DF 224 C8 W7 -opy 1 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS lllllllilll 019 707 528 4 METAL EDGE, INC. 2008 PH 7.5 TO 9.5 RA.T. THE DATE OF CYLON A STUDY IN EARLY ATHENIAN HISTORY BY JOHN HENRY WRIGHT Reprinted from the Harvard Studies in Classical Philology Vol. hi, 1892 BOSTON, U.S.A. GINN AND COMPANY 1802 "h^M ^ t^^ o ■ ■ ..'k'^Kh "NT THE DATE OF CYLON. By John Henry Wright. " Si in tanlis tcmporum difficultatibus definire quidquam licet." — Boeckh. I. INTRODUCTORY. THE fifty years preceding the legislation of Solon witnessed most significant changes in the political, social, and economic condi- tions of Athens, and in the relations of that little state to the world without. The main features of these changes were, as regards internal development, first, the dawning of popular political con- sciousness — the birth, from the throes of economic distress, of Democracy, — and, secondly, an increased intensity of factional feel- ing among the several families of the ruling Aristocracy; and, as regards both domestic and foreign relations, we have to note the de- velopment of local industries and of foreign trade, i.e. the beginnings of the commercial enterprise which subsequently aided in giving Athens her poHtical supremacy among the Greek states. The dates of a few events in these and in earlier important move- ments have been preserved to us. If we are to place any confi- NOTE. — This paper was originally prepared in 1888 and was read before the American Philological Association at the meeting of that year (Proc. Am. Philol. Assoc, 1888, p. xxvi.) ; in the summer of 1890 it was rewritten for publication in the Harvard Studies. Since that time, however, the important and long-lost treatise of Aristotle on the Athenian Commonwealth, recently discovered, has been pub- lished to the world, with its complete confirmation of the correctness of the writer's chief contention — a pre-Draconian date for Cylon. Instead of the frag- ments of this work, preserved in the Berlin Papyrus, No. CLXIIL, and in a garbled form in the later Greek writers, we have now a copy of the original text, prepared probably not far trom A.D. 100 (British Museum Papyrus, No. CXXXI.), to which to appeal. The paper has accordingly been revised, and in part rewritten, in the new light thus unexpectedly shed, not only upon the affair of Cylon, but also upon the whole subject of Athenian constitutional history before the time of Peisistratus. See F. D. Allen, The Nation, March 5, 1S91 (No. 1340, pp. 197, 198). I 2 John Henry Wright. dence in the recorded lists of Olympic and Pythian victors, of Attic archons, etc., — many of which were made up contemporaneously, — and in the chronological studies of ancient Greek scholars, which were based upon these lists, we must regard most of these dates as fairly well established. Attic history opens with the rule of kings by right of birth ; this early merges into that of kings by election, for such must we regard the so-called hfe-archons.^ About the middle of the eighth century B.c.,^ the last hfe-archon gives place to the decennial archon : ^ this is evidently a movement on the part of the aristocratic famihes in the direction of greater control. In the first half of the seventh century b.c.,^ the decennial archontate is replaced by a board of nine 1 The term I3a'v Pacn\tvs : Hauvette-Besnault, de Archonie Rege, Paris, 1884, p. 1). Cf. Busolt, Griech. Gesch. I. 400, 401, and below, p. 30, note 2, for a discussion of the name by which the annual archons were probably designated before Solon's time. Once for all I wish here to express my debt to Busolt, not alone for his abundant bibliograph- ical references, but also for the suggestion of many new points of view. '■^ The dates given for these events are those computed by the ancient chro- nographers, and may be regarded as fairly authentic, at least after contempo- rary records of Olympic victors, etc., were begun. These avaypacpai seem to date as far back as the first half of the eighth century B.C. Euseb. Chron. I. 194: IffTopovji 5e ol nepl 'Apis fKaffTCfj (p'iKov ?jv, a.vev aypwv), and the lan- guage of Herodotus tells against it. With Diels (I.e., p. 20), we must suppose Plutarch here guilty of dittography. The recently discovered Respub. Ath. (c. 2 ad init. compared with c. 5) explains the blunder. Plutarch finds in his authority — which is, or is based upon, an abridged form of Aristot. Respub. Ath. — for the time immediately following the Cylonian troubles and preceding that of Solon, words to the effect : tt/v iro.'KaMv adOis arrdaLv virep rrjs iroKtreias effTacr'taCov (.Sol. 13), which a glance at the original text of Aristotle would have shown him referred only to the contest between the notables and the commons (aracnda-at rovs T6 yvoipifxovs Koi rh ir\rj9os}. His explanation of this contest as that between the local factions is thus wholly gratuitous. The whole passage, from oa-as t) X'^P'^ to Tovs iTf povs KpaTT]v . . . x«'^67roV t' oiXffxos). The war for the recovery of the island probably took place after Solon's legislation, and in one of its later stages Peisistratus took part in it. Cf. Niese, Zur Geschichte Solons und seiner Zeit {Histor. Unter- siicJi. A. Schafer gewidmet, Bonn, 1882), pp. 22 ff.; also below, p. 73, and note. ^ On the beginning and growth of Athenian trade, see Busolt, G. G. I. pp. 500 ff., and below, p. 55, and notes. Solon, Frag. 13. 44: 6 jxev Kara trSvTov dAarai | iv vt)v(r\v xp-^^av otKoSe K^pdos &yeiv \ IxOuoevr', k.t.\. * According to Hermippus, quoted by Plut. So/. 2, Solon himself was a trader (lipfXTIcre vios &v en irphs i/.nropiav), and we are also told that it was for the sake of xpTj^arior^os rather than TroAvireipia and laropia that his travels were undertaken (Plut. Sol. 25 ff.; cf. Niese, /.f., p. 8). Aristotle {Respitb. Ath. c. 11) remarks of Solon, that after his legislation, aTroSTj/niav iiroiTiva. &p^ai, eTTLTifxovs elvai TrAyjf offoi e| Apeiov irdyov 7) '6(T0i iK tSiv e pp. 668, 669. ^ Stein, Note on Herod. V. 71. 9 Landwehr, Philol. Suppl.-Bd. V. (1884), p. 134. 10 E. Abbott, History of Greece, I. pp. 292, 296. 11 Pohlmann, Grundz. d. polit. Gesch. Griechenlattds (I. Miiller, Handb. III.), p. 385, note I. 12 Niebuhr, Vortrage iiber alte Geschichte, I. (1847), p. 314, "das erstere [S70S KuA-ioveioj/] schon in die alte zeiten, in den Anfang der Olympiaden gehort." But as Niebuhr without hesitation puts Theagenes, Cylon's father-in-law, in Ol. 40 {ib. p. 331), his suggestion as to Cjdon's date loses significance. 13 Schomann, Jahrb. f. Philol. ill (1875), p. 449, admitted that Herodotus's rjMKiccrewv must mean youthful persons of the same age with Cylon, but did not draw the necessary inferences as to an earlier date than 612 B.C., which he accepted on p. 456. 1* Busolt, Griech. Gesch. I. (1885) pp. 498, 505, with notes: the only argument distinctly urged by Busolt is that based on i]\iKi(jniv and iuo/x-nfff, expressions to be used only of young persons ; he sustains this argument by a communication from H. Stein (ib. p. 505, note 2), on the probable meaning of these expressions in this passage. Of course, since the recovery of the Respub. Ath., i.e. since Janu- ary, 1891 — the earlier date for Cylon has been universally accepted (see p. 14). 14 John Henry Wright. affair, of the Megacles concerned, as also from a consideration of certain points in the history of the Alcmeonidae in these times ; .(3) those drawn from the probable date of Theagenes, Cylon's father-in-law. These considerations, it is believed, will be enough to create a strong presumption in favor of the date proposed. If, finally, after objections have been met, it can be further shown (4) that the adoption of this date, rather than a later one, will disclose something of a natural sequence and coherence in the move- ments of the time, as regards both the domestic and the foreign rela- tions of Athens, this fact must be regarded as a confirmatory argument of no small force. As preliminary, however, to the special discussion of the Date of Cylon, two matters call for brief treatment : first, the character and credibility of our primary sources of information on the subject, and, secondly, the nature and extent of the connexion of the Alcmeonidae with the affair of Cylon, — at least in so far as these two questions touch the problem before us. III. THE STORY OF CYLON: OUR SOURCES OF INFORMATION. The story of Cylon is first told by Herodotus (V. 71), very briefly, as an episode in his account of Cleisthenes of Athens, of Alcmeonid descent, in explanation of the reason why Cleisthenes was obliged to leave Athens as erayT^s. It is again given, with fuller details and with interesting variations, by Thucydides (I. 126), likewise as an episode, to account for the demand made by the Spartans, at the opening of the Peloponnesian war, for the banishment of Pericles who was also an Alcmeonid. The next author who we know told the story — there must have been others — was Aristotle in his x^thenian Commonwealth. It was probably given in full. In the copy of this work recently recovered, the early chapters have been lost, and we have references only to the last incidents — the trial of the Alcmeo- nidean faction, the casting of the bones of the guilty dead beyond the borders, the perpetual exile of the family, and the subsequent purification of the city by Epimenides of Crete.^ All these state- ^ Aristot. Respub. Ath. I : KaTayvaKydevros 8e tov &yovs [aiirjoi yuev eK rwv TacpaiP i^eP\Tj8riffaf, rh 5i yivos avTuv eipuyft' aeKpuyiaf. ^EntfieviSr]! 5' o Kp}]S iwl The Date of Cylon. 15 ments, which stand at the very beginning of the treatise as preserved, and are followed by /Ltera raSra, preceded the account of Draco ; this fact makes it clear that Aristotle put before the time of the Draconian legislation, at least the affair of Cylon if not its consequences here touched upon. Theophrastus appears to have touched the event at least to the extent of asserting that it was the occasion of the dedi- cation by Epimenides of two altars on the Areopagus, to Violence and to Pitilessness.^ The event is briefly referred to in the Excerpts from the Constitu- tions of Heracleides ; ^ this account, based on a lost portion of Toi/Tots eKaOripe rrjv Tr6Mv. With Kirclihuff I read \_a\iT'\oi for Kenyon's \_veKp]oi, which is impossible because of the missing article. Diels proposes [^/ceivjot. ^ Theophrastus appears to be, directly or indirectly (through Ister?), Cicero's authority in De Legg. II. ii. 28, as also that of Clem. Alex. Ad Gent. 2. 26. See below, p. 67, note i. 2 Commonly known as Heracleides Ponticus, and of late identified with Hera- cleides Lembos. The authorship of these Excerpts (the manuscripts usually begin with the words e/c tuv 'HpaKKeiSov irtpl iroAtreias 'Adrjvaiaiv, but include also other iro\iTe7at) is a matter of conjecture. Schneidewin (^Heraclidis politiarum quae extant, 1847) showed that they could not have been composed by the philosopher Heracleides Ponticus, and demonstrated their dependence on Aristotle. Unger (^Rhein. Mas. 38 (1883), p. 504) claims them for Heracleides Lembos (fl. under Ptolemy VI. Philometor — B.C. 180-145; Suid. s.v. 'UpaK\fidr}s '0|upi7X'T»js, and, according to Diog. Laert. V. 694, from Calliatis in the Pontus), and in this has been followed by Busolt and others; but according to Rose (Aristot. Fragm., p. 260) incorrectly. The author of these Excerpts would seem not to have been from Pontus, for [Aristot.] Respub. Argiv. (Rose, Aristot. Frag. 481 ; preserved in Orion, Ety7?i. p. 118, 19), cites Heracleides Ponticus for a statement not found in the Excerpts. Rose claims that he was a pupil o"^ Didymus drawing from his master : thus in [Aristot.] Resptib. Satnior. (Rose, Aristot. Fragm. 573; Schol. Ar. Av. 471 = Heracl. Exc. Pol. 2,'^'), Didymus — i.e. the original of the Scho- liast — cites Aristotle by name, but Heracleides in his quotation from Didymus omits the name; see Rose, Aristot. Pseudepigr., pp. 521, 532; also 479, 481. The frequent resemblances in phraseology between the Scholia (and certain Suidan glosses) and the Excerpts also suggest Didymus as the intermediate. Unger (/.f. p. 504) urges, that since with one unimportant exception — where Aristotle might have expressed two opinions — all the statements in the Heracleidean Excerpts coincide even verbally with what is extant of the Aristotelian YloKiTelai, we must infer that Aristotle has been slavishly pirated (hence xifx&os') ; this is undoubtedly true, but it looks as if the material had come through a Didymean channel. Rose (^l.c. p. 491) intimates that Didymus — i.e. the author of the original of the Excerpts — combined material from Ephorus with his extracts from the Aristotelian TloXiTilai. 1 6 John Henry Wright. Aristot. ResJ^iib. Afh., though very brief, furnishes one or two items not found in Herodotus or Tliucydides : the name of Megacles as the leader of the party that slew the fleeing Cylonians is mentioned for the first time. The Scholiast on Aristoph. Eq. 445 gives three versions of the story in forms which show that Herodotus and Thucydides were the primary sources, together with some other writer on Attic history not to be identified : the items not given by Herodotus and Thu- cydides are, in the first version (Schol. I.), a /cpt'o-ts h 'Apetw Trayo) (probably, as we find it nowhere else, a misunderstanding of the KaOe^ofxevovs 8e nvas Koi ctti twv o-e/xvwj/ Oewv of Thucydides), and the mention of the fact that the Cylonians fastened to the throne of the goddess some token that they were suppliants, on the breaking of which they were stoned by the Athenians. The second and third versions (Schol. U., HI.) are distinctly Thucydidean, and add nothing while they omit much (the KariXafSe tyjv aKpoVoAtv ws etti TvpavviSi of Thucydides becomes iireXOlov rfj aKpoiroXu Xrjarevet KOi aXt'(rK€Tat) . Pausanias three times mentions Cylon : once (I. 28. i), in comment- ing upon a bronze statue of him seen on the acropolis of Athens, he expresses surprise that a statue should have been erected to one who attempted to make himself tyrant, and would explain it by the fact that Cylon was very handsome, as well as famous for his victory at Olympia in the StauXos and for his marriage with the daughter of Theagenes of Megara. Again, in I. 40. i, he refers to this marriage aUiance ; and in VH. 25. 3, speaking of the treatment received by suppliants at Athens, he says that the magistrates put to death the ad- herents of Cylon, suppliants of Athena, who had seized the acropolis, and that in consequence the murderers and their descendants were It is, however, more likely that Aristotle himself furnished this material, obtaining it perhaps from Ephorus, or, what is more likel)', from the same sources as Ephorus (and for that matter, the same as the fiioi of Satyrus, Sotion, and Hermippus), and that thus are to be explained coincidences of statement between the £x£. Pol. and the fragments of Ephorus, and what we know of the l3ioypda7ov arriKriivav. Suid. ^.7^ .• TI^plk\t}s . . . oi 5s avTeTTfraTTOv, UepiK\TJs Se ovk eia TrelOecrdai. Here is probably a confusion arising from the words of Thuc. I. 127, ovk eia inreiKeii', where Pericles is mentioned as resisting the demands, not, to be sure, of Athenians, but of the Lacedaemonians. Cf. also Thuc. I. 135 : ol de 'Ae-rjpawi . . . bchol. Ar. £(/. 84: 2'',uMaXos 5e (prjai ip^vSecrdai. nepl &ef.ucrT0K\eovs " ovre yap 'HpoSoTos ovTe QovKvbidrjs tcrropel. TJic Date of Cylon. 19 from the point of view of military science, but also in all other respects. It thus happens that upon i\.ttic history before the expul- sion of the Peisistratidae he has very little to say ; ^ he does not men- tion the great law-giver Solon, whose half- mythical figure dominates the following centuries,^ nor does he name even Cleisthenes the reformer. Herodotus, the range of whose history is more extended, has occasion to treat more fully of early Attic history ; but even he when he passes beyond the generation preceding the Persian wars, has little to tell but piquant and untrustworthy anecdotes : his Solon is the friend of Croesus, and the traveller in Egypt ; Solon's services to Athens as a reformer are dismissed with only a word.^ It would seem, then, that the Greeks of the fifth century B.C. had no clear historical impressions of much that preceded the times of Peisistratus. Later the case was different in some particulars. In the narratives both of Herodotus and of Thucydides one episode of pre-Peisistratidean Athenian history stands out in unique promi- nence, — this episode of Cylon. This prominence is due to two causes : Cylon was the only person on record besides Peisistratus who had attempted by violence * to make himself tyrant of Athens ; and, secondly, in the suppression of this attempt an important family had become tainted with sacrilege, receiving a stain that centuries of brill- iant public service were powerless fully to wash away. The vividness and precision of the language of the two historians, and the fulness of detail given by Thucydides, are to be explained from the fact that in the traditions both of the Alcmeonidae and of their hereditary enemies the main features of the story had been handed down with singular definiteness and amplitude. Such vagueness as may be dis- covered in these accounts springs from the fact that both accounts are given incidentally, as episodes, and from the habit of these 1 The language of Thuc. VI. 54 implies that uncertain stories were current in his day about the Peisistratidae. 2 Niese, Zur Gesch. Solons, pp. i, 2. 3 As legislator, Herod. I. 29, II. 177 (see p. 53, note); as friend of Croesus, I. 29-33; author of a poem in honor of the despot Philocyprus, V. 113. * Aristotle (^Respub. Ath. c. 13) now teaches us that the prolonged archonship of Damasias was a usurpation of supreme power in the state. In Solon Frag. 32, Ti/parviSos 5e koX Blris o/xeiAixou [ ov Kadiitpd/xTii' (cf. ;^2- 5' ^)> ^^ allusion to Damasias has been seen by Diels and Ad. Bauer. 20 John Henry Wright. historians in treating subjects of this sort, — apparently not from any uncertainty about the main points of the story.^ The apparatus for the study of the earUer Athenian history used by the writers of the fifth century B.C. was not so extensive as that of their successors after the middle of the following century.^ Not to attempt an exhaustive survey, it will be enough to call attention to a few leading names. Thucydides, whatever may be one's views as to the presence of personal bias in his writing, had certainly set the example of systematic research, although his enquiries were mainly confined to events of his own day. A vast amount of material was available, awaiting the scientific student : family, local, political, and religious traditions ; records of ancient ordinances, of laws passed, and of legal decisions rendered, from before the time of Draco ^ ; probably lists of officials, secular and religious ; and a certain amount of literary compositions, as the poems of Solon. Hellanicus, the contemporary of Thucydides, in his four books on Attic history had used these recorded lists and inscriptions, but his work was inaccurate and pro- voked the criticism of Thucydides and of Ephorus.* The historians Ephorus and Theopompus, in the next century, had gathered a vast amount of material, and though their ideas as to historical evidence i Is Thucydides (I. 126) correcting Herodotus (V. 71)? This is substantially the view of Wecklein {Ber. Bayer. Akad. 1873, pp. 33 ff.), and others, including Busolt (C. G. I. pp. 504, 505), who gives the bibliography. Schomann {Jahrb. f. Philol. Ill [1875], p. 452) controverts it, perhaps not wholly successfully. The answer to the question is determifted by the meaning we give to Herodotus's irpvTavies tuiv vavKpdpuv, on which see below, p. 30, and notes. 2 On the studies in early Athenian history made by the Greeks, see Busolt, G. G. I. pp. 361-370, 436, 437, and his notes passim. ^ According to Josephus (Adv. Apion. I. 4. 21), the laws were first put on record by Draco. Aristotle {Respiib. Ath. c. 3) reports that the six eea-fj-od^rai were appointed — of course long before Draco, when the archontate became annual — to record the dea-fxia; but see c. 41 : r] iirl ApaKovros if § /cat vS/xovs ave- ypa^av TTpQiTov. The contrast is here suggested between mere records of legal decisions (dta/xia), and a formal code (dfir/xoi, vojxol). * Thuc. I. 97. Ephorus, ap. Joseph. Adv. Apion. I. 3. 16: "'E.cpopos . . . ''EWaviKoi' eV to7s TrAeicrrois xpevSSfj.ei'ov iTriSi'iKwaiv. Diels (Rhein. Mus. 31 [1876], p. 52) doubted whether Hellanicus reckoned by archons and treated of events as late as the close of the Peloponnesian war, but in this view he has been controverted by Wilamowitz, Hermes 11 (1876), p. 292, and Lipsius, Leipz. Stud. 4 (1S81), p. 153. The Date of Cylon. 21 were hardly such as would commend these authors to the modern historian, their writings formed the basis for subsequent writers. The material furnished by these different historians and by the earlier writers of Atthides, Aristotle and his immediate followers of the Peri- patetic school seem to have put together, augmented by material inde- pendently collected, and subjected to critical examination.^ The study of chronology, though not reduced to a science until the time of Eratosthenes," had already begun in the compilation, for historical purposes, of lists of Olympic victors by Hippias^ of Elis, later by .\ristotle, by Timaeus ^ of Sicily, and others ; as also of victors at the Pythian games.^ Critical hsts of the Athenian archons were drawn up as early as the time of Demetrius of Phalerum® (b.c. 317-307 ; died B.C. 283), who compiled an dp^wrcov avaypaqty and wrote Trepl Trj<: ^kOrjvridL vo/xo^ecrtas. It was not later than the middle of the fourth century B.C. that, following in part the example set by Hellanicus, there first appear writers of special histories of Attica ('Ar^tSes), in which legends, history, topography, literature, religion, antiquities, were fully treated : as Cleidemus, Androtion, and above all Philo- 1 Cicero, De Fin. V. 4 : omnium fere civitatum . . . ab Aristotele mores insti- tuta disciplinas, a Theophrasto leges etiam cognovimus. Cf. Cic. De Legg. III. 6. 14. See, for the historical-antiquarian studies of the Peripatetics (Aristotle and his immediate pupils) which go mainly under the name of Aristotle's TloKne'iai, V. Rose, Aristot, Pseudepigraphus, pp. 393-579, who, however, denies Aristotelian authorship, and Diimmler, Rhein. Mus. 42 (1887), pp. 179 ff. In the fragments of these noAireiat, authorities are sometimes quoted and controverted, and this is especially true of the Respub. Ath. recently discovered. The problem of the sources of the latter work has not yet been solved ; for some remarks on the subject, see Ad. Bauer, I.e., pp. 37 ff., 155; F. Cauer, Hat Aristoteles . . . geschrieben, etc., pp. 37 ff., and The Nation, May 7, 1891 (No. 1349, p. ^^Z), etc. The independence of Aristotle has been emphasised by Oncken, Staatslehre d. Aristoteles, I. pp. 24, 25, and II. p. 330. '2 On the chronological studies of Hellanicus and Eratosthenes, see Niese, Hermes, 23 (1888), pp. 81-102, and for Apollodorus, Diels, Rhein. Mus. 31 (1876), pp. 1-54 and Unger, Philol. 41 (1882), pp. 602 ff. ^ piut. Num. i ad fin. * Suid. s.V. Ti/j.aio^ .' . . eypa^l/ev . . . 'OXvfxirioi'iKas ijToi xpovLKo, irpa^iSta. ^ By Aristotle, or his pupils (Rose) : Diog. Laert. V. 126. Aristotle's nueio^/ireai are cited in Plut. Sol. 1 1 and Schol. Find. 0/. 2. 87. ^ Demetrius Phalereus was a pupil of Theophrastus; cf. Diog. Laert. V. 5, 75, also I. 22, II. 7 (Miiller, F.H.G. II. pp. 362 ff.). His archon-list was proba- bly one of the authorities used by Apollodorus in preparing his chronological sys- tem: Diels, I.e., pp. 28, 37. 22 JoJui Henry Wrigl'.t. chorus^ (fl. 306 B.C.), who paid stricter attention than heretofore to chronology, narrating events in annaUstic form at first according to kings, and afterward according to archons. Philochorus also made special studies of many historical subjects, such as the colonization of Salamis, Attic inscriptions, the Olympiads, and the like. If we are to judge from the use made of it by subsequent writers, clearly the most important work produced in these times on the early history of Athens, especially from the point of view of constitutional changes, was the treatise on the Athenian Commonwealth [y] 'KO-q- vaioiv TToXiTua,) ascribed by the ancients to Aristotle, and undoubtedly prepared, if not wholly by his own hand, with the assistance of some pupil acting as secretary, under his personal direction; it carries with it the weight of the master's authority." The recent discovery of 1 Suid. s.v- ^iXSxopos. Cf. Boeckh, Ueber den Plan der Atthis des Philochorus 1832 (A7. Schr. V. pp. 397 ff.). 2 This treatise affords satisfactory internal evidence that it was composed a short time before Aristotle's death, between B.C. 326 and 323. We are compelled to be- lieve, from many indications, that it was written mainly by Aristotle, with perhaps the help of a pupil who prepared certain of the less important passages, the pad- ding, as it were; the work, since it everywhere bears evidence of the master's hand, was then revised, but not rewritten, by him. If we are ready to maintain — a propo- sition by no means self-evident — that the main body of the writings current as Aristotle's are the genuine works of the master in the original form, and that, accordingly, they are the only norm by which everything else is to be tested, we may still account for the " non-Aristotelian " peculiarities of the language of the Respub. Ath. as due, in part, to the fact that the historical sources (epigraphic and literary) are often given in verbal quotations, or at least in paraphrases that retain original forms of expressions ; due in part, perhaps, to the stylistic idiosyncrasies of an assistant whose work was incorporated with the master's, and, finall}', to the most significant fact that the work was intended not for the scientific inner circle, but for the "general reader," being, as it has been happily characterised by an English scholar, a sort of " primer of the constitutional history of Athens, and citizen's handbook." Into the question whether the treatise is in spirit and method, un-Aristotelian, and whether it exhibits other features impossible in a work of Aristotle's, — care- lessness and inaccuracy in historical research, radically inconsistent political judg- ments, etc. (cf. F. Cauer, Hat Aristoteles die Schrift voi7i Staate der Athener ge- 5C/5rzV^f«, Stuttgart, 1 891; Schvarcz, Ufigarische Revue, K^x\\,\% 1- 9> ^s well as many minor statements. The poetical quotations of Plutarch are from a different collection; such as coincide are in a different order. A reader of the Respub. Ath. in its original form would probably not have said eKaaros r&u dea-fxoderccv {Sol. 25), where the work reads ol 5' fvv4a &pxovTes, nor would he have turned rb yap apxaiov fi iv 'Apelcfi irdyw 0ovAt] . . . iip' iKacTTTi twv a.pxv iw euiavThv [Ka^icTTaJcra awfa-TeWev (to be sure, the text is uncertain) into (rv(rrricra./j.e- vos 5e Tr;v eV 'Apeico irdycv ^ovKrjv Sk tHiv kolt iviavrhv apxovTUiv. He would not have made Peisistratus active in the (earlier) Megarian war {Sol. 8) ; Aristotle had declared this impossible from the point of view of the age of Peisistratus (c. 17). At all events, if he had known that the Respub. Ath. had a contradictory state- ment, he would have inserted ws ivwi (pacriv as in Sol. i (cf. Respub. Ath. c. 17, \ripovaL made not long after the time of Aristotle, from the authen- tic inscriptions preserved at Olympia.^ countable omission in his TJum. of the characteristic anecdote of Themistocles, Ephialtes, and the Areopagus {Respub. Ath. c. 25) may be explained on the hypothesis that the copy of Aristotle's work used by Plutarch did not contain this story. In Pericles 9 Aristotle is cited, but immediately there follow statements as to Pericles which directly contradict Aristotle (cf. Ad. Bauer, I.e., p. 77, who be- lieves, however, in a first-hand use of Respiib. Ath. by Plutarch). It might be objected that Plutarch had the original copy, while ours (British Mus. Pap. No. 131) is an inflated and interpolated edition. I have tried to meet this objection, very briefly, in Am. Journ. Philol. 12 (1891), p. 317, note. ^ Plutarch's Theseus is largely drawn from Philochorus. Gilbert, Philol. 33 (1874), pp. 46 ff., attempts to prove that Plutarch drew from Philochorus, not at first hand, but through Ister, who is the source of the whole Life except cc. i, 2. Well- mann {De Istro Callimachio, pp. 31 ff.) has demonstrated an independent use of Philochorus by Plutarch, — in cc. 14, 16, 19, probably also in 24, 31, 35, 36, — as well as a second-hand use through Ister. Wilamov.itz {Phil. Unt. I. p. 8) claims for Plutarch an immediate contact with Cleidemus as well as Philochorus. Theo- pompus was the ultimate authority of Diog. Laert. {l-c.~) for a part, at least, of his account of Epimenides at Athens, which in some particulars agrees with that of Plutarch. Plutarch used Theopompus freely in Lysander, and elsewhere. On Theophrastus as a source (through Ister?), see below, p. 67, note i. 2 The inscriptions were recorded by the Hellanodicae, evidently immediately on the completion of the festival : Paus. VI. 8. i says of Euanoridas, '^^vifx^voi 8' 'EA.AaroSi/cTjs e'Ypa\f/e koI ovtos to. ovS/xara iv 'OA.u/u:ria twv veviKriKSTccu (cf. Har- poc. s.v. 'KWavoS'iKar . . . 'AptffTodriiuSs (prjcrL, /c.t.A. ; Rose, Aristot. Frag. 482). These evidently are the Elean records of Olympionicae mentioned by Pausanias {e.g. III. 21. i; VI. 2. 3, and 13. 10). Rutgers, Jul. Afric. p. i. Julius Africanus, in constructing his own list, probably made use, not of the original records, nor of Phlegon's list, but of a sort of chronological compendium appar- ently prepared by the Elean Aristodemus (fl. B.C. 150?). Cf Unger, Philol. 41 (1882), p. 604. Gelzer, Sextus Julius Africanus, I., 1880, p. 168. 28 Johfi Hcjiry Wright. IV. MEGACLES AS ARCHON. Until within a few years historians have had no serious differ- ence of opinion as to the part taken by the Alcmeonidae in the affair of Cylon, The traditional account as given by Phitarch has been accepted as authentic, and the earher statements have been interpreted in the hght of it. But of late a difference of opinion has arisen, which it becomes necessary for us briefly to examine. There are three possibilities as to the part played by the Alcme- onidae in the affair. The antagonists of Cylon, to whom the guilt of sacrilege became attached, may have been the oiScials who prom- ised the Cylonians safety until the matter could be tried and then broke their promise : as such we might regard them either ( i ) as the whole body of officials, or (2) as a band headed by one or more of the officials. On the other hand, (3) these sacrilegious persons may have held no office whatever, but may have been a faction that ill brooked the restraint imposed by the officials, and attacked the party of Cylon while still under divine protection. In the first of the three possibilities we should be obliged (with W. Petersen) to consider all of the archons at this time as members of the family of the Alcmeonidae.^ According to the second, substantially the traditional, view we should have to suppose an Alcmeonid (Mega- cles) prominent among the archons, to whose support the members of his family and their sympathizers rallied, — influential to such an extent as to carry with him some of his fellows in office in his efforts to punish the daring Cylonians even by unholy means. The third view, by which we are to consider the Alcmeonidae as an irre- sponsible and rival faction, is urged by Landwehr." The third explanation is inconsistent with the direct language of Thucydides and with the most probable meaning of Herodo- 1 W. Petersen, Hist. Gent. Attic, p. 81. 2 Landwehr, Philol. 46 (18S6), p. 133. In Philol. Suppl.-Bd. V. p. 147, this writer argues that Cylon trusted to the Eupatrids to sustain him as against the Stoikoi, and appeals to Plut. Sol. 14, where 0/ irpoiaTd/uevot (by him identified with the Eupatrids) urge Solon to make himself tyrant. He might also have cited one of the Thucydidean meanings of Svi'aT6s, used of Cylon (I. 126), viz. aristocratic opponents of the people. But these are hardly sufficient grounds. The Date of Cylon. 2C) tus : in both of these writers the blame rests upon certain persons who give to the Cylonians a promise, which is broken. Herodotus calls these persons Trpi^rane? twv vavKpdpoiv. Thucydides, however, having said that the conduct of the siege had been committed to oi cvvea apxovre?, adds, after an interval, that they, — 06 tu)v ^AO-qvamv €7riTerpa/x/AeVot rr]v (pvXaKrjv,^ — when they saw the Cylonians perishing in the temple, lifted them up from their suppliant position with a promise that they should receive no harm (e'^' b a (a', yS') and ^ have each their advocates, vi'hom we need not here enumerate. The greater probability of B v, Aristot. Respub. Ath, c. 7; cf. Heracl. Exc. Pol. 8; Pollux VIII. 86; Suid. s.v. xp^c"? ^iKciv). In Plato (^Phaedr. 235 e) Socrates playfully embroiders this oath, and ' adds unessential details 42 JoJin Henry Wright. the time of the Persian occupation of the acropolis, perhaps as a sort of an expiatory offering made by the friends of Pericles at the time when party strife had made his hereditary taint as an Alcmeonid a factor of great weight against him/ — we have a survival of the authentic tradition, elsewhere meeting us only in Herodotus, that Cylon was a young man at the time of his attempt. A second class of arguments in favor of a date for Cylon earlier than 621 B.C. may be based upon the probable age of the Megacles prominent in the affair as the archon who broke his word, and, at the head of a faction, committed sacrilegious murder. The age of this man at this time is to be inferred from that of his son Alcmeon, general of the Athenians in the First Sacred War. A discussion of this topic raises several related questions concerning the chronology, fortunes, and wealth of the Alcmeonidae in the latter part of the seventh and in the first half of the sixth centuries b.c. VI. THE ALCMEONIDAE BEFORE PEISISTRATUS. According to Attic traditions the noble house of the Alcmeoni- dae ^ had in the earliest historic period shown its pre-eminence : two of its members, Megacles and Alcmeon, had been so-called life- archons, the later being the last in that series.^ Uncertain as this tra- (xpfff^v iiKova laofieTpriTov els AeX^oi/s avaQi) 373, n. 189, p. 98 (sixth century B.C.). Cf. Meisterhans, Gramm? § 14, p. 28, and notes 167 and 517. Euripides's play was entitled 'A\K,aiwy, Cramer, A nee. Oxon. II. p. 337. 4. 'AAKfxfwvidat, Dem. XXI. 144 (2). ^ In the list (Euseb. Chron. I. 185 ff.) of thirteen life-archons, beginning with The Date of Cylon. 43 dition may be, there is no uncertainty about the tradition that makes this family one of the noble yeV?;, later called Eupatridae/ — from Medon, the sixth is Megacles and the thirteenth Alcmeon. The periods ascribed to these archons, who lived before ai'aypa(pai were begun, are purely conjectural. The presence of these names in this list, as also of the names of Agamestor (Philaid?), and Ariphron (Buzygid), and others, shows one of three things: either (i) that the tradition that the succession was limited to Medontidae, and so continued into the period of the decennial archontate (Paus. I. 3. 3; IV. 5. 10; 13. 7), was false; or (2) that these men were Medontidae on their mothers' side, but on their fathers' side members of other families; or (3) that these names do not belong in the historic series, the ancient list having been revised by the inser- tion, at a late period, of well-known Attic names. Cf. Busolt, G. G. I. p. 406, note 2. ^ The answer to the question as to whether the Alcmeonidae were Eupatridae (denied by Sauppe, Stein — on Herod. I. 59 — and others; affirmed by Vischer and others) will depend upon the sense in which we are to take the word : whether (l) as the name of an Attic -yivos, EinrarpiSai, or (2) evTrarpidat, as the generic name of a political class, an estate (Germ. 'Stand'), composed of certain ancient noble-born families, possessing certain traditional political rights and privileges. That there was such an Attic yevos is clear: see Isocr. xvi. 25, Dem. xxi. 144; Polemon, a/. Schol. Soph. O. C. 489 (cf. Wilamowitz, Phil. Unt. I. 119, note, and Hermes, 22 [1887], pp. 121, and 479 ff. [Topffer]; also Hirzel, Rhein. Mus. [1888], p. 631, but especially Topffer, Alt. Gen. pp. 175 ff.) ; that the Alcmeonidae did not belong to it is equally clear (cf. Isocr. /.c). That, how- ever, the Alcmeonidae were an ancient family, and that its members enjoyed the highest privileges, in the state, of holding office, etc., is also demonstrable (cf. Vischer, Kl. Schriften, I. pp. 401 ff.). The scolion preserved in Aristot. Respub. Ath. c. 19, and often quoted (see Rose, Aristot. Fragm. 394, and Aristot. Pseu- depigr. pp. 417, 418), shows that in the mouths of the people the Alcmeonidae were early called euTrarpiSat, whatever the word may have meant : alal AeirpvSpiop irpoSwcreTaipou \ o'lovs &i'Spas airuAecras iJ,dx^pif/.oi, etc.). It is doubtful — a third possible case — whether this word was found in Aristotle's account of the Attic state under Theseus, in the lost part of the Respiib. Ath. (Rose, Aristot. Fragin. 3S4, 385). It is not given (as Kenyon remarks, p. 173) in the early versions of this passage (^Lex. Dem. Patm. p. 152 — Sakkelion, Bull. Corr. Hellen. I. 1877; — Schol. Plat. Axioch. 371 D; Moeris, Lex. Att. p. 193) , though it occurs in the paraphrase in Plut. Thes. 25, and in Pollux VIII. 1 1 1. The last version is in part, at least, demonstrably an expansion, by the insertion of the words e{ euiroTpiScSv, of the language of Aristotle {^Respub. Ath. c. 8 : ^uAal 5' ^aav S' KaOdntp irpSTepov koI (f)v\o0acn\i7s rtTrapis, k.t.\. Pollux., ib. : oi df (pv\ofiaa'tXi7s e| evTrarptSoiv 6' iivTes, w.t.A.). The Date of Cylon, 45 gles immediately after Solon's reforms, points, as we have already remarked, to early family rivalries. Friends of the Alcmeonidae in subsequent centuries, as they looked back upon the history of the family, in which prominent members stand forth as the enemies of tyrants and as the upholders of the people against oligarchical domination, saw in this house ideal champions of the liberty of the people, but they viewed history with false perspective.^ Megacles, the younger, who, at the head of the Parali, withstood Peisistratus, champion of the Diacrii, did so, — as also Lycurgus, the leader of the Pediaei, — not with high motives, but because he hoped to gain something by it, and in particular a mastery over his rivals. The subsequent compromise proposed by Megacles to Peisistratus, whereby the tyrant having married his daughter should receive Megacles's support in his usurpation, is hardly the conduct of a pure-minded patriot.^ When finally the Peisistratidae were cast out, in large measure through the efforts of the outraged Alcmeonidae, and Cleisthenes, the son of Megacles, with his adherents gained the ascendancy in the state, as over-against his oligarchic rivals now headed by Isagoras, it was apparently mainly to establish himself and his party in power that he instituted his far-reaching reforms.^ At 1 Cf. especially Isocr. xvi. 25, who celebrates the wealth and patriotic spirit of the family : o\ rov filv ttKovtov ixiyiarov fxvr)fj.etov Kare\twov — 'iTrircoi' yap ^evyei rrpuiTOs 'A\K/xewv riov iroXiruv 'OKvixnlaffiv iv'iKrjffe — t^jv 5' evvoiav ^v elxof els rh irXTJdos ev toIs TvpavvLKols eiredei^avTo . . . oiiK rj^iaicrav fieracrxf^i' ttjs iKeivou (i.e. Peisistratus) Tvpavvi^os aW' e'iXovro ^vytlv /xaWov f) roiis iroKiras iSeTi' SovAevovras, K.r.\. Modern instances of a similar lack of historical perspective abound. ^ Plut. So/. 29 : Trpay/j.aTa vewrepa irpoarSoKcii) koI uo6e7v UTravTas {i.e. these party leaders) krepav KaTacrTaaiv, ovk 'iaov ^Xtti^ovras, aWa irXiov f^eiv ev tjj HeTal3o\fi ko.I Kparriaeiv TravTa-Kacn rS)v Siacpepofxevwv. Herod. I. 59) 60 : efOa, Si] 6 TleifflffTpaTos fipx^ 'AOrjvaiaii'. The factions of Lycurgus and Megacles combine against Peisistratus and cast him out; they subsequently fall out among them- selves, and Megacles makes a compromise with Peisistratus, offering his daughter in marriage (M rvpavv(di). ^ Herod. V. 66 : oZtol ol avSpes earaaiaaav Trepi 5vi/d/j,ios, kaaovixevos Se 6 KXtL(rd4v7)s rhv briixov TrpocreTaLpiCerai, as more than a century earlier, for a practi- cally similar purpose, Cylon had called to his aid an kTaipy\iy\v ruv riMicicnTeaiv. Aristotle's language is (Respub. Ath. c. 20) : karacsM^ov irphs a.\\-ft\ovs 'IcaySpas . . . Kal K\ei(T0fV7}s . . . fjTTiofievos de tolls eraipeiaLs 6 K\ft(T0ev7]s TrpoirrjydyeTO rhv Stj/jlou, aTTooidohs rS ir\-f]9eL rrjv noKireiau (see above, p. 38, note). The radical 46 JoJin Henry Wright. no point in the political history of the family — except, perhaps, in some of the acts of its greatest scion, Pericles — do we find evi- dence of wholly disinterested and patriotic conduct ; misfortune, exile, and many other reverses, together with signal success in the gaining of wealth, uniting its members closely, had strongly developed the family feeling, and had taught them insight and political wisdom, which, when the opportunity arrived, they put to brilliant use to their own great advantage, as also to that of the state. According to the clear language of Thucydides the attempt of Cylon was brought to a summary end by an uprising of the people, hastening in from the country, followed by violent measures on the part of the Alcmeonidae. The interests of the Alcmeonidae are here served by the people from the country : the family may be regarded as now standing at the head of the second of the two great classes into which from early times the Athenian people fall, — the class whom Aristotle calls arroiKot, and which would at this time include the artisan as well as the peasant class. Though the lines appear sharply drawn between the well-to-do and the poor, there is as yet no evi- dence of minuter subdivisions according to class differences, nor according to local factions, which meet us in quick succession soon after Solon's legislation. Two generations later the family appears — in the person of Megacles, grandson of the Megacles of the affair of Cylon — as the champion of the local faction of the Parali, social and economic changes having come about that led most naturally to this relation ; three generations later it is the people {Demus) as such that Cleisthenes allies to himself; five generations later it is by his extraor- dinary services to the Demus that Pericles maintains himself in his supreme position ; while in the sixth generation the coquettings of character of the reforms of Cleisthenes was doubtless suggested to him by the experience of his grandfather, for whose reorganization of the Sicyon constitution one would hardly claim a patriot's disinterestedness. The ostracism of Mega- cles, son of Hippocrates and nephew of Cleisthenes, in 487/6 B.C., as supporter of the Peisistratidae shows that the family had no ingrained aversion to tyranny (Aristot. Kespub. Ath. c. 22). Lysias (xiv. 39; cf. [Andoc] Contra Ale. 34) makes him Cleisthenes's son, grandfather of Alcibiades, — hence perhaps the 5Is. See also the ostrakon bearing the name of Megacles, son of Hippocrates, the per- son mentioned by Aristotle (Benndorf, Griech. u. Sicil. Vaseubilder, p. 50, pi. 29, no. 10); and a pinax discussed by Studniczka {Jahrb. d. Arch. Inst. 2. [1SS7], p. 161J. The Date of Cylon. 47 the Alcmeonid Alcibiades with the same Demus are the causes at once of his rise and of his fall. The affair of Cylon, marked as it was by violence and unholy blood- shed, was followed by a long period of strife. The survivors of the Cylonians and their adherents gain strength, and a reaction against the Alcmeonidae sets in, mainly political,^ but doubtless sharpened by the superstitious sense of outraged divine law. The people are at variance and in dread of worse ill ; according to some authorities Solon,^ then beginning to rise into prominence, having the confidence of both parties, or some other influential citizen, prevails upon the Alcmeonidae to submit to the verdict of trial by a special court of three hundred citizens selected for this purpose. The formal accuser, as we have seen, is Myron, a Lycomid ; the Alcmeonidae are found guilty ; the bodies of the dead offenders are dug up and cast beyond the borders ; the Hving relatives withdraw, condemned to perpetual exile. ^ The trial and exile of the Alcmeonidae must have taken place no little time before the legislation of Solon, and before the breaking out of the Sacred War, in which Alcmeon, now head of the house, is general of the Athenian contingent.* There are two grounds for 1 Cf. Schomann, Jahrb. f. Philol. iii (1875), pp. 464 ff. 2 The connexion of Solon with this trial has only slight evidence to sustain it. Niese, Ztir Gesch. Solans, p. 14. 3 Unless the detail about the i^opicr/j.6s of the bodies of the dead be a ditto- graphy for what was said of the procedure in the time of Cleisthenes (an un- likely hypothesis; see above, p. 17, note i), one must infer that a considerable time had elapsed between the sacrilege and the trial. Aristotle's language sug- gests that Megacles, the chief culprit, was one of the dead; at all events, we hear nothing of him again. Diels {^Sitzungsb. d. Berl. Akad., 1891, p. 388) supposes a generation to have passed. * The main ground for a later date of the trial is the supposed connexion of Epimenides with the measures taken for the purification of the city from the KuActj^etov ^705. According to this view, the trial must have taken place, if not after the arrival of Epimenides, — according to one account (Diog. Laert. I. 10. 1 10; cf. Suid. s.v. 'Ein/j.evidr]s for another date) he came 01. 42. i = 596 B.C., — at least shortly before it. Thus Schomann — who fixes the date of the affair of Cylon at 612 B.C., and not, as we would, a dozen or more years earlier — would put the trial after the beginning of the Sacred War (by him dated 600 B.C.), and before Epimenides (596 B.C.) : after the beginning of the war, because otherwise Alcmeon could hardly have been chosen general; before Epimenides, because in 48 JgJih Henry Wright . this inference : first, the selection of Alcmeon as representative of the Athenian people in the war for the honor of Delphi, and, sec- ondly, the fact that a reaction had set in against the Cylonians before the enactment of Solon's laws. Both of these things would have been impossible but for a considerable lapse of time. We must conceive of the case somewhat as follows : after the departure of the Alcmeonidae, the keenness of the feeling of hatred (emyets Iiiktovvto) which prompted the severity of their punishment became less and less sharp, — in part because of the natural reaction that sets in in all such cases ; in part doubtless because of the good report that came home of the brave and wise conduct of the members of the family in their absence, and especially of Alcmeon ; in part also because of new ties of business formed between enterprising Athe- nians at home and the absent Alcmeonidae, who were now in all probability adventuring themselves in trade and commerce in foreign lands, and thus laying the foundations of the wealth for which in subsequent times their family was illustrious. With the growth and spread of this feeling in favor of the Alcmeonidae — the most conspicu- ous evidence of which was the choice of Alcmeon as general, and the restoration of the family therein involved — there went also a deepen- ing of the feeling against the Cylonians, which is clearly expressed in the language of the amnesty-law of Solon, given in the thirteenth a^wr.' the accounts of the activity of Epimenides in purifying the city, no mention is made of the trial and exile. But — to leave out of consideration the very ques- tionable date of the Sacred War assumed by Schomann and the fact that the order of events in Aristotle's narrative (^Respub. Ath. cc. I ff.) points conclusively to a trial of the Alcmeonidae, if not before Draco, certainly not long after him, — it is highly improbable that Solon's amnesty-law (Plut. Sol. 19) should have allowed the return of the exiles only a few months after their awful banishment, while making an express exception in the case of the exiled Cylonians. Further, as will be shown later (pp. 69 ff.), the connexion of Epimenides with this affair, at least as late as 596 B.C., is problematical, and arguments based upon it have little weight. 1 Plut. Sol. 19: this law, which provides for pardon and restoration to rights of citizenship, makes exception in the case of the Cylonians, in the words •K\y]v baoi . . . iK irpvTaveiov Kara^iKaudivres . . . iirX TupavviSi itpivyov. Even if, with Lipsius-Schomann {Att. Proc. I. p. 27), we deny that the court before which the Cylonians were tried M'as an archon's court, there can be no doubt that in these words the Cylonians are meant. The ei's tt/i/ Kpiaiv . . . kv 'Apelqj Trdycp of Schol. I. At. £t^. 445 is a mistaken form of statement, which has no weight. See pp. 16, 24, and note i. The Date of Cylon. 49 All such changes of popular feeling take time, and we can hardly be wrong in insisting that between the affair of Cylon, which was the original cause of all these changes of mental attitude, and the later exhibitions of popular feeling in the matter, a period of many years must have elapsed. In the generation in which the attempt of Cylon was thwarted, the conspicuous Alcmeonid is Megacles. In the next generation the leading member of the family is Alcmeon, the son of Megacles, noted for the part he took in the Sacred War and for his great wealth.^ About the exact date and length of the Sacred War there is still ground for uncertainty, though there is every probability that the war practically closed in the archonship at Athens of Simon {i.e. 590 B.C.) ;^ its duration is wholly uncertain, since we must regard the ten-year period ascribed to it by later writers ^ as a sort of ana- chronistic echo of the ten-year period of the Sacred War in the fourth century b.c. (357-346 B.C.), if not suggested by the legend of the Trojan War. This first Sacred War, though not so great an affair as it was made out to be in much later times,^ still has something of a univer- sal character, the several tribes of the Delphian amphictyony taking sides : the leader of the Athenian contingent in it, — according to the best records, the Delphic vTrofx-vyixara — was Alcmeon.^ It is reasonable 1 Plut. Sol. 11; Herod. VI. 125; Isocr. xvi. 25. 2 Simon, archon 01. 47. 3; Mar. Par. Ep. 37, For a discussion of the date of the founding of the Pythian (rTi7rous koI /mvOovs odev tj Ktppaia %ci5pa KaOiepcidr) ffvvO^ls kuI Sif^eKOdv), a proceeding which the quotation from Aristotle (TruadevTes yap vn iKsipov Trphs rhv ir6\ef^ov wpij-rjaav ol 'A/xcpiKTvoves ws ^AAot re fiaprvpovcrt Kal go , JoJin Henry WrigJit. to believe that, under all the circumstances, Alcmeon at this time, -i.e. before 590 b.c, could not have been a young man.^ The nec- essary qualifications for the office of general were age, experience, reputation, and these conditions must have been especially required in a candidate belonging to a family upon which the taint still rested. The bearing of this inference upon the main question under discus- sion will be more evident later on. The wealth of Alcmeon and its source is a subject deserving examination, especially as the testimonies relating to it are somewhat confused. Herodotus (VI. 125) names Alcmeon as the friend of Croe- sus, — which is of course impossible, — and gives the well-known story of the origin of his wealth from the gifts of Croesus, and remarks that it was by reason of this wealth that he presented himself at Olympia with a four-horse chariot and won the race ; he also adds that the house was further enriched in the next generation by Clei- sthenes of Sicyon, into whose family Megacles, Alcmeon's son, had married. Evidently the same victor and the same victory in the four-horse chariot-race, adduced as an evidence of the wealth of the Alcmeonidae, are celebrated by Isocrates (xvi, 25) ; this victory is by him said to have been the first one of its kind won by an Athenian." Pindar'^ (yPyth. 7. 14) declares that one Olympic, five 'Api(7T0TfA.7js iv TT] tSjv TIvOlovikuv a.va.ypa(pfj 'S.SXuvi t^iv yvwfxriv auartdeis) ought to make us slow to do, we still have no reason to doubt the part taken in the war by Alcmeon. 1 Aristot. (^Jiesptib. Ath. c. 4) asserts that, under the Draconian constitution, which prevailed at the time when Alcmeon was chosen to office, it was required that the generals should be men with a property qualification of not less than one hundred minae, and should have children born in wedlock over ten years of age. Phrynon, general before Sigeum, about B.C. 610, must have been, at the time of his cTTpaTTj-yia, not less than forty-five years of age. He won an Olympic victory, 01. 36 (B.C. 636): in the irayKpaTiov, according to Diog. Laert. I. 4. 74; in the stadium (apparently), according to Euseb. I. 199; he fell before Sigeum in a single combat with Pittacus. Probably Jul. Afric. wrote 'Aprvrd/xas AaKwv a-rddiov. TlayKpariov ^pvvaiv 'AOrji^aios, hs UiTTaKCfi ij.ovo/iaxooi> avrjpedr) (Rutgers, yul. Afr. pp. 13, 14; for Artytamas, of. Antigon. Carystius, Hist. Mirab. 121, in West- ermann's Paradoxographi, p. 90). 2 The 'LitTxinv rsXelwv Sp6uos . . . was established 01. 25 (B.C. 6S0), and the first victor was the Theban Pagondas (Paus. V. 8. 7). ** Pind. Pyth. 7. 13 ff. : dyovrt de fj.e vevTe fifv 'laS/xoT | vIkui, fila S' iKTrpeirris \ Atbs 'OAu^n-tas | 5vo 5' airh Kippas. The contradiction of this statement found in The Date of Cylon. 51 Isthmian, and two Pythian victories were obtained by members of the family (before B.C. 490). The SchoHast on this passage, though he gives us an extraordinary wreck of details, yet preserves the good tradition (aVaypac^eTat), that this victory was won in 01. 47 (b.c. 592).^ It was traditionally believed, then, that at this early date — about 590 B.C. — the Alcmeonidae were a wealthy family, and the explana- tion for this wealth was found, perversely and impossibly enough, in a supposed connexion with Croesus. Croesus, however, belonged to the next generation, not ascending the throne before 560 B.C.," though he may have had a share in the government with his father Alyattes Arg. II. Ar. Nub. and in Schol. Ar. Nub. 64 (Tzetz. Chil. I. 8 only follows this Schol.) is sufficiently met by Boeckh, Find. II. 2, pp. 303, 304. The large num- ber of Isthmian victories accredited to the family is doubtless to be explained by the proximity of Sicyon to the place of the games : Sicyon must have been to Megacles, the husband of Agariste, and to their immediate descendants, a second home. According to Krause's lists {Pythien, Ne7n. u. Isth. pp. 209-23), the cities that furnished much the larger number of Isthmian victors were Corinth, x\egina, and Sicyon; Athens is only slightly represented. This shows that there were exceptional reasons — probably due to local causes — why the Alcmeonidae were often at these games. 1 Boeckh, jPzwo'. II. i, p. 391. In the Schol. the name of the victor is wrongly given as Megacles, a reading which Boeckh at first accepted, and accordingly identifying this Megacles with the Cylonian Megacles, he brought down the date of Cylon to suit (b.c. 599). In the commentary on the passage Boeckh withdraws this identification (II. 2, p. 304 : " meam ad Scholia olim proditam opinionem re- movero"), and would emend the date to 01. 57, — without, however, withdrawing the date for Cylon, — and refer the victory to Megacles, the contemporary of Peisistratus (Schol. Ar. Nub. 64). This latter victory, by the way, is, on the face of it, wrongly ascribed to Megacles; the Schol. has confused the name of Megacles with that of Cimon (Herod. VI. 35, 36; VI. 103), and ascribes to the former what belongs to the latter (cf. Krause, Olympia, p. 324). The confusion of names in the Schol. is not surprising; as the orators confuse the names of Miltiades and Cimon, as Herodotus, Aelian, and Paus. (VI. 19. 6) furnish similar instances, it is to be expected that a less familiar Alcmeon should be turned into a more familiar Megacles. Cf. Topffer, Att. Ge7t. p. 280, note. 2 Croesus's reign probably ceased 546 B.C. : he marched against Cyrus B.C. 548, 01. 58. I (Euseb. 1. 96), and was soon defeated, and Sardis was taJcen (cf. Sosicrates ap. Diog. Laert. II. 7. 95) : cf. Clinton, F. H. II. s.a. 546 B.C. : the date of the fall of Sardis was an accepted and well-known epoch (Diels, Rhein. Mus. 31, p. 20). Croesus was thirty-five years of age at the death of his father (Herod. I. 26), and reigned fourteen years (Herod. I. 86) ; the date of his accession to the throne would then be about 560 B.C. For variant dates, see Busolt, G.G. I. pp. 332 ff. 52 ' John Henry Wright.. for a while before this time. In the light of the statement in Hero- dotus (I. 19) that Alyattes, having fallen sick, consulted the oracle at Delphi, and of the subsequent statement (VI. 125) that the Lydian king — here, to be sure, named Croesus — in gratitude to Alcmeon for aid rendered his ambassadors invited him to Sardis and vastly en- riched him, Schomann ' makes the ingenious suggestion that Alyattes, not Croesus, was the actual source of the wealth of the Alcmeonidae. The confusion^ of the son with his father was very natural, especially after Croesus had become the type of the wealthy monarch.^ 1 Schomann {Jahrb. f. Philol. Ill [1875], P- 4^^) gives two reasons for believing that Herodotus is wrong in here naming Croesus: Croesus did not ascend the throne until fully thirty years after Alcmeon's (TTpaTrjyia, and, sec- ondly, he always stood in too good repute in Delphi to make it likely that his ambassadors needed the aid and special pleadings of others. 2 Though there are several fictitious features in this story, it is more reasonable to believe that Herodotus has erred in his chronology than that there is no basis of fact whatever for friendly aid given the Alcmeonidae by a Lydian king. 3 Of course the story in Herodotus (I. 30-33) , followed by Plutarch (SoL z'j ff.), which brings Solon and Croesus together, is equally improbable. Plutarch admits the chronological difficulties, but naively waives them in the characteristic pas- sage : Tryv Trphs Kpolaov evTev^iv avTOv doKovcriv tvLoi toIs xpovois as Tmr\acF^4vriv iKiyXii'V- fya> Si K6yov e^'5o|ov ovr TCf ^SXaivos ^6ei — than that the Athenian legislator should have met the Egyp- tian legislator, and adopted from him the measure which prevailed in both lands? 54 JoJm Henry Wright. ' in' the thickly populated Brauronian fastnesses in the upland country of Diacria^ ; the ancient seat of the Alcmeonidae seems to have been, not on the shore, but well up in the Athenian plain, on the slopes of Parnes near Leipsydrium,^ where many years later they bravely though unsuccessfully withstood the sons of Peisistratus. This lead- ership can be most intelligibly explained only on the supposition of 1 Plut. Sol. 10; Schol. Ar. Av. 873; Schol. Ar. Pac. 874. 2 Aristot. Respub. Ath. c. 19: '' h.KKjxzwvi'ha.i. . . . T^i-xiaavTi^ kv ttj X^P'} Aen//u- Spiov rh vTTep [uTrb?] Tldpuyjdos, els h crvvrjKdSv rives ruv iic tov acTews. The text is probably corrupt, since the readings derived from the original text are various, viz. (l) VTTep Hapvr\Oos, Hesych. s.v. Aei^v^ptov. (2) rh vwep Tldpv7]dos, Suid. s.v. Au/tJiroSes. (3) irepl rr;;' VldpurjOoi/, Schol. Ar. Lys. 666. (4) vnh ttjs TldpvqOos, Et. Mag. p. 361. 32. (5) Herod. V. 62: A«ti|/i^5pioj' ro inrep Tlaioviris reiX'^ofTes- Aristotle is following Herodotus; perhaps in the original text of Herodotus stood the words vnep Ilaiopias virh UdpurjOos, which in the version that has reached us have been abbreviated into the incorrect virep Tldpvrjdos. Paeonia — Paeonidae, not far from modern Menidhi — lay in the Attic ireBiov, north of Athens (Milchhofer, Texi to Curtius and Kaupert's Attika, H. 42) ; accord- ing to the explanation suggested above, Leipsydrium lay " beyond " it, on the southern slopes of Parnes. Aristotle, the Scholiasts, and the lexicographers make Leipsydrium a sort of earlier Phyle, whither the patriots of the sixth century fled and where they congregated. We may best explain the several statements by supposing that the Alcmeonidae fortified their ancient family home. The Alcmeonidae and the Paeonidae were cognate "yevi), and must originally have dwelt near each other; Paeonia was the seat of the Paeonidae. Isocrates (xvi. 25) asserts that whenever the Peisistratidae conquered the Alcmeonidae, they levelled their houses to the ground and dug up their graves. Perhaps the scolion on Leipsydrium (see above, p. 43, note i) refers in part to some such acts. Later members of the family of the Alcmeonidae, to be sure, come from Agryle (Leobates, Plut. Them. 23) and Alopece {C.I.A. I. 122; Aristot. Respub. Ath. c. 22), and from other demes of the ize^iov, not, however, in the vicinity of Leipsydrium, but near Athens. These cases, however, belong to post-Cleisthenean times; the new demes by no means stood for the ancient homes of families of the demotae. The members of an ancient family might well be scattered over Attica. One might hazard the conjecture that it was as promoters of trade between Euboea and Athens — the chief route of which passed their doors — or perhaps as exporters of corn from their fertile inland estates that the Alcmeonidae origi- nally came into relation with the Shoremen, a relation that grew more intimate as new foreign connexions, formed when the family went into exile, extended the range of their commercial activity. Aristotle seems to suggest Delphi as the source of the wealth of the family (^Respub. Ath. c. 19, 2^6^ evirSpricrav, k.t.\.). But the passage, besides being corrupt, is a faulty condensation of Herod. VI. 62 ad fin. and 63 ad init. The Date of Cylon. 55 an identity of business interests, an identity that had been the slow growth of years.^ The beginnings of trade and industry in Attica "' are hardly to be placed much earlier than the last third of the seventh century B.C. The primitive system of barter had prevailed hitherto. By the middle of the following century there was a vigorous trade with the west, in which Athens received grain in exchange for her pottery and for her silver. Solon's prohibition '^ of the export of all agricultural products of Attica — this cannot include manufactured articles — except oil, the supply of which alone exceeded the demand for local consumption, shows that before his legislation there had been extensive trading and an exportation by enterprising merchants of articles needed for home use. The corn trade, to be sure, was largely in the hands of Megara, which, like Corinth and Aegina, much anticipated Athens in commer- cial enterprise ; and when the war with Megara closed this source of supply, distress was prevalent. But Athens herself launched her ships upon the seas, and now sought gain in foreign lands.^ Indeed, it was probably with a view to securing something of the corn trade of the Black Sea that the Athenians were led, not long after Draco, to send an expedition, their first to cross the seas, so as to secure a foothold on the Hellespont in the Troad. Involved in a quarrel with Mytilene, which laid claim to the Troad as her own colonial territory (Aeolic), the Athenians succeeded, however, in maintaining their ground after the decisive capture of Sigeum.^ The establishment of the naucraries,^ which clearly had to do with the promotion of a navy, probably for the protection of the merchant marine, is unintelligible except upon ^ The significance of the connexion of the family with the Parali reappears as late as the time of Pericles, whose son Paralus received his name probably in recognition of this relation, a name originally suggested, doubtless, by that of the Attic hero Paralus (Eur. Suppl, 659), himself, however, perhaps the mythical impersonation of the Parali. Cf. Stein, on Herod. I. 59. 16. 2 On the whole subject, see Busolt, G. G. I. pp. 501 ff.; H. Droysen, Athen u. d. Westen, pp. 39-40. ^ Plut. Sol. 24. * Sol. Frag. 13. 43-46, cited in part above, p. 9, note 3. 5 Strabo XIII. 599. The date of the operations before Sigeum was not far from B.C. 610: see above, p. 9, and note 5. The Sigean Inscription belongs to a date only a little later: Roberts, Greek Epigr. pp. 78, 334-6; Kirchhoff, Studien zur Griech. Alphab,^ p. 22 ff. For Phrynon, the general, see above, p. 50, note I. ^ On the naucraries, see above, p. 31, note i. 56 Jolin Henry Wright. ■ this supposition. We have good evidence that Solon himself engaged in trade, and the sagacity of his economical and financial reforms reveals a man practically acquainted with the intricacies and needs of business intercourse. The evident friendliness of Solon for the Alcmeonidae might possibly be explained on the supposition of a unity of interests with them in matters of trade. The social distress in Attica which prevailed for a number of years before Solon's appearance upon the scene was due to a variety of causes. The long war with Megara not only had exhausted the resources of the people, but had forced the Athenians to get such imported corn as was needed as best they could, probably only at a great cost. The change from primitive traffic by barter to that of buying and selling with coined money would weigh very heavily upon the peasant, and even upon the landed proprietor who had no capital but his lands ; increase and uncertainty in prices would naturally ensue, and a financial crisis would be precipitated. A third cause of discontent was found in the unjust manner with which the ruling fami- Hes, in whose hands lay the judicial functions, executed judgment, favoring their friends and oppressing the helpless. The only persons who did not suffer in this order of things were the capitaUsts, who, in fact, throve in it. In some cases the capitalists were landed proprietors, but many of them must have got their money by trade. A land- owner with money had the peasant at his mercy, and the result was not only that the country was dotted with slabs which served as rec- ords of mortgages, but that the holdings of land by single individuals vastly and unduly increased. Nay, more : so high was the rate of interest which it was possible to exact from starving debtors, that many of the unfortunates found it impossible to pay the principal and were thus sold into slavery, themselves or their children, in satisfac- tion for their debts. Solon's reforms changed these conditions, and secured equity for every one. For our purposes it is unnecessary to dwell upon these re- forms. It is enough to say that the xpewv d-n-oKOTr-^, or absolute remis- sion of debts, commonly known as the Seisachthy, and in fact the whole revolution, must have been highly objectionable to the capitalists,^ who, In the words SAwj Se SitreAov;' vocrovvres ra irpbs eavrovs, ot fiev apx^v Kol irp6(pa.(nv tx^vrfs tt/v tuv xpe^v airoKOTr-fii' (crv/x$iPriK€i yap avroTs yijovevai tt^vt]- The Date of Cylon. 57 however, when once a financial and business settlement had been reached, preferred to allow it to remain rather than to risk losses by further revolution.^ It is an interesting fact that of the post-Solonian parties, — the Parali, Pediaei, Diacrii,- — the Parali is the party of law-abiding citi- zens, which stands intermediate between the two extremes of oli- garchic and democratic agitators, and seeks the perpetuation of the status quo? That the Parali were rich is apparent from the language of Plutarch,* and their wealth would show that they were something more than fisher- folk. Everything supports the hypothesis that they were traders as well ; ^ and the wealth, foreign alliances and connexions of the Alcmeonidae, the champions and representatives of this party, can best be explained on the supposition that they, too, were engaged in trade in a large and liberal manner. It would probably require no little amount of time for a number of persons of identical business interests to transform their mercan- tile union into a political combination ; accordingly the party of the Parali must have been long in forming, and the wealth of the Alcmeonidae must have been well assured before Megacles assumed the leadership of the Parali. The chronology of the early history of the house will gain further definiteness if we note a few matters in connexion with the life and div), 01 5e T77 TToAiTeia SucxepoiVoyres Sia rh fieyd\r]v yeyopevai fj,eTa$o\7iv, (vioi de Bia T^v Trphs a\\T)\ovs (piXoviKiav (Aristot. Respub. Ath. c. 13), we probably have the capitalists, the ancient conservatives, and the rising anti-Alcmeonidean fac- tions, reviving old family feuds. 1 This may explain the readiness of the Parali (Megacles) to compromise. 2 On the various forms of these names, see Landwehr, Philol. Suppl.-Bd. V. (1884), pp. 154 ff- ^ Plut. Sol. 13 {o\ Udpa\oi ixiffov TLva koX f.iefxi'y/j.evov alpov/j.€vot TroAireios Tp6vov, K.r.X.; cf. 29) is of course only a paraphrase of Aristot. Respub. Ath. c. 13 (/.tia fiukv tSiv UapaXicev, S>v TrpoenTT-fiKsi MeyaKX^s 6 'A\K/j.ewvos, o'Liap iS6Kovi/ fMaAicrra diwKeip ■t))v ix4(tj\v -KoXireiav), itself drav^^n freely from Herod. I. 59. * Plut. Sol. 29, of the party of Peisistratus, ^v ois fiv 6 d-qriKhs ox^os Ka\ ^aAio-ra rols irKovffiois axdofxevois. Cf. also Polyaenus, I. 21. 3: MeyaK\T)s inrlp twv irXovaloiv reray/xevos, k.t.A. ^ In Aristot. Respub. Ath. c. 13 (elx'"' 5' '^Ka erec /nera tt]v TTpdirriv KardcrTacrtv, i 60, 72. kypoiwrai, ']. Agryle, 54. al^. Berlin papyrus (No. 163), I, 7. /3io/, fiioyp6.r]fj.aTa, 49. Demetrius Phalereus, 21 f. Democracy, Athenian, begins with Draco, 5. Demosthenes, 6. ST)iu.a.pxoi, 32. druxiovpyoL, 7, 60, 72. Diacria, 8, 54. dlavXos, Cylon victor in, 12, 16. Didymus, 15, 23, 32; and Philochorus, 36. Dittography, 8, 17, 47. Draco, not archon, 4; date, 4; his re- forms, 72; and v6/xos apyias, 53. SvvaT6s, Thucydidean use of, 28. Duncker, date for Cylon, 12. Duruy, date for Cylon, 13. Eleusis, 9. TjMKta, in Herodotus, 37 f. fjKiKioiTai, 13; meaning in Herodotus, 37- evaYeis, 1 1, 14, 17- i^opifffiSs, 17, 47. tlpaenetus, 31. Ephorus, 9, 15, 20, 64. Epidaurus, 64. Epimenides, 14, 17, 25, 47; date of visit to Athens, 66 ff. Epizelus, 35. Eratosthenes, 2, 21. iTaipri'iT], in Herodotus, 38. eraTpos, in Herodotus, 38. Euandridas, 27. evytveia, 8. (vyevels, 43, 44- Eumenides, 11, 18, 67. eviraTplBai, 60, 72; meanings of word, 43; Aristotle's use of, 44; Ev-jrarpi- oai (y^yos), 43. yeiiifxSpot, 7, 72. iyiwpyovv, 57- Gilbert, G., date for Cylon, 13. Grote, date for Cylon, 13. VvXoov, KuAcDi', 6. Gylon, 6. Hellanicus, 20, 58. Hellanodicae, 27. Hellespont, 73. Heracleides (Lembos ?), 15; Exc. Pol., relation to Aristotle's Respub. Ath., 15 f. Hermippus, ^loypdcpos, 9, 16, 23. Herodotus, on early Attic history, 19; on Cylon, 14 ff.; on Solon, 19; on Alcmeonidae, 29; on Athenian ar- chons, 30; errors in synchronisms, 52; corrected by Thucydides?, 20. Hertzberg, date for Cylon, 12. Hippias, (a) of Athens, 70 f; (3) of Elis, 21. Hippocleides, date of, 58. Hysiae, 8. Holm, date for Cylon, 12. Ister, 15; source for Plutarch, 27; source for Cicero, indirectly, 67. Julius Africanus, 2ff., 10, 17, 50; sources for his list of Olympic victors, 27. Gene ml Index. 77 fKofirifff, 13, 38 f. Kv\vfiov, at Athens, 67. Landwehr, date for Cylon, 13. Leipsydrium, 43, 54. Leobates, 5. \idot,"X0pec<}s Kol 'Avaideias, 67. Lycomidae, 5 f. Lycurgus, leader of Pediaei, 18, 60. Lyside (Melissa), 64. Medontidae, 43. Megacles, (a) life-archon, 42; (^) Megacles I., 11, 16; archon, 28 and 34 ff.; (c) Megacles II., 34; life and fortunes, 57 ff.; (d) Mega- cles III., ostracised, 29, 46. Meya/cA-ijs, IlepiKA'^j, 1 7. Megara, 64 ff., 73; trade of, 55. Melissa (Lyside), 64. Mesogaea, 8. fieTo. Tuvra, in Anstot. J?esJ>ud. A^ken.,68. Miltiades and Cimon, confused, 51. Munichia, 70. Myron, (a) of Sicyon, 58, 64; (3) of Phlya, 17, 47. Mytilene, 55. vavKpapiai, 31 > 55 ^• Niebuhr, date for Cylon, 13. Nisaea, 73. I'ofxos apyias, 53. Oligarchy, early Greek, 62. Olympian register, date, 2. Orestes, founder of yevos EvirarpiSat, 43. Orthagoridae, 58, 64. Paeania, 6. Paeonia, 54. Pagondas, 50. Papyrus, Berlin (No. 163), 1,7; British Museum (No. 131), i, 7. Paralia, 8; Parah, 46; wealthy, 57. Paralus, 55. Pausanias, 24 and passim ; relation to Polemon, 24, 35. Pausanias, King, 41. Pedion, 8. Peisistratus, 8, 45; age of, 73; Peisis- tratus and vofios apyias, 53; dates in his life, 59; Peisistratus and Mega- cles II., 59. TletffKTTpaTidai, 8. Periander, date of, 64. Pericles, 14, 46. Peripatetics, the historical-antiquarian studies of, 21. Peter, C, date for Cylon, 12. Petersen, W., date for Cylon, 13.' Pherecydes, 58. Philaidae, (a) yevos, 6, 9; (d) Stj^oj, 9. Philochorus, 21, 24, 35; and Didymus, 36; source for Plut. Thes., 27; for Plat. Them. 10, 36. ^iXOKkioVS TLvSs, 36. Phlegon, 27. Phlya, 5. Phrynon, 50. Pittacus, 4, 50. Plutarch, use of Aristotle's Respub. Ath., not at first-hand, 25 ff. ; Solon and Respub. Ath., 25 ff.; sources of So- lon, 23, 25; sources of Thesetis, 27; his Them., 27; at Them. 10, Philo- chorus drawn upon, 36; in Lysander, Theopompus drawn upon, 27; mis- understands Plato, 42. Pcihlmann, date for Cylon, 13. Polemon, the periegete, 24, 35. Procles, of Epidaurus, date of, 64. TrpoKpiToi (for archons), 4. irpvTavis, 31 f- irpvrdueLS = apxovns before Solon, 30 f. ; later use of irpuTciveis, 31 ; ■npvrdveis Toiv vavKpdpoov, II, 29. irpvTave'iov, government- office, 31; ew Tvpvravdov, court (archon's or ar- chons'), II, 30, 2,T,. npvTaveTa, court-fees, 30. Pythian aTecpayirris d7wi', date of found- ing, 49. Pythocleides, 12. Ross, L., date for Cylon, 12. Sacred War, date and length, 49 f. Salamis, 9, 64, 73. Satyrus, 16. Scaliger, date for Cylon, 13. 78 General Index. Schomann, date for Cylon, 12. (r«i(T(ix0«xa of Solon, 56. (TE/xfal dioX, 18, 67. Sicyon, 51; her colonies, 62. Sigeum, 9, 50, 52, 55. Sigean Inscription, 55. Solon, archontate, date of, 10; Solon and Epimenides, 66 f. ; reforms, 56;- amnesty-law, 11, 48; laws on trade, 55; as merchant and traveller, 9; Herodotus on Solon, 19; Solon not named by Thucydides, 19. Sotion, 16. Sosicrates, 10. Stein, H., date for Cylon, 13. 10, 26, 58, 68; (16), 26; (17), 25, 60, 73; (19), 43, 54; (20), 6, 38, 45; (22), 4,29,35,46,54,68; (23), 35; (25), 27, 35; (26), 35, 68; (28), 35, 68; (29), 35; (34), 71. 38, 68. Politics i 2. (1252^ 17), 7; iii H (9)- 5- (1285% 31), 63; vi (iv) 4. 7. (1290^, i), 63; ibid. 10. 2. (i295«, H)> 63; viii (v) 4(5)- 5- (1305". 18), 31; ibid. (1305^ 24), 65; ibid. 12 (9). 21 (13156, 14), 58. Rhet. i 2. 7. (i357», 33), 65; ibid. 8. 5. (1366", 5), 63. Athenaeus, xiv (628 c, 0)5, 8. Callisthenes («/. Athen. xiii 560 c), 49. Cicero, De Fin. v (4), 21; De Legg. ii II (28), 15, 67; id. iii 6. (14), 21; De Off. ii (18), 67. Clement of Alexandria, Ad Gentes, ii (26), 15, 67. Craterus, Frag (3), 5. Demosthenes, xviii (149), 49; xxi (144), 42 f.; LVii (66), 5. Diogenes Laertius, i 2 (55), 53; ibid. 10 (no), 17, 25; ibid. 10 (109- 115), 70; ibid. (22), 21; ii (7), 21,51; V 5(75). 21; ix8 (54), 35- Dionysius of Halicarnassus, ^wi'. i (8), 36; ibid. (71 and 78), I; ii (8), 7, 36, 44- Euripides, Ale. (920), 43; Stippl. (659), 55- Eusebius, Chron. (Schone), I. (96), 51; (185), 42; (188/), 2; (197, 198), 10; II. (93), 66; (94), 59; (98), 66. Harpocration, s. ravKpapiKa, 32; s. irepi- aTOLxoi, 36. Heracleides, Fxe. Pol. (2), 17, 18; (8), 41. Hermippus {ap. Plut. Sol. 11), 49. YietoAoiMS, passim 1-74, especially 37, 38; i(i9), 52; (30-33), 52; ii (177), 52; Y(62),54; (66), 38, 45; (71), passim, especially 3, 10, 14, 32; (94, 95), 52; vi (125), 50,52. Herondas, i (2 and 13), 7. Hesychius, s. aypoiccTai, 7. Homer, Odyss. 7 (278), 61. Inscriptions: C./.A.l. (61), 12; (122), 54; (472), 6; (475), 69; II. (iii3),5; (I386),8;IV. (i«), 69, 73; IV^ 373, n. 189 (p. 98), 42. C /. C. (2955), 31. 79 8o Index of Citations. Inscriptions — continued. Roehl, /. G. A., pp. 171, 172 (No. 27 b, c), 64. Marmor Parium, 3; (Ep. 32), 3; (Ep. 37), 49; (Ep. 38), 49; (Ep. 40), 59. Isocrates, xvi. (25), 43, 45, 54, 59. Joseph us, Adv. Apion. i (3. 16 and 4. 21), 20. Julius Africanus, see General Index. Justin, ii 7 (Ephorus), 9. Lexicon Deni. Patm. (p. 1 52), 44. Lysias, xiv. (39), 46; Contra Nicid. (rt/. Diog. Laert. i 2.55), 53. Marcellinus, Time. (3), 58; (32), 36. Moeris, Lex. (p. 193), 44. Pausanias, passim 1-74; i (28. i), 16, 40; (28. 5), 67 ; (40. 0,16; iii (17. 7-9), 41; iv (5. 10), 3; (13- 7). 3; vii (25. 3), 16,35; ix (36. 8), 5. Phanias {ap. Plut. Sol. 32), 59. Philochorus, Frag. (35), 8; see Gen- eral Index. Photius, s. vauicpapia, 31; Lex. App. (P- 665), 53. Pindar, Pyt/i. (7. 13 ff.), 29, 50. Plato, Legg. i 642 D, 69; Phaedr. (235 E), 41 f.; (240 C), 38; TJieact. (173 d), 38. Plutarch, Fab. (16), 44; Pericles (9), 27; Popl. (18), 44; Solon (i), 25.36; (8-10 and 12), 73; (11), 49; (12), II, 17, 25, 35, 67 and passim 1-74; (13), 8, 25, 57; (14), 25, 28; (15), 25; (16), 25; (17), 25, 53; (18), 25, 26; (19), ii, 25, 30,48; (20), 26; Plutarch — continued. (24), 55; (25), 26, 42; (27), 52; (29), 8, 26, 45, 57; (30), 26; (31), 26, 53; (32), 26; r-^tfv^. (10), 36; Theseus (25), 7, 44, 72; yl/or. (265 d), 66; (553 b), 58; (763 D, 805 D), 8. Polemon {a p. Schol. Soph. O. C. 489), 67. Pollux, viii (42), 53; (86), 41; (ill), 44. Polyaenus, i 21 (3), 57, 59. Scholiast on Aristophanes, Av. (873), 54; Eq. (84), 18; (445), II, 16, 24, 35, 48; Nub. (Arg. II.), 51; (64), 51; Pac. (874), 54. Lucian, Tim. (30), 36. Pindar, 01. (2. 87), 2; /'j/'/^. (7. i3ff.).Si- Plato, Axioch. (371 d), 44. Solon, i^r^^. (2), 9; (4. 22), 38; (4. 34 and 36), 7; (5), 7; (13.44), 9; (13. 43-46), 55; (32), 19- Sophocles, Elect. (160, 857), 43. Sosicrates {ap. Diog. Laert. ii 7. 95), 51. Suidas, s. 'ETTLjmevlSrjs, 68; s. r,\iKL(i>Tai, 37; 5. Qehs 7) 'AuaiSeia, 67; j. Kv\wveiov iiyos, 1 7 f-j 35 > ^- ^^ (ppovrls, 58; •S'- TlfpiKXris, 17 f., 35; ■^^ ^t^oxopos, 22; -f. XP"'^V eiKcvv, 41. Theophrastus («/. Zenob. 4. 36), 67. Thucydides, i (15), 49; {126), passim 1-74, especially 3, 8, 10, 14, 32; (127), 18; (135), 18; ii (15), 30; vi (54), 19. Tzetzes, C/iil. i (8), 51. Xenophon, Hellen. ii (3), 71. r LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 019 707 528 4 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS III 019 707 528 4 METAL EDGE, INC. 2008 PH 7.5 TO 9.5 RA.T. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS II II III 019 707 528 4