* I would here offer my thanks to Professor M. Cary, Professor J. E. Powell, and in particular to Professor F. E. Adcock, for most valuable assistance and criticisms.

¹ Goodwin, , AJP, I (1880), 4Google Scholar.

² Edition of Thucydides (1862).

³ He further suggested that τε had dropped out between ἐν and ταῑς. In the later edition of Classen's Thucydides, Steup omitted all these points.

⁴ De Sociorum Atheniensium Iudiciis Commentatio; see Herbst, , Zu Thucydides, Erklärungen und Wiederherstellungen (1892), 31Google Scholar; Morris, , AJP, V (1884), 300 ff.Google Scholar

⁵ Grote, , History of Greece, ed. 1888, IV, 526–8Google Scholar and notes; Lipsius, Meier-Schömann, Das attische Recht und Rechtsverfahren, p. 972, note 18Google Scholar; Robertson, , University of Toronto Studies, History and Economics, IV, 1 (1924)Google Scholar; Bonner, , Classical Philology, 14 (1919), pp. 284 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.; cp. also, Morris, , AJP, V, 298 ff.Google Scholar

⁶ Goodwin, , AJP, 1 (1880), 16Google Scholar; Jowett, , Translation of Thucydides, ed. 1881, notes p. 49Google Scholar. Herbst, , Zu Thucydides, p. 31Google Scholar; Forbes, ed. of Thucydides, Book I, 1895; Marchant, ed. of Thucydides, Book I, 1905.

⁷ On the position of the allies at the founding of the Delian League, cp. Thuc., I, 97; I, 96 (some provided money contributions, and some provided ships); for the later position, cp. Thuc., III, 10, 5: the allies are called δοῦλοι, except Lesbos and Chios, which are autonomous; so, too, in Thuc., VI, 85, 2: . … On the other hand, in VII, 57, 4, Thucydides calls all members of the Empire ὐπήκοοι (period of the Syracusan Expedition), and distinguishes between ναυσὶν ὑπήκοοι and φόρῳ ὑπήκοος, Methymna being ναυσὶν ὑπήκοος. The φόρῳ ὑπήκοος he also calls φόρου ὑποτελεῑς and ὑποτελεῑς. Among the ὑπήκοος and φόρου ὑποτελεῑς are named Eretria, Chalcis, Styra, Carystus, Ceos, Andros, Tenos; from Ionia, Miletus, Samos and Chios. He continues: . But the passage is possibly corrupt; αὐτόνομοι here is rejected by Stahl and Fraenkel (Boeckh, , Staatshaushaltung d. Athen., II (3), 91Google Scholar, and note 635.

⁸ Herbst, op. cit., pp. 30 ff., while recognising that the subject allies are referred to, objected to ἐλασσούμενοι being applied to the Athenians, when later in the passage the same term is applied to the allies, in the clause So he preferred to read ἐλασσουμένοις, thus supplying an antecedent to αὐτῶν.

⁹ Cp. Denniston, , Greek Particles, pp. 108, 110Google Scholar.

¹⁰ Scholia ad Thucydidem, ed. Hude, (Teubner), pp. 62–3Google Scholar.

¹¹ For the sense of ἐλασσούμενοι, cp. Dem., LVI, 14: , and Bonner, , Classical Philology, 14 (1919), pp. 284–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹² Гνώμη, with meaning ‘motion,’ ‘resolution,’ as in IG I², 10.

¹³ A reference to such is seen by Lipsius, Bonner and Robertson (cp. note 5 above), in Thucydides I, 77, 1, in the phrase: .

¹⁴ Date, circa 470–460 B.C.; see Tod, , Hist. Gr. Inscr., p. 48Google Scholar; Highby, The Erythrae Inscription, Klio, Beiheft XXXVI; Schaefer, , Hermes, LXXI (1936), 129 ff.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Highby, who has worked out the στοιχηδόν arrangement of the inscription, would read , Klio, Beiheft XXXVI, 25–6.

¹⁶ The decree embodies two resolutions; (a) the oaths guaranteeing the rights of Chalcis, and the allegiance of the Chalcidians, and (b) the regulation of certain details in the affairs of Chalcis after the revolt of 446 B.C.

¹⁷ Tod, op. cit., p. 85.

¹⁸ For a definition of εὔθυναι, cp. Plato, , Protagoras, 326dGoogle Scholar: .

¹⁹ IG I², 39, 71–6.

²⁰ In 45, 3; 53, 6; 55, 2, it might mean ‘reference’ or ‘commission for trial.’

²¹ But the inscription is very fragmentary. See below.

²² Cp. Aristophanes, , Pax, 639 fGoogle Scholar.: .

²³ Aristophanes, , Aves, 1421 ff.Google Scholar

²⁴ Note here that no question arises of trial in the allied state, with subsequent appeal to Athens; cp. Aves, 1454 ff.: .

²⁵ IX, 407b.

²⁶ Boeckh, , Staatshaushaltung d. Athen., I (3), p. 478Google Scholar and note c.

²⁷ XII, 63; perhaps on the basis of the passage (Thuc. I, 77, 1) under discussion.

²⁸ Boeckh, op. cit., II (3), note 639.

²⁹ Antiphon V, 29.

³⁰ Cp. the terms of the oath in IG I², 39, 4–10: .

³¹ The work belongs to the period between 430 B.C. and 424 B.C. Gelzer (Die Schrift von Staate der Athener) dates it to mid-429 B.C.; Kalinka possibly to 425 B.C.

³² Cp. id., I, 14: .

³³ It seems unlikely that the πρυτανεῑα, harbour-tax, and hire of houses, beasts of burden and slaves would be mentioned, even by a biased writer, as considerable sources of income, if cases involving murder and treason alone were referred to Athens.

³⁴ Cobet, , Nov. Lect., p. 167Google Scholar, makes up his mind that ξυμβόλαιαι δίκαι signify or , and condemns the form ξύμβολαιος. He says, ‘Non bene graece appellari vel , quas dici manifestum est. Nempe ξύμβολαιος adiectivum est quod respuit graecitatis et ratio et usus. Ἐμβόλιμος graecum est et ἐκβόλιμος et , etc., graeca non sunt.’ He regards Hesychius as preserving the correct reading in his gloss: , ‘ubi nemo dubitavit emendare: , collato Harpocratione, s.v. σύμβολα, et multis oratorum locis.’ and emends the text of Thuc. I, 77, 1 to: . Hesychius, however, also gives s.v. (emended by Albertus-Schmidt to ). Of this gloss Cobet says, ‘non tamen heri aut nudius tertius natus error est, qui nostros codices omnes obsidet; apud ipsum H. depravata scriptura conspicitur v. . Qui locus non emendandus sed cum cbntemptu abiiciendus est, quemadmodum sexcenties apud Hesychium eadem glossa alibi integra et incorrupta legitur, alibi vitiosa et depravata.’

³⁵ Note that in the present article ξυμβολή and ξυμβολαί are used in reference to the fifth century, and the forms σύμβολον and σύμβολ–8; Classen ed. of Thucydides, rev. Steup, 1897; Boeckh, , Staatshaushaltung d. Athen., I (3), 476 fGoogle Scholar., and note b; Gilbert, , Handbuch d. griech. Staatsaltertümer, I (2), 487 ffGoogle Scholar.; Marchant, ed. of Thucydides I (1905).

³⁷ Jowett, , Trans. of Thucydides, ed. 1881, p. 49Google Scholar; Forbes, ed. of Thucydides, I (1895), 67; Lipsius, Meier-Schoemann, Das Attische Recht und Rechtsverfahren, p. 972Google Scholar; Goodwin, , AJP, I (1880), 4Google Scholar. Cp. Morris, , AJP, V (1888), 298 ffGoogle Scholar.; H. G. Robertson, op. cit., p. 12.

³⁸ For the general principles of σύμβολα, see Kahrstedt, P-W., Realenc., IV, 1 (II series)Google Scholar, coll. 1088–90; Lipsius, op. cit., pp. 965 ff.; Kahrstedt, Staatsgebiet und Staatsangehörige in Athen, passim; Hitzig, Altgr. Staatsverträge über Rechtshilfe, passim; Busolt-Swoboda, , Griech. Staatskunde, II, 1241Google Scholar, 5; 1244, 1. For general principles of σύμβολα in the ancient authorities, cp. Aristot., , Pol., III, 1, 3 (1275a)Google Scholar; 5, 10–11 (1280a); Rhet., I, 4, 4 (1360a)Google Scholar; (Andocides) IV, 18; Harpocration, s.v. σύμβολα. For the manner in which they were made, cp. Aristotle, , Ἀθ. πολ., LIX, 6Google Scholar; (Dem.) VII, 9 ff. For the πόλις ἔκκλτος in relation to σύμβολα, see IG XII, 7, 67Google Scholar; Etym. Magnum, pp. 322, 42. See P-W., Realenc, loc. cit., for σύμβολα between independent states at various periods, and for such between Athens and independent states; cp. IG I², 113; II², 1, 46 and 207. IG II ², 1, 141Google Scholar does not afford an example of σύμβολα in this sense.

³⁹ Dem. XXXIII, 2; XXXIV, 31; XXXII, 1.

⁴⁰ Athenaeus, XIII, 93 (611d).

⁴¹ Dittenberger, , Syll. (3), 286Google Scholar, 10: ; cp. IG XII, 5, 1065Google Scholar, 8 (Carthaea): (early third century); for the same phrase, cp. Aristotle, , Pol., III, 1, 10 (1276a)Google Scholar: , where, however, συμβόλαιον is a ‘contract.’

⁴² Goodwin, , AJP, I (1880), 14 ff.Google Scholar

⁴³ Cp. Beseler, , Συμβόλαιον, Zeitschrift d. Savigny-Stiftung f. Rechtsgeschichte, 50 (Röm. Abteilung), 441–2Google Scholar.

⁴⁴ For a discussion of συναλλγματα as the equivalent of the Latin ‘obligationes,’ therefore comprehending not only ‘business agreements’ (), i.e., ‘obligationes ex contractu,’ giving rise to (‘actiones ex contractu’), but also ‘torts’ (obligationes ex delicto'), the Greek equivalent of which are , producing (actiones ex delicto), see Lee, , in CQ XXXI (1937), 131Google Scholar.

⁴⁵ Their jurisdiction over merchants is referred to in a speech of Lysias (XVII, of 398–397 B.C.) in connection with events which took place at the end of the fifth century. The lexicographers Photius, Suidas and Bekker (Anecd. Graec., I, p. 283Google Scholar, 3) mention them as concerned with merchants (ἒμποροι) and the port of Athens. They are named also in an inscription, IG I², 41, of a date not long after 446–5 B.C., though their competence in this case is not clear. They must have originated at an early date, when ἒμπορος and ναύτης were not distinguished apart; Schwahn (P-W., Realenc., s.v. Nautodikai, coll. 2061–2) suggests the period of Solon, since the latter's legislation took cognisance of mercantile associations. Their original functions must have been connected with mercantile affairs, It should be noted that Hesychius (s.v.) mentions, in addition to their mercantile functions, that they had charge of actions against aliens for unlawful assumption of citizenship, and Harpocration mentions only this function. But Körte (Hermes, LVIII (1933), 238 ffGoogle Scholar.; and the evidence there cited) has shown convincingly that this duty was assigned to them probably after 443 B.C., while before that time the ξενοδίκαι had charge of such actions against aliens [γραφαὶ ξενίας].

⁴⁶ Aristotle, , Ἀθ. πολ., 53Google Scholar, 3: .

⁴⁷ Except and ἐμπορικαί, of which the Thesmothetae had charge.

⁴⁸ The provisions fall into two classes: (a) against ἀδικία (IG I², 28, 55, 56, 106a, 110, 113, 118, 150, 152, 153) and (b) against violence (βίαιος θάνατος) (IG I², 143, 154, 72). That the distinction is a real one is shown by IG I², 28 and 56, where both are mentioned; and the nature of the ἀδικία as a civil wrong, is clear from IG I², 28: . (The restoration seems well established.)

⁴⁹ In some of these inscriptions the person is commended to the protection of the Boule, Prytaneis and Strategoi, but these seem to belong to a period in or after 430 B.C. (IG I², 56 (430 B.C.?); 106 (411–408 B.C.); 106a (of same period as 106); 110 (410–409 B.C.); 113 (c. 410 B.C.); 118 (408–407 B.C.); 150 (uncertain)), as far as the evidence goes. The examples in which the polemarch is named are IG I², 28 (before 446–445 B.C.); 55 (about 431 B.C.); 153 (before 430 B.C.); and 152 (of uncertain date, but possibly c. 446–445 (442–441) B.C., since the proposer, Democleides, bears the same name as the proposer of the Brea cleruchy decree (IG I², 45, line 43).

⁵⁰ See note 44.

⁵¹ Bethe reads for the older . He also suggests .

⁵² See Cobet, , Novae Lectiones, pp. 167– 8Google Scholar, for the connection of Thucydides and Hesychius.

⁵³ In the fifth century, , in the fourth century, and ξύμβολον are incorrect forms.

⁵⁴ It is unknown whether it refers to an allied state or not.

⁵⁵ IG I², 136: ; IG I², 133: .

⁵⁶ As in σύμβολα with independent states; e.g., IG I², 113 (c. 410 B.C.) IG II ², 1, 207Google Scholar (c. 349–348 B.C.).

⁵⁷ Bannier ascribes this example to an allied state, which, after revolt, had returned to its allegiance (Berl. Phil. Woch., 1917, 1342Google Scholar).

⁵⁸ Possibly also in IG I², 90 (treaty with the Bottiaeans, 422–421–416–415 B.C.?): (lines 3–4), but here the δίκαι may have some connexion with the assessment of tribute; cp. lines 1–2; (or, alternatively, πράχσες). The same phrase occurs in the proclamation of a truce on the occasion of the Eleusinian festival (IG I², 6 (before 460 B.C.); those who participate have to undertake: .

⁵⁹ After the failure of the revolt in 439 B.C. the Samian fleet was surrendered, and the fortifications dismantled, but no tribute was imposed.

⁶⁰ Hermes, VII (1872), 161Google Scholar; IG II, 11Google Scholar.

⁶¹ In IG II, 11Google Scholar.

⁶² Sylloge (2), 72, followed by Roberts-Gardner, , Introduction to Greek Epigraphy, II, 76–8Google Scholar.

⁶³ Ber. Phil. Woch., 1917, coll. 91 and 1342.

⁶⁴ Ἐφ. Ἀρχ., 1922, pp. 62 ff.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Gr. Hist. Iscr., No. 32.

⁶⁶ GGA, 1898, 204–205Google Scholar.

⁶⁷ Kleinasiatische Studien, p. 98, note 1.

⁶⁸ So Hicks, , Greek Hist. Inscriptions (2), 36Google Scholar (363–362 B.C.); Michel, , Recueil, 6Google Scholar (fourth century).

⁶⁹ GGA, 1898, 204–5Google Scholar.

⁷⁰ Plutarch, , Cimon, 12 (486a–bGoogle Scholar).

⁷¹ Forschungen zur alten Geschichte, II, 5–6Google Scholar.

⁷² Proc. Amer. Phil. Assoc., LVII, xxxi ff.Google Scholar

⁷³ Hermes LXII, 275Google Scholar.

⁷⁴ Hesperia II, p. 494Google Scholar, No. 12.

⁷⁵ Berl. Phil. Woch., 1917, col. 91.

⁷⁶ Id., col. 91, on the analogy of IG II², 1. 1.

⁷⁷ Minor divergences of reading are (a) Stahl's: ; and (b) (IG II, 11Google Scholar and Bannier); it appears uncertain whether the Iota can be read on the stone; IG I², 16 gives it as legible on the inscription, Photiades, 1922, p. 65 restores ἂλλοθι, within brackets.

⁷⁸ Roberts-Gardner, Tod, Photiades.

⁷⁹ Hermes VII (1872), 159Google Scholar, and IG, II, 11Google Scholar.

⁸⁰ Followed by Roberts-Gardner, , Introduction to Greek Epigraphy, Vol. II, No. 30, pp. 77–8Google Scholar.

⁸¹ GGA, 1898, p. 204Google Scholar, ‘dubitanter.’

⁸² Plato, , Rep., 327b; 328cGoogle Scholar; IG I², 905.

⁸³ Plato, , Symp., 172aGoogle Scholar; Dem., XX, 12; Aristotle, , Pol., 1303b 12Google Scholar; Lycurgus in Leocrat., 18.

⁸⁴ Ἀθ. πολ., 50–1.

⁸⁵ Ἐφ. Ἀρχ., 1922, p. 65Google Scholar.

⁸⁶ The restoration which has been shown to be preferable to .

⁸⁷ Oliver, (Hesperia II, 494)Google Scholar suggests that ‘the equality of treatment for Phaselites and Chians had perhaps been assumed from the beginning, and was later definitely formulated in a treaty, because of some violation of the previous agreement by the Athenians.’

⁸⁸ Which is the significance of ἄλλοθι in line 12.

⁸⁹ See below for the possible significance of κατά.

⁹⁰ Thucydides II, 69.

⁹¹ Tod 30 (454–453 B.C.); 38 (449–448 B.C.); 46 (443–442 B.C.); 56 (433–432 B.C.); 66 (425–424 B.C.).

⁹² Plutarch, , Cimon, p. 12Google Scholar. Oliver, (Hesperia, II, 494 ffGoogle Scholar.) considers that ‘It becomes altogether likely that the treaty is another example of the changes then (c. 450 B.C., after the return of Cimon from exile) effected in Athens' foreign policy by the party of Cimon. Phaselis was treated more favourably when Cimon returned to power, for as we may see from the tribute list, IG I², 195, its assessment was reduced by one half in 450–449 B.C’

⁹³ Note that πρὸς Φασηλίτας goes with ξυμβολάς, not with τὰς δίκας.

⁹⁴ The theory that were tried in the state of the defendant is based on Dem. VII, 13, and Dittenberger, , OGI, p. 437Google Scholar (treaty between Ephesus and Sardis, of the second or first century B.C.). For various reasons the evidence of Dem. VII, 13, does not appear very trustworthy. It seems more logical to suppose that were tried in the courts of the state where the circumstances giving rise to them existed. In that case the first provision of the Phaselis decree is not an exception, as it is commonly believed to be, to the general rule of ξυμβολαί. I hope to treat this subject more fully elsewhere.

⁹⁵ If ξυμβόλαια were commercial contracts, cases arising from them were the equivalent of the ἐμπορικαὶ δίκαι of the fourth century, which were in the charge of the θεσμοθέται, whose counterpart in the fifth century were the ναυτοδίκαι, not the polemarch. It appears that the ναυτοδίκαι, like the θεσμοθέται in the fourth century, acted as presiding magistrates in the trial of commercial cases. It may be objected, therefore, that the polemarch's functions in the Phaselis decree were confined to introducing the cases to the ναυτοδίκαι. This explanation, however, is excluded by the use of παρά and the dative case, which in every case (see L. & S.) is a legal context seems to refer to a presiding judge.

⁹⁶ The only possible meaning of ἀφαιρεῑν is ‘to abolish.’

⁹⁷ IG I², 10, 10; 39, 10.

⁹⁸ Note that one of Hesychius' definitions of συμβόλαιον is συνάλλαγμα.

⁹⁹ Cp. Aristotle, , Eth. Nik., V, 2, 1131a 2Google Scholar; Vinogradoff, , Hist. Jurisprudence, II, 46 ff.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Cp. Dem. XXIX, XLV, XLVII; or alternatively, as in Dem. XXXII, one party might take the initiative with a δίκη ἐξούλης.

¹⁰¹ The connection of the inscription with the events recorded in Thuc. III, 50 seems clear from the mention of κλη[ρ]χοις in line 10 of the inscription.

¹⁰² The disputes concerned movable property on the land occupied by the cleruchs.

¹⁰³ See Tod, op. cit., p. 135.

¹⁰⁴ If indeed this condition ever existed. See above, note 94.

¹⁰⁵ Restored by Dittenberger (see Forbes, op. cit., p. 128 of notes) on the analogy of the extraordinary officials (ἐπίσκοποι) appointed by Athens temporarily at Erythrae (IG I², 10, 12; 11, 4) and at Miletus (IG I², 22, though they are not certainly such there, and are not called ἐπίσκοποι), and on the basis of Aristophanes, Aves, 1023, and Harpocration, s.v., ἐπίσκοποι.

¹⁰⁶ Tod, op. cit., No. 63, line 11; and IG I², Addenda, No. 60.

¹⁰⁷ Thuc. III, 50. It is worth noting that Bannier (BPW, 1917, 1343Google Scholar) would restore: , or instead of .

^107bis Without the evidence of paragraph 78 the speaker (the son of the person mentioned in this passage) might have been thought to be a citizen of either Mytilene or Athens, such is the vagueness of expression throughout the whole speech. The writer of the Hypothesis to the speech believed him to be a native of Mytilene (though his opinion can be of little value, seeing that he says the voyage mentioned in the speech was from Athens to Aenus, though it is expressly stated in the text that it was from Mytilene to Aenus). On the other hand, it is quite clear from paragraphs 76–77 that the father was a citizen of Mytilene, and therefore the πόλις mentioned in paragraph 78 must be the same as the πόλις of 76–7—i.e., Mytilene.

¹⁰⁸ Ed. of Thucydides I, 130 of notes.

¹⁰⁹ CQ, XXXI, 69–70.

¹¹⁰ Thuc., III, 50, 3.

¹¹¹ Thuc. IV, 52, 3. Note in 52, 2.

¹¹² bis The writer would suggest (with some diffidence, since he can find few willing to accept his view) that the have been associated, by a corruption in the text, with the wrong party. After the revolt of 428 B.C. was crushed, we are to understand, the speaker's father stayed for a time in Mytilene (77), but eventually considered it expedient to withdraw to Aenus, fearing, perhaps, that he might fall under suspicion of disloyalty to Athens, if he stayed in Lesbos, and become the victim of informers on account of his wealth (cp. Breunig, , CQ, XXXI, 68Google Scholar). The speaker is at pains to show that his father's departure was prompted by no feelings, on his own part, of ill-will to Athens, and by no desire to cut himself off from relations with that city. Therein he contrasts his father's behaviour with that of other individuals, who also did not see fit to remain in Lesbos. Accepting the manuscript text for the time being, we may translate (from …): ‘and he has not become a citizen of another state, in the way that I see others betaking themselves to the mainland, and dwelling among your enemies, and engaging in litigation with you on the basis of interstate judicial treaties ().’ It is clear that the speaker sets the litigation of these persons, on a par with their defection, whether as metics or citizens, to the enemies of Athens, and adduces both as proofs of their disloyalty. This, in itself, is as strange as the combination, in the unemended text, of and , even if we allow for rhetorical exaggeration.

As far as the emendations are concerned, Blass, by inserting after an d altering the following to , supplies thus a co-ordinate to the phrase , but separates from , which is unnecessary according to Breunig's explanation, and fails to get rid of the combination of and . Reiske's insertion of after , like the longer additions of Fraenkel and Wilamowitz, succeeds in removing this difficulty, but leaves the reason for the mention of undiscovered. If the mention of these suits is held to refer to the other individuals who left Lesbos, the question remains why they were discredited for resorting to in the settlement of their law-suits, since presumably were made to be used, and in any case it is absurd to set such conduct side by side with making common cause with the enemies of Athens. Furthermore, why does the speaker say of his father immediately afterwards: , a phrase which is used elsewhere in this speech on two occasions in a judicial sense (paragraphs 8 and 80)?

The general sense of the passage seems to be that the speaker's father did not try, by residing in Aenus, to sever his association with the Athenians, as the others had done by going to reside among the enemies of Athens; and we should naturally expect a demonstration of this fact to be given. Such a proof of his goodwill and esteem for Athens is forthcoming, if we apply the reference to to the speaker's father. In this way acquires greater meaning, for the argument runs: ‘The others go to your enemies, but my father, though he now lives in Aenus, makes no attempt to avoid intercourse with you; far from it, for he takes advantage of interstate juridical agreements in his law-suits with you; but he hates such informers as you do.’ Thus the speaker attempts to show his father's trust in and goodwill to Athens, with the implied moral that the Athenian court before which he is pleading must not betray such confidence by condemning him. On this view the existed between Athens and Aenus, and have nothing to do with Lesbos or the mainland.

Such an interpretation involves the change of to , which is easy enough, in view of the two preceding accusative participles (such a change, if it took place, came about at a date earlier than the existing MSS of Antiphon, since both A and N read , but the confusion of o and ou can be illustrated from A; cp. I, 10: A. , for ; I, 27: A pr. for ; V, 24: A pr. for ). On the other hand, the corruption of , or some other adversative word, to Kai is very difficult to explain, and that, or any other emendation designed to fit in , produces a sentence even uglier than the existing text. Nevertheless, the suggestion, replacing a difficulty of substance by one of text, is worthy of consideration.

¹¹³ For example, it is not made clear to what state (Athens or Lesbos) Herodes and his friends and would-be avengers belonged. The speaker mentions (17) that he was kept in custody ( cp. the of 9; elsewhere he infers that he came to Athens of his own free will), and was thereby deprived of the right of finding , which was usually accorded to . But it is not made clear whether this happened in Mytilene (where the preliminary investigations took place) or in Athens, or in both places, so that we cannot decide in which state he had the status of . The past tense () would seem to indicate Mytilene, in which case he was a there, and thus differed from his father, though he does not mention the fact, or the way in which it came about. He uses the phrases ‘’ ( = Athens; 13), and ‘’ (= ?; 62), but it is to be supposed that exile would exclude him from Athens and Mytilene alike. There are yet other obscurities in connection with the voyage to Aenus. It cannot be said, therefore, that the speech affords a very sure basis of fact.

¹¹⁴ Robertson, op. cit., p. 22, points out that the Samians were granted a form of whereby they became citizens of Athens, although their own city was still in existence, while Athenians did not become citizens of Samos The decree enacts that disputes between Athenians and Samians shall be decided according to the existing treaties. The could not, from the nature of the case, be complete, so that it is not surprising that cases between Samians and Athenians, though the Samians were citizens of Athens, should be tried not by Athenian procedure in all instances, but according to the treaties which had been concluded when Samos was an entirely separate state and with which both parties were already familiar. For the previous position of Samos, see note 50.

¹¹⁵ Cp. lines 15–16: .

¹¹⁶ Xen., , Hellenica, I, 1, 21Google Scholar; 3, 10; Diod. Sic., XIII, 66, 4; Plut., , Alcibiades, 30Google Scholar.

¹¹⁷ , if the correct restoration, probably refers to the exiles whose recall is determined in lines 12–14.

¹¹⁸ Edition of Thucydides, I, 67 of notes.

¹¹⁹ Meier-Schoemann, , Attische Recht, p. 967Google Scholar.

¹²⁰ For , cp. IG, XII, 5, 1065, 8 (Carthaea, of the early third century). For similar circumstances in return of exiles cp. GDI, 214 (Vol. I), dated by Boeckh, 324 B.C. For and as ‘state’ and ‘individual,’ cp. IG I², 39, 11.

¹²¹ It has been suggested to me that the in question are to be understood as an agreement (on the lines of the in IG II², 1, 185 (Athens and Sidon)) between the two conflicting parties in Selymbria. This seems unlikely, since nothing is said of the past or future creation of such an agreement, while other important arrangements for the pacification of the state and reconciliation of the parties are here mentioned for the first time.

¹²² It may be mentioned here that besides the long constitutional decree IG I², 10, a fragment of another (IG I² 11) seems to provide for the trial of lawsuits between Athenians and Erythraeans (line 11): (date between 470 and 450 B.C.); the usual meaning of is ‘to act as judge,’ and of , ‘to bring actions against someone’ or more vaguely, ‘to resort to the law.’ But the restoration of cannot be proved, except on general grounds, and the inscription is too fragmentary to permit conclusions to be drawn from it. Nothing is known of the events which occasioned the decrees IG I², 10–13, but on the analogy of IG I², 22, it may be supposed that some internal upheaval gave Athens the opportunity of intervening to regulate the affairs of Erythrae in a democratic direction, and possibly to impose judicial regulations. Highby (Klio, Beiheft XXXVI) believes tha t the decrees were promulgated to secure a recently established democracy against the exiled pro-Persian party, an d to prevent secession from the League. Schaefer, (Hermes LXXI, 129 ff.Google Scholar) holds much the same view.

¹²³ Thuc., I, 114; Diod., Sic., XII, 7 and 22Google Scholar; Plut., , Per., 23Google Scholar; Strabo (Theopompus) X, 1, 3.

¹²⁴ The first part of the decree arranged for the settlement of disputes between the cleruchs themselves (thus Cary, M., JHS, XLV, 247–8Google Scholar), apparently over the allotment of lands (cp. IG I², 40), and here, too, provision was made for the references of cases to Athens (cp. Cary, op. cit.), as in the later inscription, IG I², 42, which concerns the assessment of εἰσφορά: (dated by Cary to the period between 435 B.C. (or 428–427 B.C.) and 420 B.C.). It seems preferable to interpret the mention of δίκαι in IG I², 40 and 41 as suits arising between the cleruchs themselves over the division of the land, rather than as suits between cleruchs and natives. See Cary's arguments, op. cit., pp. 247–8.

¹²⁵ They existed at Athens also, thirty in number at an earlier period, and forty in the time of Aristotle, Ἀθ. πολ. 26, 3. In Histiaea they were distinct from another board of thirty, of whom the decree says: ; they were, therefore, a body of magistrates to try minor criminal cases.

¹²⁶ By Cary.

¹²⁷ For their appearance in the tribute lists cp. IG I², 202, 25 (443 B.C.); 207, 76 (433 B.C.); in these they are called : in the following, simply Διῆς; IG I², 194, 35–6 (451 B.C.); 196, 15 and 25 (449 B.C.); 63, 78 (425 B.C.).

¹²⁸ The at Athens judged cases involving sums up to ten drachmae only (cp. Aristotle, Ἀθ. πολ., 53: . Perhaps, therefore, should be read here; ἐμ πόλει refers to Histiaea.

¹²⁹ Cary, M., JHS, XLV, 249Google Scholar.

¹³⁰ This decree has been associated (e.g. by Glotz, , Comptes Rendus de l'Acad. d. Inscr., 1906, pp. 519 ff.Google Scholar) with the Milesian decree concerning the banishment of certain members of the oligarchic faction in that city. This decree (Ditt., Syll. (3), I, 58) condemned the people in question to perpetual banishment, and set a price on their heads. Glotz, comparing a passage of Damascenos, Nicolaos (Excerpta de Insidiis, pp. 19, 15Google Scholar) (Jacoby, , Fr. Gr. Hist., II, 354, 53Google Scholar), would see in them members of the Neleid clan, and explains the surviving decree (which appears on a base originally surmounted by a stele) as a reaffirmation of a lost decree, inscribed on the stele, and directed against the same family in the 6th century. Whatever the identity of the individuals in question, it is generally agreed that they were of the oligarchic party, with whom, according to [Xenophon] Ἀθ. πολ., III, 11, the Athenians made common cause in the fifth century, at some uncertain date. The oligarchic party, however, turned on the democrats, and apparently were expelled; hence the decree of Miletus directed against them (Syll. (3), I, 58Google Scholar). This internal strife seems to have given the Athenians the opportunity of interfering again in the affairs of Miletus, as the decree IG I², 22 shows. Whether, at this time, and as a result of these events, Miletus suffered a decline in prosperity and wealth, is uncertain. The prices set on the heads of the exiles and the fines appointed for non-observance of the decree are not low, as Glotz supposes, because in the case of a city of Asia Minor, such as Miletus, staters would naturally be the electrum coins of that name. On the other hand the tribute of Miletus, which was ten talents in 450–449 B.C. (IG I², 195, 30), appears as five talents in 443–442 B.C., and in 440–439 B.C. (IG I², 202, 33; 205, 11). But this may have been a favour on the part of Athens (cp. the way in which Miletus was favoured against Samos).

¹³¹ Restored on the analogy of IG I², 10, 31.

¹³² Second half of February to first half of April. These seem unsuitable months for the reference of cases to Athens, since the sailing season had not started by mid-April.

¹³³ In line 39 ff. we read; , which recalls IG I², 41: The latter arrangement Cary connects with disputes over land between the cleruchs of Histiaea, and consequently the parallel is only apparent.

¹³⁴ Staath. d. Athen., I (3), 478Google Scholar.

¹³⁵ Gilbert, , Gr. Staatsaltert., I2, 484Google Scholar.

¹³⁶ Gr. Gesch., III², I, p. 231, note 2.

¹³⁷ In any case a reference to πρυτανεῖα would apply equally well to civil and to criminal cases.

¹³⁸ For proof of reference of cases of some sort from Miletus to Athens, cp. id., fragment c, lines 41 ff.: [

¹³⁹ The reference is δίκαι τιμητοί.

¹⁴⁰ Cp. Szanto, , Ath. Mitt., Vol. XVI, 30, note 2Google Scholar, on Methymna, which was first allied to Athens, and then joined the Second Athenian League.

¹⁴¹ See note 38.

¹⁴² Date d in IG II² to before 353–352 B.C.; Hitzig, , Altgriechische Staatsverträge, p. 34Google Scholar, dates it to c. 378 B.C., but probably this is too early. Naxos revolted, and was reduced by Chabrias in 363–362 B.C., and the decree is almost certainly connected with that event.

¹⁴³ Likewise reduced after revolt, by Chabrias, in 363– 362 B.C. Cp. Szanto, , Ath. Mitt., XVI, 34–5Google Scholar; Hitzig, op. cit., pp. 10 and 34; Lipsius, op. cit., p. 976.

¹⁴⁴ Cp. also IG XII, 7, 3 (BCH, XII, 230 ff.Google Scholar), relating to Arkesine in Amorgos, in which references occur to τὸ ἀστικόν δικαστήοιο, and to ἡ (τὸ) ἔκλητɔς ον. Note particularly, 1. 48 ff.: ., and line 29: . Szanto, (Ath. Mitt., XVI, 35Google Scholar) believed that the ἔκκλητος πόλις was Athens in the case of Arkesine also, but there is no proof of this. The decree belongs to the first half of the fourth century.

¹⁴⁵ See note 131 above.

¹⁴⁶ It may be asked why no mention of civil suits appears in the decree concerning Chalcis (IG I², 39). There is no reason to suppose that such provision was omitted, but it was probably contained in a separate decree; note that in the case of Erythrae (IG I², 10) the ‘constitutional decree’ also contained provisions concerning murde r and treason, while a separate decree introduced regulations for civil suits (IG I², 11). I t appear s from IG I² that some of the letter forms differ in this inscription (id., 11) from those in the fragments, id., 12 and 13 which Highby connects with the ‘constitutional inscription’ (IG I², 10, existing only in Fauvel's copy), but the differences are not such that it need be of a different date. A very fragmentary inscription, IG I², 49, concerning Eretria, appears to deal with an embassy sent to Athens to obtain settlement of certain law suits (note the mention of the polemarch), line 4 ff.: . But if the restoration of the inscription IG I², 396, on the base of a dedication, is correct: , the judicial decree may refer to some dispute in the cleruchy (of which IG I², 396 is the only evidence, such as over the payment of εἰσφορά, as in IG I², 42. The date of IG I², 49 is given by Hiller von Gaertringen as sometime after 442–441 B.C.

¹⁴⁷ Cp. IG I², 133, for the possible restoration of a reference to the renewal of ξυμβολαί. In Bannier's opinion the case is that of a revolting allied state, which had returned to submission.

¹⁴⁸ Cp. Lipsius, op. cit., p. 972: ‘Gerade für diese Klagen wird die Gerichtsbarkeit der einzelnen Bundesstaaten je nach ihrer Entfernung und ähnlicher Rücksichten in verschiedener Weise sich abgestuft haben, so dass man sich hüten muss, aus dem einzelnen Zeugnis sofort allgemeine Regel zu folgern.’

¹⁴⁹ Thus Phaselis, though a tributary ally, was accorded the rights of an independent ally, thanks to her position on the borders of the Empire and on a strategic trade-route.

NOTE.—Since the above was written the term δίκαι ἀπὸξυμβολῶν has been introduced as an emendation into the new fragment of the Athenian currency decree found in Cos, and published by Segré, M. in Clara Rhodes IXGoogle Scholar (La legge Ateniese sull' unificazione della moneta: I owe my knowledge of the article to the kindness of Mr. M. N. Tod), to which work readers may be referred for full details of the inscription, discussion of its date and significance, and its relation to the other fragments of the currency inscription found elsewhere. It suffices to say here that in line 5, of the Cos fragment (op. cit., p. 11), Segré restores: . There follows the provision that the Thesmothetai are to administer a fine (there is some doubt here concerning the reading and restoration of the inscription). A mention of the class of cannot stand here; there is no place for such an institution (which was concerned with private civil cases) in the administration and enforcement of an imperial decree. In this particular case an appeal was allowed against the action of the Hellenotamiai, and we should expect the mention of some specific official court of appeal, with fixed procedure. The part of the line preserved recalls IG I², 39, 74 ff., of Chalkis: ., and it is natural that the court of appeal here mentioned, presided over by the Thesmothetai, should try a case which was an appeal from the ruling of Athenian officials, since it was unlikely that there was more than one such court of appeal. As a restoration of the line in the Cos fragment, the following might be suggested: .