MASTER NEGA TIVE NO. 93-81505 MICROFILMED 1 993 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES/NEW YORK as part of the "Foundations of Western Civilization Preservation Project Funded by the WMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES Reproductions may not be made without permission from Columbia University Library COPYRIGHT STATEMENT The copyright law of the United States - Title 17, United States Code - concerns the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other reproduction. One of these specified conditions is that the photocopy or other reproduction is not to be "used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research." If a user makes a request for, or later uses, a photocopy or reproduction for purposes in excess of "fair use," that user may be liable for copyright infringement. This institution reserves the right to refuse to accept a copy order if, in its judgement, fulfillment of the order would involve violation of the copyright law. A UTHOR: YOUNG, CLARENCE HOFFMAN TITLE: ERCHIA, A DEME OF ATTICA PLACE: NEW YORK DATE: 1891 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES PRESERVATION DEPARTMENT Master Negative U BIBLIOGRAPHIC MICROFORM TARGET -r Original Material as Filmed - Existing Bibliographic Record iitii li^a 684 Y7 mr^mmm a^mmmm ... Young, Clarence Htoflfman^ 1866 or 7-1957. Erchia, a deme of Attica ... New York, E. & J. B. Young & CO., 1891. 67 p. 22i''". Thesis (ph. d.)— Columbia college. Academic record. Authorities and books of reference : p. 65-67. 37R.7CX0 6opr^ flnoflercopu. '^H _;< ijj ^imm^m in tft^ ©its ^f l^^w B«J^fe h^, 'f- mi .X- ^ L v,-. J.W^./>i. sis • ' ■ ii I T A ERCHIA A DEME OF ATTICA BY CLARENCE H. YOUNG A. M., Columbia Collsge, 1889 A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHIL- OSOPHY IN THE UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF PHILOSOPHY, COLUMBIA COLLEGE NEW YORK E. & J. B. YOUNG & CO. Cooper Union, Fourth Avenue 1891 > * 0. 5 J > ' > > J 1 1 > > ' ' > 1 , J > I J J > > ) 1 J 1 J 1 ) ) » » ' > ) ) 1 ■> ' , > ) ' > ) J > ) . •' > , > ERCHIA A DEME OF ATTICA BY CLARENCE H. YOUNG I) A. M., Columbia College, 1889 A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHIL- OSOPHY IN THE UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF PHILOSOPHY, COLUMBIA COLLEGE NEW YORK E. & J. B. YOUNG & CO Cooper Union, Fourth Avenue 1891 • • • • ••••••I !•• • • • • • • • -• ! ••• ••• • • ••• • • ••• • •"• • ; : .•• • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • . • • ' • • • • •• • o • .•• "•• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••• • • • • • • • •• • ERCHIA, A DEME OF ATTICA. ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA, P. 59. Between Theudote and Thrason insert Thoukleides, ii. 848. Owing to an error by which the inscription, C. I. A., ii. 1047, was assigned to the end of the third century instead of the second, the following corrections are rendered necessary : P. 42, 1. 16. Read **six" for "seven." P. 43. Substitute for lines 12-20 the following : **Of these two generations no record has been preserved. If, however, our hypotheses be correct, this grandchild in 180 at the age of forty-eight could have had a son at least twenty years old." Omit foot-note 2. P. 44. After line 9 insert the following : "The son of this athlete is no doubt to be identi- fied with Diodes, son of Dromeas who is named in a list of noble men (C. I. A., ii. 1047) that belongs to the latter part of this century or the beginning of the first." 1. lo. Read " six " for "seven." P. 64. Make the following alterations and additions : 4. Unknown, 5. Unknown. 7. Dromeas^ about 150 b. c. C. I. A., ii. 445. Dromeas 8. DiokleSy 125-90 B. c. C. I. A., ii. 1047. Note. — The author takes this opportunity of announcing that he is at present preparing similar papers upon the following demes : Gargettus, Halae (both denies of this name), Halimus, and Paeania. 283082 } > > > > » J 1 1 » > » 1 > ) > '3. ) ' J > . 1 > > ) ) , 1 ' ) ) ) > > 1 , I J ) J ) 1 ) , J ) > V ) i ■) > ) ) ERCHIA. '* Man glaubte Attika vorzugsweise in Athen suchen zu mues- sen. Und doch ist die Verwaltung und Geschichte der Stadt mit der ihrer Landgaue unzertrennlich verbunden." — Dr. Milch- HOEFER, Sitzungsber. der Berliner Akad., 1887, p. 41. THE careful consideration of two distinct ele- ments is absolutely essential to an accurate knowledge of the history of Attica. On the one hand the history of Athens itself claims our atten- tion, on the other that of the country denies re- quires careful investigation. The former has long been a subject for the research of scholars, but the latter has been far too generally neglected. And yet the store of Attic inscriptions, already large and ever-increasing, renders investigation in this field more and more profitable, the results attained more and more exact. In the hope, then, of adding slightly to our knowledge of these country demes the writer was encouraged to un- 3 dertake the investigation of which the results are embodied in the present paper. Hesychius, Stephanus of Byzantium, and Dio- dorus as cited by Harpocration, all record the fact that the deme Erchia beloneed to the Aeeeid tribe. The truth of their statements, moreover, has been fully attested by the evidence of inscrip- tions. But whence the name Erchia itself is de- rived would be unknown, were it not for the words of Stephanus of Byzantium. This writer, who uses the form 'Epxtd/ states that the deme re- ceived its name ^^tto 'Ep-^cov tov ^emo-avro^ ^OH-V- Tpav, Although the tradition to which these words allude is not mentioned by other writers, it is readily connected with the well-known myth of Demeter. According to the legend current in Attica, after the abduction of Core the goddess mother visited that country and taught Triptole- mus the art of sowing.'' At this time also, to cite the story that Pausanias tells, she was hospitably received in the home of Phvtalus, to whom in gratitude she gave the fig-tree.^ To this same pe- riod, no doubt, the event mentioned by Stephanus is to be referred. Herchius, then, from whom ' For a discussion of the various forms of this name compare Appendix, Note I. » Paus., I. 14. 2-3. spaus., I. 37. 2. the deme was named, was one of those who enter- tained the goddess in her wanderings upon earth. This legend, furthermore, has an additional in- terest in its bearing upon the location of the deme. The question as to the site of Erchia was until within the last few years in an unsetded state. Giovanni Lami, it is true, in his edition of the complete works of J. Meursius, published at Florence in 1741, locates this deme to the south- east of Athens, nearly equidistant from that city and the coast. Ross, in his Demen von Attika, dismisses the subject with the curt remark, ** Site unknown " ; Leake says nothing, and others are equally reticent. Hanriot is inclined, from the story of Herchius and Demeter, to place the deme near the Sacred Way.' The exact site he would assign to it is on the eastern border of the Eleu- sinian plain, near the lakes called Rhiti and the bay of Eleusis, in the vicinity of the ruins at St. Stephani. In this state of uncertainty the matter remained until 1887. In that year Dr. Milchhoefer was led by inscriptional evidence to fix upon the Magula hill, to the southwest of the modern village of Spata, in the Mesogaea, as the site. The reasons » His reasons are stated at length in his Recherches sur la topographie des d^mes de PAttique, pp. 112-113 and p. 226. that led him to form this opinion, though not con- clusive, are sufficiently strong to warrant the ac- ceptance of this site, unless future investigation prove his views incorrect.' Furthermore, the legend in regard to Herchius accords fully as well with this view as with the supposition of Hanriot. From the Homeric Hymns we learn that Demeter landed at Thori- cus and proceeded thence to Eleusis. Now from Thoricus toward the west two routes are open to the traveller. On the one hand, he may journey across the saddle of the southern spur of Hymettus and proceed along the western coast. On the other, he can travel through the Meso- gaea, pass around the northern end of Hymettus and thus enter the plain of Athens from the north. The latter route, passing as it does directly from the one plain into the other, though somewhat the longer, is yet the easier of the two. Natural- ly enough, then, we may conceive that the wor- ship of Demeter would have followed this course in its progress toward Eleusis. In view, too, of ' His main reasons are the following : i. Erchian sepulchral inscriptions outside of Athens itself have been found only at or near Spata. 2. The number of such inscriptions found at this place is from twelve to sixteen per cent of the entire number known. 3. No other deme name has been found near Spata, except in a single inscription. His complete argument for this site will be found in the Sitzungsbericht der Berliner Akademie, 1887, p. 54 sqq. the commanding position of the hills about Spata, overlooking as they do the plain, a local tradi- tion might readily have arisen that hither the goddess mother turned from her journey in search of refreshment and of rest. Leaving now this question, we must pass from the enchanted region of mythology to the less pleasing but more productive one of history and of fact. Here, in the lack of reference to the deme collectively, we are forced to the considera- tion of individual Erchians, in the hope that from their lives we may gain some knowledge of the * position held by the deme itself in the Attic world. These men it has seemed advisable to consider under two distinct heads, according as our knowledge of them is obtained from literary or from inscriptional sources. ERCHIANS IN LITERATURE. The most famous Erchian of whom literature records the name is that son of Gryllus whom Gibbon calls the *' sage and heroic Xenophon ".' Of his position in the Greek world, as well in the turmoil of public life as in the quiet paths of » Diog. Laert., Vit. Phil., II. 6. I. literature and of philosophy, this paper need not speak. It need but point to the eloquent testi- mony that bygone ages have borne to the charm of his writings and to the greatness of his abili- ties. The subject of his banishment, on the contrary, in that it bears upon the question of his sons' status, requires some consideration at our hands. He was banished from his native land, as Dio- genes Laertius tells us, on account of his Laconis- ing tendencies (eVl AaKCDvic-fiM)^ but toward the end of his life was restored to the full rights of citizenship. His sons, moreover, as we learn from the same writer, followed their father into exile, but served with the Athenian force at the battle of Mantinea. The question, then, naturally arises whether, at the time of this battle, the brothers, Diodorus and Gryllus, were Athenian citizens. The answer to this question involves a knowledge of their father's position at that period. In regard to this point the ancient writers make no explicit statements. Krueger, however, after careful consideration, deems it probable that Xen- ophon was restored to Athenian citizenship in the year 369.' Grote also apparently incHnes to the belief that the sentence of banishment was re- ' Krueger, De Xenophontis Vita Quaestiones Criticae. 8 voked between the battles of Leuctra and of Mantinea.' From the statement of Diogenes, moreover, it is possible that Diodorus and Gryl- lus did not come under the edict of banishment but voluntarily followed their father into exile. It seems probable, therefore, that at the time of Mantinea they were Athenian citizens and mem- bers of the deme Erchia. Of the two brothers, Diodorus accomplished nothing worthy of note in the battle. He re- turned home in safety and, as Diogenes Laertius tells us, there was born to him a son whom he named after his brother Gryllus.^ Gryllus, on the contrary, was killed in the battle but left behind him an imperishable name. The Atheni- ans esteemed him the slayer of Epaminondas,^ and Isocrates composed a panegyric in his honor.* The Mantineans accorded him a public burial and on the spot where he fell erected a monument to him as the bravest of all the com- batants, whether of their own citizens or of their allies. 5 Another member of this family whose name has been preserved is the Xenophon against whom ' Grote, History of Greece, Part II. , Chap. 71, » Diog. Laert., Vit. Phil., II. 6. 10. * Paus., 8. 11. 6. * Diog. Laert., Vit. Phil., II. 6. 10. ' Paus., 8. 9. 10 and 8. ii. 6 Dinarchus composed one of his orations.' Since, for chronological reasons, this man can scarcely be identified with the author of the Anabasis, he was probably that writer's grandchild and son of the hero Gryllus. This view is further strength- ened by the fact that Xenophon the son of Gryl- lus is mentioned by Photius among the pupils of Isocrates.^ Leaving this family, with its record of noble lives, we have next to consider the man in regard to whom the following memorable prophecy is found in the latter part of Plato's Phaedrus : '* He seems to me to have a genius above the oratory of Lysias and altogether to be tempered of nobler elements. And so it would not surprise me if, as years go on, he should make all his predecessors seem like children in the kind of oratory to which he is now addressing himself, or if — supposing this should not content him — some diviner im- pulse should lead him to greater things. My dear Phaedrus, a certain philosophy is inborn in him."^ He of whom the Platonic Socrates thus spoke was, next to Xenophon, Erchia's most famous son, the orator Isocrates. His life and work are ' Diog. Laert., Vit. Phil., II. 6. 8. * Phot., Isoc. orat. 3 The translation is taken from Jebb, Attic Orators, Chap. XII. lO likewise too well known to require extended com- ment, even had the limits of this paper allowed their adequate treatment. We will, then, be con- tent with citing from Professor Jebb's Attic Ora- tors the following admirable criticism of the man. '' He was a master of expression, with few ideas, but with much ingenuity in combining and varying these ; a politician between whom and the power of seeing facts as they were, over any wide field, there usually floated the haze of some literary theory which vanity made golden ; a man of warm, if somewhat exacting, benevolence, always ready to do his best for those who believed in him; industrious, earnest, with that simplic- ity which has been called an element of nobleness, and with the capacity for a generous enthusiasm which was never kindled to a brighter flame than by the glories of his city or his race. ... In his school he did a service peculiarly valuable to that age by raising the tone and widening the circle of the popular education, by bringing high aims and large sympathies into the preparation for active life, and by makfng good citizens of many who perhaps would not have aspired to be- come philosophers." ' In regard to the orator's family we have but • Jebb, Attic Orators, Chap. XII. II slieht information. His father, Theodorus, was a citizen of the middle class and owned slaves skilled in the art of flute-making-. That he was, furthermore, a man of some wealth we may infer from the fact that he served as choregus.' This inference is supported also by the statement of Isocrates himself.' The property which the family had lost in the war against the Lacedae- monians, as the orator tells us, had previously been employed by his father in undertaking litur- gies or public services for the state and in educat- ing his children. So careful was this education that Isocrates, as we learn from his own words, was more distinguished among his school-com- rades than in later life among his fellow-citizens. Besides Isocrates, Theodorus is known to have had four other children. These four children were a daughter whose name has not been pre- served and three sons, Diomnestus, Telesippus, and Theodorus.3 Of their life and position no information has reached us, and their very names are preserved solely by reason of their relation- ship to Isocrates. Leaving these two prominent families, we have next to consider an Erchian who, though less prominent a figure in the Attic world than ' Plut., X orat. 4."] I. 5 Isoc, 15. 161, 12 ' Plut., X orat. 4. either Xenophon or Isocrates, was held in high honor by his countrymen because of his public services. This man, Thrason, is mentioned by two Attic orators, Aeschines and Dinarchus. The former, in the speech against Ctesiphon, men- tions him as a, proxcnos oi the Thebans and a for- mer ambassador to Thebes.' By the latter he is spoken of at somewhat greater length in the ora- tion against Demosthenes. He is there named among those who in times of great danger served as ambassadors '* in a manner worthy of their native country and of their freedom". ** These men, O Athenians," adds the orator, " are worthy advisers and leaders for you and for the people."'' Thrason, then, was not only a citizen actively en- gaged in public affairs at home but had also rep- resented his state on missions to foreign powers. Nay, more than this, he had fulfilled these duties in such a manner as to win the trust and con- fidence of his fellow-citizens. We shall again have occasion to mention this man under our inscriptional sources, but may leave him for the present.3 The next Erchian to claim our attention was likewise engaged in public life. Among the syft- dikoi or public advocates chosen to defend the ' Aeschin., 3. 138. ^ Dinarch., I. 38. ' See page 20. 13 law of Leptines was the orator Deinias.' He was a man highly skilled in speaking, and pos- sessed of much public spirit. He had on more than one occasion acted as trierach, and had also undertaken numerous other liturgies or public services. Even Demosthenes, though arraigning him for his support of the proposed law, is forced to admit, in view of his past life, that he had ac- complished much good for the state. In addition to this man we are indebted to De- mosthenes for the names of two other Erchians. The first of these, Solon, was registered as arbi- trator in the suit of Mantitheus against Boeotus concerning his mother's dowry. "" Nothing further is known of him beyond the fact that he died be- fore renderinof his decision in this case. The second, Theogenes, was summoned to testify as a witness in the speech of Demosthenes against Neaera. His name is recorded in two different passages of that oration. In the first he is spoken of as '' Theoofenes of Cothocidae who was chosen king-archon, a man of good birth but poor and unskilled in affairs ".^ Jn the second passage we find merely the words '* summon for me Theo- genes the Erchian ".* But from the testimony ' Dem,, 20. 146, 151. 2 Dem., 59. 72. ' Dem., 40. 16. ■* Dem., 59. 84. H that has been introduced into the text directly after this sentence we learn that ** Theogenes the Erchian bears witness that, when he was king- archon, he married Phano, in the belief that she was the daughter of Stephanus". The difference of deme-name in the two pas- sages has caused considerable discussion. Schae- fer considers Theogenes a member of the deme Cothocidae.' Voemel and Kirchner, on the con- trary, would emend the first passage by reading KOIPnNIAHS for KOSflKIAHS, and in this sug- gestion they are supported by Toepffer.^ Accord- ing to the last-mentioned writer, moreover, the Coeronidae were one of the families that belonged to the Eleusinian priestly nobility. This emenda- tion then, would explain the entire difficulty. The two passages would no longer be at variance, but would, on the contrary, supplement each other. If we consider, further, the agreement between the second passage and the added testimony, the cor- rectness of the suggested reading seems more than a mere possibility. Theogenes, accordingly, would belong to the family of the Coeronidae but to the deme Erchia. Two other members of this deme, whose names * Schaefer, Demosthenes und seine Zeit, Beilage V, p. 179. ' Toepffer, Attische Genealogie, p. 1 10, note 2. IS the orators have preserved for us, apparently held no official position. The first, Amyntor, is sum- moned as a witness for Aeschines in his reply to Demosthenes on the charge of TtapanpeGSela,^ From this speech we learn that he sat beside Demosthenes in the assembly on the day when the question of an alliance with Philip was brought forward. The second of the two men, Dionysius, is mentioned by Isaeus in his speech on the estate of Pyrrhus as one of the persons before whom a deposition had been made out of court."" To Isaeus also we owe an interesting speech on behalf of one Euphiletus against the deme Erchia.2 This man had been disfranchised by vote of the demesmen on the ground that he was an illegitimate son.* The law provided that those unlawfully disfranchised had the right of appeal to a court, having summoned the demes- men to appear. If the decision of the deme were sustained, they were then to be sold and their goods confiscated.^ Under this law Euphiletus brought suit against the deme and the matter was referred to an arbitrator. At the end of two years, though nothing had been proved against ^ Aeschin., 2. 64, 67, 68. ' Isae., 3. 23. 3 Isae., 12, I. ** Isae., 12. 12. ^ Dion. Hal., De Isae. Jud. 16. Compare also Aristotle, Pol. Athen., 42, p. 107 sqq. 16 his legitimacy, the case still remained undecided.' Being unable to obtain redress in this way Eu- philetus at last brought the matter before an ordinary court. The extant portion of the speech is apparently near the close, after all the witnesses have been summoned. The speaker himself was the brother of Euphiletus, and among the wit- nesses were his brothers - in - law. His father, Hegesippus, therefore, evidently had a son and several daughters of whose legitimacy there ap- pears to have been no question. Their names, unfortunately, are not given in the speech, nor is the decision of the court in regard to Euphiletus himself recorded. Thoueh na other Erchians are mentioned in literature, we learn from Plato the interesting fact that Alcibiades possessed considerable prop- erty in this deme.' From this statement M. H. E. Meier was inclined to believe that Alcibiades himself was a member of the deme.^ This view, however, as Toepfifer notes, has been proved in- correct, inasmuch as Alcibiades is now known from the evidence of inscriptions to have belonged to the deme Scambonidae.* ^ Isae., 12, II. ^Ross, Dem. Att., 50, note. «Plat., Alcib. I., 123, C. *Toepffer, Attische Genealogie, p. 179. 17 ( ERCHIANS IN INSCRIPTIONS. These Erchians whose names literature has preserved all lived and flourished between the middle of the fifth century and the beginning of the third before Christ. When, however, we turn to inscriptions, a much broader field awaits us. In the first place, the number of Erchians whose names are recorded is much larger. In the second, the period of their activity extends from the middle of the fifth century before Christ to the first years of the third century of the pres- ent era. In view of these facts the consideration of the men in groups, according to the sphere of their activity, rather than in a strictly chronologi- cal order, has been deemed advisable. That is to say, those who were in any way connected with the government will be considered in one class, those interested in the navy in another, and so on. In the various groups themselves, however, a chronological arrangement has been adopted. GOVERNMENT. The first group to be considered, not only as being in itself perhaps the most important but also as presenting the earliest Erchian known i8 from inscriptional evidence, will comprise those who held official positions under the government. Under this head the first member of the deme to be considered is known from an inscription that belongs to the period between 452 and 444 b.c. This document records the accounts of commis- sions charged with the care of some public work. Among the commissioners for the eighth year the second name is that of Strato[cl]e[s], an Er- chian.* For more than fifty years thereafter we have no record of any Erchian's being connected with the government. In 387/0, however, Paramy- thus, son of Philagrus, as we learn from a decree of the people, acted as secretary of the prytany.' On a fragmentary tablet of Pentelic marble found between the theatre of Dionysus and the Odeum of Herodes Atticus are the remnants of a treaty made with Amyntas II. of Macedon, prob- ably in the year 382. In the subjoined list of signers the first is an Erchian, cles.^ This man, if Koehler's restoration, lv\aKe5. The present inscription was found in the rear of the Propy- laea so that tiie pyloroi here also are probably the guards of that building. Compare also C. I. A., iii. 1284-1294. * C. I. A., iii. 1023. ii. 5 C. I. A., iii. 1043. « C. I. A., iii. 1143. 26 RELIGION. Having thus completed our survey of the Er- chians connected with the government, we will next treat of those who had to do with the reli- gion of the state. Under this head also we find the deme mentioned at an early date. An in- scription has preserved for us the accounts of cer- tain commissioners for the period between 444 and 434 B.C. Among the treasurers of Athena from whom these men obtained various sums of money we find an Erchian, Aristyllus, the son of Hel[lespon]tius.' The next member of the deme who is known to have held a sacred office is indi- rectly connected with a well-known historical event. When in 433/2 B.C. the Corinthian fleet, after an engagement with the Corcyraeans off the coast of Epirus, were preparing for a second at- tack upon their enemy, now reinforced by the Athenian fleet, they were deterred from their pur- pose by the approach of twenty additional ships from Athens under the command of Glaucon. The chief of the board of treasurers of Athena from whom Glaucon and his fellow-generals ob- tained the money for the expenses of this expedi- tion was es, an Erchian.^ 'C. I. A., i. 299. 2(3; I A., i. 179. a; The names of two members of the deme who lived during the last quarter of the fifth century have been preserved. In 418/7 [Eujbulus acted as secretary of the treasurers of the other gods/ and in 410/9 Diyllus was chief of the board of hieropoioi,'' Some sixty years later, in 351/0 B.C., another Erchian, Aristaeus, son of Anticrates, was a treasurer of Athena.^ Again passing over more than half a century we find our next member of the deme named in a decree of the 12 2d Olympiad. Among those who are to be praised and crowned for the due perform- ance of certain sacrifices and other rites in con- nection with the worship of Zeus Soter and Athe- na Soteira is an Erchian, [Drjomeas, son of D[i]ocles.^ This man, who is mentioned also in two other inscriptions, will be treated of again in the course of this paper in connection with other members of the same family.^ The last Erchian that we find mentioned as filling a religious office is one [TJimesitheus, who in the first part of the second century before Christ was hieropoios at the Ptolemaea.^ Not only, however, did Erchians hold various sacred offices but they also showed their religious ' c. I. A., i. 318. •* C. I. A., ii. 305. «C.I. A.,i. 188. ^ See page 42. 28 3C. I. A.,ii. 698. • C. I. A., ii. 953. feeling by contributions and dedications to the gods. Thus in a fi*agmentary list of the offerings in the Hecatompedos about the beginning of the fourth century we find some object of silver, val- ued at thirty drachmas, mentioned as the gift of ades, an Erchian, or rather, perhaps, of his wife or daughter/ Again in the latter half of this century, in an inscription that records the transfer of property by the treasurers of Athena, another member of the deme, the son of [Th]ra[syb]u- lus,^ is mentioned as having furnished certain ob- jects. ^ These objects, according to the conjec- ture of Rangabes, were probably shields. This editor also suggests that ** the son of Thrasyllus was probably he who, serving on the vessel of which Pythodorus was trierarch, had obtained possession of these shields from the enemy, and had presented them to his country." About the end of this same century an Erchian, us, the son of Po[ly]euctus, consecrated a statue, the work of Cephisodotus and Polyeuctus, the two sons of Praxiteles.* Though the statue Itself is lost, we learn from the inscription that it represented a priestess of Athena Polias, the daughter of Lysistratus of Bate. This man's ' C. I. A., ii. 661. » C. I. A., ii. 736. B. * C. I. A., ii. 1377. ' Rangabes, Antiq. hell., 850 b, reads this name Thrasy[ll]us. 29 family, to judge from inscriptional evidence, was a distinguished one, and its various members appear to have been at all times intimately connected with the religion of their country/ The Erchian who dedicated the statue was undoubtedly either the son or the husband of the priestess. A fellow demesman of his. [Oe]n[iJades, son of Euarchus, is known, from an inscription on a base of Hymettian marble, to have dedicated some object, probably a statue, about the beginning of our era.^ The last Erchian that we shall mention in this connection is Hagnias. Of the man him- self nothing is known, but his wife, |Tim]othea, as we learn from a base of Pentelic marble found near the Dionysiac theatre, consecrated some ob- ject on behalf of her children to Artemis Dic- tynna.3 NAVY. Turning once more to secular matters we have next to deal with those Erchians who were in any way connected with naval affairs. Execestus,* the first to be noted in this class, is recorded in an inscription of 342/1 B.C. as having made a pay- 1 Compare C. I. A., ii. 374, 602, 872, and Bull, de corr. hell., iii. p. 489. 2 C. I. A.,ii. 1374, iii. 791- '^- ^* ^-> "• '^°9- * Boeckh, Att. Seew., X. c. 160, reads Theecestus. 30 ment of 106 drachmas due to the government.* He had previously, in 360/59, served as super- intendent of dockyards for the Aegeid tribe. Another Erchian, Antiphon, is mentioned in a record of the transfer of property made by the superintendents of dockyards for the year 330/29 as having furnished certain wooden equipments for quadriremes." Five years later in 325/4 we again have him spoken of in a similar inscription as having supplied two boat-hooks for quadri- remes.3 In both of these passages he is men- tioned under the title of treasurer. Antiphon, then, in accordance with the view of Boeckh, must have held the office of treasurer of the funds for the building of triremes/ In addition to these men numerous Erchians served their country as trierarchs. Cratinus, the earliest of these whom we find mentioned, per- formed this service in company with Polyeuctus of Lamptrae in 357/6 b.c.^ His vessel, the Poly- nice, was one of the four ships that had sailed from Munichia during that year and were still at sea when the superintendents of dockyards made their report. In the following year, 356/5, another 1 C. I. A., ii. 803. c. 155. « C. I. A., ii. 807. a. 27. ' C. I. A., ii. 809. b. no. * Boeckh, Att. Seew., p. 59 sqq. *C. I. A., ii. 793. f. 16. 31 liii member of the deme, [Arjistolochus, returned the equipments which he together with [Anti]- dorus of Phalerum owed upon five different vessels/ This man is also known, from an in- scription of 342/ r, to have served with Antidorus as trierarch upon another vessel, the Europa.^ He is possibly to be identified also with the [A]ristolochus mentioned on a fragmentary mar- ble found at the Piraeus, although, owing to the mutilated condition of the stone, the deme-name is lacking.^ In the inscription of 342/1 above cited four other Erchians are found among the trierarchs that had made payments in account with their respective triremes. Euthydemus paid 55 drach- mas on the Strategis, Docimus 40 drachmas on the Cecropis, Lysis 100 drachmas on the Agathonice, and Callias in conjunction with four other men paid 315 drachmas 5 obols on the Agreuousa/ Another member of this deme, Deinon, son of Deinias, is known to have served as trierarch in the year 324/3 B.C. from an inscription that re- cords the transfer of property made by the super- intendents of dockyards in the following year.s ' C. I. A., ii. 794. d. 92. * C. I. A. , ii. 803. b. 36. 'C. I. A., ii. 805. *C. I. A., ii. 803. e. 33, 61, 114, 67. ^C. I. A., ii. 811. b. 115, 1S4. 3* His vessel, built by Alcaeus, was destroyed with several other triremes during a severe storm. Inasmuch as its destruction was due to the tem- pest, Deinon claimed that the loss should be borne not by himself but by the state. In this claim he was supported by the court to which, as was usual in such cases, the matter had been referred. This decision freed him from all responsibility and threw the entire loss upon the government' It did not, however, release him from the obliga- tion of giving the beak of a vessel to the state, for his name is recorded among those from whom these articles were due. Lines 132 and 133 of the same inscription, though badly mutilated, probably contain another reference to this man. Koehler restores these lines as follows : [ [1^09 ^Ep')(^L€V<;] UTTO [t^9 . [Kaiov epyov] .]9, '.4\- In view, however, of the passages above cited, in which Deinon, son of Deinias, is mentioned as trierarch upon a vessel, the work of Alcaeus, this reading is probably incorrect. In its place ' For a fuller treatment of this subject compare Boeckh, Att. Scew., p. 214 sqq. 33 the writer would suggest the following restora- tion : A]€lvC0[p] [AeLvlov ^Ep')(Le.^ airo [t?}? . . o . <7 . . .]?, AX- \jca(ov epyov] Although in this restoration line 133 is longer than in Koehler's it does not exceed in length either the preceding line or others in the same column. This reading, moreover, has two distinct advantages over Koehler's. In the first place, it has the merit of bringing this passage into full accord with the rest of the inscription ; and in the second place, it explains the three parallel lines of a letter preceding the word airoy which Koehler apparently reads as X by the more natural E. As to the abbreviation 'Epxi'^. for 'Ep- %tei;9, the frequent use both of this form and of 'Epx(', is fully established by the evidence of other inscriptions.' CONTRIBUTORS. In addition to serving the state faithfully in various official positions the Erchians also loyally supported the government by generous contribu- tions of money. About 267 B.C. at the begin- > Compare C. I. A., ii. 803. b. 36, c. 155, e. 61, 114 ; ii. 859. b. 3 ; il add. 15 b; ii. 334. c, d. 34 ning of the siege which Antigonus Gonatas, King of Macedonia, laid to Athens, the senate and the people passed a decree providing for voluntary subscriptions in aid of the state. '' Those of the citizens or others dwelling in the city who wish to contribute toward the safety of the city and the guarding of the country are to announce their in- tention to the senate or to hand their names to the generals ; but let no one be permitted to con- tribute more than 200 drachmas nor less than 50." The contributors, moreover, as the decree further provides, are to be crowned, praised, and honored by the people each in accordance with his merits. Their names also are to be inscribed with the decree upon a stele, which is then to be erected in the market-place. The fragments of this list that have been preserved disclose the names of nine Erchians that came forward to the aid of the government. These men, who contributed each 200 drachmas, the highest sum possible, were Antiphon, Aristolas, Aristophon, [Diojcles, Dracontides, [Drjomeas, Lysithides, Nicago- ras, and [XJanthippus.' Nearly a century after this, about the year 180, several other members of the deme contributed for some object, unfortunately lost by reason of ' C. I. A., ii. 334. '35 the mutilation of the inscription. These men ^vere no[n], [D]rome[as], Dromocl[es], and Th[eo]philus/ Of the four, Dromocl[esJ contributed for his son Hagnias as well as for himself; and Th[eo]philus on behalf of his wife and daughter paid twice the amount of his own contribution. ARTISANS. Not all Erchians, however, are to be found in official positions or among rich and generous con- tributors. Some are known also to have faith- fully performed their duties in the humbler paths of life. One of these artisans, Ph[ilo]n, was a worker in stone employed in the construction of the Erechtheum." In the accounts of the commis- sioners that had charge o^ the building of this temple for the year 408/7 B.C. two payments, of 20 and 22 drachmas respectively, are recorded as having been made to this man for the fluting of the columns of the east front. The only other Erchian artisan of whom we know was a silver- smith. In an inscription that records the transfer of property made by the treasurers of Athena not later than 320/19 b.c, an Erchian, A . . . e . . on. ' C. I, A., ii. 983. iii. * C. I. A., i. 324. b. 36 is mentioned as the maker of a silver hydria.* We are enabled to restore this name with certain- ty as A[rch]e[ph]on, from a similar inscription of the same period in which xA.rcheph[o]n, an Er- chian, is spoken of as the maker of certain objects.' NON-RESIDENTS. Passing beyond the limits of Attica we find only two Erchians living in foreign lands. The name of the first of these men, in accordance with the restoration of Kumanudes, was [Th]e[ae]te- ft]us.3 From an inscription that records an alli- ance made by the Athenians and Thessalians in 361/0 B.C., we learn that this man was at that time resident in Thessaly. '' He was commanded," as the inscription records, '* to accomplish whatso- ever good he was able for the people of the Athenians and for the Thessalians."'^ Beyond these facts, however, nothing is known of his life or position. The only other Erchian that is known to have lived abroad is Aeschylus, a cleruch in Lemnos. • C. I. A., ii. 720. 2 c. I. A., ii. 721. 3 Ditt., Sylioge, 85. * In regard to the translation of this passage compare Koehler, Mitth., li. 209. Compare also Ditt., Sylioge, 32, n. 13, and Hicks, Greek Historical Inscriptions, 97. 37 His name is preserved in an inscription that con- tains a record of those who in 329/8 offered the first-fruits of the harvest to the goddesses at Eleusis.' The ancient custom of this offering had been re-established under the administration of Pericles in accordance with an oracle from Delphi.^" Among those who still observed this custom a century later was the cleruch colony of Myrina in Lemnos. In 329/8 the offering from this city, consisting of 23 medimni, 2^ e/cret? of wheat and 162 medimni of barley, was sent in charge of an Athenian general and of two citizens. Of the latter one was the cleruch Aeschylus, a member of the deme Erchia. EPHEBES. To complete our survey of individual members of this deme we have still to consider those who appear in the inscriptions as ephebes. Since the majority of these are not otherwise known to us, their names, with the approximate date at which they were ephebes, will be presented in tabulated form. ' Bull, de corr. hell., viii. p. 197 sqq. '-»Ditt., Sylloge, 13. 38 Name.* Name of Father. Date. Alexandrus . . [Eubjoulus . . [Drojmeas . . Arch [i] damns Aristonices . . Menodotus. . . , Menophilus . Olympiodorus MJenophilus. Asjclepiades Philemon. . Apelles. . . . Atticus .... Sostratus . . D[e]metrius Mnesitheus Mysticus . . Mnesitheus Demetrius . Euodus . . . Satyrion . . . Menodotus . Callistratus . Apelles So[s]tratus Demetrius . Helix Mnesitheus. . Mnesitheus. . About 270 B.C. About beginning of first century b.c. First half of first century b.c. First half of first century b.c. 69-62 B.C. 48-42 B.C. About 35 A.D. 61 A.D. do. 81-96 A.D. do. do. do. i55--'57 A.D. About 190 A.D. 197-208 A.D. do. do. Several of these men, however, require some words of comment before the subject can be dis- missed. The name of the first ephebe cited in the list above can probably be restored as Dio- ' The inscriptions in which the several names occur can be found by reference to the general catalogue of Erchians at the end of this paper. 39 cles. The reasons that conduce to this belief are so closely connected with the question of his family that it has seemed advisable to present them later in the discussion of that subject. ' Twice in this list of ephebes we seem to find a father and a son mentioned. In the first place Mnesitheus, son of Dem- etrius, is probably to be identified with the father of Demetrius and Euodus, who served as ephebes some forty years later. Again, Me- nodotus, son of Menophilus, whose name ap- pears in an ephebic list at some time during the first half of the first century, was no doubt the father of the [MJenophilus who is men- tioned as ephebe between the years 48 and 42 before Christ. And finally the ephebe Olym- piodorus, may possibly be identified with the Olympiodorus, son of Satyrion, an Erchian whose name is found in a sepulchral inscription of the Roman period.'' Furthermore, as we learn from the inscriptions in which their names appear, while serving as ephebes, Philemon ^ v^as also an Areopagite and s 3 and Apelles * each held the position of gymnasiarch. The duties of the latter office are ' See page 42. 3 C. I. A., iii. 1085. »C. I. A., iii. 1677. • C. I. A., iii. 1091. 40 well known,' but the former title may possibly re- quire some explanation. According to Dittenber- ger * it IS merely another manifestation of that spirit of imitation which led the ephebes to call certain of their number archons, agorano77ioi, etc. Imbued with this same spirit they gave to certain others of their comrades, generally to those who belonged to the richest and noblest families, the title Areopagite. With the ephebes our survey of the individual Erchians is brought to a close. The remaining names that appear in inscriptions are at present suitable only for a catalogue. Some of the men, however, of whom we have already spoken, were not only members of the same deme but be- longed also to the same family. The less impor- tant of these relationships have already been noted in the course of this paper, and we can ac- cordingly proceed at once to the consideration of the more important houses. Of these the families of Xenophon and of Isoc- rates have already been amply treated and re- quire no further comment here. Another distin- guished house, which we are able to trace for three generations, is that of the orator Deinias.^ ' Compare also Dumont, Essai sur I'ephebie attique, p. 219 sqq. * C. I. A., iii. 1233. 3 Compare Rangabes, Antiq. hell., II. 478, and Schaefer, Demosthenes und seine Zeit, I. 358. 41 The orator himself, who prior to 355 B.C., as we learn from Demosthenes, had acted as trierarch and had undertaken other liturgies for the state, represents the first generation. Deinon. the son of Deinias, whom this paper has already noted as having been trierarch in 324/3, is probably to be identified as the son of this Deinias. His son, in turn, who represents the third generation, was undoubtedly the Deinias, son of Deinon, that some sixty years later acted as sitones. This man sup- ported the honorable record of his house, for he and his fellow sitonai performed their duties so . faithfully that to each of them there was accorded a golden crown. Another family can apparently be traced in the inscriptions through seven generations. The first generation is represented by Diodes, who is known to us only as the father of Dromeas. This Dromeas, of whom we have already spoken as having been a commissioner in charge of cer- tain religious matters between 292 and 288 e.g., is no doubt to be identified with the Dromeas known to us from an inscription of about 270 as the father of an ephebe. The name of this ephebe, though lost, we are led to restore as Diodes, from another inscription belonging to the period of the Chremonidean war in which Dro- 42 meas and Diodes appear as contributors. Now, if we assume that the first Dromeas was in 288 thirty years old, at which age he might well have served as commissioner, he could readily have had a son sufficiently old to have been ephebe in 270. Under this supposition also, he and his son Diodes might both have contributed money toward the safety of their country between the years 269 and 263.' His son Diodes in turn might in 258, at the age of thirty, have had a child and thirty years later, in 228, have been made happy by the birth of a grandchild. As the lat- ter would in 208 B.C. have reached the aofe of manhood he may reasonably be identified with the Diodes, son of Dromeas, whom we find men- tioned in a list of noble men of the second half of the third century.' About 180, in which year this Diodes would have attained the age of forty- eight, he could have had a son at least twenty years old. This we will assume to have been the case, and we would then identify this son with the Dromeas mentioned in an inscription of that pe- riod as a contributor. If the preceding assump- tions be accepted this Dromeas might easily have ' This date for the Chremonidean war is taken from Thirlwall, History of Greece, pp. 377-378. * C. I. A., ii. 1047. 43 had a son old enough to enter the diaulos for horsemen at a celebration of the Thesea about the year 150. In an inscription of about that time Dromeas, son of Dromeas, of the Aegeid tribe, is mentioned as winner in that contest.' Though this man's deme-name is not given, it is a reasonable conjecture that he was an Erchian belonging to this same family and son of the contributor Dromeas. In addition to these seven generations still an- other man is possibly to be connected with this family. In an inscription found near the ruins of the city walls Diodes, son of Dio- , is men- tioned among those who dedicated a tower.^ If, as Koehler suggests, this man was an Erchian, his father's name is probably to be restored as Dio[cles]. In that case, since the inscription belongs to the period of the Chremonidean war, the dedicator would have been the son of the first Diodes and brother of the commissioner Dromeas. 3 Had the deme possessed many families such as these, had it numbered among its sons many citizens such as Thrason, Isocrates, and Xeno- phon, its position in the Attic world must have ' C. I. A., ii. 445. C. I. A., ii. 982. 2 Compare Appendix, Note 2. 44 been one of no small importance. That its actual place among the denies of its tribe was a high one can readily be seen by an examination of the lists of prytanes of the Aegeid tribe. Of three such lists that are now known to us but one is complete. In this, which belongs to the year 341/0 b.c, twenty denies are represented.' Of these Erchia has the largest representation, with six men, although Icaria and Halae press close behind, each with five prytanes. In one of the incomplete lists Erchia is unfortunately among the missing demes. The other inscription, in which Erchia is one of the sixteen demes named, belongs to the period of the twelve tribes.^ Of the four missing denies, Gargettus, Icaria, Bate, and Diomea, one or more no doubt had been transferred to the one or the other of the new tribes. There is consequently an increased rep- resentation from some of the remaining demes. Erchia still stands first but has now furnished ten prytanes in place of six. Halae still comes next, but with eight representatives instead of five, and other demes also show a slight increase.^ The prominence of Erchia is further empha- ' C. I. A., ii. 872. Ancyle appears twice in this list. Compare Hauvettc- Besnault, Bull, de corr. hell, v. p. 366. 'C. I. A., ii. 329. ^Compare Bull, de corr. hell., v. p. 365 sqq. 45 sized by the numerous ofificial positions that were held by its members. The number and the im- portance of these can easily be seen from the fol- lowing summary : i archon eponymous, i king archon, i thesmothete, i general, 2 phylarchs, 8 presidents of xh^ proedroZy 18 prytanes, 3 movers of decrees, i secretary of the prytany, 2 orators, I ambassador, i sitones, 2 superintendents, 2 commissioners, 3 arbitrators, i hegemon of ephe- bes, I pyloroSy i superintendent of dockyards, I treasurer of the funds for the building of tri- remes, 8 trierarchs, 3 treasurers of Athena, i secre- tary of the treasurers of the other gods, 2 hiero- poioi. The deme also reckoned among its mem- bers I silversmith, i worker in stone, 18 ephebes, I cleruch, 3 dikasts^ 2 dedicators, 18 contribu- tors, and I philosopher and historian. The important position of the deme, however, was not sufficient to protect it from the attacks of comedy. In an inscription of the first half of the second century before Christ a comedy named The Erchians is mentioned.' With what subject this play dealt is a question to which we can give no definite answer. Isocrates, it is true, is known to have been assailed by comedians who did not forget to avail themselves of the fact that ^ C. I. A., ii "975. f. 46 his father owned slaves skilled in flute-making.' A fragment, indeed, of the Atalanta of Strattis has preserved for us precisely such an attack upon the orator. =^ So personal a matter, how- ever, could scarcely have been the subject of The Erchians. This comedy, to judge from the title, must have dealt not with an individual but with the demesmen generally. But the particular foible that it assailed, the special vanity or weakness against which it was directed, are un- fortunately no longer known. Such, then, are the foundations upon which our knowledge of Erchia rests. Fragmentary as are these references, accidental as has been their pres- ervation, they yet enable us to form some opin- ion of the Erchians and of their deeds. Collect- ively the period of their greatest activity and in- fluence was apparently the latter half of the fifth and the two succeeding centuries. Individually we find them active at all times in every sphere of life. The artisan faithfully performing his daily task, the government official honorably discharg- ing the duties of his position, the wealthy citizen contributing generous sums for his country's safety, the devout worshipper serving his gods ' Plut., X orat., 4. I. • Meineke, Frag. Com. Grace, Strattis, Atalanta, i. ^7 and honoring them with dedicatory offerings, such are the pictures of Erchian life that greet us on every side. In the days of this nineteenth century in this American repubHc a great poHtical party has ral- Hed to the cry of ''A pubHc office is a pubHc trust ". But long ages since, in the days before the Christian era, in that Attic democracy beyond the seas the members of a Httle deme were already expressing this very principle in their daily lives. Erchians represented their state in foreign mis- sions, and were proudly pointed to by orators as examples worthy of imitation. Erchians served as trierarchs, prytanes, commissioners, presidents of the proedroi^ and in many other positions of honor and of power ; in all their duties were faithfully performed. Erchians, in fine, held the high offices of state in which the public moneys were their trust, and were praised by the people for the integrity with which they had discharged their task. Had no member of the deme save Xenophon and Isocrates been known to us, the accident that made it the birthplace of two such men might have caused Erchia to be considered fortunate, but nothing more. That fact could certainly not have impressed upon the demesmen as a whole 48 the stamp of integrity and of honor. But Xeno- phon and Isocrates were merely the two greater stars. About them shone others of lesser size, but bright each and every one after its own mag- nitude. Together they formed in the Attic firma- ment a bright constellation, called Erchia, a deme of Attica. • ''I m 49 m CATALOGUE OF ERCHIANS. All references are to the Corpus Inscriptionum Atticarum, unless it be otherwise stated. The fol- lowing abbreviations are used: b., brother; d., daughter; f., father; s., son. For greater con- venience of reference the Greek names have sim- ply been transliterated. Aischlnes, f. of Glyke, ii. 2648. Aischron, f. of Euagora, iii. 1674. Aischylos, cleruch in Lemnos, Bull. corr. hell., viii. 197. Alexandros, s. of Alexandros, phylarch, ii. 445. Alexandros, f. of Alexandros, ii. 445. Alexandros, s. of Arch[i]damos, ephebe, ii. 467. Alkios, f. of Timotheos, Mitth., xii. 90. Amphikles, s. of Pythodoros, prytanis, ii. 329. Amyntor, Aeschin., 2. 67. Antikrates, f. of Aristaios, ii. 698. Antiphon, contributor, ii. 334. c. Antiphon, treasurer, ii. 807. a, 809. b. 50 Anthip[pos], f. of Hegesias, 11. 2037. Apelles, f. of Attikos, iii. 1091. Apelles, ephebe, iii. 1091. Apelles, f. of Zopyros, iii. 1023. ii. Aphrodeisios, f. of Epiktetos, Deltion Arch., 1890, p. 141. [Aphrojdisios, prytanis, iii. 1043. Archemachos, f. of Kallimachos, iii. 3573. Archephon, silversmith, ii. 720, 721. Arch[i]damos, f. of Alexandros, ii. 467. Aristaios, s. of Antikrates, treasurer of Athena, ii. 698. Aristokles, s. of Sogenes, superintendent, ii. 952. Aristokratei[a], d. of Hierokles, Mitth., xii. 90. Aristolas, contributor, ii. 334. d. Aristolochos, trierarch, ii. 794. d, 803. b, 805. Aristonikos, f. of [Eubjoulos, ii. 469. A[r]istophilos, f. of Sokles, ii. 329. Aristophon, contributor, ii. 334. c. Aristyllos, s. of Hel[lespon]tios, treasurer of Athena, i. 299. Aristyllos, president of the proedroi, ii. add. 52 c. Asklepiades, f. of Asklepiodor[os], ii. 2032. [Asjklepiades, ephebe, iii. 1076. AskIepiodor[os], s. of Asklepiades, ii. 2032. Astouchos, iii. 2164. Athe[naiJos, f. of Helix, iii. 1143. SI n In Athen[o]doros, f. of Solon, ii. 329, 2047. Attikos, s. of Apelles, ephebe, iii. 1091. Autodikos, ii. 2033. Autodikos, f. of Pheidestratos, ii. 2040. Bathyllos, f. of Brachyllos, ii. 114. C. Brachyllos, s. of Bathyllos, mover of a decree, ii. 1 14. C. Chaireas, s. of Paramythos, prytanis, ii. 872. Deinias, orator, Dem. 20. 146, 151 ; f. of Deinon, ii. 811. Deinias, s. of Deino[n], sitones, 11. 335. Deinon, s. of Deinias, trierarch, ii. 811 ; f. of Deinias, ii. 335. Demetrios, president of the pioedroi, ii. 190. D[e]metrios, s. of So[s]tratos, ephebe, iii. 1091. 11. Demetrios, f. of Mnesitheos, iii. 1121. Demetrios, s. of Mnesitheos, ephebe, iii. 1171. Dexikrates, f. of Dexis, ii. 2034. Dexis, s. of Dexikrates, ii. 2034. Diodoros, s. of Xenophon, Diog. Laert., Vit. Phil, 2. 6. 8. D[i]okles, f. of [Dr]omeas, li. 305 ; f. of Diokles,' ii. 982. Diokles, s. of Dio[kles], dedicator,' ii. 982. [Dio]kles, contributor, ii. 334. c. » See the remarks on page 44. 52 Diokles, s. of Dromeas, ii. 1047. Diomnestos, s. of Theodoros, b. of Isokrates, Plut, x orat. 4. Dion, f. of Epa[in]ete, iii. 1673. Dionysios, Isaeus, 3. 23. Diophantos, f. of Diophantos, Eph. Arch., 1884. p. T90. Diophantos, s. of Diophantos, superintendent, Eph. Arch., 1884, p. 190. Diyllos, hieropoios, i. 188. Dokimos, trierarch, ii. 803. e. Drakontides, contributor, ii. 334. c. [Drjomeas, s. of D[iJokles, commissioner (?), ii. 305; f. of -^ — ' ii. 330. d; contributor, ii. 334- c. Dromeas, f. of Diokles, ii. 1047. Dromeas, f. of Dromeas, 11. 445 ; contributor, ii. 983. Dromeas, s. of Dromeas, winner of diaulos for horsemen, ii. 445. Dromokl[es], f. of Hagnias, contributor, ii. 983. 11. Eisidoros, s. of Sosiki^rajtes, pyloros, Eph. Arch., 1885, p. 63. Egertios, s. of Kallias, ii. 20 j; 5. Epa[in]ete, d. of Dion, iii. 1673. ' See the remarks on pages 39 and 42. 53 Epam[e]ino[n] or Epamin[oJndas, f. of Epigenes, ii. 329- Epigenes, arbitrator, 11. 943. Epigenes, s. of Epam[e]ino[n] or Epamin[o]ndas, ii. 329. Epiktetos, s. of Aphrodeisios, Deltion Arch., 1890, p. 141. Euagora, d. of Aischron, iii. 1674. Eualkides, f. of Phrasisthenes, Mitth., xii. 90. [EJualkos, f. of Eualkos, ii. 2036. Eualkos, s. of [E]ualkos, ii. 2036. Euarchos, f. of [Oijn[i]ades, ii. 1374, iii. 791. Eubios, s. of Eupolemos, prytanis, ii. 329. [Eujboulos, secretary of treasurers of the other gods, i. 318. [Eubloulos, s. of Aristonikos, ephebe, ii. 469. Euodos, s. of Mnesitheos, ephebe, iii. 1171. Euphiletos, s. of Hegesippos, Isaeus, 12. Euphiletos, f. of Lysikrates, ii. 329. Euphiletos, s. of Lysikrates, prytanis, ii. 329. Eupolemos, f. of Eubios, ii. 329. Eupolemos, s. of Timodo[k]os, dikast, Eph. Arch., 1887, p. 55; f. of Timodo[k]os, Eph. Arch., 1887, p. 54. Euxenos, s. of Eux[i]theos, prytanis, ii. 329. Eux[i]theos, f. of Euxenos, ii. 329. Euxitheos, s. of Timotheos, Mitth., xii. 90. a^ 54 Euthydemos, trierarch, ii. 803. e. Exekestos, superintendent of dockyards, li. 803. c. Glyke, d. of Aischines, ii. 2648. Gryllos, f. of Xenophon, Diog. Laert., Vit. Phil., 2. 6. I. Gryllos, s. of Xenophon, Diog. Laert., Vit. Phil., 2. 6. 8. Gryllos, s. of Diodoros, Diog. Laert, Vit. Phil., 2. 6. 10. Hagnias, s. of Dromokl[esJ, ii. 983. ii. Hagnias, ii. 6109. Hagnodemos, f. of Kleiokratea, ii. 2043. Hegesias, s. of Hegesippos, C. I. G., 627. Hegesias, s. of Anthip[pos], ii. 2037. Hegesippos, f. of Euphiletos, Isaeus, 12. 12. Hegesippos, f. of Hegesias, C. L G., 627. Hel[lespon]tios, f. of Aristyllos, i. 299. Helix, s. of Athe[nai]os, hegemon of ephebes, iii. 1 143. Helix, f. of Mystikos, iii. 1162. [Hejphaistion, f. of , ii. 416. Hephaistion, s. of Philemon, iii. 1675. Hephaistion or Hephestos, f. of Philemon, iii. 1675. Hierokles, f. of Aristokratei[a], Mitth., xii. 90. Isokrates, s. of Theodoros, orator, Steph. Byz. Kallia[djes, f. of Xeno[k]l[ee]s, ii. 872. 55 IP ti Kallias, trierarch, ii. 803. e. Kallias, f. of Egertios, ii. 2035. Kallimachos, s. of Archemachos, iii. 3573. Kallinike, d. of Theodoros, ii. 2041. Kallikrates, f. of Kallistratos, ii. 2042. Kallistratos, s. of Kallikrates, li. 2042. Kallistratos, f. of Philemon, iii. 1085. Kallistratos, f. of Polykleid[e]s, ii. 872. Kallistratos, f. of Sostratos, ii. 332. Kallistratos, s. of Telesias or Telesi[n]os, pry- tanis,' ii. 329. [Kallistr]atos, s. of Telesinos, president of the proedroi,' ii. 334. a. Kleiokratea, d. of Hagnodemos, ii. 2043. Kratinos, trierarch, ii. 793. f. Kydias, s. of Lysikrates, prytanis, ii. 872. Leon, f. of Theudote, ii. 2039. [Ly]sikrates,* ii. 2044. Lysikrates, f. of Kydias, ii. 872. Lysikrates, s. of Euphiletos, prytanis, ii. 329; f. of Euphiletos, ii. 329. Lysis, trierarch, ii. 803. e. Lysitheides, contributor, ii. 334. d. Makron, f. of Nikostrate, iii. 1676. Menippos, s. of Zoilos, ii. 2045. ' See the remarks on page 23. ^ Rangabes, Antiq. hell., 1455 reads [Pa]sikrates. 56 Meniskos, f. of Zenon, ii. 1207. Menodotos, s. of Menophilos, ephebe, ii. 469 ; f. of [MJenophilos, ii. 481. Menophilos, f. of Menodotos, ii. 469. [MJenophilos, s. of Menodotos, ephebe, ii. 481. Mikalion, s. of Mikion, ii. 2046. Mikion, f. of Mikalion, ii. 2046. Mnesitheos, ephebe, iii. 1171. Mnesitheos, s. of Demetrios, ephebe, iii. 1121 ; f. of Demetrios and of Euodos, iii. 1171. Mystikos, s. of Helix, ephebe, iii. 1162. Nikagoras, contributor, ii. 334. d. Nikostrate, d. of Makron, iii. 1676. [Oi]n[i]ades, s. of Euarchos, ii. 1374, iii. 791. Olympiodoros, s. of Satyrion, ephebe, iii. 1677, Bull, corn hell., xiii. p. 269. Pammenes, s. of Pammenes,' Dem., 21. 22. Pammenes, f. of Pammenes,' Dem., 21. 22. Panaitios, s. of Philon, prytanis, ii. 329. Paramythos, s. of Philagros, secretary of the pry- tany, ii. add. 14 b. Paramythos, f. of Chaireas and of [Phjylarchos, ii. 872. Pedieus, f. of Sophokles, Deltion Arch., 1889, p. 13. ' The added testimony in which this name appears is undoubtedly spu- rious. 57 Ill M Pheidon, s. of The[o]doros, ii. 2048. Pheidestratos, s. of Autodikos, ii. 2040. Philagros, f. of Paramythos, ii. add. 14 b. Philemon, f. of Hephaistion, iii. 1675. Philemon, s. of Hephaistion or Hephestos, iii. 1675- Philemon, s. of Kallistratos, ephebe, iii. 1085. Philition, d. of Thespias, Deltion Arch., 1890, p. 82. Ph[ilo]n, worker in stone, i. 324. b. Philon, f. of Panaitios, ii. 329. Phrasisthenes, s. of Eualkides, Mitth., xii. 90. [Phjylarchos, s. of Paramythos, prytanis, ii. 872. Po[ly]euktos, f. of os, ii. 1377. Polykleid[e]s, s. of Kallistratos, prytanis, ii. 872. Pythodoros, f of Amphikles, ii. 329. Satyrion, f. of Olympiodoros, iii. 1677, Bull, corn hell., xiii. 269. Sogenes, f. of Aristokles, ii. 952. Sokles, s. of A[r]istophilos, prytanis, ii. 329. Solon, s. of Athen[o]doros, prytanis, ii. 329, 2047. Solon, arbitrator, Dem., 40. 16. Sophokles. s. of Pedieus, president of the proe- droi, Deltion Arch., 1889, p. 13. Sosik[ra]tes, f of Eisidoros, Eph. Arch., 1885, p. 63. Sostratos, s. of Kallistratos, president of the proe- droi, ii. 332. 58 Sostratos, ephebe, iii. 1091. li. So[s]tratos, f. of D[e]metrios, iii. 1091. ii. Strato[kl]e[s], s. of , commissioner, i. 296. Telesias or Telesi[n]os, f. of Kallistratos,' ii. 329. Telesinos, f. of [Kallistr]atos,' ii. 334. a. Telesinos, mover of a decree, ii. 839. Telesippos, s. of Theodoros, b. of Isokrates, Plut., X orat. 4. Tharriades, f. of Tharrias, ii. 872. Tharrias, s. of Tharriades, prytanis, ii. 872. [Th]e[aiJte[t]os, Ditt., Sylloge, 85. Theodoros, f. of Isokrates, Dion. Hal, Isok. i. Theodoros, s. of Theodoros, b. of Isokrates, Plut., X orat. 4. Theodoros, f. of Theodor[os], ii. 2038. Theodor[os], s. of Theodoros, ii. 2038. Theodoros, f. of Kallinike, ii. 2041. The[o]doros, f. of Pheidon, ii. 2048. Theogenes, king archon, Dem., 59. 84. Theon, thesmothete, ii. 985. D. Th[eo]philos, contributor, ii. 983. iii. Theoxenos, arbitrator, ii. 943. Thespias, f. of Philition, Deltion Arch., 1890, p. 82. Theudote,.d. of Leon, ii. 2039. Thrason, ambassador, ii. add. 66 h, Aeschin., 3. 138, Dinarch., i. ;^S. ' See the remarks on page 23. 59 m^ [Th]ra[syb]oulos, f. of s, ii. "Ji^, B. [TJimesitheos, hieropoios, ii. 953. Timodo[k]os, s. of Eupo[lemos], dikast, Eph. Arch., 1887, p. 54; f. of Eupolemos, Eph. Arch., 1887, p. 55. Timotheos, s. of Alkios, f. of Euxitheos, Mitth., xii. 90. Ti[myll]os, s. of Timy[l]los president, of the proe- droi, ii. 408. Timy[l]los, f. of Ti[mylI]os, ii. 408. [X]anthippos, contributor, ii. 334. d. Xeno[k]l[ee]s, s. of Kallia[d]es, prytanis, ii. 872. Xenophon, s. of Gryllos, general, historian, phi- losopher, Diog. Laert, Vit. Phil., 2. 6. i. Xenophon, s. of Gryllos, Phot, Isok. orat. Zenon, s. of Meniskos, general, ii. 1207. Zoilos, f. of Menippos, ii. 2045. Zopyros, s. of Apelles, prytanis, iii. 1023. ii. Epik , dikast, ii. 908. ades, ii. 661. -doros, prytanis, iii. 043. -es, treasurer of Athena, 1. 179. -is, f. of , ii. 770. -kles, hipparch or phylarch, ii. add. 15 b. -non, ii. 983. -o]gen[es], dikast, ii. 926. 60 •OS, s. of Po[ly]euktos, consecrates a statue, ii. -s, s. of [Th]ra[syb]oulos, ii. ']2>^, B. -s, archon eponymous, ii. 859. -s, ephebe, iii. 1085. - stjratos, mover of a decree, ii. 389. - tjrephes, f. of , li. T'ji, -, president of the proedroi, ii. 121. -, s. of [Drojmeas, ephebe,' ii. 330. d. -, s. of [Hejphaistion, president of the proe- droi, ii. 416. -, f. of Stratokles, i. 296. -, s. of IS, 11. 770. -, s. of tjrephes, ii. 778. -, 11. 103 1. -, ii. .7622. ' See remarks on page 39. 61 APPENDIX. Note I. — The following variations are found^ in the form of the deme-name : ^Epx^a, Phot., Suid.; ''Ep')(€ca, Hesych., Diod. apud Harp.'/ Epx^d, Steph. Byz./Opxt'€v<;, Ross, Dem. Att., yy ; 'Epxi^el^iy Polem. ap. Suid. s. ' A^7}vi€v<;. In regard to these forms compare the following passages : Sauppe Or. frag. 333, " 'Epx^'aOev, Sauppius : 'Epxi^ahai, Photiuset Suidas, 'Ep;)^€/a^€i/ b. ei in inscriptionibus non invenitur neque analogia commendatur. Veri accentus vestigia et apud Photium exstant et apud Plat. Ale. I. 123 D. Spiritum asperum fuisse et Polemo tradidit et tituli testantur antiquiores, sed Harpocratio lenem ad- miserit." Meineke, frag. com. graec. III. 163, " Aspero spiritu nomen hoc ab antiquis Atticis scriptum esse et tituli decent et diserto testimonio constat Polemonis apud Suidam." Ross, Dem. Att., jj, " Bemerkenswerth ist hier die Form '0/9;^t6U9 statt 'Epxi'^v^f wie 'EpxofJievo^ und 'OpxofJievof; neben einander bestehen, und das Volk noch heute oxOpo^y ofew und Aehnliches statt exOpo^, efo) u. s. w. spricht." Meisterhans, Gram, der Att. Insch., p. 17. 4, '''Epxf'^v^ ist die Orthographic der Klassischen, 'Opxt'€v^ die Orthographic der romischen Zeit." As a 62 matter of fact the form 'Opxi^v^ occurs only in one in- scription, C. I. A., ii. 2039. ^s to the form 'EpxL€v<;, the spiritus asper is written once in an inscription of 410/9 (C. I. A., i. 188) and twice in one of 408/7 (C. I. A., i. 324. b). It is, however, omitted in inscriptions of 444/3 (C. I. A., i. 296), of 444-434 (C. I. A., i. 299), of 433/2 (C. I. A., i. 179), and of 418/7 (C. I. A., i. 318). 63 Note 2. « • U • • • • m PQ • • Ti- ro ro ro VO M 4 ro ro ' O 00 ro oo ON is • is • • • ««« • v-4 •> « < VO • < 1 — 1 • < s a ^ • :? • I— ^ Hi • 1 1 • • • • • c^ 1 1 • • • 1 1 u • o ro ro • ^^ ^ l-H i-O O 8 1 O • 4-» O 5 • t^ •^ o • ^ ^ • Vi^ 1 1 — 1 L 1 • < • • XO • • • 1 - s • <: • 1— H • a ^1^ C5 c^ ■ t^ ^ • • 1-0 o ro • • < • • ro '^ 1— i • 00 • 00 «v M «% < ">) ^ ^ • ^"^ '5o ^ *^«» ^ w 64 AUTHORITIES. INSCRIPTIONAL SOURCES. The word index in brackets after the name of a book indicates that the indices were relied upon to furnish all references to Erchians in that work. Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum (index). Corpus Inscriptionum Atticarum, I. III. (index) ; II. IV. Dittenberger, Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum (index). Bulletin de correspondance hellenique, i-io (index), 11-14. Mittheilungen des deutschen archaeologischen Institutes in Athen, i-io (index), 11-15, Journal of Hellenic Studies, i-io; 11, Pts. 1-2. American Journal of Archaeology, 1-5; 6, Pts. 1-3. ' E(f)r)/i€pl^ dp')(ac6\oyLKij, 1 883- 1 889. JeXrlov apxacoXoyiKov, 1888; 1889 (index); 1890, p.I-144. 'AO^vaioVf I-IO. R6vue archeologique, 1-91. 65 BOOKS OF REFERENCE, Pape-Benseler, Woerterbuch der griechischen Eigenna- men. Ross, Demen von Attika. Rangabes, Antiquites helleniques. Meursius, De populis Atticis. Leake, The Topography of Athens. Hanriot, Recherches sur la topographic des demes de TAttique. Hicks, Greek Historical Inscriptions. Thirlwall, History of Greece. Grote, History of Greece. Toepf^er, Attische Genealogie. Schaefer, Demosthenes und seine Zeit. Blass, Die attische Beredsamkeit. Jebb, The Attic Orators. Dumont, Essai sur Tephebie attique. Boeckh, Urkunden ueber das Seewesen des attischen Staates. Boeckh, Die Staatshaushaltung der Athener. Statement of the educational institutions the author has attended, and a h'st of the degrees and honors con- ferred upon him : Everson and Halsey's Collegiate School, New York, 1 879- 1 884. School of Arts, Columbia College, New York, 1884- 1891. A.B., June 1888, Columbia College. A.M., June 1889, Columbia College. Prize Fellowship in Greek, 1 888-1 891. Alumni Prize "to the most faithful and deserving student in the graduating class ", 1888. 66 (^1 ( M^^^m^rmwf^^ :-rsp*^-v.35'a§,j **.\f- :' This book is due two weeks from the last date stamped below, and if not returned at or before that time a fine of five cents a day will be incurred. ■ HI 11 1 193* ! i • ; CO :^' UMBIA UNIVERS 0032141076 TY %tc' }■ -*y-% ^ '■# 41^ j.m^- A,"