^{page 158 note 1} Diodor. xx. 46; Plutarch Demetr. 10; Philochoros ap. Müller, , Fragm. Histor. Graec. vol. I p. 408 No. 144.Google Scholar

^{page 158 note 2} Diod. l.c.; Plut. l.c.; Holm, , History of Greece (Eng. trans.) iv. 43.Google Scholar

^{page 158 note 3} Holm, op. cit. iv. 60 note 9; Droysen, , Gesch. d. Hellen. ² Pt. 2, Bk. 3, 106 foll.Google Scholar; Grote, , History Pt. II. Ch. xcviGoogle Scholar; Wachsmuth, C., Stadt Athen im Alterthum I. 610Google Scholar; Pauly-Wissowa, , Real-Encyclopädie s.v. Demetrios Vol. IV, p. 2817 foll.Google Scholar; Spangenberg, , De Athen. publicis institutis aetate Macedonum commutatis (Halle 1882), p. 8 foll.Google Scholar

^{page 158 note 4} Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, , Antigonos von Karystos, p. 194.Google Scholar

^{page 158 note 5} For which see C. Wachsmuth, op. cit. i. 612–4; Spangenberg, op. cit. p. 33. foll.

^{page 158 note 6} For the date of the creation of these two tribes see Bates, F. O., The Five Post-Kleisthenean Tribes, p. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 159 note 1} See Aristotle, Ἀθ. Πολ. liv § 3Google Scholar; C. Schaefer De seribis senatus populique Athtniensium; Hille, A.De scribis Atheniensium publicis (Leipziger Studien i. p. 205 foll.)Google Scholar; J. Penndorf De scribis reipublicae Atheniensium (ibid. xviii. 103 foll.); Thumser, V.Griech. Staatsaltertümer in Hermann's, K. F.Lehrbuch, ed. 6 § 87 B, p. 497Google Scholar, and the literature there quoted; Gilbert, G.Greek Constitutional Antiquities (Eng. trans.), p. 268 foll.Google Scholar

^{page 159 note 2} That Melite belonged at this time to Demetrias, is proved by C.I.A. ii. 316, 335, iv. 2. 331 c.Google Scholar

^{page 160 note 1} For the omission of Aiantis XI from the list, see below.

^{page 160 note 2} For the geographical position of Potamos and the neighbouring demes, see Kohler, U., Ath. Mitth. x. 1885 p. 110Google Scholar; R. Loeper, ibid. xvii. 1892 p. 333; A. Milchhoefer, ibid. xviii. 1893 p. 283 foll., 296; Strabo, ix. § 22 p. 399; Pliny, , Nat. Hist. iv. 7. 11Google Scholar; Pausanias i. 31. 3 (Ποταμοί) cf. vii. 1. 5; Suidas, s.v. (Ποταμοί); Harpocr., s.v. It was situated on the east coast of Attica north of Thorikos.

^{page 160 note 3} See the articles Antigonis and Demetrias in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encyclopädie and Kirchner, T. E., Die Zusammensetzung der Phylen Antigonis und Demetrias in Rheinisches Museum xlvii. (1892) p. 550 foll.Google Scholar, but especially Bates, F. O., The Five Post-Kleisthenean Tribes, in Cornell Studies in Classieal Philology, viii. 1898Google Scholar, where will be found collected the evidence for the composition of Antigonis and Demetrias (pp. 1–26).

^{page 160 note 4} Ath. Mitth. x. 1885 p. 105 foll.

^{page 160 note 5} Ath. Mitth. x. 1885, 106. This inscription has curiously escaped insertion in the C.I.A., though Milchhoefer ap. Pauly-Wissowa s.v. Δειράδες refers to it as C.I.A. ii. 864 b.

^{page 160 note 6} C.I.A. i. 299, ii. 864, 1028; B.C.H. xviii. 505.

^{page 160 note 7} C.I.A. ii. 431, 465, 469; iii. 1. 1076. 49; Suidas and Harpocration, s.v.

^{page 160 note 8} Von Schoeffer, in Pauly-Wissowa, s.v. δῆμοι v. 1. p. 102Google Scholar ‘Ποτάμιος in der Akamantis beruht wohl nur auf Versehen; oder sollte einer der drei Demen zuerst in eine der makedonischen Phylen und dann in die Akamantis versetzt worden sein?’ Unfortunately the present article was already paged before this volume of Pauly-Wissowa came into my hands, so that I have only been able to make very slight use of it.

^{page 161 note 1} C.I.A. ii. 859; Bates, op. cit. p. 15; Kirchner, loc. cit. p. 554 f.; Pauly-Wissowa s.v. Deirades.

^{page 161 note 2} Ἀθ. Πολ. 52; Pollux viii. 102; Bekker, , Anecd. p. 250Google Scholar; Busolt, G., Griech. Staats-und Rechtsaltertümer ² p. 233Google Scholar (in Iwan Müller's Handbuch, iv. 1. 1); Thumser, V., Griech. Staatsaltertümer in Hermann's, K. F.Lehrbuch ed. 6 § 99.Google Scholar Cf. Plato Apology xxvii C. τί με δεῖ ζῆν ἐν δεσμωτηρίῳ δουλεύοντα τῇ ἀεὶ καθισταμένῃ ἀρχῇ, τοῖς ἔνδεκα

^{page 161 note 3} In C.I.A. ii. 3. 1176 we have a dedicatory inscription in the name of eleven men, a representative of each of the ten tribes and a γραμματεύς: cf. C.I.A. ii. 3. 1177, where besides the college and its secretary a ὑπογραμματεύς also appears (Annual of the British School, viii. 212). In C.I.A. ii. 1048 a dedication is made by eleven men, but in this case they are not tribal representatives.

^{page 161 note 4} We have an instance of this in C.I.A. iv. 2. 128 b 56 foll., ἐπαινέσαι Φιλέα Παυσανίου Οίναῖον ἀρετῆς ἔνεκα καὶ δικαιοσύνης καὶ στεφανῶσαι χρυσῷ στεφάνῳ ἐπειδὰν τὰς εὐθύνας δῷ ἐπαινέσαι δὲ καὶ τοὺς συνάρχοντας . . . . ανίαν καὶ Χαρίδημον Οἰναίους , ὄτι δικαίως καὶ κατὰ τοὺς νόμους ἄρχουσι τὴν ἀρχήν, καὶ στεφανῶσαι ἀμφοτέρους χρυσῷ στεφάνῳ ἀπὸ Χ ὁραχμῶν κ.τ.λ. where we may notice that though the president of the college and his colleagues receive the same honours, yet the former is dealt with separately and before the others. See also C.I.A. iv. 2. 184 b.

^{page 162 note 1} Cf. the articles Archai and Epimeletai in Daremberg, and Saglio, Dictionnaire des Antiquités i. p. 367 foll., ii. p. 666 foll.Google Scholar, where such a distinction is discussed. M. Glotz in the latter says ‘C'est une tentative illusoire et que la logique condamne à l'insuccès, de rechercher des différences radicales entre les ἀρχαί et es ήπιμέλειαι, à une époque où tous les ἄρχοντες sont constamment chargés de tel ou tel mandat appelé ἐπιμέλεια et où maint collège d' ἐπιμεληταί prend le titre d' ἀρχή. Historiquement, il n'y a eu de partage net et tranché entre ces deux catégories de magistrats qu'au moment de leur origine’ (l.c. p. 666). Aristotle (Pol. vi. (iv). 12. 2–3) attempts to give a definition of ἀρχή which shall exclude ἐπιμέλειαι. but it is one which holds good theoretically only, and is practically of little use: Aristotle himself is forced to ignore it when dealing with actual facts. M. Caillemer (Daremberg and Saglio s.v. Archai) attempts a practical division between ἄρχονατες and ἐπιμεληταί, ranking in the former class only (1) the Nine Archons; (2) the Eleven; (3) the ἀγορανόμοι, σιτοφύλακες, and μετρονόμοι; (4) the ἀστυνόμοι; (5) the στρατηγοι, ταξίαρχοι, Ἱππαρχοι, etc.

^{page 163 note 1} For other instances of ἄρχαιν and ἐπιμελεῖσθαι in close conjunction see C.I.A. ii. 190. 12 foll., 302. 23 foll. iv. 2. 318 b 13 foll. For ἄρχαιν, ἀρχή used in state documents of officers not ἄρχονατες in the strictest sense see C.I.A. ii. 190. 16 (ἀναγραφεύς) 467. 94 (κοσμητής) iv. 2. 128 b. 7, 22, 34, 61 (ἱεροποιοί?) 421 p. 112. 39 (?), 52 (ἀγωνοθέτης) add. 619 c p. 299. 3 ταμίας τῷν στρατιωτικῶν) Aischines (iii. 25, 26) speaks of the ὰρχὴ τοῦ ὰντιγραφέως, τῶν ἀποδεκτῶν, τῶν τειχοποιῶν

^{page 163 note 2} In Attic state decrees the phrase εὐθύνας δοῦναι is used in reference to the following officials: ἀγωνοθέτης (C.I.A. ii. 307, 314, 444, 446, iv. 2. 373g), ἀναγραφεὑς (ii. 190), ἀντιγραφεὺς τῆς βουλῆς (?) (ii. 114), βουλευτὴς (ii. 114), ἐπιμεληταὶ τῶν μυστηρίων (iv. 2. 385d), ὁ ἑοί τὰς κρήνας αἱρεθείς (iv. 2. 169b), ἱερεῖς (iv. 2. 184b), ἱεροποιοί (iv. 2. 128b ?, 184b), κοσμητής (ii. 465, 469, 470, 471), σωφρονιστής (iv. 2. 563b): in C.I.A. ii. 287 the name of the official is lost, and in ii. 240 Lycurgus is referred to as δοὺς εὐθύνας πολλάκις τῶν πεπολιτενμένων τε καὶ τῶν διῳκημέων. In decrees of tribes, colleges, &c., the phrase occurs C.I.A. ii. 571, 581, 594, 611, 617, iv. 2. 318c, 565e, 615b, 623c. For the question as to the officials referred to in C.I.A. iv. 2. 128b see Wilhelm in Hermes xxiv. 139.

^{page 164 note 1} A grant εἰς θυσίαν καὶ ἀνάθημα is made by orgeons to two members; εἰς θυσίαν alone by the tribe Pandionis to three ἐπιμεληταί, by the deme Aixone to two χορηγοί, by the Mesogeioi to two priests, οἱ μνήμονες, ὁ πυρφόρος, ὁ κοραγωγός and ὁ κῆρυξ ὁ πάτριος and by the Eleusinians to a resident Theban for services at a religious and athletic festival; finally, εἰς ἀνάθημα alone by θιασῶται to their ἐπμεληταί.

^{page 165 note 1} Chapter V of Schmitthenner's thesis is concerned with proving the untenability of Dittmar's theory that κατὰ τὸν νὸμον in Attic state decrees = ‘nam hoc lege praescribitur’ ‘und das von Rechts wegen’ (p. 143).

^{page 165 note 2} The exceptions are: C.I.A. ii. 10b (393/2 B.C.) [Schmitthenner's ii. 106 (p. 14) is a misprint]; iv. 2. 108c (349/8 B.C.); iv. 2. 115b (342/1 B.C.) [omitted by Larfeld, whose ii. 142 is a false reference]; ii. 121 (338/7 B.C.); iv. 2. 128b iii. (?) (336/5 B.C.); ii. 164 (334/3 B.C.), 170 (after 332 B.C.); iv. 2. 179b 15 (325/4 B.C.), 33 (329/8 B.C.); ii. 291 (end of fourth century).

^{page 165 note 3} In C.I.A. ii. 1. 43 (before 376 B.C.) Köhler) restores στεφανῶσαι δὲ α]ὐ[τ]ὸγ χ[ρυσῶι στεφἀνωι τρι]ακοσ[ίων δραχμῶν but the absence of the ἀπό is unparalleled, and renders the conjecture extremely doubtful. With reference to this inscription Köhler, remarks (Hermes, v. 225).Google Scholar ‘In der Regel werden 1000, 500 oder 300 Drachmen Silber in den attischen Volksbeschlüssen für Ehrenkränze angewiesen … Es scheint ein Gesetz bestanden zu haben welches verbot Kränze von mehr als 1000 Drachmen an Sterbliche zu verleihen und die gleichzeitige Verleihung zweier Kränze von je 1000 Drachmen eine Umgehung dieses Gesetzes zu sein.’ I have been unable, however, to find a certain instance of a crown of 300 drachmas, except in C.I.A. ii. 2. 809 col. A 190 ff. (325/4 B.C.), which stands in a category by itself: we have there an example of the bestowal of golden crowns not upon definite known persons for services already rendered, but in the form of prizes offered for those triremes which should be most promptly equipped: τὸν δὲ πρῶτον πα[ρακομί]σαντα στεφανωσά[τω ὁ δῆ]μος χρυσῶι στεφά[νωι ἀ]πὸ (500) δραχμῶν, [τὸν δὲ] δεύτερον ἀπὸ ΗΗΗ (300) [δραχμ]ῶν, τὸν δὲ τρίτον ἀ[πὸ― In ii. 871 B 6 (348/7 B.C.) the value of the crown bestowed by the Senate or tribe is uncertain: we have [χρυσῷ στεφάνῳ ἀπὸ-Η]Η δραχμῶν In iv. 2. add. 573b 6 (328 B.C.) we have a decree of ὀργεῶνες in honour of two ἐπιμεληταί who are crowned each ἀπὸ Η (100) δραχμῶν. Cf. Schmitthenner op. cit. chap. iii. p. 12 foll.

^{page 166 note 1} Schmitthenner (op. cit. p. 19). ‘Ut paucis dicam, decretorum populi, quae ante Coroebi archontis annum (Ol. 118, 3 = 306/5) facta esse pro certo constat, formulam κατὰ τὸν νόμον exhibet nullum; neque magis in decretis populi, quae post illud tempus facta esse constat, verba ὰπὸ—δραχμῶν invenies.’ So Larfeld (op. cit. p. 809) ‘Jüngstes datierbares Beispiel einer Kranztaxe: ii¹ 249 (306/5 B.C.). Aus ungefähr gleicher Zeit: iv² 252e, ii¹ 350.’ But it is to be noticed that both these writers explicitly assume that C.I.A. ii. 350 is of about the same date as ii. 249: Köhler classes it among the ‘fragmenta quae bello Chremonideo nobis videbantur antiquiora esse,’ and Larfeld accepts this description (op. cit. p. 123), To put it back to a date forty years before the Chremonidean war (266–258 B.C.) seems somewhat bold. The old formula ὰπὸ—δραχμῶν appears in iv. 273c, 273d, 273e, 510b, all of which are assigned to about the end of the fourth century. On the other hand in C.I.A. ii. 309, 311, 318, 320, 438b, we should probably restore κατὰ τὸν νόμον rather than ὰπὸ—δραχμῶν.

^{page 166 note 2} Larfeld op. cit. ii. 770 quotes also C.I.A. ii¹ 233 (315/4 B.C.), but the reference is a mistaken one.

^{page 172 note 1} Ἀκρόπολις occurs, so far as I know, only three times in fifth century inscriptions to denote the Athenian Acropolis: C.I.A. i. 32B 4, 10 (a measure passed in 435/4 B.C. but seemingly not inscribed till about fifteen years later), 58. 11 (410/9 B.C.). Cf. C.I.A. i. 11. [καταθεῖναι ᾿Αθήνῃσι μὲν ἐμ πόλ]ει, ᾿Ε[ρύθ]ρα[σ]ι δὲ ἐν τῇ ἀκρ[οπόλει?]

^{page 175 note 1} Larfeld, Handbuch der gr. Epigraphik, ii. 1. p. 183Google Scholar puts down the date of the inscription as ca. 225–200. Of Schebeleff's work on the post-Kleisthenean tribes, written in Russian, I have not been able to make any use.