^{page 129 note 1} C. Q. XXV. (1931), pp. 1 sqqGoogle Scholar., 77 sqq.

^{page 129 note 2} Quoted by the scholiast on Soph. O.C. 489.

^{page 129 note 3} C. Q. XXV., pp. 83–85.

^{page 130 note 1} As little as I am prepared, a priori, to deny it.

^{page 130 note 2} The ύπομείονες at Sparta are in this position, but we do not hear of them before 400 B.C. The ὄμοιοι were defined c. 600 B.C. (C.A.H. III. 562) and it may be said that the notion of ὄμοιοι implies the notion of ύπομείονες If that were so, I would have to date as early as 600 those precautions against a power-hungry Demos which I think in fact were first taken about 450 (e.g. in Boeotia, if the arrangements in Hell. Ox. XI. date from the Battle of Koroneia). I do not in any case believe that the Thetes in Athens were made ύπομείονες ever, except under the 400, and the 30, and in the Macedonian period.

^{page 131 note 1} The most recent text, with full commentary, is Hiller von Gaertringen's in Sylloge ³ 921. Hiller accepts in toto (one slight disagreement in note 35) the position brilliantly established by Wilamowitz Arist. und Athen 260 sqq. This, though forty years old, is still the fundamental discussion. Add to the references in Sylloge Busolt-Swoboda, , Griechische Staatskunde, pp. 879 and 959 Sqq.Google Scholar, especially 962 and note 2, and further works there quoted: also Toepffer, , Atische Geneahgie, pp. 289–291Google Scholar, and Szanto, , Rh. Mus. 40 (1885), pp. 506 sqqGoogle Scholar., the latest writer (I believe) to distinguish the Demotionidai from the Phratry.

^{page 131 note 2} The restorations in the corresponding part of the front face are reasonably certain (50–58).

^{page 131 note 3} Meion and Koureion correspond roughly to Baptism and Confirmation: they are the Sacrifices offered, on behalf of an aspirant member, at infancy and coming of age. This is indeed not more than a hypothesis, since the main text, Pollux VIII. 107, is quite indecisive. See Busolt-Swoboda, , Gr, Staatskunde, p. 961Google Scholar.

^{page 132 note 1} εφ αντοισ, lit. ‘in addition to them.’ Sc. the Demotionidai.

^{page 133 note 1} The first day of Apatouria (so e.g. Hesychius and Suidas, s.v. Αφατούρια: other late writers say the second day, but see note 31 to Sylloge ³ 921).

^{page 133 note 2} A preliminary enquiry, such as the Archon held before cases came into court. The previous decree in which these three witnesses were mentioned is not now extant.

^{page 135 note 1} Their Eponym is Dekelos, who helped the Tyndaridai to find Helen at Aphidna, Hdt. IX. 73. 2. Herodotus there says of Sophanes that he was ἐκ δήμον Δεκελεῆθεν Δ;εκελέων δέ τῶν κοτε έρɣασαμένων ἔρɣον Χρἡσɩμον, etc [the story of Dekelos]: i.e. (I think) Sophanes belonged to both Deme and Phratry of Dekeleia. The same distinction appears to be made by Lysias XXIII. 2·3. Pankleon (in Lysias' story) claimed to be a Plataean, and to have been inscribed in the Deme of Dekeleia, Δ;εκελεɩὁθεν: the speaker therefore went to the barber's shop by the Hermai, ἲνα οί Δ;εĸελεɩεῖς προσθοɩτῶσɩνto enquire: οѷς τε έξενρίσκοɩμɩ Δ;εκελεɩῶν έπνθανόμην εἲ τɩνα ɣɩɣνώσκοɩεν Δ;εκελεɩὁθεν δημοτενόμενον IIαɣκλέωνα It was the Rendezvous of the Phratry (Δεκελειες), but they would be more likely than any other group in Athens to know about members of the Déme (Δ;εκελεɩόθεν δημοτενόμενοɩ). — Except in these two passages (where they are being distinguished from the Phrateres) Demesmen of Deke leia are always, I believe, called Δεκελεɩεῖς Δ;εκελεɩῆς Δ;εκελεῖς, etc.).—See Appendix, Δ;ΕΚΕΑΕΙΕΙΣ.

^{page 135 note 2} This is not a fixed Rendezvous (δποι άν προσϕοιτῶσιν): but the Phrateres would always have some favourite resort. At about this moment it was a barber's shop near the Hermai, in the Agora; see preceding note, and Lysias 23. 3, of about this date.—Domaszewski, Die Hermen der Agora zu A then (Sitzb. Heidelberg, 1914, Abh. 10), thinks (p. 8) the notice can't have been posted at a barber's (why not?), and suggests (p. 11) this is simply where the Riding (τριττύς), in which Dekeleia was (the Inland Riding of Hippothontis). had its parade station. The name of this Riding was, however, inscribed in I.G. I2. 901, line 3, and was pretty certainly not AexeXeieis. I am republishing this inscription in the Melanges Glotz: read (c. 12-letter lines) δενρεΗ[ιπποθο]ḷν [τι] σ ϕν[λε τελε] Ινται Ζε (or Tε) certainly not Πε or Δ;ε) (.....ο] Ιν δε τριτ[τνσ—. The other two Ridings of Hippothontis are Peiraieis and Eleusinioi.—I also question Domaszewski's translation of φφοσϕοιτᾰν = ‘to parade’. The phylarchoi in Mnesimachos comedy (quoted by Athen. 402–3—

στεῖΧ εῖς άɣοράν πρός τούς Ερμᾶς οὗ προσϕοιτῶσ οί ϕύλαρχοι)

are off duty.

^{page 135 note 3} Arist. und Athen. II. 261 sqq.—Szanto (Rh.M. X L., PP. 506 sqq.) had distinguished Demotiomdai from Phrateres.

^{page 136 note 1} I choose Wilamowitz out of homage to a book whose wide and cogent thinking has not been superseded. Subsequent writers, who all accept his main thesis (Demotionidai = Phrateres), have tinkered at details, but only to make inconsequent his subtle and consistent account.

^{page 136 note 2} Had Theodoras set his graver to work to inscribe the first decree only, he would probably have got a larger or a smaller stele (or else used smaller or larger writing): either, that is, he would have got the decree on to one face, or spread himself comfortably over both. What he did was to get 58 lines on one face and 9½ on the other.

^{page 136 note 3} The subject of ϕερεν ψηϕον αφο το βωμο is not named: it must be the Phrateres, as in a State decree the unnamed subject is the Athenians. It must also (one would suppose) be the same as in 15 sqq. above, διαδικασαι τοσ ϕρατερασ ϕεροντας την ψηϕον απο το βωμο But, since it is quite evidently the Dekeleieis (since appeal is then allowed from them to the Demotionidai, 30, cf. 32½3), and he refuses to equate the Dekeleieis with the Phrateres, Wilamowitz is forced to hold that the subject ofϕερεν is not the Phrateres.

^{page 136 note 4} Centum, not centenas: 100 drachmas in all, not 100 per Thiasote.

^{page 137 note 1} If the introducer persists in trusting his own conscience, he may, but the Phratry has been warned. Without doubt the further appeal, to the Demotionidai, is still allowed if anyone chooses to risk the 1,000 drachmas.

^{page 137 note 2} This is indeed allowed by many scholars (see Busolt-Swoboda, Staatskunde, p. 962, note 2)who yet cling to the equation Phrateres = Demotionidai. The consequences are astounding: I quote Swoboda: ‘Es blieb also auch gestattet, gegen einen abweisenden Beschluss der Gesamtheit Berufung an dieselbe Versammlung einzulegen. Das war moglich, weil die Berufung einneues Verfahren in der Form einer gerichtlichen Verhandlung einleitete.’ The appeal is from Demotionidai in Assembly to Demotionidai in Court: as it were, from the Ekklesia to the Heliaia. The thing only needs careful stating (as Swoboda gives it on p. 962) to be seen to be (at least) improbable: and if it were possible, it is not compatible with the words of the decree. Appeal from Ekklesia to Heliaia could not be called εσ Αθηναιονσ, nor could appeal ‘from, Demotionidai in Phratry to Demotionidai in Court’ be called Δ;ημοτιωιουσ. I therefore disregard this hypothesis.

^{page 138 note 1} P. 260. •Hopeless from the start are all modern explanations which confuse this emergency ruling with the normal institutions which follow.

^{page 138 note 2} The money will not be paid twice, as Wilamowitz suggests (p. 261, note 4). If either the priest hands over 100 drachmas (no matter whence) or a Phrater chooses to save him the trouble, the transaction is closed.

^{page 138 note 3} It is against the whole tenour of the new regulations, which are tightening the strictness of admission.

^{page 138 note 4} Λοɣιστάς δέκα καί συνηɣόρους τούτοις δέκα: i.e. they co-operate with the bench. Cf. Lex. Rhet. Cant., p. 672. 20, λοɣισταί καί άλλοι δέκα σννἡɣοροι οἳτινες συνανακρίνοσι τούτοιςThey help conduct the enquiry and pronounce the decision: they are not briefed for prosecution or defence. A very close parallel in I.G. II2. 1183, lines 14–15, decree of the Deme Myrrhinous: ομνυναι τονσ συνηɣορον σ συ νηɣορησειν ‘τωι δημωι τ α δ ικαια κ αι ψηϕ ιει σθαι α αν μ οι δοκει (ςίε) ὸικαιοτατα ειναι.’

^{page 139 note 1} Dem. Meidins 112, and frequently in Aristophanes, e.g. Acharn. 685, 705, Wasps 691. The view once held by Hermann, that these are standing public prosecutors (or ‘Treasury Advocates’), is, I think, untrue: rather (in Sophocles' words, Trach. 814)τῷ κατηɣόρῳ συνηɣοροῦσι, they support the prosecutor. Public prosecutors (appointed ad hoc) are called καϒήɣοροιin Plut. Pericles X. 6. The συνὴɣοροι in the decree impeaching Antiphon Archeptolemos and Onomakles (ps.-Plut. X Or. 833E), appear to be Bouleutai chosen by the Strategoi to support them in the prosecution:παρασΧόντων δ αύτούς (sc. the accused) οί στρατηɣοί καί τής βουλῆς οὒστινας ɗν δοκῇ τοίς στραϒηɣοίς προσελομένοις μέΧρι δέκα δπως ɗν περɭ παρόντων ɣένηταə ῆ κρίοιςand then κατηλορεῖν τοὑς ᾑρημὲνους συνηγόρους καὶ τοὺς στρατηγούς.

^{page 139 note 2} Solon gave all corporations power to make their own laws unless the State chooses to interfere. Lex apud Gaium Dig. XLVII. 22. 4.

^{page 139 note 3} It has been supposed that the Δυαλησ, whose inscription (I.G. II². 1241) mentions two Phra triarchoi, are a ‘geminated’ Phratry. If this is so, the original Phratriai do not apparently continue their separate existence. We have no evidence of any unit which subdivides the State and is subdivided into functioning Phratriai: I think we may safely deny that any existed.

^{page 139 note 4} See the end of § 3 above.

^{page 139 note 5} Aθ. πολ. 54. 2. The 30 Logistai of the fifth century have disappeared.

^{page 140 note 1} Andoc. Myst. 116.

^{page 140 note 2} Nομορυλακία: I regreat that MrWalker, in C.A.H. V., pp. 98–100Google Scholar, is inclined to doubt this meaning. For the sense of the terms ‘Statute’ (νόμο‘Statute Book’ (κείμενοι νόμοι): for the practical identity (at least till Eukleides) of νόμος and ψήρσμα: for the distinction between the Statute Book and Solon' Code, etc.: see Schrejner, J., Decotporeiuris A theniensium (Dissert. Bonn, 1913)Google Scholar: a work remarkable for the candour and cogency of its argument, and for the immeaning, portance of its subject.

^{page 140 note 3} Solon by admitting βέβηλοι to the Areopagus: Kleisthenes by building the State out of Demes instead of Thiasoi.

^{page 141 note 1} Cf. Lysias VI. 10, Plato, Laws 845E, 916c: all quoted below.

^{page 141 note 2} To invest a smaller body than the plenum with final power ad hoc is a procedure not unknown in Athens. It is the famous Autokratia: cf. Andoc. Peace 33, αὐτοκράτορας γὰρ πεμρθῆναι εἰς ∧ακεδαίμονα διὰ ταῦθ', ἱ'να μή ἐπαναφέρωμεν: Myst. 15, ηρισαμένης δὲ τῆν ἦν γὰρ αὐτοκράτωρ (cf. Thuc. VIII. 67. 3, and I.G. I². 298, lines 14–15). These concessions to that notion of the finality of expertise, which the pure democratic doctrine denied.

^{page 141 note 3} Plato's Exegetai have their own Law: 845E οἱ τῶν Δημοτιωνιδων νóμοι: 916c κατà τòν τῶν Δημοτιωνιδων nu;óμοι. Cf. line 14 of our inscription. κατα τον νομον τον των Δημοτιωνιδων.

^{page 142 note 1} In Plato, Euthyphro 4B, a (private) matter of life and death is left to the Exegetai.

^{page 142 note 2} On an even more famous occasion, the χρησμόλογοι, whose opinion Themistocies combats (Hat. VII. 143), are clearly not speaking ex cathedra.

^{page 142 note 3} Plut, . Alcib. XXIII. 3Google Scholar. The Hierophant was not actually one of the Exegetai, but his authority was exactly analogous.

^{page 142 note 4} Cf. I.G. I². 76, lines 36–37, καθοτι αν Eυμολπιδαι [εχαhε∣γο]νται.

^{page 143 note 1} Hdt. VI. 35. 1: Plut. Solon X. 3: Diog. Laert. X. 1: Toepffer, , Att. Geneal., pp. 269 sqqGoogle Scholar.

^{page 143 note 2} More likely his daughter was Aixone. Cf. anthe passage in Plato, , and Ed. Meyer, , Forsck. II. 521, note 3Google Scholar: who unwarrantably translates ἀρχηλέτης τοῦ δήμου ‘Ahnherr des Demos.’ Rather ‘King’ or possibly ‘founder’: to call him ‘ancestor’ begs the question.