^{page 1 note 2} So Isaeus, Apollodorus 26, says γεννῆται and 27 συγγενεῖς, of the same people.

^{page 2 note 1} It appears to be made in Philochorus, fr. 94 (F.H.G), τοὺς δὲ ϕράτορας ἐπάναγκες δέχεσθαι καὶ τοὺς ὁργεῶνας καὶ τοὺς ὁμογάλακτας οὕς γεννήτας καλοῦμεν.

^{page 2 note 2} This, and not Demotionidai, is the name of the Phratry: in which the Demotionidai hold a position like that of the archaic Areopagus in the state. I hope to publish a paper on this later.

^{page 2 note 3} So Socrates implies, Plato, Euthydemus 302 c, DGoogle Scholar: such exceptional cases as Plangon's children (Demosthenes 39 and 40, bastards of pure Athenian descent) are perhaps exceptions. What became of such bastards' children? Did there arise a large class of half-citizens? I believe not: society contrived (I do not know exactly how) to keep its exceptions exceptional.

^{page 2 note 4} The Tribe was subdivided into three Ridings (Trittyes) and each Riding into an indeterminate number of Demes (= civil parishes). The Lexiarchikon Grammateion was kept in each Deme.

^{page 2 note 5} I find the word Trittys very unmanageable in English: and Riding (= Thirding: cf. farthing children =fourthing) translates it exactly.

^{page 3 note 1} Francotte's, explanation (La Polls Grecque, Paderborn, 1907, p. 10)Google Scholar of these passages deserves attention. He believes it was two different elements of the population which were divided in these two ways: the πλῆθος into Georgoi and Demiourgoi, the others (the Gennetai, whom he conceives as the only full citizens, and exclusive of the πλῆθος: he identifies them with the Eupatridai) into Tribes, Phratries, and Genê.

This cannot of course be got out of the passages as they stand: Francotte says ‘the lexicographers have not grasped Aristotle's thought.’ Lexicographers often err, and they follow each other like sheep (though here the remarkable unanimity of the error is not due to copying, for two of the quotations are evidently quite independent of each other). I reject Francotte's view, not because I trust the lexicographers absolutely, but because it contains the fundamental fallacy of his whole essay: Genmtai cannot be identified with Eupatridai.

^{page 3 note 2} He consequently took Plut, . Solon. 25Google Scholar to mean that Aristotle represented Theseus as the creator of the Three Estates: a natural enough inference, Next he assumed that the γεννῆται fragments (Rose 385) referred to the creation of the same Three Estates (see his critical note ‘omiserunt τούς Eὐπατρίδας, Lex. Sch. Moeris’).

^{page 4 note 1} Typical is Toepffer's, note, AH. Gen., p. 170Google Scholar, note 2, on the Hesychidai: who evidently are Gennetai and are not Eupatridai.

^{page 4 note 2} It is the main topic of Francotte's first essay in his La Polis Grecque, to which stimulating and lucid work let me refer, πείθεσαί γε μὴν οὐ παντάπασι ὀϕεὶγω.

^{page 4 note 3} Nobility is not a Greek word: they need be neither εὐπατρίδαι nor γνώριμοι. What they must be is ἰθαγενεῖς: cf. the constant gloss in Hesychios, γένος τι 'Aθήνησι ἰθαγενῶν (s.v. 'Hσυχίδαι, Λυκομίδαι, etc.).

^{page 4 note 4} I note that Strabo agrees with Aristotle in ascribing to Ion the division of the Athenians both into Tribes and into Estates (βίοι): 8, 7. 1, πρῶτον μὲν εἰς τέτταρας ϕυλὰς διεῖλε τὸ πλῆθος, εῖτα εἰς τέτταρας βίους τοὺς μὲν γὰρ γεωργοὺς ἀπέδειξε τοὺς δέ δημιουργούς τοὺς δέ ἱεοποιούς τετάρτους δὲ τοὺς ϕύλακας. Here are four Estates, not two, yet even so no Eupatridai: it was apparently accepted by ancient scholars that there were no Eupatridai before Theseus.

Whom is Strabo following? Evidently not Aristotle. Are the four Estates due to an attempt to interpret the Tribe names vocationally? or are the two extra Estates intended to be those whom later Theseus called Eupatridai? The notion of an Estate of ϕύλακες suggests that Plato's Republic has been published for some time; I should think for some generations.

^{page 5 note 1} See e.g. Flickinger, , Plutarch as a Source of Information on the Greek Theatre, pp. 10 sqqGoogle Scholar.; Rose, H. J., The Roman Questions of Plutarch, p. 15Google Scholar.

^{page 6 note 1} This is not very likely. The discontent of which Plutarch speaks (which resulted in the betrayal of Aphidna) appears already in Herodotus 9. 73.

^{page 6 note 2} Plutarch gives a full account of the Synoikisis in ch. 24, and this gathering of the peoples in ch. 25: he assumes them to be different, and joins them together with the typical words ἔτι δὲ μᾶλλον αὐξῆσαι τὴν βουλόμενος. This sort of phrase is familiar in Plutarch, when, finding one event in two sources, he duplicates it: cf. Kimon's two returns from Ithome, (Kimon 17)Google Scholar, joined by the words οἱ δὲ Λακεδαιμόνιοι τοὺς 'Aθηναίους αὖθις ἐκάλουν ἐπὶ τοὺς ἐν 'Iθώμῃ.

[Francotte endeavours to detect some difference in principle between Aristotle and Thucydides: Aristotle ascribing the main work to Ion, Thucydides to Theseus; Aristotle conceiving a union of tribes, Thucydides, a union of states (Polis, pp. 6–8)Google Scholar. He admits that his main purpose is to define these two procedures, and he begs ‘pour plus de facilité à les placer, l'une sous le patronage de Thucydide, ce qui est justifié, l'autre sous le patronage d'Aristote, ce qui l'est peut-être moins.’ I do not see (the fundamental point) that Aristotle ascribes the main work to Ion. Francotte does not suggest (as some have done) to alter συνοικήσαντος αὐτοῖς, in the Epitome, to συνοικίσαντος αὐτοῖς, or to read with Kenyon συνοικισάντων in ch. 41, § 2. See the editors ad haec loca, and cf. ch. 3, § 2.]

^{page 6 note 3} Studien zur aelteren athenischm Verfassungsgeschichte, Heidelberg (1914), pp. 286–336Google Scholar.

^{page 7 note 1} G. d. Alt., II., § 233 and § 365. Criticism (not always cogent) of some of his views in De Sanctis, ΛTƟIΣ², pp. 187–188. See also Smith, Gertrude, Cl. Phil, XVI. (1921), 345 sqqCrossRefGoogle Scholar., ‘The Prytaneum in the Athenian Amnesty Law.’

^{page 8 note 1} It often sat in the Stoa Basileia, Demosth. 25. 23. For this Stoa, see Busolt-Swoboda, , Gr. Staatskunde II. (1926), 792Google Scholar: Judeich, , Topographie, 296 sqGoogle Scholar.: and for the form, I.G. I², 115, line 8.

^{page 8 note 2} Aristotle uses these words of the other four homicide courts ('Aθ. πολ. 57. 4), but they apply to the Areopagus also, Pollux 8. 118. Antiphon's evidence is explicit: ἃπαντα τὰ δικαστήρια ἐν ὑπαίθρῳ δικάζει τὰς δάκας τοῦ ϕόνου (Herodes II).

^{page 8 note 3} The President of the Areopagus is, in historic times, the Archon Basileus, Ἀθ. πολ. 57, 4, Pollux 8. 9. For various views on the origin of the Areopagus Council, see Terwen, J. J., De Areopago Atheniensium quaestiones uariae (Diss. Utrecht, 1894)Google Scholar, Cap. I., ‘De Areopagi origine vv. doctorum opiniones’: and in Ledl's, A. valuable book Studien zur aelteren athenischen Verfassungsgeschichte (Heidelberg, 1914)Google Scholar, the chapter (III. 2, p. 286 sqq.) ‘Die Einsetzung des areopagitischen Rates.’ Ledl reaches the conclusion that the Areopagus as a Law Court is older than Solon, but as a Council was created by him: this, however, without considering our passage of Thucydides at all. For the natural conjunction of the two functions, see Hymn to Demeter, 150 sqq.:

ἀνέρας, οἷσιν ἔπεστι μέγα κράτος ἐνθάδε τιμῆς, δήμου τε προὔχουσιν, ἰδὲ κρήδεμνα πόληος εἰρύαται βουλῇσι καὶ ἰθείῃσι δίκῃσιν.

^{page 9 note 1} See Gruppe, , Gr. Myth. (1906), pp. 581 sqqGoogle Scholar.; Preller-Robert, , Gr. Myth. (1921) II. 1, pp. 676 sqqGoogle Scholar.; Roscher, , Lexicon, s.v. (1919–1920)Google Scholar. Theseus' greatness is post-Solonian: for our present question, his connexion with the Synoikia festival is, I think, a fifth-century speculation: τὸ…κήρυγμα Ɵησέως γενέσθαι ϕ α σ ί, Plut, . Theseus 25. 1Google Scholar.

^{page 9 note 2} I.e. pre-Alexandrian.

^{page 9 note 3} MSS. have Metorikia: but the date given is 16 Hekatombaion, and this same date is given in Schol. Aristoph. Peace 1019 to the Synoikesia. It is pretty certain that ‘Metoikia = Synoikesia’ is the same as Thucydides' Synoikia.

^{page 9 note 4} Plutarch appears to have used the Ἀτθίδων Συναγωγή of Istros, the disciple of Callimachus: see Wellmann, M., De Istro Callimachio (Diss. Gryphiswald, 1886)Google Scholar, Cap. II., ‘De Plutarchi Thesei vita.’ It is true that much even of pre-Alexandrian poetic myth is party aetiological, made to explain ritual: as Aeschylus' Eumenides and the Hymn to Demeter. Yet the antiquarian's aetiology can be distinguished from the poet's: it is quasi-scientific. I note here how strong an influence the Eupatrid Exegetai must have had on such aetiologies, since they both prescribed and interpreted ritual, and the Atthis tradition is of course dominated by them (Kleidemos, Philochorus, etc., were themselves Exegetai).

^{page 9 note 5} See note 3.

^{page 9 note 6} There is a persistent tradition that Theseus abdicated at the height of his power: persistent, in spite of the great difficulty felt in digesting this into the established story (e.g. by Isocrates, , Helen 36–37Google Scholar, Panath. 129: Aristotle rationalizes, Ἀθ. πολ. 41.2: Pausanias 1. 3. 3 rejects it!).

The Marmor Parium appears to synchronize the Synoikisis and ‘abdication’ at the beginoing of the reign (Ep. 20: see Jacoby's, admirable commentary in his latest edition, F. Gr. Hist., No. 239: Text 1929, Commentary 1930)Google Scholar: the constant references in Plut, . Theseus 24Google Scholar and 25 (24. 2, 24. 4, 25. 3, cf. Ἀθ. πολ. 41. 2) make it certain that this connexion (Synoikisis and abdication) was commonly made. I suggest that the Synoikia included a ritual abdication.

The Synoikia is a δημοτελὴς ἑορτή, but its ritual was prescribed, interpreted, and aetiologized by Eupatrid Exegetai (see note 4 above): and not even pericles defied the Exegetai (Lysias Vi. 10). Moreover, the main lines of its ritual were probably fixed before Solon, in the full tide of Eupatrid power. The word Synoikia is not, I imagine derived from, but rather parallel to, Synoikisis: it means the gathering of the (great) houses, and marks the establishment of the Pan-Attic aristocracy. [The is nothing strange in the Democracy celebrating this: Magna Carta still stirs our hearts, though we have removed the Peers' veto.]

This Eupatrid règime began, in its full sense, when the monarchy fell (see the chronographers' tradition in Synkellos 399. 21, μετὰ τούτους ἄρχοντες ἐνιαυςιαῖι εὑρέθηςαν ἐξ Eὐπατριδῶν, ἐννέα τε ἀρχὁντων Ἀθήνηςιν ἀρχὴ κατεςτὰθη; and cf. Eur, . Suppl. 404–407)Google Scholar: but the Order was clearly created by a powerful king (so e.g. Thucydides argues. II. 15. 2). Telescope the two (so as to combine the maximum both of antiquity and of legitimate power) and the King must abdicate when he creates the Order.

^{page 10 note 1} Which I have conceive the Synoikia to have represented.

^{page 11 note 1} Which is incommunicable outside the caste. This obscurantism (if such it be) survives longest in the sphere of manners, where it is hardly yet obsolete.

^{page 11 note 2} For the notion of Aristoi and the causes of their decline, c. 600 B.C., see my remarks in the Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. III., pp. 533 and 542.

^{page 11 note 3} Phylobasileis, Poll. 8. 111, Ἀθ.π. 57. 4, I.G. II¹. 844: for Exegetai, and the alleged γἐνος Eὐπατριδῶν whence they are commonly thought to have been chosen, see Appendix A [in the next C.Q.]. see meanwhile Toepffer, , Beitriäge 113. Att. Gen. 69Google Scholar; Ehrmann, , De iuris sacri interpretibus Atticis (1908)Google Scholar; Boethius, , Die Pythais (Uppsala, 1918)Google Scholar; Persson, , Die Exegeten und Delphi (Lund, 1918)Google Scholar; Busolt-Swoboda, , Gr. Staatskunde II. (1926) 1105 sqGoogle Scholar.; I.G. I².77 and 78. Persson and Swoboda take the Eupatridai in question to be the whole Caste; but they still hold to the existence of a ‘Genos’ called Eupatridai (falsely, as I hope to show). Were the Phylobasileis and Exegetai members of the Areopagos? Not in the fourth century, I imagine, unless they happened to have been archons: but before Solon, perhaps the Exegetai, at least, were. Perhaps ex officio: or perhaps only Areopagites could be chosen.