DOI Artikel:
Tarbell, Frank B.: The decrees of the Demotionidai: a study of the Attic Phratry
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.8678#0202
A STUDY OF THE ATTIC PHBATRY.
187
seek admission again in his own person. He refers his suit anew to
the phratry; the years that have elapsed since lie was on trial before
disguise a little the inappropriatcness of the word ecpi-rj/j,/,. Such a
renewed application, made when proof would be harder than ever to
obtain, would be a serious matter and would call for great caution.
The ot/co? AeiceXeiwp, which holds a position of dignity in the phratry,
appoints five mpicr/oroi, whose duty it is to oppose the claims of tbe
applicant. The case is brought to trial before a meeting of the phra-
ters. If the applicant succeeds in securing a majority vote, he is of
course at once admitted ; if he fails, he is visited with a heavy fine,
1000 drachmas, and remains what he was, a metic.
At a much later day, in the Macedonian period, it was thought de-
sirable to make still ampler provision than had existed for the adver-
tisement of the names of candidates. It was now required that, at
some time during the year preceding tjie Apatouria at which applica-
tion was to be made, the name of each child should be reported to the
phratriarch. When the time allowed had elapsed/2 the list was posted
at the rendezvous of the Dekeleians in Athens and in the temple of
Leto in Dekcleia, each name being announced in the form, Mevcov
^leve^evou i% Olov ical NiKaperrji; KaWiTnrov ll\a>8eco<;. Perhaps,
at this time, the meetings of the phratry were so thinly attended that
the mere presentation of a child did not constitute a sufficient adver-
tisement. At any rate, the psephism of Menexenos gives us a fresh
glimpse of laxity in the conduct of the affairs of the phratry, and of
an effort, probably ineffectual, to secure reform.
Postscript.—The Berliner phUoloyixehe Wochmschrifi for Feb.
16 and 23, 1889, containing a short discussion by Buermann of the
new part of this inscription, reached me as I was finishing the fore-
going article. Buermann's interpretation differs from mine on some
important points. The most serious divergence concerns the etVa/yajy;;,
which, by implication, he puts in the year following the offering of
the koureion, and consequently immediately before the diadikasia.
Conformably to this, he takes rm irpmTm eVet 77, in B, 60, as equiva-
lent to tco varepep eVet rj. The phrase is a strange one, but I do not
a Of course, if the announcement was to be of any use, it must be made some time
before the eltraywyh, hut, with characteristic carelessness, that point is not made clear
in the psephism. Tbe language used would allow tbe presentation of names to tbe
phratriarch up to the date of the Koureotis: or should we understand t£ -n-pdrip trei
as meaning, in the preceding civil year, i. e., before midsummer?
187
seek admission again in his own person. He refers his suit anew to
the phratry; the years that have elapsed since lie was on trial before
disguise a little the inappropriatcness of the word ecpi-rj/j,/,. Such a
renewed application, made when proof would be harder than ever to
obtain, would be a serious matter and would call for great caution.
The ot/co? AeiceXeiwp, which holds a position of dignity in the phratry,
appoints five mpicr/oroi, whose duty it is to oppose the claims of tbe
applicant. The case is brought to trial before a meeting of the phra-
ters. If the applicant succeeds in securing a majority vote, he is of
course at once admitted ; if he fails, he is visited with a heavy fine,
1000 drachmas, and remains what he was, a metic.
At a much later day, in the Macedonian period, it was thought de-
sirable to make still ampler provision than had existed for the adver-
tisement of the names of candidates. It was now required that, at
some time during the year preceding tjie Apatouria at which applica-
tion was to be made, the name of each child should be reported to the
phratriarch. When the time allowed had elapsed/2 the list was posted
at the rendezvous of the Dekeleians in Athens and in the temple of
Leto in Dekcleia, each name being announced in the form, Mevcov
^leve^evou i% Olov ical NiKaperrji; KaWiTnrov ll\a>8eco<;. Perhaps,
at this time, the meetings of the phratry were so thinly attended that
the mere presentation of a child did not constitute a sufficient adver-
tisement. At any rate, the psephism of Menexenos gives us a fresh
glimpse of laxity in the conduct of the affairs of the phratry, and of
an effort, probably ineffectual, to secure reform.
Postscript.—The Berliner phUoloyixehe Wochmschrifi for Feb.
16 and 23, 1889, containing a short discussion by Buermann of the
new part of this inscription, reached me as I was finishing the fore-
going article. Buermann's interpretation differs from mine on some
important points. The most serious divergence concerns the etVa/yajy;;,
which, by implication, he puts in the year following the offering of
the koureion, and consequently immediately before the diadikasia.
Conformably to this, he takes rm irpmTm eVet 77, in B, 60, as equiva-
lent to tco varepep eVet rj. The phrase is a strange one, but I do not
a Of course, if the announcement was to be of any use, it must be made some time
before the eltraywyh, hut, with characteristic carelessness, that point is not made clear
in the psephism. Tbe language used would allow tbe presentation of names to tbe
phratriarch up to the date of the Koureotis: or should we understand t£ -n-pdrip trei
as meaning, in the preceding civil year, i. e., before midsummer?