Papers of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens (5.1886-1890)

A STUDY OF THE ATTIC PHRATRY.

171

left us two unfortunately ambiguous notices. One is in the Politics
(vi. 4: Bekk.) and seems to say that the phratries, as well as the tribes,
were then remodelled and increased in number. The other is in the
recently discovered fragments of the \\0rjva[cov YloXtreia (n, a Land-
wehr) and seems to say just the contrary.2 (2) Several writers of the
filth and fourth centuries B. c. refer to the phratries of their own day.
The most instructive of these references are in Isaios and the private
orations of Demosthenes (genuine and spurious). These are the chief
basis of our knowledge. (3) Scraps of relevant information, and of
misinformation as well, are preserved by scholiasts and by the lexi-
cographers, Harpokration, Pollux, Hesychios, Suidas, etc.

Inscriptions have until lately yielded little to supplement this scanty
literary evidence. That little may be classified thus : (1) the decrees
of the Ekklesia conferring citizenship on a foreigner, regularly author-
ize him to be enrolled as a member of such tribe, deme and phratry
as he may choose (elvai <f)v\rj<; /cal Sij/xov ical (frparptac; 17? av /3ov\r)Tai,
or some similar formula. This is the regular order of mention. Only
in CIA, II, 115'' do we find Si']p.ou ical cj)v\rj<; ical (pparp[a<;3). (2) Two
temenos boundary-stones give us names of phratries, the only names
indisputably known, and one of these in a mutilated form, viz., the
A-^vLaSao'1 and the ®eppi/c .... at.5 Two other boundary-stones,
one of the Za/cvdSai6 and one of the 'FJ\aa[8ai,7 give names with re-
gard to which it is impossible to decide whether they belonged to gentes
or phratries. (3) Two short fragments of phratrial decrees, eulogizing
deserving members, are given in CIA, 11, 598, 599. The Dyaleis of
600, who enact a decree in reference to the lease of a piece of real
estate, are probably to be regarded, not, with Kohler, as a phratry, but,
with Buermann,8 Gilbert," and Busolt,10 as a union of two phratries.

Such was, in outline, the material available for the study of the Attic
phratries down to 1883. In that year there was found at Tatoi, the

2The difficulty of dealing with these two statements is illustrated by the case of
Busom, who in his Griechische Geschichle(vp. 394-5), published in 1885, decides that
Kleisthenes did not meddle with the phratries, but in his Griechische Altertiimer (p.
144(")), published in 1887, reverses this decision.

3Cf. Buermann, Jahrb.fiir Phil, Sitppl., ix, 643; Dittenberger, Sylloge Inscr. Grace,
43, note 7.

* Dittenberger, Sylloge, 302; CIA, n, 1653. 6 CIA, it, 1652.

6 Dittenberger, Syllorjc, 303. ' Classical Review, in, p. 188.
8 Op. cit., 645, Note. 9 Griech. Staateallertiimer, i, 199'3'.
10 Griech. Staals- und Rechtsaltertiimer, 145(5).