vavaozos. In the earlier years of the enneeteris1), of which 95/4 was the end, one ναύαρχος is regularly listed, but no στρατηγοὶ ἐπὶ τὸ ναυTzóv. In fact, except for the year 95 42) we have no knowledge of the existence at any one time of more than one general for the navy“. How does it come that with the appearance of the στρατηγοὶ ἐπὶ τὸ ναυτικόν in the document dealing with the ἀπαρχαί the ναύαρχος disappeared? Obviously a difference of nomenclature, not of fact, is involved. This conclusion is promoted by another consideration also. In 128/7 B.C. the στρατηγὸς ἐπὶ τὸ ναυτικόν 3) is rated among the officers of the ephebes who accompanied the Pythaïs to Delphi, so that we expect to find him among the subscribers in 102/199/8 B.C., where, instead, we find the ναύαρχος. Moreover, a precisely parallel variety of nomenclature, existent at the same time, shows how easily the two titles could maintain themselves side by side. In one document) of the year 128/7 B.C. Diokles, son of Diokles, is designated στρατηγὸς ἐπὶ τὸ ἱππικόν, while in another 5) a record of the same incident he is designated 77

παρχος.

Accordingly, we may with safety identify στρατηγὸς ἐπὶ τὸ ναυτικόν and ravagzos, and attribute the change of title in the list of subscribers to a preference for the more dignified appellation, or perhaps to insistence on technical correctness. This involves the conclusion that there could be as few as three vavagzo in one year. With this the language has no quarrel, for vavaozos is the general Greek term for an admiral, not a captain, and it is in this sense that it occurs in IG II 3 1359 and IG II. 1359b: Οἱ πλέοντες ἐν ταῖς τριημιολίαις ναυαρχήσαντα, where, obviously, the one nauarch had charge of all the craft. On the other hand, in IG II, 1219 c.: [Οἱ πλέοντες ἐν [ταῖς ἱ]εραῖς ναυσὶν τὸν ἐπὶ τὸ ναυτικὸν στρατηγὸν καὶ τοὺς τριηράρχους χρυσῷ στεφάνῳ, we find the general for the navy", which is the specifically Attic way of designating an admiral, likewise in charge of a squadron, the individual ships, styled iɛgai, being under the command of trierarchs. We are thus bound to conclude that the number of the ναύαρχοι οι στρατηγοὶ ἐπὶ τὸ ναυτι zóv stood in no relation to the number of ships in the Athenian navy at this time. The iɛgai varg had their several trierarchs, the hemitrioliai, or åqoazia, or naves apertae, as they are differently called, their special 1) IG II 2 985 Col. I B 6 (102/1); Col. I E 14 (101/0); Col. I E 69 (99/8). 2) In this list of contributors no official is entered except in the year in which he held office. The appearance in 954 of the priest of Apollo and the agoranomos się ov for Prokles' archonship is the exception which proves the rule; for they are expressly earmarked as ἐπὶ Προκλέους ἄρχοντος. For the appearance in this same year of two heralds of the Areopagos see below p. 329 n. 6. There is, therefore, no way of escaping from the fact of three στρατηγοὶ ἐπὶ τὸ ναυτικόν for the one year. 3) BCH XXX, p. 226. 4) Ibid.

5) BCH XXX p. 255.

captains. That the latter 1), and possibly the former 2), were now three in number is unquestionable; and the navy of Athens had probably not been stronger since 201 B.C.; but to connect the number of the admirals with the number of the ships, as we are tempted to do on first consideration, would be unwarranted. Finally, if there were three admirals at this time, why does one alone appear regularly among the subscribers of ȧлaqzaí? The answer is obviously because only one of the three had to do with the Pythaïs; and his connection with it seems to have arisen through his relations to the ephebes 3). It is at least conceivable that one admiral had charge of the docks and the landing and launching of the ships, in which the ephebes were drilled 4), another of the sacred trieremes, and the third of the undecked war-vessels. From the appearance in inscriptions of ὁ στρατηγός οι ὁ στρατηγῶν ἐπὶ τὸ ναυτικόν or å vavagzýoas we must not be misled into believing that there was only one admiral: on the same score we must conclude from BCH XXX p. 226 No. 9, IG II 3 1206, and 1339 that there was but one general for the Peiraieus, whereas from a document 5) of approximately the same time as these it appears that there were three of them.

This document belongs also to 95/4 B.C., so that for this year we have the names of three generals ἐπὶ τὸν Πειραία, of three ἐπὶ τὸ ναυτικόν, of one ἐπὶ τὰ ὅπλα, and of another ἐπὶ τὴν παρασκευὴν τὴν ἐν ἄστει *). The existence in this general period of another ἐπ ̓ Ἐλευσῖνα is suggested by the continued location of a garrison in Eleusis) and demonstrated by explicit reference in the inscription of the year 128/7 B.C. published in BCH XXX p. 226 No. 9. We have thus accounted for nine generals. Were there any others at the end of the second century B.C.? Since there was a general ' 'Elevoiva, there was, doubtless, a general iлi η лaçaλíav also: for the mention of the one proves that the two zooα were still divided. Nor could the Paralia dispense with a garrison, if for no other reason, because of the extraordinary development of piracy in this period. Its imperative need, however, was to overawe the slaves employed in the silver mines at Sunium, and as a

1) Livy XXXI 22,8; Lucan, Pharsalia III, 181.

2) Paralos, Ptolemais, Attalis. This view is based solely on the conjecture that a Ptolemais took the place of the Ammonias and an Attalis that of the Antigonis and Demetrias. For these latter see Philochoros in Lex. Cantab. s. v. Пlápaλos. It is true that we never meet the Ptolemais and Attalis in the writers or inscriptions, but Philochoros seems to have been the only author to allude to the Antigonis and Demetrias.

3) Colin, BCH XXX p. 234. IG II 467 1. 37, 470, 1. 21.

4) 'Εποιήσαντο δὲ καὶ τὰς καθολκὰς καὶ τὰς νεωλκίας, πειθαρχοῦντες τοῖς ὑπὸ τῶν στρατηγών παραγγελλομένοις, IG II 467 1. 37.

matter of fact we learn from the accounts of the slave revolts given by Orosius) and Poseidonios 2) that guards were actually stationed in the fort there. But a corps of soldiers at Sunium presupposes the general лì i лaqaliar. This makes a tenth general.

There were probably no more; for, as pointed out in Classical Philology Η p. 310, the one ἐπὶ τοὺς ξένους was at the same time ἐπὶ τὴν χώραν, while the one ἐπὶ τὰς συμμορίας who existed in Aristotle's time can hardly have survived the abolition of the symmory-system, and the trierarchia, of which there is no trace after 317/07 B.C. 3). He was probably superceded by the first στρατηγὸς ἐπὶ τὸ ναυτικόν when the system of liturgies was finally set aside by Demetrios of Phaleron. The title organyos ἐπὶ τὸ ἱππικόν appears only in the Pythais document from Delphi which has been already referred to 4). It is obviously only a non-official circumlocution made for convenience and honoris causa for iллagzos. On the other hand, the generals sent to the cleruchies belong to a separate group) and were never included in of oroarnyoi.

There is thus no reason to believe that the generals ever exceeded ten. Like the nine archons they remained unchanged in number by the establishment of new tribes; for, as is well known, by 307 B.C. they had ceased to have any direct connection with the Attic phylae. The officials who received and lost a member with the addition and subtraction of a tribe were those who had a distinctively tribal function like the phylarchs), taxiarchs, sitonai), and sophronistai 8).

In Aristotle's time five of the ten generals had been given specific tasks and five were without such duties "). The first five were the two generals ini τὸν Πειραία, and the generals ἐπὶ τὰς συμμορίας, ἐπὶ τὴν χώραν, and ἐπὶ τοὺς ὁπλίτας. We have already surmised that the general ἐπὶ τὸ ναυτικόν was established in 321 Β.C. and that the στρατηγὸς ἐπὶ τὰς συμμορίας was abolished in 317--07 B.C. When were specific tasks assigned to the other five? We must frankly admit that we do not know whether one or three generalships i tò ravtizór were instituted in 321, and that we can make only a

1) 5, 9, 4. 2) Athenaeus VI 272.

3) The sacred trieremes are never mentioned in the naval documents; Sandys, Arist. Const. of Athens 61, 1. 28. They, therefore, formed a group by themselves. In their case the trierarchia was preserved. Otherwise it was probably abandoned along with the choregia in 317/07 B.C. The first mention of the general al tò vavtizóv occurs in IG II 331 1. 5 = Ditt. Syll. 213 in connection with events of the year 321 B.C.

4) BCH XXX p. 226.

2

5) Spangenberg, De Atheniensium publicis institutis aetate Macedonum commutatis. Diss. Halle, 1884, p. 52.

8) IG II 5 251 b, as restored by Sundwall, De institutis reipublicae Atheniensium post Aristotelis aetatem commutatis. Acta societatis fennicae XXXIII, 1907.

9) Const. of Athens 61.

risky surmise as to when a third general was detailed for the Peiraieus. On the other hand, it seems possible to define within certain limits the time of creation of the generalships of Eleusis, Paralia, and è̟nì tỷv nagaozevýv.

It is clear that the generalship ἐπὶ τὴν χώραν, of which the duties are sketched by Aristotle 1), was divided into two one for the Eleusinian and the other for the Paralian district. The office was undivided in 292/1 B.C., as is evident from the reference to it in IG II 331 1. 24, and perhaps also as late as 275/4 B.C., the year in which this decree was passed. The title στρατηγὸς ἐπὶ τὴν χώραν τὴν ἐπὶ Ἐλευσῖνος or, as it is put more concisely, στρατηγὸς ἐπὶ Ἐλευσῖνος, appears for the first time in our records after the middle of the third century B.C. 2), but its creation is defined more closely by that of the general i tiv zógav thν лagalíaν which must be placed prior to 257/6 B.C.3). We are thus led to the period 292/1 (275/4) 257/6 B.C. for the division of the generalship ¿лì từ gógav into its two parts. Can we fix upon a precise year? Only as a probability. The date of the inscription published as No. 2 in Eq. 'Agz. 1900 p. 135 is too uncertain to be valuable. The likelihood is that the reorganization of the department of defense took place in 262/1 B.C. at the end of the Chremonidean War. At that time a new government was constituted and a Macedonian commandant was put in charge of Macedonian troops which were stationed in Athens itself, in Salamis and the Peiraieus, and on both the Eleusinian (Eleusis, Panakton, Phyle) and the Paralian (Sunium, Rhamnus) frontiers. In 256/5 B.C. the troops were withdrawn from Athens, and subsequently the Peiraieus was the headquarters of the Macedonian governor. The defence of the country was not left wholly to the foreigners, but detachments of Athenian mercenaries served in the frontier forts along with the Macedonian garrisons. The citizen corps were under the command of their own hegemones or captains ) just as the foreign mercenaries had their foreign hegemones 5); but each formed two divisions on geographical grounds, and, seeing that (Athens and) the Peiraieus, now a separate military district, lay between Eleusis and Sunium, a general for each was advisable. The Athenian hegemones looked to the citizen generals for their orders, the foreign hegemones to the Macedonian commandant, but the two brigades in each section could cooperate for specific purposes independently of their officers. With the withdrawal of the foreign garrisons in 229 B.C. the foreign soldiers for the most part departed, but a few of them remained to take service in the Athenian detachments 6). By 106/5 B.C. 1) Ibid. 2) IG II 5 614b 238/7 ff. B.C. 3) Kirchner, Ath. Mitt. 1907 pp. 470 ff.

4) IG II 5 964b; 'Eq. Agz. 1900 p. 143. 5) Gnosias, a Phokian, in Eleusis, Panakton, and Phyle in 238/7 ff. B.C. IG II 5 614b; Timokrates in Sunium (and Rhamnus) in 257/6 ff. B.C. 'Eq. 'Aoz. 1892 p. 147; see Wilhelm, 'Eq. Agz. 1902 p. 142 and ef. IG II 3 1194 and Ath. Mitt. 1907 p. 470. 6) IG II 5 964 b, II 3 1349.

there may have been no foreigners in the Athenian. army 1). The reacquisition of the Peiraieus in 229 B.C. removed the barrier between Eleusis and Sunium, but there was no longer any thought of centralizing the department of home defense. Since the utmost that Athens could do now was to hold the walled posts in her territory, the military problem was different; and what was needed after 229 B.C. was someone to take the place in the Peiraieus vacated by the Macedonian governor (orgainyòs ἐπὶ τοῦ Πειραιέως) 7).

The generalships for Eleusis and the Paralia were established in c. 262/1 B.C., or at any rate after 292/1 B.C. Since this is so, the generalship ἐπὶ τὴν παρασκευήν was instituted at a different time; for it was already in existence in 296 5 B.C. 3). On the other hand, this charge was established later than 307/4 B.C., if Koehler's restoration of IG II 733 B 2 is correct; since, in that case, we find at the time of the Four Years War mention 4) of six στρατηγῶν τῶν ἐπὶ τὴν τοῦ πολέμου παρασκευὴν κεχει[ροτονημένων], whereas had there been one general ἐπὶ τὴν παρaozɛviv we should have expected to find the other five, if mentioned at all, mentioned as his associates. Koehler's restoration of this inscription, though by no means certain, is supported by the following passage from the well-known decree of the same year in honor of Lycurgus 3): χειροτονηθεὶς ἐπὶ τὴν τοῦ πολέμου παρασκευὴν ὅπλα μὲν πολλὰ καὶ βελῶν μυριάδας πέντε ἀνήνεγκεν εἰς τὴν ἀκρόπολιν. Moreover, when, in a later part of IG II 733 B, we do find a certain Hegesias indicated as chairman of the board, his title is simply oroarnyós, as is made clear by Dittenberger in note 14 on No. 187 of his Sylloge 2. Certainly, if a reference to a general in connection with the ragaozɛvý is taken to prove the existence of a generalship ἐπὶ τὴν παρασκευήν, the same inference must be drawn from the reference in the Lycurgus decree quoted above. This, however, is inadmissable, since Lycurgus was dead when Aristotle published his Constitution of Athens, and yet at that time such a generalship did not exist. The evidence is, accordingly, against the existence of a special στρατηγὸς ἐπὶ τὴν παρασκευήν in 306/5 Β.C. At that time the Athenians had simply come face to face with the situation which made his creation advisable.

His later duties seem curiously unmilitary. Im 276/5, 221/0, and 215/4 B.C.), that is to say on the only occasions when his duties are

1) BCH XXX p. 239. 2) IG II 5 591b l. 8. 3) IG II 331 1. 22.

-

4) We have here a special commission of generals chosen from the ten by popular election, and their real duty was, doubtless, to modernize the walls and fortifications of Athens. Dittenberger, Syll. 187 note 14. Why they were six in number we cannot surmise.

5) Lives of the Ten Orators 841 C.

6) IG II 2 836, II 403 404 405 405b. II 2 839.