Hiller von Gaertringen says of this inscription: ‘Lapis in obscuro loco collocatus est. In ectypis nihil fere dispeximus … Lectio e Koehlero et Velseno componenda est.’ I did not find the stone till my last morning in Athens: it is E.M. 6600; it is extremely illegible, and I had not time to move it to a really good light. But there are a few things to add, and the length of line can, I believe, be determined.
The purpose of this paper is to put forward the hypothesis that the author of ‘Herodes περ πολιτας is Kritias. The speech bears Herodes’ name: did Herodes' well-known interest in Kritias amount to the transcription of a whole speech? The speech concerns Thessalian affairs at approximately the time when Kritias was in Thessaly: is it exactly the time? and is the tone what we would expect Kritias' tone to be? We have much description of Kritias' prose style, and a few (...) verbatim fragments: does the style of this speech correspond? (shrink)
In an earlier paper on this topic, ‘Eupatridai, Archons, and Areopagus,'3 I was primarily concerned to recover the views of Aristotle, as expressed in the ‘Αθ. πολ., on such elements of Attic Society as Eupatridai, Gennetai, etc. I sought to establish that to him at least these two were not identical: that, more precisely, he recorded two stages of development— ‘Ion’: in whose day the whole body of Athenians was composed of Gennetai, while Eupatridai had not yet been created. ‘Theseus’: (...) who created the Eupatridai—distinguishing them, as a Third Estate, from those two Estates which had hitherto, since Ion, composed the body of Athenians. (shrink)
This paper is a by-product of two systematic inquiries: one into the Strategia and Strategoi of the fifth century, the other into the military expenditure during the Peloponnesian War. The two inquiries cannot be kept distinct, and both have largely to depend on a minute study of the financial inscriptions.
In the foregoing parts of this paper I have sought, first to recover Plutarch's text of the Rhetra, which I believe to be also Aristotle's text. It is evident that Aristotle knew and commented on this Rhetra: I take it as my hypothesis that his account of it in his Spartan Constitution was substantially the same as what Plutarch gives us.
Plutarch concludes his chapter on the Rhetra with six lines of Tyrtaios: φοβου κοςσαντες Πυθωνθεν οκαδ' νεικαν1 μαντεας τε θεο κα τελεντ' πεα ρχειν μν βουλῦς θεοτιμτους βασιλας οσι μλει Σπρτας μερεσσα πλις πρεσβτας τε γροντας, πειτα δ δημτας νδρας πθεαις τραις ντααπαμειβομνους. These lines are quoted to confirm Plutarch's statement, that the Kings who added the last clause to the Rhetra ‘persuaded the city [to accept this addition] on the grounds that it was part of the God's command'. On (...) Plutarch's view, the two Kings added an extra clause to an oracle, and justified their action by alleging that Delphi had authorized the clause. It is not immediately obvious how Tyrtaios’ lines confirm this view. The Delphic utterance whose substance is given in lines 3–6 approximately paraphrases parts of Clauses I and I I , but where is Clause III ? The burden has to be borne by the one word εθεαις: ‘the Kings and gerontes shall initiate business, the demos shall reply with undistorted rhetrai’ or ‘shall respond to the rhetrai without distorting them’ . If εθεαις is given enough weight, the oracle which Tyrtaios quotes may be held to forbid the ‘excessive amendment’ against which Clause III was aimed. (shrink)
I argued in § II. that in the lost chapters of the θηναων Πολιτεα Aristotle recorded the creation by Theseus of the Eupatrid Order, from whom the Archons were chosen: that this tallies with Thuc. II. 15: that Thucydides further suggests that the continuous existence of the Areopagus Council dates from the same time: that finally Council and Order stand to each other as patres and patricii did in Rome.
This famous decree, which is the earliest Athenian decree preserved on stone, is printed e.g. by Hiller in IG. i. no. i, and with a materially different text by Tod in SGHI. no. II. A small new fragment was published in Hesperia, vii. 264. Restorations continue to differ widely and fundamentally. In Hesperia, x. 301–7, Meritt has discussed recent suggestions, and has submitted his own text on p. 307; on p. 305 is a drawing by Raubitschek of the whole monument (...) on the basis of Meritt's text. (shrink)