^{page 17 note 1} Dem, . Madias 144Google Scholar, Isokr, . Antidosis 232Google Scholar, Philoch. fr. 70 (F.H.G.), Ar. ';Aθ. πολ. 19: cf. Hdt. V. 62. 3, Pind, . Pyth. VII. 10 sqq.Google Scholar: see Wilamowitz, , Ar. und Ath. I. 33Google Scholar, Pomtow, , Rh.M. LII. 580 sqq., LII. 105 sqqGoogle Scholar. It is just conceivable that the fourth-century story represents genuine Delphic tradition, even building accounts.

^{page 18 note 1} Herodotus names, as executed upon surrender, Timasitheos of Delphi. Did he generalize from this single instance? Or is this instance equally erroneous?

^{page 18 note 2} Kλεισθ⋯νους ＜⋯φικ⋯μενος ⋯ κλεομνης≾. Many editors have printed the uncorrected text: although thereby Isagoras appears to be the subject of ἠγηγ⋯τει and ⋯πειρ⋯ιο καταλ⋯ειν 'Iσαγ⋯ραν δ⋯ … καθιστ⋯ναι: Isagoras is seeking to restore Isagoras. This is of course impossible in Greek prose.

^{page 18 note 3} In Aristotle this advice of Isagoras is put in the preceding clause.

^{page 18 note 4} In Aristotle this unanimity of the people is put in the preceding clause.

^{page 19 note 1} π⋯λιν=⋯ντιεχν⋯ται τ⋯δε.

^{page 19 note 2} μετ' ⋯λ⋯γων=οὐ σὺν μεγ⋯λῃ χειρ⋯.

^{page 19 note 3} It is indeed hardly more than τῃ δεν⋯νει in the next sentence (which I have not thought worthy of bold type in view of ⋯δυν⋯σιυον in Hdt. 66. 1 and περ⋯ δυν⋯μιος in 66. 2)—a piece of stylistic variation.

^{page 19 note 4} Probably correct enough, if we mean no more than that Kleisthenes led the Exiles, Isagoras the nobles who had stayed and given host ges (Hdt. I. 64). But Isagoras cannot have been an active supporter of Hippias: Kleomenes had made Isagoras' house his Headquarters during the siege (Hdt. V. 70. 1), and Herodotus emphasizes how new a departure it was in Kleomenes' policy when he drops Isagoras and seeks to restore Hippias: Hdt. V. 92. a. 1.

^{page 19 note 5} See page 25 below. I translate universo populo tribuens rempublicam.

^{page 20 note 1} Its genuineness is defended by Grube, in Classical Philology XXVI. (1931) 302 sqq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar: who sees in it a piece of self-criticism not unlike the Parntenides or indeed the opening of Book II of the Republic. ‘It was printed as spurious in the Aldine edition, a mistake for which the editors apologized, but the little work has never recovered from the insult.’ It must have been written after Republic I., and before the later books.

^{page 20 note 2} The passage is curiously like Thuc. III. 82, 83; and strikes me as being equally the work of one who had been a contemporary.

^{page 20 note 3} Frag. 1 in Diel's, Vorsohratiker: quoted by Dionys, . Hal. Demosth. 3Google Scholar.

^{page 20 note 4} See e.g. the remarks of Mathieu in the Budé edition, p. xiii sq.

^{page 20 note 5} Thuc. VIII. 68. 2: Antiphon fr. III in Gernet's Budé edition [=pap. Gen., Nicole(1907) fr. I]. See especially Kriegel, , Der Staatsstreich der 400, Diss. Bonn 1909, p. 38Google Scholaret sqq. Thucydides had read Antiphon's Defence, and this would explain how he is apparently able to anticipate and correct some of Aristotle's distortions. A notable instance is Thuc. VIII. 67, 2, ⋯λλο μ⋯ν οὐδ⋯ν, α⋯τ⋯ δ⋯ το⋯το, in relation to 'Aθ. πολ. 29. 5. To reconstruct the general argument of Antiphon's Defence (that masterpiece of subtlety, Thuc. VIII. 68. 2, Aristotle, Eudemian Ethics III. 5, p. 1232b 7)Google Scholar is beyond my ambitions: though the material is abundant, and [Lysias] XX gives a probably instructive parallel.

^{page 20 note 6} The Rider (which Thucydides simply disregards, VIII. 67. 1) would naturally be preserved by Antiphon. How he applied his argument, I hardly venture to guess: perhaps he was painting the revolution as reactionary indeed but not contrary to the oath imposed in the archonship of Hermokreon ('Aθ. πολ. 22. 2). The next act of the oligarchs was to dispense the Prytanis from that oath: perhaps Antiphon sought to excuse that decisive step by suggesting it was a legal precaution only, and the oath not actually broken. [By this suggestion I seek only quasito anticipate the argument that Antiphon could not possibly have imputed such a motive: so suggest, strictly exempli gratia, one possible line for Anitphon's argument]

^{page 21 note 1} 'Aθ. πολ. 29. 4, Thuc. VIII. 67. 2. Thucydides says ἢν τις … ἢ γρ⋯ψηται παραν⋯μων ἢ ἃλλψ τψ τρ⋯πψ βλ⋯ψῃ, and Aristotle defines ἃλλψ τἳ τρ⋯πψ more precisely as Eisangelia and Prosklesis: possible alternatives to the Graphe Paranomon, which it was safer to abolish at the same time, but which (with the Boule on his side, and the Archon and Areopagites powerless) are not likely to have troubled Kleisthenes.

^{page 21 note 2} 'Aθ. πολ. 29. 4 (⋯π⋯ναγκε ⋯πιψηφ⋯ζειν): on the strength of this, Peisandros presents his motion straight to the Ekklesia, Thuc. VIII. 67. 3 (68. 1, 69. 1). Aristotle [Antiphon?] obscures this fact, substituting a vague ‘Diataxis,’ presented by the thirty Commissioners in virtue of their quasiprobouleutic powers. This is that notorious distortion which was apparently already familiar to Thucydides, who tacitly corrects it by his words ἃλλο μ⋯ν οὐδ⋯ν, αὐτὂ δ⋯ το⋯το (VIII. 67. 2).

^{page 21 note 3} ‘So Komeas’ name stood in Aristion's decree ('Aθ. πολ. 14. 1) and Hermokreon's in the law mentioned 'Aθ. πολ. 22. 2. Cf. τ⋯ ⋯π⋯ Σκαμανδρ⋯ου ψ⋯φισνα, of about Kleisthenes' date (Andoc. I. 43: see page 23, note 3 below): and I.G. 12. 3, lines 16–17, and 4, lines 26–27 (485 B.C).

^{page 22 note 1} I do not discuss the view that puts Kylon's conspiracy in the sixth century. But see page 26, note 3 sub finem.

^{page 22 note 2} We are bound to take his phrase τ⋯τε δ⋯ τ⋯ πολλ⋯ τ⋯ν πολιτικ⋯ν ο⋯ ⋯νν⋯α ἂρχοντες ἒπρασσον as an explicit denial of Herodotus' special pleading.

^{page 23 note 1} Aὐτοκρ⋯τωρ ‘plenipotentiary’ is any person (or body) who has the sovran power delegated to him (or it) for some special business or emergency: so that his acts (within the scope of his Autokratia) require no ratification. The notion is well illustrated by Beloch Attische Politik 285 sqq.: I quote some leading passages in C.Q. XXV (1931) 141, note 2. [The Strategos Autohrator (e.g. Thuc. VI. 26. 1, Xen, . Hell. I. 4. 20)Google Scholar has this power: there is no authority for using this phrase of the position held by Perikles e.g. in 440; Thucydides' phrase for that is στρατηγ⋯ς σ⋯κατος αὐτ⋯ς, I. 116. 1. See Beloch l.c.]

^{page 23 note 2} In what other way could the Seisachtheia have been executed?

^{page 23 note 3} Andoc, . Myst. 43Google Scholar. For the date see e.g. Cornelius, , Tyrannis, p. 91Google Scholar, note 1. Skamandrios is a name which suggests the Sigeian War: I am tempted to speculate that he was Archon 510/9, the last nominee of the Tyrants. If he became Archon more or less ad annum (as was then usual: Miltiades, the younger Peisistratos, Themistokles, Aristeides) he would be born about 540: his name suggests the Tyrant's circle. His nomination would not necessarily be quashed when Hippias left ('Aθ. πολ. 22. 4).—To abolish torture would be among the early measures of the free city.

^{page 24 note 1} Plut, . Solon 19. 1Google Scholar. As Miss Freeman has pointed out, these words evidently come from Solon's poems, probably the iambic poem of defence quoted 'Aθ. πολ. 12. 4–5. [E.g. ⋯γὼ π⋯λιν τ⋯νδ' ὡς ⋯π' ⋯γκ⋯ραιν δυοῖν | ⋯ρμο⋯σαν … οὐκ⋯τ' ⋯ν σ⋯λψ ]

^{page 24 note 2} Plut, . Solon 19. 1Google Scholar. προβουλε⋯ειν ἒταξε το⋯ δ⋯μου κα⋯ μηδ⋯⋯ν ⋯προβο⋯λευιον εἰσφ⋯ρεσθαι (Aristotle omits to mention the Lower Boule's functions).

^{page 24 note 3} Probably in effect a veto.

^{page 24 note 4} The Oath imposed, 'Aθ. πολ. 22. 2 (δν ἒτι κα⋯ ν⋯ν ⋯μν⋯ουσιν—though it received accretions, e.g. in Glaukippos' archonship, Philochoros fr. 119). Portions of the Oath quoted [Philoch. l.c.]: Andoc, . Myst. 91Google Scholar: Dem. XXIV. 144, LIX. 4: Lysias XXXI. I: Xen, . Mem. I. 1. 18Google Scholar. For the obligation not to put certain motions, see 'Aθ. πολ. 29. 4 (cf. Thuc. VIII. 67. 2), Xen, . Hell. I. 7. 15Google Scholar, Plat. Apol. 32b (the scruples of Socrates), Thuc. VI. 14, and the words [ονκ επιφα]ειο εμ [β]ολει ο[υτ εν εκκλεσιαι] in the very fragmentary inscription of Glaukippos' archonship, I.G. I². 114, line 28: see also lines 39–41 of that inscription as restored by me in C.Q. XXIV, pp. 117 sq.

^{page 25 note 1} Cf. 'Aθ. πολ. 34. 1. his igitur mox abstulit pvpopulus rempublicam (not civitatem!). But πολιτε⋯α can of course mean civitas: e.g. 13. 5.

^{page 25 note 2} 'Aναμεῖξαι βονλ⋯μενος, ὅπως μετ⋯σχωσι πλε⋯ους τ⋯ς πολιτε⋯ας: omnia confundens quo plures in republica versarentur ('Aθ. πλ. 21. 2). By bre king up the aristocratic structure, he invited all men to dare to stand level.

^{page 25 note 3} Mετ⋯ τ⋯ν τ⋯ν τυρ⋯ννων ⋯κβολ⋯ν,—πολλοὺς ⋯φυ λ⋯τευσε ξ⋯νονς κα⋯ ⋯ουλους μετο⋯κους. He is seeking a definition for who is a citizen? ‘Born of citizen parents’ will not do when the city is newly founded, and there is a similar difficulty when a city's constitution is changed: thus Kleisthenes, after the expulsion of the Tyrants, put aliens into his Tribes.

^{page 26 note 1} I have stated above (p. 25) what I believe the sentence means: ‘universo populo tribuens rempublicam.’ It may be suggested that the Plethos here means the Thetes, to whom Kleisthenes gave citizenship. But in Aristotle's view they had citizenship already ('Aθ. πολ. 7. 3): besides, to get his majority in the Ekklesia (not mention the Boule) Kleisthenes wanted people with votes, not the voteless.

^{page 26 note 2} The idea of extensive enfranchisement of aliens by Kleisthenes raises a further problem: how did they or their children get into the Phratries? There is certainly no large class of Athenians, in classical Athens, who belong to a Deme but not to a Phratry. Did Kleisthenes force them into both?

^{page 26 note 3} V. 70. 2. (π⋯μπων κ⋯ρυκα) ⋯ξ⋯βαλλε Kλεισθ⋯νεα κα⋯ μετ' αὐτο⋯ ἂλλονς πολλοὺς 'Aθηνα⋯ων, τοὺς ⋯ναγ⋯ας ⋯πιλ⋯γων. τα⋯τα δ⋯ π⋯μπων ἒλεγε ⋯κ διδαχ⋯ς το⋯ 'Iσαγ⋯ρεω. 72. 1. Kλεομ⋯νης δ⋯ ὡς π⋯μπων ⋯ξ⋯βαλλε Kλεισθ⋯νεα κα⋯ τοὺς, Kλεισθ⋯νης μ⋯ν αὐτ⋯ς ὑπ⋯ξεσχε' μετ⋯ δ⋯ οὐδ⋯ν ἢσσον παρ⋯ν ⋯ Kλεομ⋯νης, ⋯πικ⋯μενος δ⋯ ⋯γηλατ⋯ε7iota; ⋯πτακ⋯σια ⋯π⋯στια 'Aθηνα⋯ων τ⋯ οἱ ὑπ⋯θετο ⋯ 'Iσαγ⋯ρης. The ⋯π⋯στια are evidently the same as the ⋯ναγεῖς: Kleisthenes himself withdrew at once, the remainder waited till Kleomenes came and compelled them. The ⋯ναγεῖς were of Kleisthenes' party (οἱ μ⋯ν γ⋯ρ 'Aγκμεων⋯δι κα⋯ ο⋯ συστασι⋯ται αὐτ⋯ν εῖχον αἱτ⋯ην το⋯ φ⋯νον το⋯του) and Isagoras believed their exile would cut the heart out of it. 700 families is not too many (Herodotus says the Curse was on ἂλλουσ πολλοὺς 'Aθηνα⋯ων), for the Curse had passed for three or four generations in both lines, male and female [Megakles' daughter, Hdt. I. 61; Perikles, Thuc. I. 127. 1], and was shared in the original generation by all who had accepted the surrender of the Kylonians: see Thucydides' narrative, I. 126.11, ο⋯ τ⋯ν ' Aθηνα⋯ων ⋯πιτετρμμ⋯νοι τ⋯ν φυλακ⋯ν (he does not mean the Archons lifted the suppliants with their own hands).—We cannot tell how large a detachment ‘watchers’ the Archons employed: but that they had multiplied by 508 B.C. to 700 families is one more proof of how wrong is the theory of Beloch and his followers, that Kylon's conspiracy only one generation back from that date.

^{page 26 note 4} φνλα⋯ τε … κα⋯ φρατρ⋯αι. Since the Tribes were changed at Athens, we may suppose the Phratries were at Kyrene; the τε … seems to mean, not that both things must be done on each occasion, but that both are recommendable courses.

^{page 27 note 1} The Archon, however, in his Dohimasia, had to prove his membership of a Phratry or subdivision thereof: 'Aθ. πολ. 55. 3.

^{page 27 note 2} Sokrates says, in Plato's Euthydemos 302c: ἒστι γ⋯ρ ἒμοιγε κα⋯ βωμο⋯ κα⋯ ἱερ⋯ οἰκεῖα κα⋯ πατρῷα κα⋯ τ⋯ ἂλλα ðσαπερ τοῖς ἂλλοις 'Aθηναο⋯οις τῷν τιο⋯των I do not suppose theis includes absolutely all Athenians: the decrees of the Dekeleieis (See C.Q. XXV, pp. 130 sqq.) are fatuous if no one was ever in fact refused, and refusal cannot have eo ipso entailed loss of citizenship. But we may infer from Sokrates' language that not to have a Phratry was an abnormal and uncomfortable position, for which Kleisthenes' νεοπολῖται would hardly have said Thank you.

^{page 27 note 1} Cf. Poland, , Gesch. d. gr. Vireinswesen, p. 14Google Scholar. This law is preserved not by an antiquarian but by a lawyer; so that neither its phrasing nor the list of possible associations can be ascribed to Solon himself. It remained always valid, and presumably passed from code to code and underwent changes analogous to those suffered by the Amnesty Law in its successive re-enactments: compare the Decree of Patrokleides (Andoc, . Myst. 77–79)Google Scholar with Solon's own Amnesty Law, quoted from the Axones αὐτοῖς ⋯τ⋯μασι by an antiquarian (Plut, . Solon 19)Google Scholar.

^{page 27 note 21} Meritt, , Athenian Calendar, pp. 72, 124Google Scholar: Athenian Financial Documents, p. 153.

^{page 27 note 3} The solar year is, astronomically, the year of the four seasons, marked by solstice and equinox. This is a thing far harder to determine than a lunation: consequently archaic religious calendars are commonly fixed by lunations, not by solstice and equinox. We have a similar juxtaposition today: our months divide the solar year, our feasts (Easter, etc.) are tied to a year of lunations.

^{page 27 note 4} It is, I think, typical that the Strategoi can summon the Ekklesia (e.g. Thuc. IV. 118. 14: Perikles' power of suspending the Ekklesia is, I imagine, an emergency power, Thuc. II. 22.1):—a thing no Archon could do, after Solon.