ratio englobe toute la série de conductores qui se succéderont.. dans la ferme". Das würde zweifellos nach vorhergehendem ei.. in cuius conductione agrum occupavit, heissen: eis qui succedent, kann jedenfalls nicht mit rationi' wiedergegeben werden. Wie aber erklärt sich diese Bestimmung? Ein quinquennium ist die normale Pachtzeit und bleibt das auch dann, wenn die Pacht, wie offenbar die der Conductoren, faktisch weiterläuft. Nach Ablauf einer Pachtperiode gehören also die vom Okkupanten abzugebenden Quoten in der Tat zunächst dem Kaiser. Wird die Pacht verlängert, gehen sie eo ipso an den Conductor über. Mit den vorher behandelten Quoten von den Baumfrüchten ist das genau ebenso. Hier ist denn auch, was wohl zu beachten ist, nicht gesagt: conductori partes dare debebit, sondern allgemein: partes dare debebit.

Zu der dem Primigenius von Carinus zugehenden Anweisung zum Anschlag der mitgeteilten Akten: propone vergleiche man die analogen Befehle z. B. in Zuschriften der Praefecti Aegypti an die Strategen : . . πρόθες ἐν οἷς καθήκει τοῦ νομοῦ τόποις oder βούλομαί σε προθεῖναι und in CIL III 13750 Z. 44: propositum esse cura.

Ii qui occupaverint wird in der oben angeführten Stelle der lex metalli Vipascensis mit occupator wiedergegeben. Der neue Rechtsbegriff ist willkommen. In der Inschrift von Aïn Wassel Kol. III 13 steht dafür possessor, was weniger scharf ist.

Aus der Bezeichnung des Tutilius Pudens (IV 3) als egregius vir lernen wir, dass dieser Titel nicht erst, wie er bisher schien 2), unter Marcus und Verus, sondern bereits unter Hadrian vorhanden war. Da Hadrian den Rittern die Verwaltung des Reichs, soweit dieselbe kaiserlich war, übertrug), der Schöpfer des ritterlichen Beamtenstandes ist, wird man die Einführung des Titels der Ritter vir egregius' ihm zuschreiben dürfen.

In dem Brief des Carinus und Doryphorus (IV 2 f.) vermisst man das Verbum, von dem ut notum haberes abhängt, etwa misimus tibi, denn von propone kann es nicht abhängen, da der Zweck des Anschlags nicht ist. dass Primigenius das übersandte Schreiben kennen lernt, sondern, dass dasselbe zur allgemeinen Kenntnis gelangt und ferner propone ein habeas verlangt. Hier dürfte etwas ausgelassen und der Brief so herzustellen sein: (misimus tibi) exemplum epistulae .., ut notum haberes; (itaque exemplum epistulae) et id quod subiectum est.. propone.

1) S. Lafoscade. De epistulis imperatorum, magistratuum etc. 1902. 2) Hirschfeld, Verwaltungsbeamten S. 451.

3) S. Hirschfeld a. a. O. S. 478.

Researches in Athenian and Delian Documents. I.

By William Scott Ferguson.

1. The Priest of Artemis.

The priest of Artemis for Kimon's archonship (237/6) was Atovvσódogos Enuaziong'). Semachidai belonged to the tribe Antiochis (XII). For the following year (Ekphantos 236/5), the priest was 'Avtidogos Αντιδώρου Περγασῆθεν”). At this time Pergase belonged to Antigonis ) (I). The tribes of these two priests are seen thus to follow one another in the official order. Is it probable that this was the case otherwise?

Artemis Kalliste was worshipped in Athens in a shrine which lay outside the Dipylon gate, by the side of the road which led thence to the Academy). She had also the epithet Ariste. Besides the two inscriptions. which give us the two priests above mentioned only one other document has a reference to Kalliste. This was found by Mylonas during the excavations conducted by him in the Dipylon region in 18905), but was published for the first time by Wilhelm in the Εφημερὶς ̓Αρχαιολογική for 1905). It yields nothing but the name. At the same time, and in the same region, however, were found two other inscriptions, now published in IG II, 630 b and IG II, 1620 e. Of these the first is a decree passed by the Soteriastai in honor of the founder of their club. The stone on which it was cut was placed in the temenos of the Soteira. This temenos Mylonas unwittingly found), and in it was an altar to which belongs a bathron with the second (late) inscription: 'Agrudi Zorriga[1] Mágov ȧvédyze Magoros. Soteira was accordingly Artemis). Were Artemis Soteira and Artemis Kalliste joined in a common cult administered by a single priest? Apparently; for the temenos of Artemis Soteira has been discovered just where Pausanias locates the shrine of Artemis Kalliste, and third century B.C. inscriptions referring to Kalliste have been found in the same vicinity with first century inscriptions re

A. The writer begs to acknowledge the assistance received from the Carnegie Institution of Washington in the prosecution of these researches.

1) Wilhelm, 'Eq. 'Aoz. 1905 pp. 237 ff.. esp. pp. 240 ff. - 2) Ibid., p. 219. 3) Kirchner, Rh. Mus. 59 1904 pp. 294 ff. 4) Pausanias I 29 2.

5) Igaztizà 1890 pp. 19 ff., p. 24; cf. 'Eq. 'Agz. 1893 p. 59.

6) Pp. 215 and 220 ff.

8) Eq. Agz. 1893 p. 59.

7) Wilhelm, Eq. 4oz. 1905 pp. 240 f.

ferring to Soteira. Another document (IG II, 618 b), found in the same general neighborhood, refers to the temenos simply as the iɛgóv of Artemis. It is unlikely that two distinct shrines of Artemis, each tended by a state priest, were located within a stone's throw of one another.

The priest of (Artemis) Soteira in Menandros' archonship was the founder and archeranistes of the Soteriastai, Διόδωρος Σωκράτους 'Αφ[ιδvaios]. Menandros was archon in 35/4 B.C., if the following calculation. made by Kirchner 1), is conclusive. The group Euthydomos, Nikandros, Diokles of Melite, Menandros, Kallikratides, Theopeithes is inseparable 2). Euthydomos, furthermore, was in office in the Pythian year 3), i. e. in the third year of an Olympiad. On the other hand, in a decree of Kallikratides year the 'Αντωνιῆα τὰ Πανα[θηναϊκὰ ̓Αντωνί]ου θεοῦ νέου Διοvvoo[v] are mentioned. This locates the fifth archon of the group in the period 39-32 B.C.). These conditions make 42/1 and 38/7 alone possible for Euthydomos. Kirchner excludes 42/1, for some reason not clear to me, and hence assigns Menandros as above stated, to 35/45). Now, the priesthood of Asklepios was due to the tribe Ptolemais in the year 35/46). The same tribe gave, as we see, the priest of Artemis; for Aphidnai, the deme of Diodoros, belonged to Ptolemais. Is this a mere coincidence, or did the official order exist for the priests of Artemis, and did it coincide at this time with that of the priests of Asklepios? In the middle of the third century there was no such coincidence; for, while the priesthood of Artemis fell in 237/6 and 236/5 to Antiochis and Antigonis, the priesthood of Asklepios and the prytany secretaryship fell for the same years to Antigonis and Demetrias.

The conclusions towards which the data above given tend, namely the existence of the official order for the priests of Artemis in the third and first centuries and its coincidence in the latter time with the official order of the priests of Asklepios, are far from demonstrated. They need the confirmation which the discovery of new priests can alone bring. Should they find such confirmation, then we have strengthened by accumulative evidence the assignment of the archons Kimon and Ekphantos to 237/6 and 236/5, and definitely fixed the group Euthydomos-Theopeithes in 38/7-33/2 B.C. Are other priests of Artemis discoverable?

We have left undiscussed the lack of coincidence between the tribe of the priest of Artemis and that of the priest of Asklepios in the third century. Now we must ask the question: why was the former taken from Antiochis in 237/6 and the latter from Antigonis?

3) Colin, Le culte d'Apollon Pythien à Athènes pp. 143 ff. = BCH_XXX_1906 pp. 304 ff.

4) Koehler, IG II 482. 5) PA No. 5567.

6) The Priests of Asklepios (Univ. of Calif. Publ., Class. Phil. I) pp. 131 ff.

2. The Priests of the Foreign Gods at Delos.

We get an answer through studying the tribal relations of the priests placed by Athens in the temples at Delos in the years between 167 and 88 B.C. The total list of them is as follows:

Priest of Apollo

Priest of Artemis

Priest of Zeus Kyntbios and Athena Kynthia

Priest of Dionysos

Priest of Asklepios

Priest of Roma

Priest of Hekate?

Priest of Herakles?

Priest of Anios

Priest of Sarapis

Priest of Aphrodite Hagne

Priest of the Great Deities, Dioskuri, Kabiri.

The locus classicus for these priests is the list of subscribers to the Delphian Pythaïs published in IG II, 985 a roll of officeholders for the period of the first ennecteris 1), 103/2-95/4 B.C. All the priests did not subscribe every year: hence the omission of a title is no evidence for the non-existence of a priesthood. Thus the priest of Asklepios and the priest of the Great Deities do not appear anywhere among the subscribers. The Delian inscriptions are equally incomplete. Thus I have been unable to find the tribe and year of any priest of Artemis, Anios, Zeus Kynthios, or Roma, who held office prior to 103/2. Nor have I succeeded in ascertaining such data for two priests of Asklepios or Dionysos. Hence there is no use in studying the tribal relations of these priests now. And I omit from consideration all the other priests who belong after the year 103/2; for, as is well known 2), the obligarchic revolution in Athens in this year was accompanied by the abandonment of allotment and rotation of office, and hence also of the official order of the tribes in the distribution of magistracies. Accordingly. all inferences from the tribal relations of the priests as shown in IG II 985 are invalid for the earlier period of Athenian occupation of Delos.

On the other hand, we can establish the tribe and year for several of the earlier priests of Aphrodite Hagne and the Great Deities, and for the larger half of the priests of Sarapis. They are combined in the following table with the names of the Athenian archons and the Delian epimeletai):

1) The reason for beginning the enneeteris in 103/2 is given in Klio IV pp. 1 ff.; cf. Dürrbach, BCH XXX pp. 294 ff. The Pythaïs had nothing to do with the Pythia; for it was certainly sent in 128/7 and 97/6. 97/6 was the sixth year of the enneeteris: perhaps it was arranged to send the Pythaïs regularly at that time: but probably the year within the enneeteris was not fixed.

2) The Oligarchic Revolution at Athens of the Year 103/2, Klio IV pp. 1 ff. 3) I omit such epimeletai as cannot be assigned to a precise year.