Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T08:55:17.696Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Eubulus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

G. L. Cawkwell
G. L. Cawkwell
Affiliation:
University College, Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The politicians of Athens in the 350s and the 340s are a shadowy lot save for Demosthenes and Aeschines, neither of whom was an influential figure before 346: the latter had only just begun his political career by that year, and the former was constantly in opposition and singularly unsuccessful. For the great names, Diophantus of Sphettus, Aristophon, Hegesippus and Eubulus, we have to rely almost entirely on scattered allusions in Demosthenes. No Hellenica survives to provide a framework of events: Diodorus xvi is principally Philippica and even omits entirely the most engaging political affair of the age, the making of the Peace of Philocrates. Except for the few fragments of Philochorus, without which we would be almost wholly without bearings, it is on what we can glean from his greatest opponent that we must rely for our understanding of Eubulus. Small wonder it is that the judgements of many modern historians have been strongly hostile to him. In this way great oratory may persuade posterity where it failed in its own age, and we must beware of judging Eubulus from the standpoint of Demosthenes.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 83 , November 1963 , pp. 47 - 67
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1963

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

My thanks are due to Mr D. M. Lewis both for help in the preparation of this paper and for allowing me to see a draft of an article on the powers and position of Eubulus and Lycurgus, on which subject we hold similar but differing views. He is not to be thought necessarily to assent to any part of this paper. I also wish to thank Professor Andrewes and Mr A. R. W. Harrison for helpful criticism.

1 Motzki, , Eubulos von Probalinthos und seine Finanzpolitik (1903), esp. 70 f.Google Scholar, followed Schaefer, , Demosthenes und seine Zeit i 2 186, 200 and 212Google Scholar in condemnation. Beloch was exceptional in his favourable estimate (cp. GG iii2.1 486 and Att. Pol. 176 f.), but even he regarded the Theoric distributions as disastrous (cp. GG iii2.1 344), and in general I have no sympathy for Beloch's attitude to Athenian policies in this period.

2 Dem. xix 10, and 303 f., etc. I have discussed the dating of these embassies and their relation to the negotiations of 346 in REG lxxiii (1960) 416 f.

3 Glotz, Pace, Rev. Hist. clxx (1935) 385 f.Google Scholar

4 Aesch. iii 25 and Ar. AP 43.1, supported perhaps by Dem. xxiii 209 outweigh IG ii2 223 C 1.5, and Aesch. iii 24 and ii 149, which are no more than consistent with the office not being collegial.

5 IG ii2 1623 l. 35 and 1629 l. 484.

6 IG ii2 1628 l. 438 and 1629 l. 959.

7 Din. i 96 and Aesch. iii 25.

8 Dem. xix 116, Hyp. iv 29, Aesch. ii 6.

9 Cp. 1 f. Dionysius of Halicarnassus does not furnish a date for the speech. 32 and 33 suggest that it is prior to the expedition against Megara of 350/49 (Philoch. F. 155) and belongs to the period of dispute over the border territory, which had certainly begun by 352 (IG ii2 204, a decree of late 352, which alludes in l. 55 to an earlier decree). Further it is to be noted that the speech alludes to the destruction of the democracy at Rhodes (8), but gives no hint of the appeal for help made in 351, nor does it refer to the stirring events of 352 and later, which eclipsed such trifles as the dispute with Megara and the appeal from Phlius (32). Blass, Att. Bered. iii 2 1 398 f.Google Scholar assigned the speech to 353/2 (without the aid of the fragment of Philochorus). There is no justification for identifying the speech alluded to in 9 with the First Philippic, as Croiset, did (Démosthène, Harangues i—Bude edition, 72).Google Scholar

10 As was known or inferred by the Scholiast to Dem. i 1 (= Dind. viii 33 l. 12).

11 Cp. Din. i 96 and Scholiast to Dem. iii 29 (= Dind. viii 133 ll. 19 and 27).

12 Eubulus is now known to have been one of the nine archons in 370/69 (Hesperia xxix (1960) 25) but this does not add anything of importance.

13 Dind. viii 133 l. 8. Schaefer, op. cit., i 187 accepts the Scholiast, but with hesitation. Cp. Sealey, , JHS lxxv (1955) 75.Google Scholar

14 Diod. xvi 37.3 and Aesch. ii 184. Cp. CQ xii (1962) 140 n. 1.

15 Dem. xix 86 with Schol.

16 The Melanopus who went to Mausolus as ambassador (Dem. xxiv 12, etc.) was a relative of Diophantus (Harpocration s.v. ‘Melanopus’).

17 Schaefer, op. cit., i 205 supposed that Eubulus was an opponent of Diophantus, on the grounds that Eubulus is unlikely to have approved of the expensive expedition to Thermopylae in 352 (cp. Dem. xix 84) and that Demosthenes proposed in 343 to call Diophantus to give evidence against Aeschines (Dem. xix 198). But it is to be noticed that Demosthenes says he will ‘compel’ Diophantus; i.e. he must have been disinclined to help the prosecution. As to Thermopylae, apart from the connexion with Nausicles, there is no evidence and it is mere caricature to suppose that Eubulus opposed all expense. Cp. Beloch, GG iii 2 1 486 Google Scholar (‘Wo ein wirkliches Lebensinteresse Athens in Frage stand, hat Eubulus nicht gezögert, die ganze Macht des Staates einzusetzen. … Nur die nutzlose Zersplitterung der Kräfte suchte Eubulos zu hindern.’)

18 Dem. xxi 218 (with Scholiast), xix 291.

19 Dem. xix 293, Aesch. ii 73. Eubulus appears to have had a reputation for his ready recourse to the courts; cp. Dem. xxi 207

20 FGH 115 FF. 99, 100. (The words in the latter fragment I take to refer to the expenditure on public works. Cp. Plut., Per. 12 )

21 For Midias see Dem. xxi 205–7, for Phocion Aesch. ii 184, for Hegesileos Dem. xix 290.

22 Dem. v 5. But their hostility was perhaps of longer standing; cp. Dem. xix 29 (τούτῳ πολεμῶ). They finally settled their dispute of Dionysia 348 some time after autumn 347 (cp. Sealey REG lxviii (1955) 96 f.) perhaps as a result of the temporary alliance of various groups in 346.

23 Cp. Scholiast ad loc. (Dind. viii 132 ll. 19 and 27).

24 206 προσκέκρουκεν ἐμοί.

25 See n. 22. Stephanus who prosecuted Apollodorus in 348 (Dem. lix 5) was probably a supporter of Eubulus (ibid., 48), but the attack on Philocrates in the same year (cp. REG lxxiii (1960) 417 n. 2) was not sponsored by the same group: Aesch. ii 12 shows that some other group was responsible—one might guess Aristophon. Indeed, if Eubulus had been responsible, Aeschines could hardly have forborne to use the attack on Philocrates to help his proof that he had not collaborated with him. Thus the acquittal of Philocrates was not a defeat for Eubulus.

26 This is the contention of my article ‘Aeschines and the Peace of Philocrates’ in REG lxxiii (1960).

27 Philocrates framed the peace and the work of steering it through the Assembly was left to his defender of 348, Demosthenes, whose role as real patron of the peace is seen in his decrees of 6 Elaphebolion (Aesch. ii 46, iii 36, Dem. xix 234 and xviii 28), and again of 8 Elaph. when he made the first proposal of alliance with Philip (Aesch. ii 61, 65, 109 f.), as well as provided for special seats for the Macedonians at the festival (Aesch. ii 55 and 110). His guidance was vital on the 18th and 19th (Dem. xix 144, 321 Aesch. iii 71 f.). It would be proper to call it the Peace of Demosthenes.

28 Dem. xix 291. Cp. article cited in n. 26, p. 437.

29 For the elucidation of the events of Skirophorion 347/6 see my article in REG lxxv (1962).

30 Aesch. ii 8. By 330 Demosthenes was claiming that he had no part in the proceedings of 346 and ascribing everything to Aeschines, Philocrates, Eubulus and Cephisophon (Dem. xviii 21)! Cp. 23 of the same speech for another piece of fantasy.

31 Theopompus F. 166.

32 Silver by more careful mining in Attica, timber by importation from Pontus and the West (cp. Michell, , Economics of Ancient Greece 278 f.Google Scholar). Throughout this period of Macedonian control of Amphipolis, the number of ships was large and the Athenian navy did not surfer for want of timber.

33 For this interpretation of [Dem.] vii 30–2 see Wüst, , Philip II von Makedonien und Griechenland 69 f.Google Scholar

34 Andoc. iii 15 points to ‘the recovery of the Chersonese, the colonies, the possessions (τὰ ἐγκτήματα) and the debts’ as a leading motive for continuing the war in 392/1, and these were the things renounced in 377 by the Decree of Aristotle. Cp. Isoc. xiv 44 Presumably κτήματα were chiefly cleruchies. The fifth-century boundary stone found at Cos (Inscriptions of Cos 160 no. 148) suggests that the island had other reasons than the proximity of Mausolus for joining the allies in revolt in 357.

35 Xen., Hell. iii 5.10, Aristophanes, , Eccl. 197 Google Scholar, Hell. Oxy. 1. The result was the renewal of alliance between Sparta and Persia and the formation of the King's Peace.

36 See n. 92 for Xenophon's notions on τροφὴ ἀπὸ κοινοῦ.

37 See n. 33 and Dem. xviii 136 for Aeschines' support for Python's proposal; and [Dem.] xii 6 and Philoch. F. 157 for the response to Persia.

38 Cp. Momigliano, , Annali della R. Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa N.S. v (1936) 109 f.Google Scholar for all this paragraph.

39 CQ xii (1962).

40 Cp. Isoc. To Philip 2.

41 Athenian Democracy 34.

42 Göttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen (Phil.-Hist. Klasse) 1929 156 f.

43 The evidence does not justify the view of Francotte, (Musée Belge xvii (1913) 69 f.)Google Scholar that the Theorie distributions were really the old διωβελία in a new guise, i.e. a form of dole. Aristotle (Pol. 1267 B 1 f.) speaking about men's insatiability said [sic] and presumably he was referring to Athens, but he may well have had in mind not developments under Eubulus but the later administration of the Theorie Fund in the 330s: Plut. Mor. 818 EF suggests that on occasion large amounts were to be expected in distribution and Hyper. v 26 may be an instance. Nor is there any reason to suppose that Xenophon's extravagant ideas about τροφή in the Revenues (below, n. 92) were ever put into effect. There is no good evidence to connect the Theorie distributions with more than the festivals (see Kahrstedt, op. cit., n. 42). Etym. Mag. s.v. is hardly of much value. The two-obol dole, to the best of our knowledge, happened only in the last years of the Peloponnesian War (Bus.-Swob., Gr. St. 899 n. 5 for the evidence).

44 Quoted by Andreades, , History of Greek Public Finance 207.Google Scholar

45 Op. cit., p. 16 f.

46 Cp. Ferguson, , Hellenistic Athens 474 f.Google Scholar

47 Hammond, , History of Greece (1959) 531 f.Google Scholar is their latest appearance.

48 Cp. Beloch, op. cit., 484 n. 6 for the effect of the law of Hegemon. The law was passed before 335/4 (IG ii2 1628 l. 300); Cp. Bus. Swob., op. cit., 1043 n. 1 and see n. 52. Hegemon was an opponent of Demosthenes (Dem. xviii 285) and presumably his law sought to curtail the power of the office in which Demosthenes was established in 337/6.

49 Eubulus is connected with τὰ θεωρικά and Theoric distributions in Schol. Aesch. iii 25, Theopompus F. 99, Schol. Dem. x 11 (Dind. 203 l. 21), and with the building programme in Schol. Dem. iii 29 (Dind. 133) and Din. i 96, which appears to have been the concern of the Theorie Commission (Aesch. iii 25, Philoch. F. 56a).

50 Aesch. iii 25. The Eudoxus honoured in IG ii2 223 B and C by the Council because he was presumably an official concerned with the affairs of the Council alone.

51 AP 62.3

52 Whether Lewis's suggestion that the law alluded to by Plutarch (Mor. 841 C is the law of Hegemon (above, n. 48) is accepted or not, the fact that there was such a law suggests that re-election in some financial office had previously been permitted.

53 Jacoby, Commentary on Philochorus F. 33 follows Bus.-Swob., op. cit., 899 and Schwahn, RE v A.2 col. 2233f.Google Scholar in treating the Theorie distributions as Periclean—a view mainly deriving not so much from the fact that Philochorus possibly discussed Theoric distributions in Book iii of his Atthis (for there are good grounds for amending this numeral to vi, i.e. to —cp. Jacoby, loc. cit.) as from Plutarch's attribution (Per. 9) and the entry in Hesychius, s.v. ( archon 395/4— ) implying that there had been Theoric distributions earlier. Kahrstedt (loc. cit. in n. 42) argues for their institution after 362, for which he cites Justin vi 9.2. I prefer the late date. The silence of Aristophanes in the Ecclesiazusae and the Plutus is strong in support of Kahrstedt, and the evidence for an early date is far from cogent; Plut., Per. 9 is rather general, the Scholiast to Aeschines iii 24 precise but of questionable authority, and the citation from Philochorus, whose full account would have resolved our doubts, is disquieting. For, when quoting this fragment, Harpocration also said that Agyrrhius began distributions; so either he had not read Philochorus carefully or Philochorus did not say that Pericles began the Theoricon. I prefer the latter. After all, the institution was of great interest to Aristotle's generation and surely he would have mentioned it if Pericles had begun the distributions. Pericles was the first to provide pay for jurors (AP 27.3) and he provided money for all in the form of wages under the building programme as he said in answer to Thucydides, son of Melesias (Plut., Per. 12) and this was enough, perhaps, to excite an excursus from Philochorus on μισθοφορία and to mislead other less exact writers.

As for Harpocration's remark about Agyrrhius, it seems better to relate it to his introduction of pay for attendance at the Assembly (AP 41.3) to which the Ecclesiazusae refers so often than to the Theoricon, of which it has not a word. Athens did not have money for such luxuries in the Corinthian war, certainly not ἐπὶ Διοφάντου, 395/4, and for this reason the explanation of the notice in Hesychius given by Beloch, (Att. Pol. 180 n. 4)Google Scholar is probably the right one, viz. that it relates to the distributions made by Diophantus the Sphettian (cp. Schol. Aesch. iii 24).

These are substantially the arguments set out by van Ooteghen, J. in Études Classiques i (1932) 388 Google Scholar, who also followed Kahrstedt in taking Justin vi 9.1 f. as evidence that the distributions began after Mantinea. But from 362 to the law establishing the use of the surpluses for the Theoricon Athens was continually at war and money was probably not available for distributions. It seems therefore better to suppose that the whole institution began in 355 or soon after. But Ulis view is not essential to the argument developed in the text.

54 For Philinus see RE xix 2 col. 2175 f.

55 Even those who date the institution of the Theoricon to the fifth century do not necessarily suppose that the Commission pre-dates Eubulus. Cp. Schwahn, loc. cit.

56 This is discussed in my article ‘Demosthenes and the Stratiotic Fund’ Mnemosyne 1962 377 ff.

57 In the drought of 361 wells dried up ([Dem.] 1. 61). In 357/6 there was a (Dem. xx 33), perhaps due to drought. The water supply of Athens may have needed special attention in 355.

58 In his commentary on this passage.

59 Jones, op. cit., 33 f. appears to assume this in belittling the importance of the Theoricon.

60 For a statement of how the surpluses arose see Francotte, , Les finances 151 f.Google Scholar

61 They were functioning in 346 at any rate (IG ii2 212 l. 43).

62 IG ii2 1621 is a navy-list of the early 340s of the normal sort. IG ii2 1622 of 342/1 is exceptional in form and Mr D. M. Lewis argues that it was drawn up not by the but by some other body and, along with other evidence, indicates that the ἐπιμεληταί had been temporarily superseded. Discussion of this view must wait until he has published it, but to my mind the onus of proof will be very much on those who claim that this is not a document of the for no matter how much the Theoric Commission interfered in the finances of the navy, the routine work of the docks had to go on and this probably required a board of officials concerned solely with it. That is, the Theoric Commission could only control, not supersede, and, until cogent arguments to the contrary appear, it is reasonable to suppose that the continued to function in the late as in the early 340s.

63 The supersession of the ἀντιγραφεύς has often been remarked. He is missing from IG ii2 223 C (of 343/2) where one would have expected to find him and Aesch. iii 25 says that before the law of Hegemon his functions were exercised by the Theoric Commission: presumably he was superseded. Cp. Bus.-Swob., op. cit., 1043 n. 1. The occurrence o an antigrapheus in IG ii2 244 l. 23 does not argue against this view; the date of this inscription is often given as 337/6 but it may well belong to the 350s (below, n. 109). Nor is the value of Aeschines' remark to be impugned by pointing out that he speaks as if the ἀντιγραφεύς did not exist in 330 when IG ii2 1700 l. 217 shows that he did exist in 335/4; for after the law of Hegemon the ἀντιγραφεύς, though he existed, was not important and Aristotle has nothing to say about him in the Ath. Pol. (but see Jacoby ad Philoch. F. 198); he was just no longer χειροτονητὸς τῇ πόλει κ.τ.λ.

In this note I am especially indebted to Mr D. M. Lewis.

64 Aesch. iii 27 f., esp. 28 where Aeschines tries to deal with the imagined objection of Demosthenes

65 Schol. Dem. iii 29 (= Dind. viii 133).

66 Cp. Dem. xx 137 for both Diophantus and Eubulus busying themselves with finance at the same time.

67 Some confirmation of this is to be found in Ar., Pol. 1267 B 18— When did he provide the city with these δημόοιοι τεχνῖται? Xenophon in the Revenues makes no mention of them despite his advocacy of the idea of having them. So probably Diophantos did it after the treatise was written, perhaps even as a result of it.

68 Mr D. M. Lewis's article will establish as a basis for future discussion of Lycurgus' position that the man who was elected in Hyper, v 28 was Demosthenes as Theoric Commissioner.

69 Cp. ‘The Defence of Olynthus’ CQ xii (1962) 130 f. Part iii following Kahrstedt, , Forschungen 61 Google Scholar, on the dating of the Third Olynthiac.

70 Decision by διαχειροτονία on some minor matters was normal, and possible in major questions, e.g. IG ii2 28. (Cp. Bus.-Swob., op. cit., 1000 n. 4.) So no inference can be drawn from its use in 348, though it may well have been that this somewhat unusual procedure stemmed from fear of the consequences under the laws governing the Theoric Fund.

71 These words came in the manuscripts in 9 where they are ‘alienissima’, and were inserted by Sauppe in 5 where the scribe of S has marked a lacuna in the middle of the paragraph. It seems to be the custom of most orators of the period to give corroborative detail. So towards the end of 5 some amplification of ψευδεῑς μάρτυρας might be expected; in 9, even without the words moved by Sauppe, αἰτίαν ψευδῆ is fully amplified. Possibly the false accusation from 5 was written in the margin of 9 as a parallel, and got incorporated later.

This note repeats in substance the opinion of Mr A. N. Bryan-Brown who concludes that ‘if a place has to be found for the vagabond clause, Sauppe has probably found the best, but that more than probability is not possible'.

72 Francotte, , Les finances 219 f.Google Scholar long ago clearly, if briefly, stated the view, that it was the Theoric laws which checked Demosthenes.

73 What precisely was the subject of the debate to which this speech belonged? Not the institution of the restriction on the use of the surpluses, for that is presupposed in the speech, but presumably some enlargement of the sphere of influence of the Theoric Commission or the introduction of some law like IG ii2 244.

74 Op. cit., 208. Motzki, op. cit., 75 and Pickard-Cambridge, , Demosthenes 127 Google Scholar reject the Scholiast.

75 Weil, H., Revue de Philologie N.S. iii (1879)Google Scholar and Radüge, E., Zur Zeitbestimmung des euböischen und olynthischen Krieges (1908).Google Scholar

76 Xen. Revenues v 12 i.e. war remains elsewhere; Dem. xxiv 95 Dem. xxiii 107–9; SIG 3 196 l. 40; and above all the whole First Philippic.

77 Some have put the Third Olynthiac after Apollodorus' motion (e.g. Pokorny, , Studien 118 f.Google Scholar) but no one, to my knowledge, since Radüge, op. cit., set the chronology right, has attempted to post-date the First.

78 Is it conceivable in view of Athens' bitter experience of what could happen as the result of military operations in the Hellespont that she should not regard a war that constantly threatened the Chersonese as not really a war?

79 For chronology of the Euboean, war see ‘The Defence of Olynthus’ CQ xii (1962) 127 f.Google Scholar

80 ‘Demosthenes and the Stratiotic Fund’ Mnemosyne 1962 377 ff.

81 Commentary on Philoch. F. 157 p. 532.

82 For the procedure of νομοθεσία see Hignett, , History of the Athenian Constitution 299 f.Google Scholar

83 Cp. Motzki, op. cit., 79 f.

84 Perhaps Demosthenes' trierarchic law (Dem. xviii 102, etc.) reflects an increase in individual fortunes which had made reform of the law of Periander necessary.

85 x 37. There has been general concord in referring this passage to the end of the Social War but it may be worth while to set out the grounds for doing so since Didymus comments (8.49) followed by a gap twice as long which must have contained the grounds for his statement. My reasons for differing from Didymus are as follows:

(a) A study of all instances of πάλαι in the genuine speeches of Demosthenes shows that it is unlikely that he would have used οὐ πάλαι to refer to the end of the Peloponnesian War. Indeed, he normally used πάλαι to refer to fairly recent events although he of course used it for events as early as 403 and twice for events still earlier. Οὐ πάλαι (where the two go closely together, as here in x 37) he used to mean ἐπ' ἐμοῦ. Cp. iii 2 At xv 2 οὐ πάλαι is used in 351 to refer to the Social War. There is one case where a longer period is involved, xxiv 138 i.e. in 353/2 of 382/1, but the point remains that by οὐ πάλαι he means in the life-time of either himself or his audience. Cp. xviii 100 In 341 comparatively few would be present in the assembly with lively memories of 405. Such a date for Demosthenes would be πάλαι, certainly not οὐ πάλαι, and more certainly still, not οὐ πάλαι with ἐποιοῦμεν.

(b) When Demosthenes alluded to events before his own life-time, it was his custom, where he did not cite documentary evidence as at, e.g., xix 276, and xx 77, to avoid seeming to talk authoritatively about things beyond his direct knowledge by using phrases such as ‘I have heard’ or ‘you all know’, e.g. xx 11, 52, 68, 73. I have collected 15 examples. Sometimes he alludes directly to events before his lifetime—ix 23, xiii 21 f., xviii 96, xix 191 and 263, xx 59 and 60 are the cases I have collected. With some of these, for various reasons, his apologetic manner would have been either unnecessary or inappropriate but the important point is that in none of them does he use the first person, as ἐποιοῦμεν here. So the absence of his customary introduction together with the use of the first person combine to show that he is speaking of his own life-time.

(c) come suitably from the volunteer trierarch of 357 (Dem. xxi 161, etc.), but are quite inappropriate to the period after Aegospotami when Athens was first blockaded and then deprived of ships.

I apologise for labouring what has seemed to many obvious, but teaching experience has shown that it is not always so.

86 For the decemviral commission to collect arrears of εἰσφορά see Dem. xx 1, 42, 44, 48 f.; xxiv 8, 11 f., 160–75, 197. For similar activities by the see Dem. xxii 63. By the end of the Social War the State was virtually bankrupt (cp. Dem. xx 24, 115; xxiii 209) and the national festivals were in jeopardy—hence Aristophon's commission (Dem. xxiv 11) and the law of Timocrates.

87 Cp. 19, etc. Agriculture and overseas trade were depressed, as were (20) and traders and aliens, resident and non-resident alike, had left the city (21). Most significant is Isocrates' proposal to plant colonies in Thrace (24). In the Panegyricus his hope had been that the poverty of Greece could be cured by occupying part of the Persian Empire (166), and in the letter To Philip the same idea recurs (5) as in the Panathenaicus (14). That is, like other Panhellenists (cp. Xen., Anab. iii 2.25 f.), he looked forward to the colonies of Alexander as the cure for Greece's economic ills, but in 355 the condition of Athens was such that he for the moment was prepared to settle Thrace and yield to the Persian ultimatum.

88 There is no evidence of what the city's revenue had been in the first half of the century but probably in 346 it was higher than it had been at any time since the prosperity of the fifth century.

89 For the relation of Xenophon and Eubulus the commonly cited fragment of Istros, (FGH 334 F. 33)Google Scholar, which says that Xenophon was exiled and recalled by decrees moved by the same Eubulus, is of no importance whatsoever: if it is correct, it cannot have been our Eubulus, for the early 390s is too early for him, and the common assumption that Xenophon was recalled about 370 is without foundation—a better case could perhaps be made out for 387/6. The real reasons for supposing that Xeno phon and Eubulus were associated are first that the Revenues, like Isocrates' On the Peace, with which it has strong affinities (cp. Momigliano, loc. cit., n. 38), provides a theoretical exposition of the advantages of the policy actually pursued by Eubulus, and secondly that the parallels between the proposals of Xenophon and the brief account of Dinarchus (i 96) are too strong to be mere chance (cp. Thiel, op. cit., xxiii f.).

90 In JHS lxxv (1955) 76 B.R.I. Sealey sought to revive the long unfashionable view that the Revenues is to be dated after the Peace of Philocrates. He based this on the statement in v 12 that ‘since there has been peace on sea, the city's revenues have been increased’. But this is, strictly, heresy. The whole work is concerned with Athens' impoverishment and how to overcome it and by 346 the city was no longer impoverished. Thus to dwell on the statement at v 12 is to exalt it at the expense of the whole. Thiel, op. cit., viii f. rightly and firmly placed the work at the end of the Social War. There is (i.e. with the allies)—and war elsewhere presumably (the North as well as the Sacred War, v 9)—but the peace is very recent (cp. iv 40 and see Thiel, viii); it is not clear that the statement about the increase of revenues could not be made in 355, even if it suited 346 better—which to my mind it does not.

91 Schwahn, , Rh. Mus. lxxx (1931)Google Scholar argued that Eubulus was actually the author, and was answered by Wilhelm, , Wiener Studien lii (1934) 18 f.Google Scholar Thiel's demonstration that the work is Xenophontic (op. cit., xiii f.) stands.

92 He means to buy up to three times as many slaves as citizens (iv 17), from εἰσφοραί (iii 7), for a return of 3 obols a day per citizen (iii 9 and 10)—so there would be (iv 33), an affluent society! Wilhelm, loc. cit., denied that Xenophon had in mind direct distributions and that τροφή would only come as payment for performance of duties, iii 9 and 10 prove him wrong.

93 Staatshaushaltung 3 i 698 f.

94 The tax was 12 dr. for men and 6 dr. for women who did not have husband or son at work (Pollux 3.55 and Harpocration, s.v. ‘μετοίκιον’). Cp. Bus.-Swob., op. cit., 984 n. 7. At the end of the century there were said to be 10,000 metics (Ath. vi 272c).

95 Early grants in IG i2 110.30, and ii2 53; grants later than the Social War IG ii2 130, 132, 206, 287, 342, 343, 351, 360, 373, etc.

96 Din. i 96. SIG 3 1216 is a mid-fourth-century lease of some buildings in the Piraeus and shows that something like an 8 per cent return was to be expected on money invested there (cp. Isaeus xi 42). For a collection of evidence on hostels see Ziebarth, E. in Εἰς μνήμην Σπνρ. Λάμπρου (Athens, 1935) 343 f.Google Scholar

97 [Dem.] vii 12, AP 59.5, Pollux 8.63, Harpocration s.v. ‘at re Dem. xxxiii 23.

98 Not solely by any means (cp. Wilhelm, loc. cit., 31 f.), but the discussion of the mines played a large part in Xenophon's treatise and his expectations were practically unlimited.

99 Cp. Hopper, , BSA xlviii (1953) 251 Google Scholar and n. 376 for suggestion that the exemption mentioned in [Dem.] xlii 17–19 was due to Eubulus.

100 Ar., Pol. 1267 b 18 and see n. 67.

101 Plut., Mor. 852 B (but for the numeral Cp. 841 D). Cp. IG ii2 333 C ll. 7 and 9 προδεδανεισμένα.

102 Demosthenes' charges that his opponents have become rich quickly may relate to profitable investment in State enterprises (iii 29, xxiii 209) although he may have no more in mind than Isocrates (viii 127) in slandering Eubulus' predecessors. Perhaps Moerocles' sly dig (Ar., Rhet. 1411 a 15) was directed at Eubulus and the profitableness of lending to the State (cp. Rhet. 1376 a 10).

103 Xen., Hipparch. i 19, Dem. xxiv 97. Also see Wilhelm, , Wiener Studien lii (1934) 34 and 52Google Scholar on fragments of Lysias, , Against Theozotides in Hibeh Papyri i 49 ff. n. 14.Google Scholar

104 Aesch. iii 25, IG ii2 505, Philoch. F. 56a. Xen., Revenues vi 1 anticipates the work.

105 Dem. xxi 132 makes a similar impression.

106 ‘Demosthenes and the Stratiotic Fund’, Mnemosyne 1962 337ff.

107 I see no reason for believing that the did not exist before Eubulus. See article cited in previous note.

108 Dem. iii 29 with Schol.; xiii 30; xxiii 208.

109 Maier, F. G., Griechische Mauerbauinschriften i Heidelberg (1959) 40 Google Scholar discusses the date and decides that ‘337/6 remains the most probable date’, but the only reason for putting it in that year is the known activity of Demosthenes (Aesch. iii 27–31). On the other hand, Eubulus did something about the walls and there is no reason epigraphic or historical why the inscription should not belong to his period. Cp. Aesch. i 80 for Timarchus' speech about repair of walls in 347/6.