Ferguson W. S. Priests of Asclepios A New Method of Dating Athenian Archons

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PUBLICATIONS
CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY
Vol. 1, N o . 5 , pp. 1 3 1 - 1 7 3 April 14, 1 9 0 6
THE PRIESTS OF ASKLEPIOS
A NEW M E T H O D OF DATING ATHENIAN A R C H O N S
WILLIAM SCOTT FERGUSON
BERKELEY
THE UNIVERSITY PRESS
Price $o.so
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PUBLICATIONS
N o t e . — T h e University of California Publications are offered in e x c h a n g e for t h e
publications of learned societies and institutions, u n i v e r s i t i e s a n d libraries. C o m p l e t e
lists of all the publications of the University will be s e n t upon r e q u e s t . For s a m p l e
copies, lists of publications or other i n f o r m a t i o n , a d d r e s s the M a n a g e r of t h e U n i v e r s i t y
P r e s s , Berkeley, California, U. S. A. All matter s e n t in e x c h a n g e should b e a d d r e s s e d
to The Exchange Department, University Library, Berkeley, California, U. S. A.
CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY—Edward B. C l a p p , William A. Merrill, H e r b e r t C .

Nutting, Editors. Price p e r v o l u m e $ 2 . 0 0 . Volume I (in
progress):
N o . 1. Hiatus in Greek Melic Poetry, by Edward B . Clapp. Price, $ 0 . 5 0
<<
No. 2. Studies in the Si-clause, by H e r b e r t C . N u t t i n g . .60
No. 3. T h e W h e n c e a n d Whither of t h e M o d e r n S c i e n c e of Lan-
guage, by B e n j . Ide W h e e l e r c< .25
No. 4. O n the Influence of Lucretius on H o r a c e , by William A .
Merrill . '. . . . . . . . u .25
No. 5. T h e Priests of Asklepios (A N e w Method of Dating A t h e n i a n
<<
Archons), by William Scott F e r g u s o n . . . .50
AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY AND ETHNOLOGY.

Vol. 1. N o . 1. Life and Culture of t h e H u p a , by P l i n y Earle Goddard.
Pages 8 8 , Plates 3 0 , S e p t e m b e r , 1 9 0 3 . . . Price, 1.25
N o . 2 . H u p a Texts, by Pliny Earle G o d d a r d . Pages 290, March,
1904. . . . . . . . . Price, 3.00
Vol. 2 . N o . 1. T h e Exploration of t h e Potter Creek C a v e , by William J .
Sinclair. P a g e s 2 7 , Plates 14, April, 1 9 0 4 . . Price, .40
N o . 2 . T h e Languages of the C o a s t of California South of S a n
Francisco, by A. L. K r o e b e r . P a g e s 7 2 , J u n e , 1 9 0 4 . Price, .60
N o . 3 . Types of Indian Culture in C a l i f o r n i a , by A. L. K r o e b e r .
Pages 2 2 , J u n e , 1 9 0 4 . . . . . . . Price, .25
N o . 4 . Basket Designs of the I n d i a n s of N o r t h w e s t e r n C a l i f o r n i a ,
by A. L. Kroeber. P a g e s 6 0 , P l a t e s 7 , J a n u a r y , 1 9 0 5 . P r i c e , .75
N o . 5 . The Yokuts Language of South C e n t r a l C a l i f o r n i a , by
A. L. Kroeber fin p r e s s ) .
Vol. 3 . T h e Morphology of the H u p a L a n g u a g e , by P l i n y Earle G o d d a r d .
Pages 3 4 4 , J u n e , 1 9 0 5 Price, 3 . 5 0
Vol. 4 . N o . 1. T h e Earliest Historical R e l a t i o n s between Mexico and
J a p a n , by Zelia Nuttall. P a g e s 4 7 , April, 1 9 0 6 . . Price, .50
GRAECO-ROMAN ARCHAEOLOGY.
Vol. 1. T h e Tebtunis Papyri, Part 1. Edited by B e r n a r d P . G r e n f e l l , A r t h u r
S. H u n t , and J . Gilbart S m y l y . P a g e s 6 9 0 , P l a t e s 9 , 1 9 0 3
Price, $ 1 6 . 0 0
Vol. 2 . T h e Tebtunis Papyri, Part 2 (in p r e p a r a t i o n ) .
Vol. 3. T h e Tebtunis Papyri, Part 3 (in p r e p a r a t i o n ) .
EGYPTIAN ARCHAEOLOGY.
Vol. 1. T h e H e a r s t Medical P a p y r u s . Edited by G . A. R e i s n e r . Hieratic
text in 17 facsimile plates in collotype, with introduction and
vocabulary. Quarto, pages 4 8 . N o w r e a d y .
Vols. 2 - 7 in press or in preparation.
UNIVERSITY OF C A L I F O R N I A PUBLICATIONS
CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY
Vol. 1, N o . 5 , p p . 1 3 1 - 1 7 3 April 14, 1 9 0 6
THE PRIESTS OF ASKLEPIOS

A NEW METHOD OF DATING ATHENIAN ARCHONS
BY
W I L L I A M SCOTT F E R G U S O N
I.
The substance of this investigation can be presented best as ;i
commentary on the following table:—
Tribe of Secre-
Year tary of the Tribe of Secretary Deme of Priest of Asklepios
B.C. Treasurers of and of Priest Secretary
Athena
353/2 Antiochis Pallene
352/1 Erechtheis Euonymon?
351/0 Hippothontis Aigeis
350/9 Aiantis Pandionis
349/8 Antiochis Leontis Phrearrhoi
348/7 Erechtheis Akamantis
347/6 Aigeis Oineis Acharnai
346/5 Pandionis Kekropis Phlya
345/4 Leontis Hippothontis Oion Πάτα[i/cos] ('EXewmos);
344/3 Akaniantis Aiantis λνσίθεος [Tp]ί,κορύσιος
343/2 Oineis Antiochis Aigilia VovyevTjs Αμφιτροττήθεν
342/1 Kekropis Erechtheis
341/0 Hippothontis Aigeis Araphen ν,ϋνι,κίδης A\ai(evs)
340/9 Aiantis Pandionis Kytheros Αιοκ\ής
339/8 Antiochis Leontis 11 οΧύξενος
338/7 Erechtheis Akamantis Eitea Teurias
337/6 Aigeis Oineis Acharnai
336/5 Pandionis Kekropis Xypete [Te]Xetrt[as] Φλυ(ει>5)
335/4 Leontis Hippothontis Aclierdus
334/3 Akaniantis Aiantis Phaleron
333/2 Oineis Antiochis Pallene
332/1 Kekropis Erechtheis Anagyrus
[ T h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n w a s b e g u n as a p r e l i m i n a r y s t u d y to a w o r k on l a t e r
A t h e n i a n h i s t o r y f o r t h e p r o s e c u t i o n of which t h e Carnegie I n s t i t u t i o n of
W a s h i n g t o n h a s g e n e r o u s l y provided the f u n d s . Its g e n e r a l r e s u l t s were
p r e s e n t e d to t h e P h i l o l o g i c a l Club of t h e U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a on F e b -
r u a r y 26, 1906.]
132 University of California Publication< [CLASS. P H I L .
Tribe of Secre-
Year tary of tlie Tribe of Secretary Dome of Priest of Asklepios
B.C. Treasurers of ami of Priest Secretary
Athena
331/0 Hippothontis Aigeis Kollytos
330/9 Aiantis Pandionis Paiania ΦίΧοχάρης " Οαθενΐ
329/8 Antiochis Leontis Eupyridai
328/7 Erechtheis Akamantis Hagnus ΑνδροκΧήί [ eK
327/6 Aigeis Oineis Κεραμ] εων
326/5 P a n dion is Kekropis 0 νήτωρ Ονήτορος MeXt-
325/4 Leontis Hippothontis Eleusis
324/3 Akamantis Aiantis Rhamnus
323/2 Oineis Antiochis Alopeke
322/1 Kekropis Erechtheis Kephisia
Year Archon Deme of Tribe of Tribe of Priest Priest of Asklepios
B.C. Secretary Secretary
307/6 Anaxikrates Diomeia Aigeis Erechtheis
306/5 Koroibos Rhamnus Aiantis Aigeis
305/4 Euxenippos Alopeke? Antiochis Pandionis
304/3 Pherekles Gargettos Antigonis Leontis
303/2 Leostratos Phegus Erechtheis. Akamantis
302/1 Nikokles Plotheia Aigeis Oineis
30] / 0 Klearchos Probalinthos Pandionis Kekropis
300/9 Hegemachos Leontis Hippothontis
299/8 Enktemon Kephale Akamantis Aiantis
298/7 Μ nesidemos Oineis Antiochis
297/6 Antiphates Kekropis Antigonis
296/5 Nikias Azenia Hippothontis Demetrias
295/4 Nikostratos Phaleron Aiantis Erechtheis
294/3 Olympiodoros Antiochis Aigeis
293/2 Pliilippos Antigonis Pandionis
292/1 Kimon I Demetrias Leontis
291/0 Charinos Erechtheis Akamantis
290/9 Diokles Halai Aigeis Oineis
289/8 Diotim os Paiania Pandionis Kekropis
288/7 Isaios Leontis Hippothontis Φυλίύ; Χαιρίου [ Ελευσ]ί-
287/6 Euthios Cholargos Akamantis Aiantis vlo s
28 6 / 5 Xenophon ()ineis Antiochis
285/4 Urios Aixone Kekropis Antigonis
284/3 Telokles ? Hippothontis Demetrias
283/2 Menekles Trikorynthos Aiantis Erechtheis
282/1 Nikias Otr. Alopeke Antiochis Aigeis
281/0 Aristonymos Aithalidai Antigonis Pandionis
280/9 Gorgias Demetrias Leontis
279/8 Anaxikrates Erechtheis Akamantis
278/7 Deinokles Aigeis Oineis
277/6 —laios? Pandionis Kekropis
276/5 Eubnlos Leontis Hippothontis
275/4 Polyenktos Kephale Akamantis Aiantis Ξ,ενόκριτοί [ ' Α] 0ιδ( ναΐος)
274/3 11 ieron Oe Oineis Antiochis [....σ]ίδ?75 Α\ωπ(ΐκήθεν]
VOL. 1 ] Ferguson.—The I'riests of Asklepios. 133
Year Peine of Tribe of Tribe of Priest Priest of Asklepios

Secretary Secretary
B.C. Antigonis
Kekropis [Τ^μοκλτ}^) Efireatos]?
273/2
Hippothontis Demetrias
272/1
Pytharatos Aiantis Ereclitheis Σμίκυθος 'Avay{vpdaios)
271/0
Antiochis Aigeis Νικόμαχος! f
270/9
Antigonis Pandionis \vaai>ia[s ]\ροβα^\ί(σως)
269/8
268/7 Pliilokrates Melite Demetrias Leontis . . . . Σοννι(εύς)
267/6 Erechtlieis Akaniantis ' Αμειν— ?!
266/5 Peitliidemos Aigeis Oineis 'λρχικλής Αακιάδ(ης)
265/4 Pan«Jion is Kekropis Au<riK[\]??s Συπαλήτ-
(τιο s)
264/3 Diognetos Leontis Hippothontis [Ilpo]/c\^s lleip[at(ei''s)]
263/2 Akaniantis Aiantis Λυ/ce'as Ϋαμνο^νσίοί)
Oineis Antiochis 'I'tXeas Et'recu(os)
262/1 Antipatros
Oineis Antiochis ΚαλΧιάδη? AiyiX (ie(5s)
Year Deme of Tribe of Secretary Priest of Asklepios
Archon Secretary and of Priest
B.C. θεόξενος Wepyaa (ηθεν)
Arrheneides Antigonis
261/0
Demetrias Beoowpo(s) MeXir(ei^s)
260/9
Ereclitheis [. . . . os] Εύωι>ι<μεΐ'5
259/8
Aigeis [Φίλί J7T7TOS ' \ωνί(δης)
258/7
257/6 Pandionis ΑΰτοκΧής ' Ua0e(v)
256/5 Kleomachos Kettos Leontis Φιλοκράτης ' ΚκαΧή (θει>)
255/4 Aka m a n t i s IIραξίτελης [Τι]μάρχου
Ε ίρεσίδηί
254/3 Oineis Κ τησωνίδηι
253/2 Kekropis BoiV/cos Φλυ ( ei'/s)
252/1 Diogeiton Hippothontis
253/0 01bios Aiantis
250/9 Antiochis
Eitea
249/8 Antigonis
248/7 Demetrias Si'7re]rf α]ίώ(
247/6 Lysiades Ereclitheis
246/5 KM llimedes Plotheia Aigeis
245/4 OJlaukippos? Myrrhinus Pandionis
244/3 Thersiloclios I Mirearrhoi Leontis
243/2 Akaniantis
242/1 Oineis
241/0 Kekropis
240/9 Hippothontis
239/8 (Jharikles Rlianimis Aiantis
238/7 Lysias Antiochis
237/6 Kimon I I Antigonis
236/5 Ekpliantos Hippotomadai Demetrias
235/4 Lysanias Ereclitheis
234/3 Aigeis
233/2 Pandionis
232/1 Diomedon Leontis
231/0 Jason Akaniantis
6
University of California Publications. [CLASS. P H I L .
Year Arclion Dome of

B.C. Secretary
230/9 Epikephisia ()i neis
229/8 Heliodoros Athmonon Kekropis
228/7 Leocliares Hippotliontis
227/6 Theopliilos Aiantis
226/5 Ergochares Alopeke Antiocliis
225/4 Niketes Antigonis
224/3 Antipliilos Dometrias
223/2 Kalli — Ereclitheis
222/1 Menekrates Aigeis
223/0 Tlirasyphon Paiania Pandionis
220/9 Leontis
219/8 Ptolemais
218/7 Kephale? Akamantis
217/6 Chairophon Oineis
216/5 Pasiades Kekropis
215/4 Diokles Keiriadai Hippotliontis Έΰστρατος Olvaios*
214/3 Eupliiletos Aiantis
213/2 Herakleitos Antiocliis
212/1 Archelaos Kydatlienaion Antigonis
211/0 Aischron Demetrias
210/9 Lamptrai Ereclitheis
209/8 Philostratos Aigeis
208/7 Antimachos Myrrliinus Pandionis
207/6 Phanostratos Leontis
206/5 Kallistratos Ptolemais
205/4 Akamantis
204/3 Oineis
203/2 Kekropis
202/1 i 1 ippothontis
201/0 Ptolemais
200/9 Akamantis
199/8 Oineis
198/7 Kekropis
197/6 Hippotliontis
196/5 Aiantis
195/4 Antiocliis
194/3 Attalis
193/2 Ereclitheis
192/1 Aigeis
191/0 Pandionis
190/9 Leontis
189/8 I 'tolemais
188/7 Symniaclios Thorikos Akamantis
187/6 Tlieoxenos Oineis
186/5 Zopyros Aixone Kekropis
185/4 E u p o l enios Hamaxanteia II i p p o t h o n t i s
1S4/3 Aiantis
Year Deme of Tribe of P r i e s t of A s k l e p i o s

Arrhon Secretary
B.C. Secretary
183/2 Hermogenes Antiochis
182/1 Timesianax Probalinthos Attalis
181/0 Erechtheis
180/9 Aigeis
179/8 Pandionis
178/7 Leontis
177/6 Ptolemais
176/5 Hippakos Akamantis
175/4 Sonikos Perithoidai Oineis
174/3 Kekropis
173/2 Hippothontis
172/1 Tychandros Marathon Aiantis
171/0 T)e — Antiochis
170/9 Attalis
169/8 Eunikos Kephisia Erechtheis
168/7 Xenokles Toithras Aigeis
167/6 Pandionis
1 (5(5/5 Leontis
3 65/4 Pelops Hekale Ptolemais \\ρωτα~/όρα$ Χικήτοι
1(54/3 Euerg— A kamantis llepyaarjOev*
163/2 Erastos ()ineis
162/1 Poseidonios Kekropis
1(51/0 Aristolas Eleusis Hippothontis
160/9 Aristaichmos Aiantis
159/8 Antiochis
158/7 Antliesterios Attalis
157/6 Kallistratos Erechtheis
156/5 Mnesitlieos Aigeis
155/4 Pandionis
3 54/3 Leontis
153/2 Pliaidrias Ptolemais
152/1 Lysiades Akamantis
151/0 Archon Oineis
3 50/9 Epikrates Sypalettos Kekropis
149/8 Theaitetos Hippothontis
148/7 Aristophon Aiantis
347/(5 Antiochis
146/5 Attalis
145/4 Erechtheis
144/3 Aigeis
3 43/2 Pandionis
142/1 Leontis
141/0 Ptolemais
140/9 Hagnotheos Tliorikos Akamantis
139/8 Oineis
138/7 Τ i m a r c h os Kekropis [Ζωΐ Xos ] Xi\o/c[/3aroi']
Φλυβύϊ*
8 University of California Publications. [CLASS. P H I L .
Deme of T r i b e of S e c r e t a r y D e m e of P r i e s t
Year P r i e s t of Asklepios
B.C. Secretary and P r i e s t of of S e r a p i s
137/6 Herakleitos Anakaia Serapis Eleusis

136/5 Nikomaclios Hippothontis Trikorynthos
135/4 Aiantis Anaplilystos
Antiochis Bunion
134/3
Attalis
133/2 Metroplianes Lamptrai Lamptrai
Erechtheis
132/1 Ergokles
Aigeis
131/0 Epikles Paiania
Pandionis
130/9 Domostratos Leontis Leukonoe
129/8 Lykiskos Ptolemais Phlya
128/7 Dionysios Akamantis Korameikos
127/6 Theodoricles Oineis Acliarnai
126/5 Diotimos Kekropis Melite BeoSwpos \']<r [ r i j αιοθΐν*
125/4 .1 ason Elensis Hippothontis
124/3 Nikias and
Aiantis Marathon
Isigenes
123/2 Demetrios Antiochis Alopeke
122/1 Nikodemos Oinoe Attalis Tyrmeidai
121/0 Erechtheis Pergase
f Myrrhinutta
120/9 Eumachos Aigeis
(. O t r y n e
119/8 Ilipparchos Pandionis Paiania
118/7 Lenaios Skambonidai Leontis Kolone
117/6 Ptolemais Phlya
) Thorikos
116/5 Akamantis
\ Spliettos
115/4 Nausias Oineis Acliarnai
114/3 Ilcrakleidcs? Kekropis Melite
( Peiraieus
113/2 Paramonos Hippothontis
\ Eroiadai
112/1 Dionysios Rhamnus Aiantis Eliamnus
111/0 Sosikrates? Antiochis Anaplilystos
110/9 Polykleitos Attalis Oinoe
109/8 Jason Lamptrai Erechtheis Kepliisia
108/7 Demochares Ankyle Aigeis
107/6 Aristarclios Paiania Pandionis
i 06/5 Agatliokles Aithalidai Leontis
105/4 Menoites Ptolemais Phlya
104/3 Sarapion Iphistiadai Akamantis
Year Arclion Deme of Deme of P r i e s t
B.C. Secretary of S e r a p i s Priest of Asklepios
103/2
102/1 Theokles Skambonidai*
101/0 Echekrates
100/9 Medeios Eleusis* Acliarnai*
99/8 Theodosios
98/7 Prokles Kothokidai*
97/6 Argeios
Year Archon Pemeof Peme of Priest Priest of Asklepios

ΒΛ!. Secretary ot Serapis
96/5 Argeios
95/4 Herakleitos Eitea*
94/3
93/2
92/1
91/0 Medeios
90/9 Medeios
89/8 Medeios
88/7 ' Α ναρχία
Year Peine of Tribe of Priest Priest of Asklepios

Archon Secretary of Asklepios
B.C.
87/6 Philanthes Ereclitheis
86/5 -ophantes Aigeis
85/4 Pandionis
84/3 1 Montis
83/2 Ptolemais
82/1 Akamantis
81/0 Oineis
80/9 Kekropis
79/8 Hippotliontis
78/7 Aiantis
77/6 Antiocliis
76/5 Attalis
75/4 Erechtlieis
74/3 Aigeis
73/2 Pandionis
72/1 Leontis
71/0 Ptolemais
70/9 Akamantis
69/8 Oineis
68/7 Kekropis
67/6 Hippotliontis
66/5 Aiantis
65/4 Antiocliis
64/3 Attalis
63/2 Ereclitheis Σωκράτης αραττίωνοι
ΚηφίΟΊβύς
62/1 A r i s t a i os Aigeis Θεόδωρο? Καρίδήμον
ey Νυρρινούττηs
61/0 Theophemos Pandionis
60/9 H e r odes Leontis
59/8 Leukios Ptolemais
58/7 Kalliphon Akamantis
57/6 Diokles Oineis
56/5 Koi'ntos Kekropis
55/4 Aristos Hippotliontis
54/3 Zenon Aiantis
Arclion Demo of Priest of Asklepios

Secretary
53/2 Diodoros Antiochis
52/1 Lysandros Halai* Attalis
51/0 Lysiades Erechtheis Λίοκλ?}? Αωκλέους Κηψι-
atevs
50/9 Demetrios Aigeis
49/8 Demochares Apollonieis Pandionis
48/7 — a — Leontis
47/(5 Ptolemais
46/5 Akamantis
45/4 ()ineis
44/3 Kekropis
43/2 Hippothontis
42/1 Aiantis
41/0 Antiochis
40/9 Attalis
II.
1. Let us take I G 11 836 as our s t a r t i n g point. From it we

obtain the names, denies, and sequence of f o u r t e e n priests of
Asklepios. They need only to be listed f o r the observation to
obtrude itself that they follow one a n o t h e r in the official order
of their tribes. 1 One exception alone occurs. Φίλβας· Είτεαϊος
and Καλλί«δ?/<? Ai/yiXtew, the f o u r t h and fifth in the list, belong-
to the tribe Antiochis.
1 G II Add. Nov. 3 7 3 b next d e m a n d s our a t t e n t i o n . The
priest of Asklepios for the year preceding t h a t of the arclion
Ly [ s i ] a [ d e ] s was Ε,υττβ^τ[a]ta>f, f r o m t h e tribe Demetrias.
Then we consider I G I I 5 178 b f r o m which it is clear t h a t
the priest of Asklepios and the p r y t a n y - s e c r e t a r y f o r 328 7 B . C ·
both belonged to the tribe A k a m a n t i s . In the same way I (J II
766, when properly construed, shows t h a t the priests of Askle-
pios f o r 341 0 B.C. and 336 •"> B.C. were t a k e n , like the secreta-
ries for these years, f r o m Aigeis a n d K e k r o p i s respectively.
Hence we conclude t h a t the tribes of the priests a n d the tribes
of the secretaries normally concurred in each year. The same
' K i r c h n e r ' s timely d e m o n s t r a t i o n ( R h e i n . MHS. 59, 1904, p p . 29-1 ff.) t h a t
P e r g a s e w a s t r a n s f e r r e d to A n t i g o n i s b e t w e e n 307 a n d 201 B . C . r e m o v e s t h e
difficulty which Θεόξενος Wepyaar/dev—the s i x t h in t h e list — w o u l d o t h e r w i s e
have presented.
conclusion is u r g e d upon us by the fact that, when, in the

second half of the second century B . C . , the priests of Serapis
a n d the secretaries both followed the official order, in this case
too the same tribe was called upon each year for the two officials.
The d a t i n g of the priests of Asklepios of I <ί 11 836 need not
now detain us long. The tribe Pandionis is fixed f o r the secre-
t a r y s h i p in 221 0 B . C . by the coincidence of the archon Thrasy-
p h o n and the Olympiad 142, 2.2 W o r k i n g back and f o r w a r d
f r o m this p o i n t we m u s t construct., as Kirehner saw," the scheme
of tribal rotation f o r the third century. It then appears t h a t
there are only two possibilities — one to ascribe the list of four-
teen priests to 253 2 — 241 0, the other to date it in 265 4 —
253 2 B.C. The choice is not difficult. F o r by locating the list
in 265 4 — 253 2 it results that the two priests from Antiochis
fall in 262 1 B . C . That they belong to the same year may 1»»'
taken f o r g r a n t e d . It is analogous to what we find upon consid-
ering the reconstructions made in the board of A m p h i e t y o n s in
377 6 ff.,4 a n d is in accord with the practice repeatedly attested
f o r the election of sujfecti to the priests of Serapis.' Twice— in
319 S1' and in 206 5 ' — a similar substitution of magistrates took
place in t h e middle of the year. On each occasion the arch on-
eponymos was re-elected. The same was done with one at least
of the generals in 2!)6 5, Phaidros of Sphettos being strut egos
twice in N i k i a s ' arclionship. 8 We have long since concluded, 9
f r o m evidence which until recently was perhaps inadequate, 1 0 t h a t
in the year which ended the Chremonidean W a r A n t i g o n o s
Gonatas, like the revolutionists in 319 8 and 296 5 B . C . , sub-
s t i t u t e d f o r the old magistrates a new set congenial to himself.
Moreover we have lately learned that this war was ended in
262 1 B . C . ; f o r A t h e n s surrendered in A n t i p a t r o s ' arclionship;
J
IUTTENBERGER: Sl/llof/C- 2f>(5, 11. 12 ff.
:i
Go/i. gt i. Ah~. 1900, pp. 4:;:; ff.
4
DITTENBERGEK : Si/lloge2 8(5; e f . Clas.sieal JReriew X V , 1901, p p . :IS ff.
·'Sec a b o v e , p p . 1 l](5 f.
" F o r A p o l l o d o r o s δεύτεροs see I G II A d d . 299 b ; c/. II r. 299 c.
7
F o r N i k i a s νστεροs I G I I 299; I G I I 5 299 <·.
s
I G I I :;:u, l. 21.
"DROYSEN: Gesch.d. Hellenism·»* I I I l'2 p . 24(5; BELOCH: Grieeh. Gcseh. I l l
2 Ϊ 172.
10
H e g e s a n d r o s in A t l i e n a e u s I V 1(57 f . ; c f . below p . 154.
140 University of California Publications. [CLASS. PHIL.
A n t i p a t r o s was the immediate predecessor of A r r h e n e i d e s , and

Arrheneides followed Klearchos (301/0) b y an interval of 39
years and three months. By exclusive reckoning· A r r h e n e i d e s
t h u s falls into 261/0. 11
F o r these reasons we must date the list of f o u r t e e n priests in
265/4 — 253/2 B . C .
The dating of Γ G IT Add. 3731) is not so easy. The limits
are 253/2 and 230/29, and, since the priest is f r o m Kekropis, it
is possible for Lysiades to occupy either 247/6 or 235/4. 13is
rival for either of these positions is Lysanias, the successor of
E k p h a n t o s . One is tempted to regard these two archons as the
same, since 1 G II Add. Nov. 373 b gives u s only L y [ s i ] a [ d e ] s
—a very easy misreading for L y [ s a ] n [ i a ] s . B u t the t e m p t a t i o n
to identify them must be resisted; f o r the secretaries are different,
one being Άρισ-τόμαχος Άρ/,στο — η the other ΕύμηΧος ΈμττβΒίω-
νος Εύωννμεύς. Hence a place must be f o u n d f o r both Lysiades
and Lysanias. The decision comes f r o m considering the pre-
decessor of Lysanias. His name occupies eight spaces 1 2 —precisely
the n u m b e r required for the arch on of 236/5 B.C. Lysiades
therefore belongs to 247/6 and the priest, f r o m Xypete to 248/7.
Since Θεο'δω/οο? MeX/rec? would occupy this year, if the list of
fourteen were assigned to 253/2ff., its location in 2 6 5 / 4 f f . is t h u s
made doubly sure.
Now we can proceed f a r t h e r . But first let us r e m a r k t h a t
the official order of the priests was not b r o k e n b y the Oliremo-
nidean W a r , and t h a t by a curious coincidence a priest f r o m
Antigonis — the tribe established by the A t h e n i a n s in h o n o r of
Antigonos Gonatas' g r a n d f a t h e r a n d n a m e s a k e — was due f o r
261/0. Our next stopping place is I (ί IT A d d . Nov. 567 b. This
precious stone yields us a priest of Asklepios f o r the tribe Hippo-
t h o n t i s and the archon Isaios. The official order of the priests
of Asklepios locates this priest, ΦνΧεύς ~Καιρίου [Έλβυσ]ivto<i, h '
in 288/7, and t h u s settles a much debated problem in f a v o r of
the view originally proposed by me and r a s h l y (so they said)
" Sec below pp. 153 ff.
12
KOLBE: Festschrift f . Otto Ilirschfeld p . 317 h a s s e t t l e d t h i s p o i n t .
13
T h e r e s t o r a t i o n is u n d o u b t e d l y r i g h t . T h e d e c r e e is o n e of tin· t r i b e
Hippothontis.
accepted by Kirchner. 1 4 F o r the usefulness of the official order

of t h e secretaries' tribes as a canon in dating the archons of the
first t h i r d of the t h i r d century B.C. depended u p o n the mainte-
nance of the archon Isaios in 288/7 B.C. A n d since 288/7 is
d e m a n d e d f o r Isaios by the official order of the priests' tribes,
when we work b a c k w a r d from 262/1 and by the official order of
t h e secretaries' tribes, when we work forward f r o m 303/2 —
293/2, there is no longer any room f o r discussion as to the loca-
tion of this archon, and very little for difference of opinion upon
t h e archon-list between 293/2 and 271/() B.C.
F i n a l l y we observe t h a t upon the re-establishment of demo-
cratic g o v e r n m e n t in 307 (5 B . C . the tribe f r o m which the priest
of Asklepios was chosen was Ereclitheis — the first in the official
order prior to t h e creation in t h a t year of A n t i g o n i s and
Demetrias. 1 0
2. Let us leave the priests of Asklepios at this point and
t u r n to the ρrytany-secretaries. Here too the official order,
which had continued without an interruption f r o m 353 2 B . C . ,
was t h r o w n aside with the establishment of the aristocratic
g o v e r n m e n t in 322/1, but, unlike t h a t of the priests was not re-
established till three years a f t e r 307/6, in 304/3. I n the summer
of this year Demetrius Poliorcetes, at the command of his f a t h e r
A n t i g o n o s , a b a n d o n e d the siege of Rhodes in order a second
time to rescue A t h e n s f r o m Kassander, and it was doubtless to
c o m m e m o r a t e his victorious entry into the city t h a t his f a t h e r ' s
tribe, A n t i g o n i s — t h e first in the official o r d e r — w a s given the
privilege of possessing the secretaryship f o r the year then com-
mencing. In t h e year 303 2, however, his own tribe, Demetrias,
was passed by a n d the secretaryship was given to Ereclitheis.
The reason f o r this is not h a r d to find. It was seemingly in the
early p a r t of the year 303, while Poliorcetes was absent in the
Peloponnesus, 1 h t h a t the Stratokles-Demetrius 4 government
u
Gott. gel. Anz. 1900, p p . 436 ft'.; Prosopographia Attica II, ]>. 636.
1,1
The election of the priest took place some nine weeks prior to the
b e g i n n i n g of t h e official year (I G IT Add. 489 b ) — a s did t h a t of the archon
a n d t h e o t h e r o r d i n a r y m a g i s t r a t e s (II 416). Antigonis and Demetrias b e g a n
to exist p r e s u m a b l y on the first day of the official year. Cf. BATES: Cornell
Studies V I I I , p . 1.
16
Beitr. alt. Gesch. V, p. 174, n . 3.
was overthrown at Athens, on the issue of subservience to the

Macedonian prince, and Demochares and the democratic oppo-
nents of Demetrius took affairs into their own hands. 1 ' To be
sure the deposed government was soon reinstated a n d Democha-
res was forced into exile, but the elections and t h e b e g i n n i n g of
the official year, we may assume, came in the interval and
Stratokles did not think it worth while to take the secretaryship
f r o m the person whom the lot had designated to hold it.
A dislocation of the two systems t h u s occurred. A n d I take
this opportunity to remark t h a t there was p r o b a b l y a small g r o u p
of annual single officers lined u p with b o t h the priests and the
secretaries. The dislocation was such t h a t when A n t i g o n o s
Gonatas came to reconstruct the state in 262 1 Oineis h a d the
secretaryship and Antiochis the p r i e s t s h i p . The displacement
was no doubt awkward and senseless. I t was not p e r p e t u a t e d ,
and in 261 0 we find Antigonis, the first in the official order,
and at the same time the tribe of which t h e conqueror was, as it
were, the living eponymos, in possession of both the offices.
T h u s is explained the first break in the official order of the
secretaries' tribes — a break which h a s been used by many
scholars to reject all archon-lists c o n s t r u c t e d with it as the
g u i d i n g principle. The second break concerns us n e x t ; f o r
between the last years of the t h i r d c e n t u r y a n d 188 7 B . C . a
breach occurred by which some seven tribes were omitted. This
I believe can now be explained also. T h e d i s t u r b i n g event in
this interval is, as has all along been affirmed, the abrogation of
the tribes Antigonis and Demetrias and the i n t r o d u c t i o n of a
new tribe, Attalis. W e have abundance of literary evidence t h a t
Attalis was established in 200 B.C. Moreover V. von Schoeffer
has recently shown us t h a t , between the disappearance of Anti-
gonis and Demetrias and the creation of A t t a l i s , a short period
intervened d u r i n g which there were but eleven tribes in Athens. l h
Antigonis and Demetrias were therefore abolished in 201— in all
'"PLUTARCH: Demetrius X X I V . In this way t h e omission of Demetrias
can be explained, whether the official order b e g a n , for some u n k n o w n
reason, with Aiantis in 306/5 or, as assumed above, with A n t i g o n i s in 304/3.
Demochares was doubtless opposed to the c r e a t i o n of t h e two n e w tribes and
in 303/2 they had not yet got securely established.
lx
S e e PAULY-WISSOWA : V, 1, p. 32 and p p . 38 ff.
likelihood. The important occurrences in Athenian history

d u r i n g this year were the Acarnanian-Macedonian raid into
A t t i c a , the o u t b r e a k of hostilities between Athens and Philip,
and, w h a t has been insufficiently emphasized in this connection,
the assurances of aid given to Athens by Ptolemy of E g y p t —
with whose court t h e city had been 011 the most friendly terms
f o r over t w e n t y years — apparently in 201." at any rate before
the collapse of E g y p t i a n power at the battle of Paneion in the
first half of 200 B . C .
The official order of the secretaries' tribes is amply demon-
s t r a t e d f o r the greater part of the second century. We work
b a c k , according to K i r c h n e r ' s method, from the fixed points to
the u n c e r t a i n period at its start. The system is attached to the
R o m a n consul-lists or the Olympiads in 110!), 112 1, 125 4,
140 39, 168 7, and, when continued to 201 0, the interesting fact
is revealed t h a t in this year the tribe in the secretaryship was
P t o l e m a i s . E v e r y t h i n g is now clear. The outbreak of indigna-
tion which caused the A t h e n i a n s to throw aside A n t i g o n i s and
Demetrias 2 0 took place in 201. The machinery f o r tribal distribu-
tion of offices was thereby thrown out of working, and in start-
ing anew in 201/0 2 1 the A t h e n i a n s acted as they did in 261 0 and
gave the h o n o r of leading off the tribal procession to Ptolemais,
of which too the living eponymos was the r u l i n g k i n g of E g y p t ,
t h e b e n e f a c t o r f r o m whom at that moment the A t h e n i a n s con-
fidently expected aid against Maeedon. F o r less than a year
there were eleven tribes in A t h e n s . Then came the visit of
19
LIVY : X X X I , 9. 1; <;/'. XIESE: Gesch. <1. gricch. u. maked. stoat en, II,
p. 5S0 and pp. 589 f.
- " L I V Y ( X X X I , 4 4 : c f . D I O N OHRYK. : X X X V I I , 4 1 ) r e l a t e s h o w i n t h e year
21)0, a f t e r t h e c r e a t i o n of Attalis (XXXI, 15; c f . PoLYBirs: XVI, 25)' the
A t h e n i a n s cut f r o m the stones all memorials of the Macedonian rulers and
otherwise indulged t h e i r indignation against Philip. E i t h e r this occurrence
is misplaced by Livy, or the tribes Antigonis and Demetrias were not among
the Macedonian institutions at that time cast aside. It is quite possible t h a t
upon t h e lirst violation of Athens' neutrality by the Macedonians and Acar-
n a n i a n s (LIVY: X X X I , 14) the A t h e n i a n s discarded these two tribes. I'oly
bins says n o t h i n g of their abrogation where he describes in detail the
c i r c u m s t a n c e s u n d e r which Attalis was created. Besides, I <{ II 991 shows
t h a t A n t i g o n i s a n d D e m e t r i a s were n o n - e x i s t e n t for some time before the
c r e a t i o n of A t t a l i s .
21
Of course t h e d i s b a n d i n g of Antigonis and D e m e t r i a s may "have taken
place in t h e course of the year 201/0. Ptolemais will in t h a t case have given
t h e s e c r e t a r y (and o t h e r single a n n u a l officials) for the latter part of 201 Ό
only.
Attalos in 200, and the creation of t h e new tribe A t t a l i s . T h e

official order, which t h u s started a f r e s h in 201 0, continued with-
out interruption till the constitutional changes of 103 2 B.C. 2 2
It was then abandoned, apparently f o r e v e r .
3. W e must now revert to our priests of Asklepios. There
are m a n y of them belonging to t h e period f r o m the f o u r t h
century B . C . to the second century A . D . to whom no year can
be assigned with any certainty. It will be sufficient to a p p e n d
a list of these."' The priests who are dated exactly between 229
and 88 B . C . are f o u r in n u m b e r . They fall in 215/4, 1G5 4,
138 7 and 12C 5 B.C. a n d came f r o m t h e denies Oinoe, P e r g a s e ,
P h l y a , a n d Hestiaia. These denies belonged at this time to Ptole-
mais, Erechtlieis, Ptolemais, and Aigeis respectively. Since the
maintenance of the official order f o r the priests c o n c u r r e n t with
t h a t f o r the secretaries demands f o r these years priests f r o m Hip-
pothontis, Ptolemais, Kekropis, and Kekropis, it is clear that t h e
two systems were not kept together at this time. Nor do t h e
intervals between the priests allow us to insert these officials
either as a whole or in pairs upon any orderly scheme of t r i b a l
sequences. In other words the official order was disregarded in
the selection of the priests of Asklepios d u r i n g t h e time when it
was maintained most rigidly for the prytany-secretaries, and f o r
this reason our loss, for chronological purposes, is not a very
great one.
Proceeding down into the first c e n t u r y B.C. we have evidence
f r o m the years 63/2, 62 1, and 51 0 t h a t the priests of Asklepios
were again succeeding one another in the official order of their
tribes. There can lie no doubt as to these dates, or as to the
maintenance of the sequence at this time; f o r t h e a r r a n g e m e n t
of the whole group of arclions between 62 1 a n d 47 (i is demon-
strated by t h e combination of I G III 1015 and 1014, and one of
the group, Herodes, is fixed in 60 59 by his synchronism with
01. 180. l. 2 i In order to determine the point at which the regu-
22
Beitr. alt. Gesch. I V , p p . 1 ff.
2:1
See below pp. 172 ff.
24
DLODORUS I, 4, s a y s : τούτου δ' ( J u l i u s C a e s a r ) αί πρωται πράξεις έπετε\έσ-
θησαν όΧυμπιάδος τηs εκατοστής κα.1 oyδοηκοστης κατά το πρώτον ετοs έττ άρχοντος
λθήνησιν Ήρώδου. It is c o n f i r m a t o r y t h a t T h e o p l i e m o s , t h e p r e d e c e s s o r of
H e r o d e s , is a s s i g n e d by K a s t o r (in E u s e b i u s I p. 183, 8. p. 2!J.">, 133 S c h o e n e )
t o (IL/O B . C . ; c f . K I R C H N E R : P.A. 7092.
lav succession was resumed we liave again to work backward

f r o m 63 2 as a iixed point, and this time we have not f a r to go.
I t is obvious t h a t w h a t happened befove in 262/1 and 201 0 B . C .
h a p p e n e d again at this time. In 88 7 the A t h e n i a n democrats,
looking f o r the coming of Mithridates the Great, overturned t h e
p r o - R o m a n aristocratic government which h a d existed f r o m
103/2 B . C . on. They put themselves into the hands of two
military leadevs—so-called tyrants,— and offered a desperate
resistance to Sulla in 87/6. W h e n the Roman proconsul cap-
tured the city the aristocrats were restored, 2 3 the preceding year
was m a r k e d on the list of the eponynri as άναρχία, and the offices
were reassigned. The priest of Asklepios f o r 87 6 was taken, as
in 307/6 and 261/0, from the first tribe in the official order —
E r e c h t h e i s . At w h a t time the scheme of sequences, begun in
87/6, ceased to exist, I cannot at present determine. 2 6
III.
We m u s t now r e t u r n and take up a n u m b e r of points in

detail.
1. The list: of secretaries to the treasury-board of A t h e n a is
given to b r i n g out the fact t h a t their official order does not con-
cur with t h a t of the prytany-secretaries and priests. A t what
times the three sets began cannot be determined.
2. Πάταικος ( P . Α . 11677) was priest shortly before 343 2
(arclion P y t l i o d o t o s ) . The name being rare, it is perhaps admis-
sible to i d e n t i f y him with ΐΐάταικος Έλευσπ^ο? I G I I 834 b,
col. I, 50 (329 s. P . A . 11679).
Λυσιθβος Ύρικορύσιος ( P . Α . 9407) appears in I G It 767 1. 19,
a n d 1459. H e m u s t have been priest in 334 3, if this f r a g m e n t
— a list of donations to Asklepios — followed I (! I I 766; but
t h a t is impossible, f o r the list for 334/3 is extant in 766 itself,
and 767 certainly f o r m e d no part of 766. Hence 767 must pre-
cede 766, in which case it should probably be joined with Add.
Nov. 7 6 6 b . Lysitlieos is therefore assigned to 344 3 B . C .
Bcitr. (lit. (resell. IV, p. 17.
Λ h u r r i e d survey of the data for the first two c e n t u r i e s A . D . revealed
nothing· conclusive on this point.
F o r Πουηβνης Αμφιτροττήθβρ^, who is closely associated in

I G I I Add. 760 b with the arelion F y t h o d o t o s (843 2 ) , see P . A .
0099 and 0700. The epimeletcs of 282'1, w h o also made a dedi-
cation to Asklepios in c. 252, was the g r a n d s o n of the priest.
Ε ύ ν ι κ ί δ η ς Άλαιβύς appears in the Asklepios-list f o r 841 0
in the following connection: Μυννίον Γ· ταύτας· βφη 6 ίβρβ( ύς)
ΕύνικίΒης Άλαί(βνς) παλαιάς βιναι I ( ί II 76(5 11. 7 f . ; c f . 1. 8 :
Μ νησα ρ έτη Δ , βλλβίιτβι |—|—|—, ταύτας δεΖ[ ν J βφη anrobovvai Δίο-
κλβα Μυρρι (νούσιον). Such an affirmation could have been
made by no one except the priest in charge for the year.
Π ο λ ύ ^ ο ? , priest in 880 8, seems to be missing in the Proso-
poyraphia/' He is possibly to be identified with Π υ λ ύ ^ ο ς ·
Π ο λ ύ κ ρ ο τ ο υ ? ) Σουνιβύς I G II 864 ( P . A . .12066).
For Ύ βιαίας priest in 338 7 <f.T βιαίας ΚβφαλήθβιΑ Ι'. A. 13478).
Ύέλβσίας Φ λ υ ( ε ύ ? ) ( Ρ . Α. 13520) is mentioned as priest in the
list of donations I G I I 766 11. 66 a n d 67. No priest a p p e a r s
elsewhere in this or the similar lists except the priest of
Asklepios. If the donations arrived with about the same f r e -
quency in 338/7 (11. 29ff.) and 3 3 7 / 6 as in 340/39 a n d 3 3 9 / 8
(11. 8ff.), we should expect the priest f o r 3 3 6 / 5 to a p p e a r any-
where in the neighborhood of 1. 60.
3. Φ ι λ ο χ ά ρ η ς Ό α θ β ν and Όνητωρ Μελίτβιλ,· are mentioned
in the catalogue of donations published in I G II 835. This list
follows t h a t of which p a r t — f o r t h e years 341/0—330/5ff.—is
extant in I G II 766. Since lines 8ff of 760 belong to 340/39,
and lines 00 and (57 deal with dedications in 330/5, it is clear t h a t
line 119, with which the catalogue ended, reached to about 332/0.
We can therefore place the beginning of I I 835 at about t h a t
time. Consequently the seventeen priests mentioned in it belong
in the main a f t e r 880 B.C. Hence I G I I 835 cannot have been
published before 313/2 B.C. I t u n d o u b t e d l y was set u p much
later. Since Doctor's public career does not extend beyond
322 B.C., 28 he can be assigned to 3 2 6 / 5 with considerable cer-
tainty. Philoehares, his neighbor in I C I I 835, m a y be located
conjecturally in 380/29. The deme of none of the oilier fifteen
Similarly'Επικράτης (I G II 83"» 1.61) a n d IID0<W-OS (ibid. 1. .10) h a v e b e e n
omitted.
KiuciiNER, P. A. 11471.
priests in this g r o u p is determinable—a fact the less to be

deplored, since m a n y of them belong between 322 and 307, when,
as we have seen, t h e official order was generally discarded in the
election of magistrates.
Beyond the f u l l y extant beginning (265/4) of I G 11 836
(which is written on the back of the stone on which I (ί I I 835
is inscribed) lie the years of nine priests, who as ex-officials made
donations lo Asklepios in 266/5 and 263/2. Seven of t h e m
a p p e a r together at t h e end of the catalogue f o r 263/2. A t this
point t h e commissioners placed in the inventory a lot of mis-
cellaneous items—the weight of gold on hand, the αρ^υρώματα
oh oi iepeis έχρωντο etc. P e r h a p s an assortment of c u l t - f u r n i t u r e
which had been contributed by the priests themselves was p u t
out of service al this time, a censer, a laclel, several ήδυττότια,
a bowl, etc. Or it m a y be t h a t the commissioners chose this point
to list t h e articles of the permanent outfit which were donated
by priests who held office prior to the year in which Athens f e l l ;
f o r all b u t three items in this p a r t of the inventory concern
objects donated by priests, while of the others one was a p p a r -
ently t h e p r o p e r t y of Asklepios himself, and a second came as
a g i f t f r o m the δήμος of Athens.
I t is not i m p o r t a n t to decide whether this nest of dedications
is the result of something done in 262/1 or of the cataloguing
in 232/1. In any case its insertion just before the first year of
the Macedonian regime checks in a decisive way our chronology
of t h e whole period.
The first dedication by the δήμος was listed in 2 6 3 / 2 : the
next was made in 256/5 and this seems to have established a
p r e c e d e n t ; f o r in t h e two following years ( f o r which alone a
complete catalogue is extant) the state likewise made a g i f t to
the shrine. W a s t h e precedent set in the year in which Athens
regained her freedom That is given by Eusebius ( I I 120) as
255/4, but, as Beloch has remarked,- 0 this has f o r us merely the
value of an approximation.
Macedonian money appears among the dedications f o r the
first time in w h a t we have determined to he 261/0. Thus d u r i n g
Griech. Gesch. I l l 2 p. 43(5.
20
University of California Publications. [CLASS. P H I L .
the pristship of Theoxenos of Pergase (1. 45) a [τέτραχμον Άν-

TL^yovetov was given as an offering by E u a g i o n . In 256 5 f o u r
τβτραχμα 'Avrtyoveia wciv dedicated (I. 80), in 2 5 5 / 4 three (1.
86), and some more in 254/3 (1. 93).
A f t e r a period d u r i n g which Athens h a d lost her right of
coinage the mint was reopened in 22!) and the new styl< of Attic
coins began. Head determines the period of suspension to he
f r o m 322 to 229.:!" That is assuredly wrong. It is impossible to
believe t h a t between 307 and 262 1 Athens coined no money in
her own name. The first appearance of 'AVTLJόναα τβτραχμα in
261 0 tells clearly enough when it was t h a t the old styh of Attic
coins, or, f o r anything that I know, one of the series of the new
style, was abandoned. H e a d / 1 following -J. P. S i x / 2 a t t r i b u t e s
the τβτραχμα Άντιηόνβία of our catalogue to Antigonos, the
f a t h e r of Demetrius Poliorcet.es. This view is based on a false
dating of I G II 836. The coins belong, as is now clear, to Anti-
gonos Gonatas, and can probably be identified by the numismat-
ists. In any case we have again a decisive check upon our
chronology in the fact that these τβτραχμα AvTvyoveia make t h e i r
first appearance in the priest ship which we have dated in the
year a f t e r the fall of Athens.
Before assigning to precise years the nine priests who m a d e
dedications as ex-officials it will be well to look to the limits of
the inscription in which they occur. Its beginning is extant in
a f r a g m e n t a r y condition, and. j u d g i n g f r o m the normal n u m b e r
of lines required for a year, it a p p e a r s t h a t at least five annual
catalogues preceded that from 265/4. How m a n y more there
were depends upon the extent of the lacuna between f r a g m e n t s
<ib and <1. Since, as will be seen in a moment, the earliest year
required by the tribes of the nine priests involved is 275/4. it
is conceivable that the list began at about t h a t time. It ended in
232 1 B.C. Hence about 45 years were included. Since it is to
be supposed that the inscription on the f r o n t of the stone was
eoually long, it is probable that the two sides contained a con-
Wistaria NtOiimai'um p. 316.
Op. cit. ]». 201.
32
Annua ire <lc A nnrismatiquc 1882 p. 27. I have n o t h a d access to t h i s
serial or t o a n y other of t h e n u m i s m a t i c j o u r n a l s .
timious n a r r a t i v e , a n d together listed the dedications f r o m about

330 to 2 3 2 / 1 B.C., the j u n c t u r e being· at about 2 7 6 / 5 B.C. A n d
this proves to be not an approximate but 1 lie exact d a t e ; f o r
I G I I 835 was set u p in the arelionship of Ε[ύ— and the secre-
t a r y s h i p of K\ei7[eV?;<?J. Between 332/1 and 274/3 officials
whose names begin in this way are possible only twice. In 277/6
or 284/3—laios? was arclion. 11 is secretary is unknown. Hence
there is nothing to exclude his year. But there is nothing to
commend it either. W h e r e a s 27(i 5, the year which preceded t h a t
of t h e earliest priest in I (1 11 836, and the year of a most
i m p o r t a n t change of government in Athens,"" has f o r arclion
Eubulos. His secretary has not been known hitherto. W e may
t h e r e f o r e safely conclude that 1 G II 835 was inscribed in 276 5.
T h a t being the case we have f o u n d a reason f o r its peculiar ar-
r a n g e m e n t ; f o r this catalogue differs from the rest in that the
donations are grouped, not u n d e r the names of the priests in
whose y e a r they were made, but according to their location in
the shrine. This was natural, if the articles were listed in 2 7 6 / 5
B.C. The m a n y changes of government a n d the a b a n d o n m e n t
of the official order d u r i n g the preceding fifty years made it at
t h a t time impossible to arrange the dedications chronologically.
Since it is certain t h a t the ex-priests belong to the period
immediately preceding 265/4 B.C. I have assigned them to the
years into which their denies distribute them. I n the process 1
have made two restorations, one rash, the other probable.
[Ti]/xo/c\i}(9) Έ - belongs to 273/2, 272/1, 270/69, or 267/6,
a n d in the tribes which are involved by these years only f o u r
denies begin with Έ , viz. Erchia and Erikeia (Aigeis 2 7 0 / 6 9 ) ,
Eiresidai ( A k a m a n t i s 2 6 7 / 6 ) , and Eitea (Antigonis 2 7 3 / 2 ) . Be-
cause of Τ ι μ ο κ λ ή ς Είτβαΐος ι Ρ. Α. 13733) the last possibility has
been p r e f e r r e d .
The case of Αυσανία| ς· ]λί. leaves less f o r guesswork.
The space calls f o r six or seven letters between A and A. The
33
Cf. Beitr. alt. Gcsch. V p p . 1(17 f . , 170, 173, a n d below p p . 155) a n d 1(>ϋ.
It will b e o b s e r v e d t h a t t h e c h a n g e f r o m t h e financial b o a r d οί έπί ττ] δωικήσει
t o t h e s i n g l e officer, w h i c h w a s m a d e in 276/5, was a c c o m p a n i e d by t h e t r a n s -
f e r , in p a r t at l e a s t , of c e r t a i n of t h e d u t i e s of the college, e <j., t h e p a y m e n t
f o r i n s c r i b i n g d o c u m e n t s , to t h e ταμίas των στρατιωτικών. The earliest m e n -
t i o n of t h e m i l i t a r y t r e a s u r e r in t h i s c o n n e c t i o n is still I G II 835; c f . LAR-
FELD Π 2, p . 722.
possible years are the same as f o r Timokles, b u t the possible

denies are simply Αίθα^λί(δης) (Antigonis 273/2) ,Κονθυ~]\ί(δης)
a n d Π/οο/3α]λί'(σίο9) ( P a n d i o n i s 2 6 9 / 8 ) . Aitlialidai is r u l e d
out because of its length, a n d a r e f e r e n c e to P . A. 9321, 9322 will
suffice to j u s t i f y us in p r e f e r r i n g Probalintlios to K o n t h y l e .
4. A f e w r e m a r k s may now be m a d e oit t h e archon-list.
I t should no longer be d o u b t e d t h a t Pliilippos belongs in
2 9 3 / 2 B.C.. and t h a t no n a m e is lacking in t h e list given by
Dionysius of 1 Ialicarnassus; f o r between P h i l i p p o s a n d Diokles
( 2 9 0 / 8 9 ) place m u s t be f o u n d f o r K i m o n a n d Cliarinos. The
r e f e r e n c e in the letters of E p i c u r u s — ε π ί δε Χαρί[νου και e7rt]
Διοτίμ[ου]—makes it practically impossible, as Kolbe r i g h t l y
34
remarked, to locate Cliarinos a f t e r Diokles.
K i m o n I will have to be assigned to 2 9 2 / 1 r a t h e r t h a n to the
following year (or to the p r e c e d i n g ) because of the connection
between the policy of P h a i d r o s in t h i s arclionsliip a n d the situa-
tion inevitably arising out of the revolt in Boeotia in 2 9 2 / 1 B.C. :i4 ' 1
P h a i d r o s was doubtless moderate in his politics. H e held t h e
generalship between 301 a n d 2 9 6 / 5 , a n d in 29(5/5 u n d e r both
the aristocracy a n d Lachares. H e c o n t i n u e d to serve u n d e r t h e
democracy of 2 9 5 / 4 - 2 7 6 / 5 , a n d was p u b l i c l y commended in
2 7 5 / 4 a f t e r the moderates again assumed control.
.Moderate counsels were much needed in A t h e n s in t h e y e a r
which followed t h a t of Philippos, f o r t h e e x t r e m e oligarchs were
then back f r o m exile 33 a n d m a n y reasons u r g e d the city to join
in tlie u n f o r t u n a t e Boeotian rebellion ( 2 9 2 / 1 ) . That Athens
m a i n t a i n e d peace, freedom, a n d a liberal g o v e r n m e n t was, it
seems, d u e to the influence of P h a i d r o s in K i m o n ' s y e a r ( 2 9 2 / 1 ) .
The passage f r o m which Ave learn t h i s is w o r t h q u o t i n g in f u l l .
Χειροτονηθείς δε inτό του δήμου εττϊ τα οττλα στρατηγός τον ενιαυ-
τον τον εττι Κίμωνος άρχοντος διετεΧεσεν αγωνιζόμενος ΰττερ της
κοινής σωτηρίαςη και ττερισταντων τει ττό\ει καιρών δυσκόΧων
διεφύΧαξεν τήν βιρήνην τήι χώραι^ αποφαινόμενος aei τα κράτιστα
καϊ τον σ'ιτον etc τής χώρας και τους άλλου? καρττούς αίτιος βγενετό
Λ
Ath. Milt. XXX P. 103.
;ILA
K O L B E : IOC. cit. p p . 1 0 3 , 1 0 8 ; B E L O C I I : Griech. I ll 1 p . 2 3 4 η. 1.
:J5
DION. HAL. I)e Dinarcho I X = p. 6 5 1 ; c f . Beitr. all. Gesch. V p. Mil.
VOL. 1 ] Ferguson.—The I'riests of Asklepios. 1-)1
είσκομισθήναι συμβουΧεΰσας τωι δήμωι συντεΧεσαι (erasure of e. 38

letters in which there was some reference to Demetrius) καϊ την
ττόΧιν εΧευθεραν καϊ δι/ μοκρατουμενην αύτόνομον τταρέδωκεν καϊ τους
νόμους κυρίους τοϊς μεθ' εαυτόν (erasure of c. 71 letters). 3 3 a
T h a t is to say, in spite of the crisis peace was maintained, but
contributions of money were necessary to gather in the harvest.
The penalty f o r indiscretion would have been the destruction of
the legal s a f e g u a r d s of life and property, and a rabid oligarchy
u p h e l d by t h e d r a w n sword of Macedon.
If I G I I 310 is a correct reproduction of the stone, it seems
impossible to restore the archon-name f o u n d in line 24 except
as 'ΟΧυμπιοδώ\ρου. In t h a t case the decree which occupies the
earlier p a r t of the stone precedes 301 B.C.; f o r the ταμίας
was instructed to pay the cost. This can be either the ταμίας του
δήμου or the ταμίας των στρατιωτικών. The ταμίας τ. δ. was
abolished in 301: t h e ταμίας τ. σ. was first entrusted 3 0 with the
p a y m e n t f o r the inscribing of documents on the change of gov-
ernment in 276/5. Αισχρών Προξένου, to whom the decree in
question r e n d e r s praise, was given Athenian citizenship in
290/89 or t h e following year. Hence it is much the most likely
t h i n g t h a t the ταμίας τ. δ. is meant. I G II 310 was passed
ειρήνης δε γενόμενης. The end of the " f o u r y e a r s ' w a r " is prob-
ably r e f e r r e d to. Αισχρών, the leader perhaps of a pro-Athenian
p a r t y in Delphi, was according lauded by Stratokles and his
f r i e n d s in c. 3 0 3 / 2 a n d by the same government upon its restora-
tion in 2 9 4 / 3 (Olympiodoros). F o r befriending Athenians in
Delphi, probably at the time the Aetolions seized the shrine, 37
he was finally given the citizenship in 290/89. Aischron was in
all likelihood the most prominent man among the out and out
democrats in Delphi.
W e shall have to reconcile ourselves a f t e r all to dating the
r e t u r n of Demochares f r o m exile, the revolt of Athens from
D e m e t r i u s Poliorcetes, a n d the storming of the Museion in
35A
I G II 331.
30
See above p. 149 n. 33.
37
PAULY-WISSOWA : I V p. 2568; .Jahrb. 1897 p. 187. P o m t o w concludes
t h a t Aischron was not a Delphian because liis name is w a n t i n g in the
Delphian inscriptions. The same argument would convict Lachares of
£evi'as in Athens.
289 B.C., :;S ami P l u t a r c h will have to be corrected where he nar-

rates the revolt of Athens a f t e r the expulsion of Demetrios f r o m
Macedon/"' llie only alternative being t h a t some fallacy exists in
our calculation of the limits of D e m e t r i u s ' reign. 4 0
Trios must precede E u b u l o s ; f o r I fJ 11 331 m u s t have been
passed in the year immediately a f t e r Eubulos—not a few years
later, as Kolbe assumes. Certainly no one who accepts Beloch's
very plausible dating of Eubulos in 2 7 6 / 5 should a t t r i b u t e
1 (ι I I 331 to any year but t h a t of his successor, since it is upon
the observation t h a t the year of this document was the second
of an Olympiad that Eubulos is assigned to the first. 4 1 This
being so, a single officer eVt τ y διοικήσει a p p e a r s in 275/4, where-
as in Trios' year the board still existed. H e n c e Trios belongs to
285/4. 4 -
It is likely t h a t both Telokles and - laios? precede E u b u l o s ;
for a f t e r Eubulos no archon-name, unless it be these, a p p e a r s in
Mpicurus' correspondence. That would seem to have ceased with
the infirmities of the philosopher's l a t t e r days. The only posi-
:s
T h e agonothctes, P h i l i p p i d e s of K e p h a l e , in 288/7, έπί]θετον ά^ώνα κατεσ-
κεύασεν τεΐ Δήμ\_ητρι και τεΐ Kopeji [7Γρ]ώτος υπόμνημα τijs του δήμου [e\eu#ept'as].
::
'·' Sec Bcitr. alt. Gesch. Y, p p . 17Gff.
4U
KOLBE'S (loc. cit. pp. 91IF.) criticism of B e l o c h ' s conclusion ( G r i e c h .
Gesch. 1112 p. 80) t h a t D e m e t r i u s P o l i o r c e t e s w a s expelled f r o m M a c e d o n in
288 B.C. is not f a t a l . The a t t a c k 011 D e m e t r i u s can well h a v e been delivered
in t h e early summer of 288. H i s a b d i c a t i o n w a s n a t u r a l l y m a d e on his de-
p a r t u r e f o r Asia in 2 8 8 / 7 or l a t e r .
41
T h i s K o l b e seems to have overlooked.
' • I n I G II 325, which Kolbe in c o n t r a d i c t i o n t o K o e h l e r , w h o a f t e r s e e i n g
t h e s t o n e ( I I 5 325) decided for A r r h e n e i d e s , l o c a t e s i n K a l l i i n e d e s ' a r c h o n -
s h i p , a p p e a r s , as b e t w e e n 295/4 and 276/5, t h e b o a r d of officers e n t i t l e d oi έπi
τι/ διοικήσει. In II A d d . Nov. 373 b (248/7), II 305 ( G l a u k i p p o s ) , and II 334
( D i o m e d o n ) we find 011 t h e o t h e r h a n d δ επί ry διοικήσει. A g a i n a f t e r 229 B.C.
οι έπι ττ) διοικήσει r e c u r s , and b e f o r e 201/0 ό έπι rrj διοικήσει s u c c e e d s . It is
easy to u n d e r s t a n d t h a t in 229 t h e d e m o c r a c y r e v e r t e d to t h e p r a c t i c e of
t h e earlier d e m o c r a t s of 2 9 5 / 4 - 2 7 6 / 5 B.C., a n d t h e n d r o p p e d i t when t h e
first zeal of t h e r e s t o r a t i o n wore a w a y a n d t h e a d v a n t a g e s of one r e s p o n s i b l e
a d m i n i s t r a t o r prevailed over s e n t i m e n t . B u t how e x p l a i n t h e i s o l a t e d ap-
p e a r a n c e of t h e college in the m i d d l e of t h e c e n t u r y ? W e h a v e K o l b e ' s
a s s u r a n c e t h a t the stone has T O ] I » [ S , o t h e r w i s e t h e easiest w a y would b e to
a s s u m e a m i s r e a d i n g . I t is, however, possible t h a t a college w a s reap-
p o i n t e d when t h e Cliremonidean W a r b e g a n , a n d t h a t it r e m a i n e d i n c h a r g e
till t h e A t h e n i a n p r o - M a c e d o n i a n s came t o h a v e a f r e e h a n d in 255. In
t h a t case 1 1 325 should be assigned t o A r r h e n e i d e s a n d t h e Mss. of D i o g e n e s
L a e r t i u s ( WILAMOWITZ : Antigonos von Karystos p . 341) which yield
τό ν έπί rrjs διοικήσεω$, c o r r e c t e d to rovs έπι rrj διοικήσει. But the whole m a t t e r
is u n c e r t a i n .
bilities are 2 8 4 / 3 a n d 277/6, and there is no means of deciding

which of these comes to each.
5. Beloch has assigned A n t i p a t r o s to 263/2 and Arrheneides
to 262/1. The determining passages are as follows: 4 "
Κ α ι Ά π ο λ λ ό [δο>] ρος δε τ ο κα [θηί-

ρ ] τ/σθαι [τίθψη τ] ην πάλιν [επ' Ά ν -
Τ67Γ] άτρου τ [οΰ] προ A ρρενειδ [ου
και φρουρά [ν εις] το ΜουσεΓον [ τ ό τ ε
ίΙ(τΐ]·χθ[ιη υπ J Αντιγόνου [και τ α ς
α ρ ν ά ς [ανηίρψτθ^ αι και παν εν [ι
βονλεν [ειν ? ε φ ] εΐσθαί.
Κα0άτrep εν Try [ ι] πε-

ρΐ£*χουσ·ηι τα περί Α ν τ ι φ ώ ν [το?
έπίστυλϊμ λε'γετα [ ι] , γινετα [ι βί-
βίωκώς ό Ζήνων . . . ι8ε
•α τ ω ν ρ και α ετ ων. απ α
Κ λ ε ά ρ χ ο υ γ α ρ επ Αρρ]ενε[ι-
δτ/ν, ε φ οΰ στημ [ειο)(9] rjvaL [τε-
TeXevrr/Kei'u [ι] Ζήνωνα, ε τ η
εστίν ivveu κα [!,] τρίάκο [ντα
και μήνες τρεις.
[γεγονε'ναι Κ λ ε - ]
άνθην επ αρχον[τος]
ΆρίΓττοφάνου? κα [ί j
την (τχολι/ν δια [ κ α τ α - ]
σ χ ε ϊ ν επ' εττ^ τριάκ [ο] ν-
τ α και [ε ί ν.
απτηΧΧάγτ] [δ ε π άρχοντος Ι-]

άσονος ετ [ ώ ] ν τ α μ [ ά λ ι σ τ α p j .
The sequence of A n t i p a t r o s and Arrheneides is t h u s clearly

established. Klearclios was archon in 301/0 B.C. Thirty-nine
years b r i n g us to the beginning of 261/0. Three months can
c a r r y us as well into the year 2()l/0 as into that of Klearclios.
Hence Beloch's 4 4 calculation is not the only one possible.
4;
For a m o r e e x a c t p r e s e n t a t i o n of C r o n e r t ' s r e a d i n g of these p a p y r u s -
f r a g m e n t s see BELOCH 112 pp. 424, 39, 472f. T h e t e x t here given does not
i n d i c a t e t h e v a r y i n g degrees of c e r t a i n t y of p a r t i c u l a r letters.
44
Griech. Gcsclt. I l l 2 p. 424.
The public tomb was decreed to Zeno in the latter p a r t of the

f i f t h month, Maimakterion, 4 5 and, since he was already dead some
time (Antigonos requested the m o n u m e n t ) , 4 6 it is probable t h a t
his death occurred two months earlier, in the t h i r d m o n t h of
261/0. Zeno's successor, Kleanthes, was head of t h e Stoa f o r
u p w a r d of thirty-one years. By inclusive reckoning this brings
us to 231/0 for his death and f o r the archon J a s o n . The lack
which e7rl calls f o r is explained b y the three m o n t h s of
A r r h e n e i d e s ' year given to Zeno. The calculation is then verified
by the equation 331/0 (Aristophanes) minus 231/0 (-Jason) =
about 100. We need not concern ourselves here with other com-
putations as to the lives and headships of Zeno a n d Kleanthes,
since it is through the one which he himself gives t h a t the years
of Philodemus' archons must be arrived at.
Since it was not till 2 6 2 / 1 B.C., and, if the distribution of
the dedications to Asklepios is any c r i t e r i o n — 3 y 2 lines to Pliileas,
4 to Kalliades 4 7 —in the late fall of 262 at the earliest, t h a t
Athens came into the h a n d s of Antigonos, it is a p p a r e n t t h a t the
s u r r e n d e r of the city took place at the time t h a t the y o u n g king
Antioelios I I came to the throne of the Seleucids (between J u l y
262 and J u l y 261), 4 8 and declared w a r upon Ptolemy Philadel-
phia 4 "—the champion and chief hope of the Athenians. This
new entanglement destroyed the last prospect of E g y p t i a n aid,
and the city could do nothing b u t yield. The m a r r i a g e of
Antigonos' heir to Antochos' sister, Stratonike, was t h e consum-
mation of the alliance which cost A t h e n s its independence. The
war, in which the siege and fall of A t h e n s f o r m e d but an episode,
continued f o r some time a f t e r 262, a n d resulted in the downfall
of the sea-power of Philadelphia. 5 0
Antigonos, we observe, is said τάς αρχάς [άνιμρήσθ^αί κα\
7τάν [βφ^βϊσθαι.
45
DIOGENES L A E R T I U S : V I I 10-12.
40
DIOGENES LAERTIUS: V I I 1 5 ; c f . W I L A M O W I T Z : Antigonos v. Karystos
pp. 1 1 8 , 344.
47
I G I I 836 11. 36ff.
4S
BEVAN : Τ lie House of Seleueus I p. 168.
49
BELOCH: Griech. Gesch. I l l ι p. 615.
Ϋ0
BELOCH : I I I I ]). 6 1 8 ; I l l 2 p p . 4 2 8 f f .
6. The arehons between 261/0 and 230/29 f o r m a group by

themselves a n d deserve a special study. Leaving out of account
Sosistratos a n d Philoneos, 5 1 who belong before 262/1, a n d Philos-
tratos, Antimachos, and Phanostratos, whom Kolbe 52 has, I
believe rightly, assigned to 209/8i¥., there remain f o r the thirty-
one years involved twenty-two archon-names: Kleomachos, Dio-
geiton, Olbios, Lysiades, Kallimedes, Glaukippos, 5 3 Thersilochos,
Cliarikles, Lysias, Kimon, Ekphantos, Lysanias, Diomedon,
J a s o n , Alcibiades, Hagnias, Lykeas, Pheidostratos, Philippides,
Theophemos, Thymochares,. . . . bios 1 and, as a possible twenty-
t h i r d , Aristeides. Of these the first fourteen are assigned in the
t a b l e to a definite year. These assignments require a word of
justification.
Diomedon has been dated by Kirchner in 232/1, f o r obvious
a n d adequate reasons. That leaves only 2 4 4 / 3 and 256/5 open
to a secretary f r o m Leontis i.e. to Thersilochos and Kleomachos.
Kallimedes precedes Thersilochos by a clear y e a r ; hence a de-
cision between 2 5 6 / 5 and 244/3 involves all three arehons. I t is
h a r d to make. B u t first it should be remarked t h a t Kolbe's
effort 5 4 to c a r r y Kallimedes and Thersilochos back to 290/89 and
2 8 8 / 7 was most ill-advised. The decrees of these arehons contain
a f o r m u l a of allegiance to Macedon which is f o u n d only between
2 7 6 / 5 a n d 230/29 B.C., 55 and in the second place one of them
exhibits the f o r m γίνομαι5 which does not a p p e a r till a f t e r 261/0
and t h e n only in unofficial documents. 5 0 Γίνομαι demands as late
a y e a r as possible f o r Thersilochos. The contents of the documents
of Thersilochos' y e a r demand t h a t Macedon be on f r i e n d l y terms
w i t h both the Boeotian League and A t h e n s ; f o r each of these
accepts a r b i t r a t o r s f o r a dispute f r o m the Macedonian depen-
01
PliiloneoH c a n n o t b e located in 265/4; f o r Αυσικλής Συπαλήττκκ, p r i e s t of
A s k l e p i o s in 265/4 a n d άκοντιστή% in P h i l o n e o s ' a r c h o n s h i p , c a n n o t h a v e h e l d
t h e s e t w o offices in t h e s a m e y e a r .
52
Loc. cit. p p . 76ff. A n a d d i t i o n a l a n d conclusive a r g u m e n t m a y now
be a d d e d to t h o s e given by Kolbe. T h e r e is no o t h e r place in t h e t h i r d
c e n t u r y B.C. f o r t h e t h r e e arehons w h e t h e r A n t i m a c h o s w a s t h e first or
m i d d l e one of t h e t h r e e . l i e doubtless occupied t h e m i d d l e place.
53
T h e r e a s o n f o r d a t i n g Glaukippos in 2 4 5 / 4 r a t h e r t h a n in 2 5 7 / 6 or
2 3 3 / 2 is t h e s i m i l a r i t y of content in I I 305 a n d I I 325. T h e prosopo-
g r a p h i c a l d a t a g i v e n in Cornell Studies X p. 34 also f a v o r 2 4 5 / 4 .
M
Ath. Mitt. X X X 1905 pp. 98ff. 55 See LARFIELD: I I 2 pp. 6 8 4 f . 50 See
MEISTERHANS: Grammatik der attisclien Insclvriftev? p p . 177f. n. 1478.
dency, Lamia. The condition t h u s imposed was not fulfilled

between the revolt of Alexander K r a t e r o s ' son in c. 252 and t h e
defeat of Abaeokritos at Chaeronea in 245.r'7 T h e r e is no un-
likelihood t h a t it fras met in 2 5 6 / 5 : it was a d m i r a b l y fulfilled in
244/3. A f t e r the battle of Chaeronea the Boeotian League en-
tered into sijnrpolity with Aetolia, a n d t h u s came over to t h e
Macedonian camp. 58 It had sympathized with Alexander/' 0 a n d
had been in alliance with Achaea u p to 245. D u r i n g this time its
relations with Athens were u n d o u b t e d l y strained, a n d upon the
change of policy in 245 it is n a t u r a l to find disputes r e f e r r e d to
a Macedonian dependency f o r a r b i t r a t i o n .
Between 262 and 255 Athens was very completely u n d e r
Macedonian tutelage, 0 0 and it is less n a t u r a l to find a group of
decrees extant f r o m this period t h a n f r o m 240ft'. Hence f o r
(liese various reasons 240/5 and 2 4 4 / 3 should be assigned to
Ivallimedes and Thersilochos, and 2 5 6 / 5 to Kleomachos.
In a decree of Ivallimedes' year ( I G I I 300) we read σ τ ρ α -
τός· 6 πατή\_ρ ] βασιΧεως Αημ [ητρίου . . | " A s f a r as one
may judge, it is here said t h a t the f a t h e r of the person eulogized
in the decree did some services to A t h e n s d u r i n g t h e reign of
Demetrios Poliorcretes." This i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , made in Cornell
Studies X p. 31, Kolbe (Atk. Mitt. X I X 1905 p. 100) r e g a r d s as
(jekunstelt and a Verlegenheitsauskunft. To me it seems most
n a t u r a l as well as correct. Did Kolbe f o r g e t such documents
as I G I I 331, in which the earlier p a r t of the decree enumerates
the services rendered to Athens by t h e ( g r a n d f a t h e r a n d ) f a t h e r
of the benefactor to whom the body of' the psephisiria is devoted?
Over f o r t y years had elapsed in 2 4 0 / 5 since D e m e t r i u s h a d ceased
to be a king. That is also natural. The benefactor of 240 could
well have been a boy of 10 or 15 in 290 B.C. while his f a t h e r was
still in the prime of life.
7. The appearance in the archonsliips of Kallimedes a n d
Glaukippos of a cult of Zeus Soter in A t h e n s as well as in the
57
BELOCH: Griech. Gescli. T i l l p. 642.
58
NIESE : Gescli. d. griech. u. maked. Staaten I I , p. 250.
R,J
BELOCII : I I I I 639; NIESE : I I , p. 249; c f . however BELOCH : I I I 2
p. 438.
00
SUIDAS : Philochoros. BELOCH : I I I 2 p p . 435f.
Peiraieus should be noted;" 1 f o r the finding in Athens of the

stones, on which were written I G IT 305 (Glaukippos). 32"»
(Kallimedes, according to Kolbe), 326 (same time as 325) 616
(middle of t h i r d century) and 1387 (dateless)," 2 demonstrates
this point clearly enough. It is significant t h a t all these stones
belong to the period 2(>2-229. The same duplication of worship
is demonstrable in this period f o r still another cult—that of
Bendis. P r o m an interesting inscription published by Wilhelm
in 1902";i we learn t h a t in Polystratos' archonship (with which
Lykeas from an unpublished document must be closely asso-
ciated)" 4 a b r a n c h cult of this goddess had recently been estab-
lished among the Thracians in the city, and t h a t by formal reso-
lution the old organization agreed to assume a f r i e n d l y a t t i t u d e
t o w a r d it—καϊ νυν οι ψ [/α/;] μβνοι ev τώί αστβί κατασκβυάσασθαι
iepov OIOVTCIL helv οίκβίως δίακβϊ [er$] αι προς «λΧήΧους. Provision is
made f o r cooperation between t.lie two societies in the πομπή f r o m
A t h e n s to the Peiraieus which formed so characteristic a f e a t u r e
of the Bendis worship. The βπιμβΧηταίin the Peiraieus were to
provide sponges, basins, and wreaths f o r the members of
both clubs upon t h e arrival of the procession in the harbor-town.
F u r t h e r m o r e it is to be observed that between 260 59 and
229 not a single person f r o m either the Peiraieus , r ' or Plinleron
a p p e a r s in any capacity whatsoever in the Athenian documents.
One is t e m p t e d to believe that the Peiraieus and its environs
were taken away f r o m the rest of Athens in 255 and p u t under
the m i l i t a r y government of the Athenian strategos, " t y r a n t . "
Heraldeitos Asklepiades' son of Athmonon."" B u t on close exam-
ination this view is proved untenable; for the Athenian archon
was eponymos in the Peiraieus in Polystratos' year, a n d the
T h r a c i a n s there resident claim certain exclusive rights on the
,;1
WAOHSMUTJI : Die Staat. Allien im Alter 11m in I I p. 14"» clonics t h e ex-
istence of a s e p a r a t e cult in A t h e n s . MOMMSEN: Die Juste eler Slant
Athens, p. 524 s t o u t l y m a i n t a i n s it. J c D E i e n : Topographic eon Allien p.
302 a g r e e s w i t h M o m m s e n .
'"-'The p r o v e n i e n c e of I G Π Ι 1(57 (c. 134 A.D.) is d i s p u t e d .
13
Oestcrr. Jahrcslieftc V pp. 127ff.
14
W'LLLIELM : toe. eit. p. 136.
' " T h e r e s t o r a t i o n Iletpjati? in I G i l 330 ( K i m o n I I 237/(5) is q u i t e un-
certain.
M
' Καθεστηκώς υπό του βασιλέως στρατηγός επί του Νειραιέως και των α\\ων των
ταττομένων μετά του ΙΙειραιεωί. I G II Γ> 591 b.
strength of the Athenian laws. 07 Moreover in 2 3 9 / 8 (Charikles)

the ekklesia met in the Peiraieus, 0 8 a n d again in 2 3 0 / 2 9 ? ( I G I I
5 373c) the senate was convened there. The P e i r a i e u s was t h u s
more t h a n an ordinary deme still.
The solution of these various problems is u n d o u b t e d l y this,
t h a t the citizen population in the Peiraieus had diminished very
greatly in numbers, and had p e r h a p s accepted a n o t h e r political
creed than that dominant in the city. It moreover had lost con-
stant touch with the city through the destruction or delapidution
of the long walls. It was still possible f o r processions to go f r o m
the one town to the other, and f o r the populace or the senate to
proceed to the harbor when local business made t h a t expedient.
Rut all this could be done only in time of peace, a n d there was
no longer the unbroken intercourse between the two places which
made it possible for men resident in A t h e n s to r e n d e r daily wor-
ship to deities resident only in the Peiraieus.
8. Since the ekklesia met in the Peiraieus in Charikles' year
it is clear t h a t in 239/8 the war with Aratos, which in P l u t a r c h ' s
n a r r a t i v e is described f o r us as a series of disconnected inci-
dents, had not yet begun. A similar state of peace is presupposed
f o r the time 0 0 of I G I I •"> 373 c, i.e. f o r Sldrophorion of 229—
a f t e r the withdrawal of the Macedonian garrison, a n d a f t e r a
good u n d e r s t a n d i n g h a d been reached with the Achaean League.
T h a t Ptolemais did not yet exist is no objection to this d a t e : f o r
it is now certain t h a t this tribe was created in the course of
225/4 or in 224/3 or in 2 2 3 / 2 ; for while it was not in existence
at the beginning of Niketes' arehonship, it already received offi-
cers u n d e r Menekrates. By f a r the most likely y e a r in this
interval is 224, not so much for t h e reason u r g e d by K i r c h n e r
and Zhebelev (Gott. gel. Am. 1900 p. 450), t h a t the arehon-
eponymos f o r 224/3 was taken f r o m Apliidna, a deme of Ptole-
mais, b u t because of the mention of king P t o l e m y in connection
with the gymnasiarch f o r 224/3. U n f o r t u n a t e l y t h e document
( Έ φ . ' Α ρ χ . 1897 p. 43) is badly damaged, but t h e conjecture is
07
Ocsterr. Jaliresliefte V, 1902, p p . 127 IT.
68
Έ φ . 'Αρχ., 1901, p. 52.
"" The possibilities a r e 2 5 4 / 3 , 242/1, a n d 230/29.
obvious that· we have to do with the donation of the gymnasium

n a m e d f r o m its f o u n d e r the Ptolemaion—die erstc grosse Bausiif-
0
tung aus hcllenistischer Zeit.' The establishment of the tribe
was A t h e n s ' way of rendering thanks for the gift. The interest
of P t o l e m y in A t h e n s was doubtless due in p a r t at least to the
good u n d e r s t a n d i n g reached by Antigonos Doson a n d the
A c h a e a n League. The same event forced A t h e n s to secure the
good will of Ptolemy. 7 1
The f o r m u l a a n d usages which prove Kolbe's location of
Kallimedes a n d Thersilochos in 290/89 and 288/7 to be wrong,
prove w i t h equal cogency his d a t i n g of Lvsias a n d Kimon 11 to
be right. The chief inscription of these years 7 2 has the notice of
sacrifices offered f o r the Macedonian rulers—king Demetrios II
a n d queen [Phthia]-—and also the late f o r m 7ίνομαι. Now t h a t
t h e r e is absolutely no room f o r Lysias before Kimon I in 2 9 2 / 1
it is certain t h a t this pair belongs in 238/7 a n d 237/6. As already
pointed out their immediate successors were E k p h a n t o s and
Lysanias. 7 3
The a t t e m p t s which Aratos and the Achaean League had
made p r i o r to 239 to capture the Peiraieus were renewed upon
t h e death of Antigonos Gonatas, and a war broke out in 238/7
which h a d not yet come to an end in 236/5. 7 4 The Athenians
are censured by P l u t a r c h f o r indecently rejoicing over the re-
p o r t e d death of their distinguished adversary, and indeed
A t h e n i a n troops joined the Macedonian garrisons in protecting
the country. 77 '. The struggle was one in which, according to
70
JUDEICH : Topograpliie von Atlien p. 315 N. 27.
71
BELOCH : Griech. Gesch. Ill 2 p. 61.
' - Ί G I I 5 6141); c f . KOLBE: Festclirift f . Otto Hirschfeld p. 314.
7
"'See a b o v e p. 30. 74 F o r a description of t h i s s t r u g g l e see KOLBE in
Festschrift fiir Otto Hirschfeld pp. 315f.
7r
'I G I I δ 614b is t h e only document r e l a t i n g to g a r r i s o n s in E l e u s i s in
which a d e t a c h m e n t of f o r e i g n m e r c e n a r i e s a p p e a r s . T h e o t h e r s belong
b e t w e e n 3 1 8 / 7 a n d 2 7 6 / 5 ? a n d a f t e r 229. The n a t i o n a l i t y of t h e mer-
c e n a r i e s of 238ff. is w o r t h noticing. So f a r as t h e e x t a n t n a m e s p e r m i t a
j u d g m e n t it seems t h a t t h e r e were no Celts a m o n g t h e m . T h e y a r e m a i n l y
Greeks. One is d e s i g n a t e d 'Αχαιό?—a deserter or t r a i t o r .
O n e of t h e s o l d i e r s ' d e c r e e s (Έφ.Άρχ., 1896, p . 33) f o u n d a t E l e u s i s
b e g i n s as f o l l o w s : Επειδή Avri\_yovo^s ό [/ia]ffiXei>s άφικόμενος. Unfortuuatelv
n o t h i n g f u r t h e r is e x t a n t . T h e orator, liowev er, w a s λμεινοκΧής Ύαχύλλον
Κυδαθηναιεύς. T h e s a m e n a m e a p p e a r s in I G I I 1024 1. 9 — a list w h i c h
b e l o n g s b e f o r e :507. T h e p r o b a b i l i t i e s , g i v e n by t h e n a m e - c o n n e c t i o n s , a r e
A r a t o s ' s usual tactics, his enemies had more to f e a r from sur-

prises—night attacks, ambuscades, etc., t h a n f r o m d r a w n battles.
It seldom came to a regular campaign, b u t the destruction of t h e
crops had constantly to be expected by the Athenians, and on
at least one occasion Aratos marched even into the suburbs of
Athens. I n 236/5 it is said of the general eV' Έλευσί^ο?, Aristo-
phanes, 67τβμαΧήθη δβ καΐ 07ra>[? e/c της χώρας οί σί^τοι ματ άσφα-
Χβίας βίσβνβχθωαιν. The situation h a d not essentially changed in
232/1. On the last of Elaphebolion of this y e a r a subscrip-
tion was started to provide the ταμίας των στρατιωτικών with
77
funds. The purpose of the contribution is stated to he [ίνα κατά
τον /c] ατάΧοπτον χρόνον του ανιαυτον συνκ[ομισθώσι,ν οί etc ηης ?
κ]αρττοΙ ματ άσφαΧαίας. The inference to be m a d e is t h a t in t h e
earlier p a r t of the year the harvesting h a d been molested or at
any rate accompanied by danger. A s t u d y of the provenience of
the subscribers will, 1 believe, show where the exposed crops lay.
!) of them came f r o m Erchia, 5 f r o m P a i a n i a , 5 f r o m Sphettos,
3 f r o m Halai, 3 f r o m Phlya, and 3 f r o m Kephisia. Of these
Phlya and Kephisia lay in the eastern side of the Athenian plain,
placed at the entrance of the valley which led into the Mesogein
proper. The others were in the heart of the Mesogeia itself, a n d
constituted its most important villages. The only other deme,
which in the extant portion of the list f u r n i s h e d more than two
subscribers, was Pliyle. F r o m the six city denies Melite, Skam-
bonidai, Kerameikos, Kollytos, K y d a t h e n a i o n , Kolonos, there
came a total of only f o u r or five. There were none f o r Phaleron
t h a t it b e l o n g s b e f o r e 320, and a g r a n d s o n of o n e of t h e m e n in t h e c a t a -
logue, Χαιρώνδης Όρασωνίδου Αίθαλίδης, was e p h e b e in 283/2 w h i l e t h e akme of
t h e g r a n d s o n of a n o t h e r , Έπι·γένψ Επι-γένους Κυδαθηναίεύί, c a m e a c c o r d i n g t o
K i r e h n e r in c. 2(58 B . C . T h e r e is, t h e r e f o r e , no u n l i k e l i h o o d t h a t t h e
A m e i n o k l e s of II 1024 a n d of Ε φ. Αρχ. 189(5, ρ. 33, a r c g r a n d f a t h e r a n d
g r a n d s o n — i f the t i m e of t h e l a t t e r d o c u m e n t is 2 7 6 / 5 - 2 6 6 / 5 . And at
w h a t other t i m e could a k i n g A n t i g o n o s come in c o n t a c t with A t h e n i a n
troops in g a r r i s o n a t E l e u s i s ? Between 2152/1 a n d 2 4 0 / 3 9 m e r c e n a r i e s would
have been associated with A t h e n i a n s and Kleusinians in t h e decree. A n t i -
gonos t h e One-Eyed was k i n g between 306 a n d 301, b u t w a s never n e a r
A t h e n s in t h a t interval. A n t i g o n o s Doson w a s not on such t e r m s with
A t h e n s as t o make a visit ( w h a t else does άφίκόμενος m e a n ? ) possible. On
t h e o t h e r h a n d our t r a d i t i o n r e p r e s e n t s A n t i g o n o s G o n a t a s as a f r e q u e n t
visitor of A t h e n s between 2 7 6 / 5 a n d 2 6 1 / 0 ( d e a t h of Z e n o ) , i.e. 2(56/5 B.C.
( o u t b r e a k of Chremonidean W a r ) .
7,;
I G I I 5 (5141) 11. 66f.
77
1 G I I 334.
Vo
L. 1 ] Ferguson.—The I'riests of Asklepios. 161
or Peiraieus, a n d only one each from Eleusis a n d Sunion. It is

t r u e t h a t the list as we have il is f r a g m e n t a r y , hut the denies in
it are not a r r a n g e d on any principle, nor are t h e individuals f r o m
one deme listed together. We have no reason, therefore, to sup-
pose t h a t a d i f f e r e n t proportional distribution would result f r o m
an analysis of t h e entire catalogue.
The explanation of these facts would seem to be t h a t the crops
which could still be preserved and harvested in 232 1 B.C. lay
f o r t h e most p a r t in the Mesogeia. Those in the Athenian plain
itself, we may suppose, were already destroyed in whole or in
p a r t . A n d what was t r u e in 2 3 2 / 1 was, we may safely assume,
t r u e in a great m a n y instances in the course of the t h i r d century.
While the rest of Attica was exposed to the ravages of war. from
pirates on the coast places, 78 f r o m the soldiers of Alexander
K r a t e r o s ' son in c. 25211., a n d of Aratos, and the Achaean
League d u r i n g the latter p a r t of Antigonos Gonatas' reign and
t h e whole of Demetrios I I ' s , the Mesogeia proper, protected by
Pentelikon and I l y m e t t o s and by the flanking position which
A t h e n s a n d the Peiraieus assumed to an invader of the trans-
I l y m e t t o s region, enjoyed practical immunity f r o m devastation,
a n d came in consequence to be politically the most i m p o r t a n t
section of Attica.
The tcoivov των Μεσογείων meets ns in the inscriptions f o r the
first time in one of Olbios' archonsliip and f o r the last time in
a c o n t e m p o r a r y document.
Olbios must necessarily occupy the year 251 0 ; for 239 S, the
only other place between 2lil and 229 open to an archon whose
secretary was f r o m Aiantis, must be assigned to Charikles. The
reason f o r this is as follows: Aristokreon, the nephew of the
philosopher Chrysippos, who is commended f o r various services
to A t h e n s in Charikles' year, cannot possibly have been old
enough f o r such a distinction in 251/0, yet the decree was passed
p r i o r to 229. 70
The constitution of the κοινόν lies for t h e most p a r t beyond
our ken. It undoubtedly embraced men f r o m denies which be-
longed to different tribes and trittyes in the Kleistlienian system.
:s
I G I I 5 591b.
79
Wn.HELM: Έ φ . 'Αρχ. 1901, pp. 52, 55.
162 University of California Publications. [CLASS. PHIL.
Curiously enough the chief officer μάργων) f o r t h e only two oc-

casions on which he is known came f r o m Bate a n d K y d a t h e n a i o n ,
suburban or city denies. The p a t r o n deity of Hie KOLVOV was
Herakles, and, since two of the t h r e e stones which have inscrip-
tions relating to the association were f o u n d in Diomeia, it is
clear t h a t the temple in which the decrees of the KOLVOV are said
to have been set up, was the f a m o u s one of Ilerakles in Kynos-
arges.
Although the KOLVOV των λίβσο^είων, like t h a t of the " f o u r
cities, (ΎβτράποΧπ) was p r i m a r i l y a religious federation, its
creation or revival in about 250 cannot have lacked some politi-
cal significance. The union of the demesmen it involved m u s t
have given them increased influence in the ekklesia. Their ma-
terial prosperity came into relief now t h a t t h e s h i p p i n g a n d
trade of the Peiraieus and Athens h a d diminished, a n d the weak-
ening of A t h e n s ' predominance in Attica must have strengthened
the separatist tendencies always latent in a m o u n t a i n o u s country.
The Mesogeia was exposed to spoliation because A t h e n s was of
necessity involved in all of Macedon's Avars. I t could not escape
them by making the state join Macedon's enemies. It got no
help f r o m A t h e n s ' walls, nor did the recovery of sea-power lie
within the range of its ambition. A n d now f o r t h e first time
since the days of Kleistlienes the Mesogeia d e t e r m i n e d the policy
of Athens. Of this there can be little doubt. The three most
influential families in the state before a n d a f t e r 229 came,
Dromeas-Diokles f r o m Erehia, M i k i o n - E u r y k l e i d e s f r o m Kep-
liisia, Zenon-Asklepiades f r o m Phyle—all f r o m denies located in
the Kleisthenian Mesogeia. These were the men who foiled
Aratos of his hope of bringing A t h e n s into the Achaean League,
and carried through the policy of strict n e u t r a l i t y which gave
the country respite f r o m wars and devastation f o r n e a r l y t h i r t y
years.
9. F r o m Kimon's year we possess a list of epliebes. 80 I t con-
tained f r o m twenty to t h i r t y names. I t is t h e last of the kind
till we reach the second half of the second c e n t u r y B.C. The
disposition of the names in the list is like t h a t of 1 (ί I I 338
S0
I G I I 330.
(Philoneos), a n d 324 (Polyeuktos 275/4). a n d all three differ in

a significant point f r o m the catalogue of 283/2 (I G I I 316
Menekles). I n t h e earlier list the deme is used to segregate the
names into g r o u p s ; in the later ones the tribe alone p e r f o r m s
t h i s f u n c t i o n . Since the n u m b e r of names is about equally small
in each case, the classification of them in about 150 deme-groups
is absurd—explicable only on the supposition t h a t it is the
survival of an idea, sensible in the not very distant past. I n
3 0 5 / 4 ( I G I I 5 251b) the same system is employed, and it meets
us again in 3 3 4 / 3 ( I G 115 563b), but in each of these instances
it is applied to a much larger number of names.
In 3 3 4 / 3 the epliebe system described by Aristotle 8 1 was in
existence. All t h e young men in their eighteenth and nineteenth
y e a r s were obliged to serve as ephebes. Upon attaining legal
m a t u r i t y they were entered by the demarchs in the official list
of citizens, a n d became thereby attached till their sixtieth year
f o r ephebe, military, and judicial service to the archon-eponymos
f o r t h e y e a r of t h e i r registration. They were p u t as ephebes
u n d e r the supervision of state officials, the most i m p o r t a n t of
whom were one kosmetes, chosen f r o m all the citizens, a n d ten
sophron istai, taken f r o m t h i r t y reputable a n d qualified citizens
n o m i n a t e d by t h e tribes.
The list, f o r 3 3 4 / 3 contained oi β[φηβοι^\ (της Κεκροττίδος) oi
€7τϊ Κτ7]σιχ\εο (υ)ς άρχοντος ενγραφεντες.*'1 I n it there were f r o m
83
f o r t y - f o u r to fifty names. There were therefore about 500
ephebes enrolled u n d e r the archon Ktesikles, a n d as m a n y more
are to be a d d e d f o r the archon of the preceding y e a r ; so t h a t the
y o u n g men of A t h e n s in their 18th and 19th years numbered
about 1000. 84 Since there were only 33 in 283, 2 it is clear t h a t
the compulsory service has already become voluntary. The term
too was seemingly reduced to one year, and the sophronistai exist
no longer. W e have to do with a most important change in the
81
Atli. Pol. 42.
82
T h e t e c h n i c a l t e r m f o r r e g i s t r a t i o n with the d e m a r c h s ; c f . ARISTOTLE:
loc. cit.
N:I
FOUCART : Β C Η X I I I p. 263 t h i n k s t h a t col. 1 of I G IIr. 563b h a d
m o r e t h a n 22 n a m e s . Col. I I h a d 22.
M
So GIRARD: a r t i c l e "Εφηβοι in Dar ember g et Saglio.
36
University of California Publications. [CLASS. PHIL.
life a n d institutions of Attica. It was equivalent to the abandon-

ment of universal conscription as a national system of defense,
and in the case of Athens t h a t meant t h e confession of the c i t y ' s
inability to protect herself with her own resources.
W h e n in an age of w a r Athens renounced the effort to t r a i n
her young men in the highly technical profession of arms, it was
over with her days as a free-acting political agent.
The time of this confession of impotence is surely worth in-
vestigating. Its determination rests largely with t h e epliebe-list
I G IID 251b. This is like t h a t of 3 3 4 / 3 in giving us the ephebes
f o r one y e a r only. W h a t we have is a catalogue of τους εφή-
βους τοι)]? βν)[ραφβντας εττ\ Κοροίβου άρχοντος. Moreover two
sons of Ergokles f r o m the same deme, if t h e restorations are cor-
rect, which is doubtful, and two sons of Kephisokles of K i k y n n a ,
if the restorations again are correct, a p p e a r in it. Unless these
are in both cases twins, or mere coincidences, or false restorations
it is imperative for us to assume that in 3 0 5 / 4 t h e t e r m of office
was already reduced, as in 283/2ff, to one year.
The number of ephebes must next be ascertained. The stone
is so badly damaged t h a t an approximation is all t h a t is possible.
Eighteen names are extant in p a r t or in whole f r o m the tribe
Ereclitheis a n d fourteen from the tribe Akaniantis. H o w m a n y
are lost?
It is known that the population of the tribes 8 5 a n d denies is
quite evenly represented in the surviving names, a n d t h a t it is
the big denies that have the largest r e p r e s e n t a t i o n in K i r c l i n e r ' s
Prosopograpkia Attica. A comparison of the relative strength
of the denies in the P . A. and in the p r y t a n y - l i s t s will show this
to be the case. Enonymon had eleven ephebes in 3 0 5 / 4 : it has
208 names out of a total of 929 f o r t h e tribe Ereclitheis in t h e
P . A. That suggests a total of slightly over fifty f o r t h e epliebe-
list of this tribe. In the case of Akaniantis, Thorikos had 1
ephebe to a total representation of 129 : Kerameikos h a d 3 to 143,
Kephale had over 5 to 120, and K i k y n n a had 2 to 5(>. The f o u r
have over 11 to 448, which yields about 2(> f o r t h e whole tribe
with 979. A comparison of the epliebe-list with the list of the
s5
Sec KOEKTE : Got I. gel. Aug. 1903 pp. 829f.
p r y t a n i e s will probably yield a safer result. P a r t of Paiania

was assigned to Antigonis. It was undoubtedly the smaller
part, 8 6 which, in a p r y t a n y of fifty, got b u t one member in
1 G I I 871 a n d 865, while the other part, which remained in P a n -
dionis, h a d r e g u l a r l y 12. We do not know how m a n y TiaLavLeis
f r o m P a n d i o n i s were ephebes in 305/4, but f r o m Antigonis there
came three. This suggests t h a t the ephebe-list was much larger
t h a n t h e prytany-list. So too Phegus had one ephebe in 305/4,
whereas it had no senator at all in I G I I 5 871b. There are f o u r
names a n d one f r a g m e n t of a name extant in I G I I 5 251b f r g . k
f r o m an u n k n o w n deme. Since there were so many, the deme
can have been only Kydathenaion, Oe, or Myrrliinus. It was
certainly M y r r h i n u s ; for three 8 7 of the f o u r names are f o u n d
a m o n g the Μυρρινονσιοι in K i r c h n e r ' s Prosopographia, and none
a m o n g those f r o m either of the other two denies. Hence there
were at least five ephebes f r o m Myrrhinus in 305/4. This deme
was represented by six members in the senate in the f o u r t h cen-
tury.
All this evidence goes to show t h a t there were as many names
in each tribal list in 305/4 as in 334/3, and t h a t the total num-
ber m u s t have been between five and six h u n d r e d . A t the time
of t h e census of Demetrius of Phaleron there were 21,000 citizens
in Athens. This, 011 the ratio of the Belgian census, 88 calls f o r
1176 y o u n g men in their 18th and 19tli years, or about 588 f o r
either of these ages. It is t h u s likely that I G I I 5 251b contains
a list of y o u n g men of only one age, 89 and it is to be observed
that this document takes cognizance of the registration in the
S,:
.BATES: Cornell Studies VILI, p. 12.
ST
F o r K a l l i s t h e n e s c f . P . A. 8103; f o r A t h e n o d o r o s P . A. 276, a n d f o r
A r i s t o k r a t e s P . A. 1921.
KS
FRANCOTTE : L'induslrie dans la Grecc ancienne (Iiihliothcquc de la fa-
cultc de philosophic de Punirersifc de Liege, Fasc. V I I , 1900, p. 104).
89
A m o n g t h e . . e]ts of D e m e t r i a s a p p e a r side b y side t h e e p h e b e s —
Ep]70(cX<?0us and-—'Κργο]KXeovs. T h e l a s t n a m e m a y be r e s t o r e d in m a n y
w a y s , e.g., <t>tXo]iiXeous, θεμιστο^-λίου?, 'lepo]KXeovs, e t c . A m o n g t h e Κικυννεΐς
a r e [ Λ ] ά μ α χ ο 5 Kijîcro/cXfVous] a n d [EuJ/iouXos Kr;0ô[/<-Xôiis]. Here too there
is p o s s i b l e a n u m b e r of d i f f e r e n t r e s t o r a t i o n s of one n a m e , e.g., KijgWo[δότου]
Κηφισο[φωντος~\ Κηφισό[δώμου] κτλ. I t is s i m p l y t h r o u g h t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t
w e h a v e t o do w i t h t w o p a i r s of b r o t h e r s t h a t the r e s t o r a t i o n s in t h e Corpus
b e c a m e c u r r e n t . B r o t h e r s are, of c o u r s e , c o m m o n in t h e s a m e e p h e b e - l i s t s
w h e n t h e s e r v i c e w a s f o r one year only a n d there w a s n o c o m p u l s i o n as t o
a g e - l i m i t s or r e g i s t r a t i o n .
λ
denies (ot βν^/ραφάνT€<? εττϊ Κοροίβου άρχοντος) ? j u s t as I G I I 5

5631) does, whereas in 283/2 the y o u n g men a r e r e f e r r e d to as
τους έφηβεΰσαντας εττϊ Meveco κΧβους άρχοντος. I f t h e service
were v o l u n t a r y in 3 0 5 / 4 a n d in 2 8 3 / 2 it is impossible to explain
w h y 1100 ( a t least 5-600) came f o r w a r d in t h e earlier year a n d
only 33 in the l a t t e r ; f o r the city w a s equally p o p u l a r in its
government and equally involved in a serious f o r e i g n war in t h e
two years.
I conclude therefore t h a t the n a t i o n a l ephebe system was still
in existence in 305/4, a n d this result finds s u b s t a n t i a l confirma-
tion in t h a t the sop]ironistai, who a r e lacking in 2 8 3 / 2 0'., a r e
f o u n d in this year still. The soplironistai a p p e a r in 3 0 3 / 2 also
( I G I I 5 565b), so t h a t the change h a d not occurred a t t h a t date.
I t t h e r e f o r e took place in the following t w e n t y years. H a d a
national ephebe system been in existence w h e n A t h e n s regained
her independence in 289, it would n e v e r have been abolished by
the democrats in the war-time which followed. Nor is it conceiv-
able t h a t it was abolished in 289 itself. On t h e other h a n d , if
done away with prior to 295/4, the d e m o c r a t s on recovering the
government in t h a t y e a r would have been unable to restore it
because of their relations to D e m e t r i u s Poliorcetes. A Mace-
donian garrison in Museion a n d a restoration of universal con-
scription do not harmonize. The only occasion suitable f o r t h i s
momentous change came in 301 B.C. I n this y e a r a g o v e r n m e n t
was established in A t h e n s on a moderately aristocratic basis—its
enemies called it an oligarchy—which h a d as its f o r e i g n policy
t h e abandonment of all imperialistic notions, a n d , w i t h o u t sacri-
fice of independence, the maintenance of f r i e n d l y , n e u t r a l rela-
tions with all the powers. 9 0 It was t h i s g o v e r n m e n t which m a d e
the ephebe system voluntary. The n u m b e r of ephebes i n s t a n t l y
fell to a mere h a n d f u l . Ten soplironistai f o r a b o u t t h r e e times
as m a n y charges seemed absurd. The soplironistai were there-
f o r e dispensed with. But, the old h a b i t of registering t h e
ephebes u n d e r deme-captions persisted. I t existed in 283/2, b u t
u p o n the change of government in 276/5, it was also discarded,
a n d in 275/411'. the tribe-captions alone are used. H a d K i m o n I I
90
Beitr. alt. Gescli. V , p p . 1 5 5 F F . ; EDUARD M E Y E R : ibid. pp. 180FF.
belonged in 2 9 2 / 1 the old system should have been employed in

Γ G I I 330.
10. I G I I 5 371c will have to be dated in either 250/49 or
2 4 9 / 8 ; f o r the secretary's deme began with ' l u , which can be
restored only as Είρβσίδης or EiVeato?. F o r Akaniantis, the tribe
of Eiresidai, there is no place between 255/4 and 243/2. Eitea,
which at this time belonged to both Antiochis and Antigonis, has
a place in 250/49 or 249/8. The decree was passed at the con-
clusion of the w a r between Athens and Argos, f r i e n d s of Anti-
gonos Gonatas, on the one side, and Alexander, his rebellious
nephew, on the other. It commends Aristomachos of Argos f o r
insisting on including Athens in the peace he had purchased f r o m
the successful rebel. Alexander was dead in 243: 01 he had not
rebelled in 255 i.e. when Antigonos withdrew his garrison f r o m
Museion. Hence t h e dating above given. It is obvious t h a t the
altne of A l e x a n d e r ' s success was reached a short time before the
passing of the decree i.e. in either 250 or 249.
Diogeiton has been assigned to 252/1 because Άκρότιμος Λ V-
χίου Ακαριεύς, who moved the passing"of I G I I Add. Nov 352b
in this archonship, was ταμίας (των στρατιωτικών'!) in 255/4.
Twelve years earlier is out of the question, f o r t h a t takes us back
of the Macedonian regime. Twelve years later in 240/39 is
possible, but m u c h less probable.
It is evident t h a t the archon-list I (ί II 859 was begun, as
Zhebelev and K i r c h n e r claimed, 92 in the year 230/29 with the
officers f o r the first year of Athenian independence.
Three boys who were 18 in Phaidrias' archonship were τής
πρώτης ήΧικίας in the year of Anthesterios. 0 3 Anthesterios was
archon in 160/59 or 158/7—156/5; f o r a boy της ΰβυτέρας ήΧικίας
in 161/0 won the boxing-match open to boys of all ages in An-
thesterios archonship. 159/8 is excluded, because comic exhibi-
tions, which were not given in two successive years, were given
in 161/0 a n d in the year which preceded t h a t of Anthesterios.
The possibilities are Phaidrias in 154/3 a n d Anthesterios in
111
Corinth was taken by Aratos in 243 f r o m Antigonos, not f r o m Alex-
antler.
a
"Gott. gel. Anz. 1900, p. 448.
93
F o r the r e f e r e n c e s see Cornell Studies X, pp. 67f.
160/59, or Pliaidrias in 153/2 a n d A n t h e s t e r i o s in 158/7. A boy

of 15 lias little chance in a boxing m a t c h w i t h others of 19. A
boy of 17 is a much more likely w i n n e r . H e n c e t h e last possi-
bility is to be p r e f e r r e d , i t is assumed w i t h K a n g a b e (Ant. Hell.
I I 67811'.) t h a t ίταΐδας της πρώτης ηλικίας were 12 a n d 13, παιδβς
της δαυταρας ηλικίας 14 a n d 15, a n d παϊδας της τρίτης ηλικίας
16, 17, 18, a n d 19 years old.
The result of W i l h e l m ' s combination 0 · 4 of I G I I 5 385e, 496c,
a n d I I Add. 453b is t h a t the n a m e of t h e priest f o r T i t n a r c h o s '
year ( 1 3 8 / 7 B.C.) was f Νικο[υ ] Φλνευ?. No A t t i c
names begin with Νικο[υ η and. in f a c t , w h a t is r e a d b y Koehler
as V can be equally well K. Then t h e r e s t o r a t i o n [Ζωί'λος] Νι-
κοκ[ράτου] Φλυβυς· m a y be made. No other n a m e a m o n g t h e
Φ λ υ α ? in t h e Prosopographia fulfills the conditions. Zoi'los'
f a t h e r Νικοκράτης Ζ ω ΐ λ ο υ Φλυεύς· was an ephebe in 1 7 2 / 1 ( I G
I I 1224). His cousin Ζ ωΐλος Ζ ωΐλου Φλυευ? was priest of
S e r a p i s in 117/6 ( P . A . 6251) a n d of ά<γνής 'Αφροδίτης at about
the same time. I n I G Τΐ"> 373c ( 2 3 0 / 2 9 ? ) Ζ ω ΐ λ ο ς Ζωΐλου Φλυενς
is f o u n d . One item in the catalogue of dedications to Asklepios
given in I C 11 403 ( T h r a s y p h o n 2 2 1 / 0 ) is as f o l l o w s : τύπον ov
ανέβηκαν Ζ ω ΐ λ ο ς virep του παιδίου. The two are p r o b a b l y t h e
same. The priest of Asklepios in 1 3 8 / 7 will be t h e g r e a t - g r a n d -
son of the donor of 2 2 1 / 0 B.C.
It is a f a r cry f r o m F i n l a n d to C a l i f o r n i a ! None the less

while t h i s s t u d y was in the press I received t h r o u g h t h e kindness
of the a u t h o r , J o h a n n e s Sundwall of t h e royal A l e x a n d e r - U n i -
versity in Helsingfors, an admirable m o n o g r a p h , entitled Epi-
graph ische Beitrage zur sozial-politischen Geschichte Athens im
Zeitalter des Demosthenes (Leipzig: K r e y s i n g . 1906). 0 5 S u n d -
wall has also made the discovery ( p p . 47f.) t h a t t h e official o r d e r
was employed to d i s t r i b u t e the p r i e s t s h i p of Asklepios a m o n g the
tribes, a n d in §9 ( p p . 75ff.) he t a b u l a t e s t h e e x t a n t p r i e s t s . The
m a t t e r h a d only a subsidiary interest f o r him, however, a n d his
f a i l u r e to examine I G I I 836 w i t h sufficient t h o r o u g h n e s s has
M
BerI. phil. Woch. 1902, pp. 1908t'.
""'Also published in Beitr. alt. Gescli. as Beiheft IY.
made his list f o r the most p a r t incorrect. Ilis cardinal error was
in not distinguishing between the priests and ex-priests of Askle-
pios f o u n d in this document. And yet they are marked off with
all reasonable precision. The annual offerings to the temple are
invariably catalogued u n d e r the headings και ταδε έφ' ιερέως
ΠροκΧεους 1 Ιειραιεως (1. 22), Φίλε'ου Ει'τεαίου (1. 36) etc., t h u s
clearly designating the priests in office for each year. The ex-
priests simply make dedications like other people, e.g. σκάφιοι^
ιερεύς ΑυσικΧής ΣυπαΧηττιος (1. 22) etc., and when the officiat-
ing priest donates a n y t h i n g this too is recorded by entering
it r e g u l a r l y as an item in the section to which his name gives the
date. There is not the least difficulty in deciding which is a
priest a n d which an ex-priest, and yet their confusion vitiates
the entire disposition of the priests in Sundwall's table.
Sundwall (p. 76 n. 1) suggests t h a t the archon-nanie Ε[ύ-
of II 835 1. 8 be restored Euxenippos ( 3 0 5 / 5 ) . This is practi-
cally impossible. The secretary for 305/4 was [ ]ος Αύκου
Άλωττεκήθε[ν~] ( I G I I Add. 252b; 115 252c) : t h a t f o r the year
of 11 835 Κλειγ[ώο/9] ? no other restoration of line 1 being possible.
It is t r u e t h a t [ ]o? Ανκου 'ΑΧωττεκήθεν is f o u n d only in
inscriptions f r o m which the archon-name is lost, b u t Εύξενίτττίου
fills t h e lacuna in these exactly, and there is absolutely no place,
except 305/4, in the entire neighborhood in which a secretary
f r o m Alopeke can be placed. There can be no doubt t h a t
must be restored E u [ b u l o s ] .
In r e g a r d to Αυσανία[ς Μ ε ] Χ ι ( τ ε ν ς ) Sundwall says (p.
78 n. 3) : Die Frgiinzung ist ganz sicker. Von Μ ist noch cine
Spur ubrig. I t is t r u e t h a t a f a i n t scratch like the lower limb of
a Μ a p p e a r s in the lacuna* of 1. 33. B u t the space certainly calls
f o r more than three letters, and on other grounds also the restor-
ation Α υσανία[ς ΧΥροβα'] Χί(σιος) is much preferable. 9 0
The j u x t a p o s i t i o n of Nikomachos (1. 33) and Nikomachos
IIαιανιεύς of I I 839, though it tempted me to make the same
restoration as Sundwall has made (p. 78 n. 2 ) , is probably de-
ceitful. It would require Nikomachos to have been priest p r i o r
to 276/5.
ϋι1
See above p p . 149 f .
The restoration Τ ι μ ο κ Χ ψ Ε[tVeato?] (1. 16) Sundwall also

makes. So too he assigns Telesias of P h l y a to 3 3 6 / 5 a n d E u n i k -
ides of H a l a i to 341/0. To Teisias ( 3 3 8 / 7 ) he likewise gives the
demotikon ΚβφαΧήθεν and to Pataikos t h a t of ΈΧευσίνως. The
reasons given above (p. 145) show t h a t Lysitheos of T r i k o r y n t h o s
was not priest in 3)54/3.
F i n a l l y it must be insisted t h a t S u n d w a l l ' s investigation of
the priests of Asklepios, a p a r t f r o m calling attention to the offi-
cial-sequence, and confirming my observations in the points .just
enumerated, yields no tenable results. N o r does it, I am sure,
in any way weaken my conclusions.
N u m b e r Y3 of Klio (the new a n d convenient title of Beitrage
zur alten Geseliichte) also reached me a f t e r m y s t u d y h a d gone
to the printer. I am pleased to find t h a t Beloeh in his article
Griechische Aufgebote (p. 352) arrives at a p p r o x i m a t e l y t h e
same conclusion, though by a slightly different method, as to the
n u m b e r of ephebes listed in 1 0 115 251b. The comparison which
I have instituted between this epliebe-list a n d t h e p r y t a n v - l i s t s
can now be carried f u r t h e r by the aid of S u n d w a l l ' s tables (op.
cit. pp. 86ff.). It is perhaps worth noting t h a t lliis same scholar
(p. 89) has proved the correctness of B a t e s ' c o n j e c t u r e (Cornell
Studies V I I I p. 12) t h a t the p a r t of P a i a n i a t r a n s f e r r e d to
Antigonis (see above p. 165) was the smaller one of t h e two.
C. F . L e h m a n n - I I a u p t (the distinguished historian C. F . Leh-
m a n n ; the Beitrage and its f o u n d e r being, it seems, rebaptized at
the same time) in bis well-considered article Zur attischen
PolitiV vor don Chremonideisclien Kriegc, which this n u m b e r of
Klio also contains (pp. 375ff.), has doubtless done a good service
in showing that Athens in 274/0 h a d the same foreign policy as
in 301ff.—the establishment of f r i e n d l y relations with all the
great powers of the time. Its embassy to P y r r h u s ( J u s t i n X X V .
4. 4.) probably sought respect f o r its n e u t r a l i t y . A n d in f a c t
the city had the f r i e n d s h i p of Ptolemy a n d his allies, the Spar-
t a n s and others; of Antigonos, at this time P t o l e m y ' s f r i e n d : a n d
seemingly of P y r r h u s , f o r it was not molested b y him.
L e h m a n n - I I a u p t ' s explanation of t h e estrangement of
Ptolemy a n d Antigonos—the designs of Arsinoe u p o n t h e t h r o n e
of Macedon—is also plausible. A n d I do not think t h a t it is

invalidated by the fact t h a t the Chremonidean W a r did noi
begin in 268. Philokrates cannot now he ejected from 268/7,
a n d since t h e c a p t u r e of Athens came in the fall of 262, five mili-
t a r y seasons had then elapsed, if the war began in the summer
of 266 ( P e i t h i d e m o s ) . P a u s a n i a s ' remark t h a t the Athenians
resisted f o r a very long time (επί μακρότατου) calls f o r no more
t h a n this. I t is, of course, none the less possible, as Lelnnann-
I l a u p t maintains, t h a t the treaty made between Athens and
Ptolemy in 26(5 was the deferred result of an u n d e r s t a n d i n g
aimed at"1 in 27-4/0 while Arsinoe was still alive.
The w a r begun by Antiochos Soter in 268 ( L e h m a i m - H a u p t :
Klio 111 pp. 509f., V pp. 248, 386) we shall have to leave to its
discoverer to orientate. I should like simply to ask the ques-
t i o n s : Is t h e r e any good evidence that Antiochos I was more
likely to be combating Ptolemy than Antigonos in 2 6 8 ! Are the
τέτραχμα 'Αντιδάνεια of 261 / 0 (see above p. 147 f.) the well known
t e t r a d r a c h m s struck by Antigonos Gonatas to commemorate his
naval victory as Cos? If so, L e h m a n n - H a u p t ' s objection ( K l i o
V:5 P· 391 η. 1) to Beloch's dating of this engagement will have
to be endorsed, a n d my remarks at p. 154 above will have to be
modified.
"7 This is b e t t e r t h a n L e h m a n n - H a u p t ' s reached; f o r the alliance with

its point a g a i n s t λ laced on doubtless did not issue f r o m the moderate govern-
ment of 276-267? b u t f r o m the radical democracy which a t this time re-
placed it.
APPENDIX I — LIST OF PRIESTS.
IV c e n t u r y B.C.
Άν... I (1 II 835.
'Αρίσταρχος Κοθωκίδι^ς II 1406, 1468.
Άρχ'! ..8ου [e'/c Κ ο ί ' λ ] ης II 147!).
'Αρχέστρατος II 835.
Αιοφείθης II 835.
Έ[λ]7Γ^9 II 1446.
Έττικράτης II 835.
Ι^Δ— ΓΙ 835.
Εύδίδακτος II 835.
Εύθύδημος Ελευσίνιος II 1G51.
Κύμνηστος II 835.
( Η ) 6 0 — Π 8 3 5 .
Ηρασύ/3ο [ι/λος] I I 835.

ΚτησικΧή [ς ' Α^νοΰσιος II 1481; III 144.
Λυσίας II 835.
ΛΙέλα^ω7τος ϋοΧαρΓγεύς II 1472.
ΑΙενέστρατος 'Α^^εΧήθεν II 1447, 1448. 350 49?
Ν ικόδ)/μος II 1440.
11 υθόνικος ! II 835.
Ύίμων II 1473.
ΦαίόριτττΓος 11 835; 1480.
Φανόμαχος II 835.
Φ [ ι λ ] ι [7Γ7τ] ος II 8 3 5 .
Φ ι Χ ο κ Χ η ς Ξυττεταιών II 1475.
ΦιΧόκτημων II 835.
\αρϊνος II 835.
IV οι* I I I century B.C.

\)Χΰμτπχος Ιίυδαθηναιεύς II 1491.
I l l century B.C.
Α ίσχρωνίδ[ης^ II 1496.
Εύθύδι/μο [?] ΆντικΧε'ους εξ [Οϊ'ου] II 1496.
Νικωνίδης ΦΧυεύς II 1495 301 0, 289/8.
VOL. 1J Ferguson.—The Priests of Asklepios.
Σίμ~]υΧος Ν ί Κ ο σ τ ρ ά τ ο υ [eV Κ ] ο ί Χ ψ I I 1500.

ΦίΧιος ΦαΧηρβύς II 1505. E n d of c e n t u r y .
Φορμ\_ίω~\ν Ή δ ύ λ ο υ [ Έ λ ] β υ σ ί ν ω ς II 1504. End of c e n t u r y .
II century B.C.
Ζήνων 'Αθηναγόρου Μβλί,τευ? II 1204.
Λεωζ/ί'δ?;? Φλυευ? II 840. A r c h o n Pleistainos.
I century B.C.
N t [ / c ] ό σ τ ρ α τ ο ς 'Αφιδναϊο[ς~] II 1511.
ΈοφοκΧής ΦιΧώτου Σουνίβύς^ ηόνω Se Αίονυσοδώρου Aeipa-
διώτον Ath. Mitt. X X I , p. 297, c. 100 B . C .
— Μ υ ρ ρ ί ν ^ ο ύ σ ι ο ς ) V I (τ II A d d . 477 c. A r c h o n Kal~. Is it
K a l l i k r a t i d e s ? 36 5.
I and II centuries A.I).

Άγαθόπους ΦΧυενς III 693. A r c h o n Peiso c. 175 A . D .
'Ασωττ [ο'δωρος·] ΚΧεομβνους ΦΧυ(βύς) III 102a. C. 61 A . D .
Αιόφανης 'ΑίτοΧΧωνίου Άξηνίβνς III 228, 228 a, 229, 22!) a.
(H)eo'[φ^λο?] Ενδόξου ΈΧευσίνως I I I 132η.
Φ Χ ά ( ο υ ι ο ς ) III 729.
— Κ]ολλυτευν IΓ Γ 181 h. A r c h o n Q. Trebellius R u f u s
c. 100 A . D .
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PUBLICATIONS-(CONTINUED)
ASTRONOMY.—W. W. Campbell, Editor.

Publications of the Lick Observatory.—Volumes I-V completed. Volume
VI (in progress).
N o . 1. A Short Method of Determining Orbits from Three Observations,
by A. O. Leuschner.
N o . 2. Elements of Asteroid 1900 GA, by A. O. Leuschner and Adelaide
M. Hobe.
N o . 3. Preliminary Elements of Comet 1900 III, by R. H . Curtiss and
C. G. Dall.
Contributions from the Lick Observatory.—Nos. I-V.
Lick Observatory Bulletins.—Volumes I—III completed. Volume IV (in
progress).
BOTANY.—W. A. Setchell, Editor. Price per volume $ 3 . 5 0 . Volume I (pp. 418)

completed. Volume II (in progress).
No. 7. Teratology in the Flowers of Two Californian Willows, by William
Warner Mott. Price. .50
No. 8. The Resistance of Certain Marine Algae to Changes in Osmotic \
Pressure and Temperature, by W. J. V. Osterhout. I
N o . 9. The Role of Osmotic Pressure in Marine Plants, by W. J . V. f
Osterhout. ) cover.
No. 10. On the Importance of Physiologically Balanced Solutions for / p r ice
Plants, by W. J. V. Osterhout. I ,25
No. 11. The Antitoxic Action of Potassium on Magnesium, by W. J. V. 1
Osterhout. /
EDUCATION.—Elmer E. Brown, Editor. Price per volume $ 2 . 5 0 .

Volume I (pp. 4 2 4 ) . Notes on the Development of a Child, by Milicent W.
Shinn Price, 2.25
Vol. II (in progress).—No. 1. Notes on Children's Drawings, by Elmer E.
Brown Price, .50
Vol. I l l (in progress).—No. 1. Origin of American State Universities, by
Elmer E. Brown Price, .50
No. 2. State Aid to Secondary Schools, by David
Rhys J o n e s Price, .75
GEOLOGY.—Bulletin of the Department of Geology. Andrew C. Lawson, Editor.

Price per volume $ 3 . 5 0 . Volumes I (pp. 4 2 8 ) , II (pp. 450) and
III ( 4 7 5 ) , completed. Volume IV (in progress).
No. 6. New or Imperfectly Known Rodents and Ungulates from the John
Day Series, by William J. Sinclair. . . . Price, .25
No. 7. New Mammalia from the Quaternary Caves of California, by William
J. Sinclair Price, .25
N o . 8. Preptoceras, a New Ungulate from the SamwellCave, California, by
Eustace L. Furlong. . . . . . . Price, .10
No. 9. A New Sabre-tooth from California by John C. Merriam. Price, .05
No. 10. The Structure and Genesis of the Comstock Lode, by John A.
Reid Price, .15
No. 11. The Differential Thermal Conductivities of Certain Schists, by
Paul Thelen . Price, .25
No. 12. Sketch of the Geology of Mineral King, California, by A. Knopf and
P. Thelen Price, .35
No. 13. Cold Water Belt Along the West Coast of the United States, by
Ruliff S. Holway Price .25
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PUBLICATIONS-(CONTINUED)
PATHOLOGY.—Alonzo Englebert Taylor, Editor. Price per volume $2.00

Volume I (in progress):
No. 5. On the Autolysis of Protein, by Alonzo Englebert Taylor. In
No. 6.
1
On the Reversion of Tryptic Digestion, by Alonzo Englebert Taylor, j
No. 7. Studies on an Ash-Free Diet, by Alonzo Englebert Taylor.
PHILOSOPHY.—Volume I, completed. Price, $ 2 . 0 0 .
PHYSIOLOGY.—Jacques Loeb, Editor. Price per volume $ 2 . 0 0 . Volume I

(pp. 217) completed. Volume II (pp. 215) completed.
Volume III (in progress):
No. 1. On Chemical Methods by which the Eggs of a Mollusc (Lottia
Gigantea) can be caused to become Mature, by Jacques Loeb.
No. 2. On the Changes in the Nerve and Muscle Which Seem to Underlie
the Electrotonic Effects of the Galvanic Current, by Jacques Loeb.
No. 3. Can the Cerebral Cortex be Stimulated Chemically, by S. S. Maxwell.
No. 4. The Control of Galvanotropism in Paramecium by Chemical Sub-
stances, by Frank W. Bancroft.
No. 5. The Toxicity of Atmospheric Oxygen for the Eggs of the Sea-
Urchin (Strongylocentrotus Purpuratus) After the Process of
Membrane Formation, by Jacques Loeb. In
one
No. 6. On the Necessity of the Presence of Free Oxygen in the Hypertonic cover.
Sea-Water for the Production of Artificial Parthenogenesis,
by Jacques Loeb.
No. 7. On the Counteraction of the Toxic Effect of Hypertonic Solutions
upon the Fertilized and Unfertilized Egg of the Sea-Urchin by
Lack of Oxygen, by Jacques Loeb.
ZOOLOGY.—W. E. Ritter, Editor. Price per volume $ 3 . 5 0 . Volume I

completed. Volume II completed. Volume III (in progress).
Commencing with Volume II, this series contains Contributions
from the Laboratory of the Marine Biological Association of
San Diego.
No. 1. Some Observations on the Nervous System of Copepoda, by C. O.
Esterly. Pages 12, Plates 2. Price, 25
No. 2. Ostracoda of the San Diego Region. I.—Halocypridae, by Chancey
Juday. Pages 26, Plates 4. Price, . . . . .30
In
No. 3. The California Shore Anemone, Bunodactis Xanthogrammica, by 1
one
Harry Beal Torrey. Pages 6, Plate 1
> cover.
No. 4. Sexual Dimorphism in Aglaophenia, by Harry Beal Torrey and | p r j C e
Ann Martin. Pages 7, text-figures 9. j .15
UNIVERSITY CHRONICLE,—An official record of University life» issued quarterly,

edited by a committee of the faculty. Price, $ 1 . 0 0 per year. Current
volume No. VIII.
Address all orders, or requests for information concerning the above publications
(except Astronomy) to The University Press, Berkeley, California.

Ferguson W. S. Priests of Asclepios A New Method of Dating Athenian Archons

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ferguson W. S. Priests of Asclepios A New Method of Dating Athenian Archons

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PUBLICATIONS

Vol. 1, N o . 5 , pp. 1 3 1 - 1 7 3 April 14, 1 9 0 6

THE PRIESTS OF ASKLEPIOS

A NEW M E T H O D OF DATING ATHENIAN A R C H O N S

WILLIAM SCOTT FERGUSON

CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY—Edward B. C l a p p , William A. Merrill, H e r b e r t C .

AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY AND ETHNOLOGY.

Vol. 1, N o . 5 , p p . 1 3 1 - 1 7 3 April 14, 1 9 0 6

THE PRIESTS OF ASKLEPIOS

Year Peine of Tribe of Tribe of Priest Priest of Asklepios

Year Arclion Dome of

Year Deme of Tribe of P r i e s t of A s k l e p i o s

137/6 Herakleitos Anakaia Serapis Eleusis

Year Archon Pemeof Peme of Priest Priest of Asklepios

Year Peine of Tribe of Priest Priest of Asklepios

Arclion Demo of Priest of Asklepios

1. Let us take I G 11 836 as our s t a r t i n g point. From it we

conclusion is u r g e d upon us by the fact that, when, in the

A n t i p a t r o s was the immediate predecessor of A r r h e n e i d e s , and

accepted by Kirchner. 1 4 F o r the usefulness of the official order

was overthrown at Athens, on the issue of subservience to the

likelihood. The important occurrences in Athenian history

Attalos in 200, and the creation of t h e new tribe A t t a l i s . T h e

lav succession was resumed we liave again to work backward

We m u s t now r e t u r n and take up a n u m b e r of points in

F o r Πουηβνης Αμφιτροττήθβρ^, who is closely associated in

priests in this g r o u p is determinable—a fact the less to be

the pristship of Theoxenos of Pergase (1. 45) a [τέτραχμον Άν-

timious n a r r a t i v e , a n d together listed the dedications f r o m about

possible years are the same as f o r Timokles, b u t the possible

είσκομισθήναι συμβουΧεΰσας τωι δήμωι συντεΧεσαι (erasure of e. 38

289 B.C., :;S ami P l u t a r c h will have to be corrected where he nar-

bilities are 2 8 4 / 3 a n d 277/6, and there is no means of deciding

Κ α ι Ά π ο λ λ ό [δο>] ρος δε τ ο κα [θηί-

Κα0άτrep εν Try [ ι] πε-

απτηΧΧάγτ] [δ ε π άρχοντος Ι-]

The sequence of A n t i p a t r o s and Arrheneides is t h u s clearly

The public tomb was decreed to Zeno in the latter p a r t of the

6. The arehons between 261/0 and 230/29 f o r m a group by

dency, Lamia. The condition t h u s imposed was not fulfilled

Peiraieus should be noted;" 1 f o r the finding in Athens of the

strength of the Athenian laws. 07 Moreover in 2 3 9 / 8 (Charikles)

obvious that· we have to do with the donation of the gymnasium

A r a t o s ' s usual tactics, his enemies had more to f e a r from sur-

or Peiraieus, a n d only one each from Eleusis a n d Sunion. It is

Curiously enough the chief officer μάργων) f o r t h e only two oc-

(Philoneos), a n d 324 (Polyeuktos 275/4). a n d all three differ in

life a n d institutions of Attica. It was equivalent to the abandon-

p r y t a n i e s will probably yield a safer result. P a r t of Paiania

166 University of California Publications. [CLASS. P H I L .

denies (ot βν^/ραφάνT€<? εττϊ Κοροίβου άρχοντος) ? j u s t as I G I I 5

belonged in 2 9 2 / 1 the old system should have been employed in

160/59, or Pliaidrias in 153/2 a n d A n t h e s t e r i o s in 158/7. A boy

It is a f a r cry f r o m F i n l a n d to C a l i f o r n i a ! None the less

The restoration Τ ι μ ο κ Χ ψ Ε[tVeato?] (1. 16) Sundwall also

of Macedon—is also plausible. A n d I do not think t h a t it is

"7 This is b e t t e r t h a n L e h m a n n - H a u p t ' s reached; f o r the alliance with

APPENDIX I — LIST OF PRIESTS.

Ηρασύ/3ο [ι/λος] I I 835.

IV οι* I I I century B.C.

Σίμ~]υΧος Ν ί Κ ο σ τ ρ ά τ ο υ [eV Κ ] ο ί Χ ψ I I 1500.

I and II centuries A.I).