian constitution, 105. 
 
 Dracontides, proposes establish- 
 ment of the Thirty, 93. 
 
 Ecclesia, in Draconian constitu- 
 tion, 12. Payfor attendance at, 
 established by Agyrrhius, 107; 
 increased by Heracleides and 
 Agyrrhius, ib. ; its final amount, 
 154 f. Number of meetings of, 
 III. Business at each meeting, 
 112 f. 
 
 Eetioneia, fortification of, by the 
 Four Hundred, 97. 
 
 Eiffaycoyetff, 1 28. 
 
 Elections by lot, under Draconian 
 constitution, 1 1 ; under Solo- 
 nian constitution, 21 ; after 487 
 B.C., 59. Where held, 153 f. 
 
 Eleusis, assigned as residence for 
 the Thirty and their adherents, 
 100. The settlement there re- 
 absorbed into Athenian com- 
 munity, 104. 
 
 Eleven, the, superintendents of 
 prisons, 19, 127. 
 
 "Efifirivoi SiKai, 1 28. 
 
 'E/wroptou eVi/ieXi;Tat, I27. 
 
 Ephebi, enrolment of in the demes, 
 107 fif. Military service as TTfpi- 
 TToAoi, 109. 
 
 'E<^eTai,judges in court of Phreatto, 
 
 Ephialtes, npoa-TaTris tov Btjiiov, 
 69. Attack on the Areopagus, 
 69 ff. Murdered, 72. His re- 
 forms part of the seventh change 
 in Athenian constitution, 105. 
 
 'Emx^ipoTOuia, 151 f. 
 
 'ETTtfieXijTOi tS>v Aiovvaiav, l/^l. 
 
 iimopiov, 127. 
 
 rSiv p,v<rTt]pia>v, 1 43. 
 
 Epimenides, of Crete, purifies 
 Athens after Cylonian sacri- 
 lege, 2. 
 
 'Eiria-KevatTToi UpS>v, 1 24. 
 
 'ETrio-TaTijy tSk irpoeSpav, 1 1 5. 
 
 tSu/ irpvTdveiov, duties of, 1 1 3- 
 
 'Ewawiioi rav jjKiKiav, 1 30 ff. 
 
 tZv (f)v\S>v, 57, 130. 
 
 Erechtheus, king of Attica, 171. 
 
i86 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Eretria, iwirels of, assist Pisis- 
 tratus to recover tyranny, 42. 
 Sea-fight off, between Athe- 
 nians and Spartans, 90. 
 
 'EreojSoi/TaSat, priestly family of, 
 174. 
 
 Euboea, revolt of, 90. 
 
 Eucleides, archon, 403 B.C., 100. 
 
 Eumeleides, abolishes summary 
 jurisdiction of the Council, 117. 
 
 Eumolpidae, priestly family of, 
 100, 143, 174. 
 
 Eupatridae,early division of Athe- 
 nian people, 34. 
 
 Ei/'^wa of outgoing magistrates, 
 133- 
 
 Evdvvoi, 121 f. 
 
 Festivals : — of Asclepius, 141 ; 
 Brauronia, 137 ; Delian, 136, 
 141 ; Dionysia, 140 f.; Dionysia 
 at Salamis and Piraeus, 137 ; 
 Heracleia, 137; Lenaea, 143; 
 Panathenaea, 136, 148 ; Pen- 
 teteridesi36ff.; Thargelia, i4of. 
 
 Five Thousand, body of, under 
 constitution of the Four Hun- 
 dred, 82, 83, 89. Govern- 
 ment by, after overthrow of the 
 Four Hundred, 90. 
 
 Forty, the, see AiKoarai koto. Srifiovs. 
 
 Four Hundred, government of, 
 instituted, 80. Constitution of, 
 82 ff. Overthrown, 90. Their 
 government the eighth change 
 in Athenian constitution, 106. 
 
 Tenrj, early subdivision of Athenian 
 
 people, 173. 
 VevvrJTaLj 173. 
 Gorgilus, of Argos, father of Pisis- 
 
 tratus' second wife, 46. 
 VpaiifiaTe'ii, various classes of, 
 
 I34f- 
 rpafifiaTevs, 6 Kara npVTavelav, 1 34, 
 tS}V SeafioOeTUiVf 1 38, 
 
 Harmodius, conspiracy against 
 thePisistratidae,47ff. Religious 
 ceremonies in commemoration 
 of, 146. 
 
 Harpactides, archon, 511 B.C., 51, 
 
 Hegesias, archon, 555 B.C., 39. 
 
 Hegesistratus, son of Pisistratus, 
 
 also named Thessalus, 46. His 
 character, ti. 
 Heiresses, under guardianship of 
 the archon, 142. 
 
 'EKTrifiopoi, 3. 
 'EWi/cora/iiai, 84. 
 Heracleia, festival of, 137. 
 Heracleides, of Clazomenae, raises 
 
 pay for attendance at Ecclesia 
 
 to two oiols, 107. 
 Hermoucreon, archon, 501 B.C., 
 
 57- 
 
 Herodotus, referred to, 41. 
 
 'IfpoTTotoi, 84, 135. 
 
 'lepSiv eTruTKevacTTai, 1 24. 
 
 Hipparch in command at Lemnos, 
 152. 
 
 Hipparchi, under Draconian con- 
 stitution, II. Date of election 
 of, 116. Duties of, 152. 
 
 Hipparchus, son of Charmus, 
 first person ostracised, 59. 
 
 Hipparchus, son of Pisistratus, 
 associated with Hippias in the 
 tyranny, 45. Invites Anacreon 
 and Simonides to Athens, 46. 
 Murdered, 48. 
 
 'limels, catalogue of, 123. 
 
 Hippias, eldest son of Pisistratus, 
 succeeds him in the tyranny, 
 45. Sole rule after murder of 
 Hipparchus, 49. Expelled, 51. 
 
 Hippomenes, decennial archon, 
 last of the Codridae, 172. 
 
 'OSoTToioi, 133. 
 
 Homicide, tried in various courts, 
 144 ff. 
 
 Hypsichides, archon, 481 B.C., 
 64. 
 
 Imbros, Athenian magistrates at, 
 156. 
 
 Infirm paupers, supported by the 
 state, 124. 
 
 Inheritance, law of, altered by the 
 Thirty, 94 f. 
 
 Ion, first polemarch, 5 . His settle- 
 ment of Attica the beginning of 
 the Athenian constitution, 104, 
 171. 
 
 lophon, son of Pisistratus, 46. 
 
 Isagoras, son of Tisander, party 
 leader, 52. Expelled, and re- 
 stored by Spartans, ik Ex- 
 
INDEX. 
 
 187 
 
 pelled again, 53. Archon, 508 
 B.C., ib. 
 
 KaTaXoycir t&v mTreav, 1 23. 
 
 KijpvKer, priestly family of, 100, 
 143, 174- 
 
 King-archon, origin of, 5. Resi- 
 dence of, 7. Duties, 143 ff. 
 
 Kpr/vaiv c7nfieKr]Trjs, elected by 
 X^i-pOTOvia, no. 
 
 Kvp^eis, Solon's laws inscribed on, 
 17- 
 
 Law-courts, see Areopagus, Del- 
 phinium, AiKaa-Trjpia, Palladium, 
 Phreatto. 
 
 Law-suits, various classes of: — 
 aypa^iov, 1 47 ; abiKiov, 1 34 ; 
 alKeias, 128 ; dvSpaTToSav, 1 28 ; 
 OTTO tSv (TU/iiftJXtDi/, 147 ; airo- 
 (TTatriov, 146; dirpocrracriov, 146; 
 aa-e^eias, 143 ; 0ov\ev&€(os, 147 ; 
 Sapo^fliias, I47 ; Sapaiv, I34, 
 147 ; ela-ayyAiai, 147 ; els Sarr)- 
 tS>v aipea-iv, 142 ; els iviTptmris 
 biabiKaaiav, 142 ; els eTrirpoirrjs 
 Karda-Taa-w, 1 42; efi/irivoi, 128; 
 ifiiropiKai, 1 47 ; iiriKkfjpov Kaxii- 
 o-eas, 142 ; ipaviKai, I28 ; Upai- 
 (Tvvris, 143 j xXriptov Koi irnKkripav, 
 142, 146 ; kKoittis, 133 ; K01VU>- 
 viKai, 128 ; jiiTtiKKiKai, 147 ; 
 fioixeias, 147 ; vecov KaKuxreas, 
 142 ; o'lKov 6p(j)avtKov KOKaxrecDs, 
 142 ; 6p<pavSiv KaKaxretos, 142 ; 
 TTopavoias, I42 ; napavofiav, 147 ; 
 TrpojSoXai, 147; TpoiKoj, 128; 
 TTvpKoias, 144 ; ievias, 147 ; 
 a-VKo^avTias, 1 47 ; Tpane^iTiKai, 
 128; TpiTjpapxlas, 128; inro^vyimv, 
 128 ; (j>6vov, 144 f.; ^ev8eyypa(jyrjs, 
 147 ; ■\jfev8oK\i]Telas, 1 47 ; \jfev8o- 
 fiapTvpias, 147. 
 
 Lemnos, an Athenian hipparch in 
 command there, 152. Athenian 
 magistrates at, 156. 
 
 Lenaea, festival of, 143. 
 
 Lipsydrion, defeat of Athenian 
 exiles at, by Pisistratidae, 50. 
 Scolion on, z'^. 
 
 Aoyurrai, elected from the mem- 
 bers of the Council, 121. Duties, 
 
 133- 
 Lot, see Elections. 
 
 Lycomedes, of Scyros, murderer 
 
 of Theseus, 172. 
 Lycurgus, leader of the Pediaci, 
 
 36. 
 Lygdamis, of Naxos, assists Pisis- 
 
 tratus, 42. Is made tyrant of 
 
 Naxos, id. 
 Lysander, of Sparta, establishes 
 
 government of the Thirty, 92.' 
 Lysicrates, archon, 453 B.C., 74. 
 Lysimachus, condemned to death 
 
 by the Council, 117, 
 
 Market regulations, 126 f. 
 
 Maroneia, mines of, 62. 
 
 Medon, king of Athens, successor 
 
 of Codrus, 6. 
 Medontidae, character of rule of, 
 
 4ff. 
 Megacles, son of Alcmaeon, leader 
 
 of the Paralii, 36. Alhance with 
 
 Pisistratus, 39 fif. 
 Megacles, son of Hippocrates, 
 
 ostracised, 60. 
 Megara, war against, 37. 
 Melobius, partisan of the Four 
 
 Hundred, 80. 
 Metoeci, under protection of the 
 
 polemarch, 146. 
 Merpovofioif 1 26. 
 
 Miltiades, leader of aristocratical 
 party, 77. 
 
 Mines, discovery of, at Maroneia, 
 61 f. Farmed out by the 7rcuX))rai' 
 and the Council, 119 f. 
 
 Mia-6o<popia, 154 ff. 
 
 MitrBaifiaTa, managed by the ttcoXj;- 
 roi'and the Coimcil, 119 f. 
 
 Mnasilochus, archon under go- 
 vernment of the Four Hundred, 
 90. 
 
 Mnesitheides,- archon, 457 B.C., 
 
 73- 
 Munychia, occupied by Thrasy- 
 
 bulus and the exiles, 98. 
 Myron, accuser of Alcmaeonidae 
 
 for Cylonian sacrilege, i f. 
 Mysteries, under management of 
 
 the king-archon, 143. 
 
 Naucrari, officers of treasury, 23. 
 Neutrals, Solon's law against, 25. 
 Nicias, leader of aristocratical 
 
 party, 77. 
 Nicodemus, archon, 483 B.C., 61. 
 
i88 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Oil, from the sacred olives, given 
 
 as prize at the Panathenaea, 
 
 148 f. 
 Orphans, under guardianship of 
 
 the archon, 142. 
 Ostracism, instituted by Cleis- 
 
 thenes, 57. First practised, 58. 
 'Oa-TpaKocfiopia, proposed in 6th 
 
 prytany of each year, 112. 
 
 HaidoTpl^ai, trainers of the ephebi, 
 
 108. 
 Palladium, court of, tries cases of 
 
 unintentional homicide, 144. 
 Pallene, battle at, between Pisis- 
 
 tratus and the Athenians, 42. 
 Panathenaea, festival of, 136, 148. 
 
 Prizes at, 123, 149. 
 Pandion, early king of Attica, 
 
 171. 
 Pangaeus, Mt., residence of Pisis- 
 
 tratus in the neighbourhood of, 
 
 41- 
 UapdXwt, party-division in Attica, 
 
 36. 
 Paralus, sacred trireme, rajiias of, 
 
 152. 
 Tlapaaratris, 147' 
 Xlapebpoi tS>v cidvvoDV, 122. 
 , of the three chief archons, 
 
 140. 
 Paupers, supported by the state if 
 
 infirm, 124. 
 Pausanias, king of Sparta, assists 
 
 re-establishment of democracy 
 
 at Athens, 100. 
 Pay for public services, 67 f., 1 54 
 
 ff. ; under government of the 
 
 Four Hundred, 82. 
 neSiaKol, party-division in Attica, 
 
 36- 
 UeXdrai, 3. 
 
 Peloponnesian war, outbreak of, 
 
 75- 
 
 neV\of, of Athena, 123, 148. 
 
 Pericles, restricts citizenship, 74. 
 Accuses Cimon, 75. Attacks 
 Areopagus, I'i. Promotes naval 
 development, ii. Institutes pay 
 for service in law-courts, id. 
 
 IlfpOToXoi, service of the ephebi as, 
 109. 
 
 Phaenippus, archon, 490 B.C., 58. 
 
 Phayllus, moderate aristocrat, 
 
 leader of second board of Ten, 
 
 100. 
 Philoneos, archon, 527 B.C., 45. 
 Phormisius, one of the leaders of 
 
 the moderate party after the fall 
 
 of Athens, 93. 
 tparplat, early subdivision of 
 
 Athenian people, 173. 
 Phreatto, court of, tries cases of 
 
 homicide by an exile, 145. 
 <bpovpo\ vecopiav, 68, 154- 
 ^vXapxoi, 152. 
 *i;Xoj3affiXeij, 23, 145- 
 Phye, impersonates Athena at first 
 
 return of Pisistratus from exile, 
 
 41. 
 Phyle, occupied by Thrasybulus 
 
 and the exiles, 96. Defence of, 
 
 under control of strategi of 
 
 Piraeus, 150. 
 Piraeus, demarchof, 137. Dionysia 
 
 at, id. 
 Pisander, leader of the Four 
 
 Hundred, 88. 
 Pisistratidae, government of, 45 ff. 
 Pisistratus, leader of the Diacrii, 
 
 36. Campaign against Megara, 
 
 37. Seizes tyranny, 38. First 
 expulsion, 39. Second tyranny, 
 40. Second expulsion, 41. Resi- 
 dence at Rhaicelus and Pan- 
 gaeus, id. Final establishment 
 of tyranny, 42. His administra- 
 tion, 43 ff. Death, 45. His 
 government the fourth change 
 in Athenian constitution, 105. 
 
 Plans of public buildings, removed 
 from jurisdiction of the Council, 
 123. 
 
 Polemarch, origin of, 5. Residence 
 of, 7. Under Cleisthenean con- 
 stitution, 58. Duties of, 145 f. 
 
 TlaKriTai, 1 9, I19 f. 
 
 PrisonsuperintendentSjtheEleven, 
 19, 127. 
 
 Upo^oXai (TVKotjjavTotVj 112. 
 
 npoSpopiot, inspected by the 
 Council, 122. 
 
 IlpoeSpoi, duties of, 114 ff. 
 
 Property-qualification for political 
 office, underDraconian constitu- 
 tion, 10 {. ; under Solonian con- 
 stitution, 17 ff. 
 
 npoordTijf ToO Sfip.ov, persons so 
 entitled :— Solon, 3, 77 ; Pisis- 
 
INDEX. 
 
 189 
 
 tratus, T] ; Cleisthenes, 53, ^^ ; 
 Xanthippus, ^^ ; Aristides, 66, 
 "n ; Themistocles, 66, 77 ; 
 Ephialtes, 77 ; Pericles, ']'] ; 
 Deterioration of character of, 
 after Pericles, ']^ ; Cleon, "]•] ; 
 Cleophon, 78. 
 
 Prytanes, under Draconian con- 
 stitution, 11. Duties of, no ff. 
 
 Prytanies, arrangement of, 1 10 f. 
 
 Pythodorus, archon, 432 B.C., 75. 
 
 Pythodorus, proposes institution 
 of the Four Hundred, 80. 
 Archon during government of 
 the Thirty, 404 B.C., 93, 104. 
 
 Rhaicelus, residence of Pisistratus 
 at, 41. 
 
 Rhinon, moderate aristocrat, 
 leader of second board of Ten, 
 99. Elected strategus, 100. 
 
 Salamis, archon of, 137, 156. 
 Dionysia at, 157. 
 
 Salamis, battle of, 65. 
 
 Samos, Athenian magistrates at, 
 156. 
 
 Scyros, Athenian magistrates at. 
 156. 
 
 ■Seio-ax^f'i, the, of Solon, 1 5 f. 
 
 Simonides, invited to Athens by 
 Hipparchus, 46. 
 
 2iTo0ij\aKfr, 126. 
 
 Solon, first npoa-TdTtjs tov bfjfiov, 3. 
 His poetry, 14, 15, 28 ff. 
 Economic reforms, 15. Consti- 
 tutional reforms, 16 if. Property 
 qualification adopted as basis 
 of constitution, 17 ff. Demo- 
 cratic characteristics of his re- 
 forms, 25 ff. Reform of weights 
 and measures, 27. Withdraws 
 to Egypt, 38. Opposition to 
 Pisistratus, 38. His reforms the 
 third change in Athenian con- 
 stitution, and the beginning of 
 democracy, 105. 
 
 Sftx^poKio-Tat, appointed to take 
 charge of the ephebi, 108. 
 
 Sparta, expels Pisistratidae, 51. 
 Sends garrison to support the 
 Thirty, 98. 
 
 Strategi, under Draconian con- 
 stitution, 1 1 ; underCleistheneari 
 
 constitution, 57. Date of election 
 
 of, 116. Election of, 149 f. 
 
 Duties, 150 flf. 
 STpiinj'yos inl Toiis oirXiras, 150. 
 
 eVi Triv ■)(i>pav, 1 50. 
 
 eVl TOV Xiiipaiia, 150. 
 
 eVl ras a-v/iiJopias, 151. 
 
 ^vKofpavT&v vpo^oXai, in 6th pry- 
 
 tany of each year, 112. 
 'SvpifioKa, international conventions 
 
 respecting commercial suits, 147. 
 'S.vvryyopoi, assistants of the Xo- 
 
 yiiTTai, 133. 
 
 Tapiai Trjt 'ASr]vas, in Solonian 
 constitution, 19,22; under the 
 Four Hundred, 84. Nominal 
 property-qualification for, 119. 
 Their duties, 119, 149. 
 
 Twv iepav rpirjpcov, 1 52. 
 
 Tap,ias rS>v ahwarav, 124. 
 
 tS>v (TTpaTitoTiKmv, elected by 
 
 xeipoTovia, I lo. His duties, 1 19, 
 124. 
 
 Ta^iap)(oi, 151. 
 
 Telesines, archon, 487 B.C., 59. 
 
 Ten, board of, created to succeed 
 the Thirty, 98. Establish reign 
 of terror, 99. Expelled from 
 power, ib. Excluded from 
 amnesty, and allowed to settle 
 at Eleusis, loi. 
 
 Ten, second board of, re-establish 
 peace in Athens after the 
 anarchy, 99. Moderate govern- 
 ment of, 100. 
 
 Thargelia, festival of, 140 f. 
 
 Thebes, assists Pisistratus to re- 
 gain tyranny, 42. 
 
 Themistocles, procures building 
 of triremes, 62 ff. Archonship 
 
 of, 62 note. 1TpO(TTaTr]S TOV Stj/iov, 
 
 66, y?. Builds walls of Athens, 
 66. Accused of Medism, 71. 
 Assists Ephialtes to overthrow 
 Areopagus, 71 f. 
 
 Theopompus, archon, 411 B.C., 90. 
 
 Theorica, officers in charge of, 
 elected by xtipoTovia, 1 10. Their 
 duties, 120. 
 
 Theramenes, leader of aristocra- 
 tical party, 78. Character of, 
 80. Leader of the Four Hun- 
 dred, 89. Instrumental in over- 
 
190 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 throwing them, 90. Leader of 
 moderate party after Aegospo- 
 tami, 93. Opposes extreme pro- 
 ceedings of the Thirty, 95 f. 
 Executed, 98. 
 
 Theseum, magistrates elected by 
 lot in, 153. 
 
 Theseus, the reforms of, the first 
 change in Athenian constitution, 
 105 ; the first step towards 
 popular government, 172. 
 
 Thesmothetae, origin of, 6. Resi- 
 dence of, 7. Duties, 117, 122, 
 128, 146 f. 
 
 Thessalus, surname of Hegesi- 
 stratus, son of Pisistratus, 46. 
 
 Thirty, government of, established 
 by Lysander, 93. Character of 
 administration, 93 ff. Defeated 
 at Munychia, 98. Expelled from 
 power, ib. Excluded from am- 
 nesty, and allowed to settle at 
 Eleusis, loi. Their government 
 the tenth change in Athenian 
 constitution, 106. 
 
 Tholus, residence of the prytanes, 
 III. 
 
 Thrasybulus, occupies Phyle and 
 defeats army of the Thirty, 96. 
 
 Prosecuted by Archinus for an 
 
 illegal proposal, 103. 
 Three Thousand, body of, under 
 
 government of the Thirty, 96. 
 Thucydides, leader of aristocrat- 
 
 ical party, 77. 
 Timonassa, of Argos, second wife 
 
 of Pisistratus, 46. 
 Timosthenes, archon, 478 B.C., 66. 
 Tragedy, choregi appointed for, 
 
 140. 
 Tribes, four, in early constitutions, 
 
 23. 
 , ten, instituted by Cleis- 
 
 thenes, 54. 
 TpiTjpoirowi, 119. 
 TpiTTves, in primitive constitution, 
 
 23) 173 ; in Cleisthenean con- 
 stitution, 55. 
 
 Weights and measures, reformed 
 by Solon, 27. Official superin- 
 tendence of, 126. 
 
 Widows and orphans, under guar- 
 dianship of the archon, 142. 
 
 Xanthippus, son 
 
 ostracised, 61. 
 
 Sfiiiov, 77. 
 Xenaenetus, archon, 401 B.C. 
 
 of Ariphron, 
 Upoa-TaTTjs Tov 
 
 104. 
 
0;i;fer6 
 
 PRINTED AT THE CLARENDON PRESS 
 BY HORACE HART, PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY