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

182

A STUDY OF THE ATTIC PHRATRY.

force, can there be an appeal from a body to the same body again ?
On the other hand, we may ask, Why should the phraters, who in gen-
eral manage their affairs collectively, abdicate in favor of a section of
their number in the most important of their proceedings? The ques-
tion is more forcible now than before, because, in the detailed regula-
tion of the diadikasia by the psephism of Nikodemos, we find no dis-
position to accept as final the decision of any subordinate body. On
the whole, therefore, I am disposed to see in the Demotionidai the
phraters, and the phraters only. If this be right, the word "appeal"
is indeed not strictly appropriate, but perhaps the interpretation sug-
gested below for the passage in question may make the employment
of the word more intelligible.

If our inscription teaches nothing about the relation of gens to
phratry, it redeems this silence by the proof it brings that every mem-
ber of the phratry belonged also to some one or other of a number of
religious associations or thiasoi. We can with some confidence go a step
further. If any dependence is to be placed on the literal meaning
of B, 23-4S, all the members of any thiasos were expected to take
part at the diadikasia of the child of one of their own number, and
were all liable to be fined ; in other words, the thiasoi were subdivisions
of the phratry. Further, according to the present wording of our
text, these thiasoi were, at least in some instances, very small bodies;
the possible case is considered of the membership being less than four
(B, 18-19). But it may be that in the first version of lines 11-15 a
larger number of witnesses than these was prescribed. As to the nature
of these thiasoi, we learn nothing beyond what the name itself implies,
nor do other sources of information have much, if anything, to say of
such associations, at least under that name.'13 But, inasmuch as 8ia-
awrai and opyeawe? are practically synonymous, it seems permissible
to bring these thiasoi into connection with a much debated statement
of Philoehoros. His words, as quoted by Photios and Souidas, s. v.
'Opyetwye?, are as follows : toii? Se (frpdropas eirdva<yice<; Se^eaBaL ical
Toil's opyecovas Kal tovs op.oydXa/cra';, oi)? yevvrjTas /caXovfiev. Opin-
ions have differed as to whether ou? here refers to both opyecovas and
ofioyuXaKTas, or only to 6p.oyd\aKra<i. But, even without the con-
text, the latter alternative seems to me almost certain,31 and those who

83 The " thiasoi of Hcrakles," mentioned in Isaios, ix. 30 may be analogous.
54 Of. Busoi/r, Griech. Gesch., r, 395 0>.