^{page 263 note 1} Dionys. A.R. 6, 34: there is little to add to Busolt's decisive note, G.G. II², p. 642 note 1. As Busolt insists, Themistokles cannot have been chosen by lot: the story I quote in my last section is an episode of his election campaign, see note 3, p. 269. He evidently became archon at about thirty, as did others, e.g. Aristeides (490/89): a relic of Tyrant policy, so we may add Miltiades in 524/3 (cf. Hdt. 6, 39, 1, ) and I would say Peisistratos in 522/1 (Hesperia VIII, p. 60 no. 21 line 8: Thuc. 6.54.6 gives him as an instance of those whom the Tyrants contrived to have as archon during the tyranny, so that Meritt's date for him, Ibid. p. 63, seems to me impossible: apart from the twelve Gods' altar, Thuc. ibid, and Hdt. 6. 108.4): both these must have been very young.

^{page 263 note 2} Kahrstedt, Magistratur p. 88, believes (on the strength of Philochoros fr. 79b), that at this time the nine archons presided in Boule and Ekklesia. This, even if true, would hardly account for the Peiraeus undertaking.

^{page 263 note 3} Ἀθ π. 3.5.

^{page 263 note 4} Plut. Solon 13.

^{page 264 note 1} Ἀθ π. 3.3: Ledl, Studien Z. älteren athen. Verfassungsgesch. 1914 pp. 252 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 264 note 2} I.e. the bronze was taken at the sack of Athens in 480.

^{page 264 note 3} For the inscription, compare perhaps IG I² 393: there the Tamiai appear to ‘dedicate’ bronze objects which were never their own property; they had ‘collected’ them in their official capacity ( cf. IG I² 301 lines 3, 58, et saepe,

^{page 264 note 4} Aeschines 3.14,

^{page 264 note 5} Cf. Ἀθ π. 8.4. If he used the verb it would not determine whether he was a special epistates, or the epistasia was a function of archonship.

^{page 264 note 6} If, that is, he imposed these fines as archon.

^{page 265 note 1}

^{page 265 note 2} The unfavourable view of Solon: he did not keep a good balance, but found the aristocratic–oligarchic element in existence (viz. archons and Areopagus) and upset it by his democratic invention, the dikasterion. Ephialtes, Perikles, etc., developed this evil element, and so

^{page 265 note 3} Cf. Schwyzer, dial. gr. exempla epigr. pot. 83 B.24, 90.2, 91.2, 92.2 (Argos); 99.2 (Mycenae); 666.6 (Orchomenos); 656.24 (Tegea, ). I write Heliaia, since it seems pedantic to change so familiar a word, but I imagine Eliaia is the true form. It has no aspirate in Attic inscriptions: IGI ², 39.75, Meriti and West, Ath. Ass. p. 44 line 14, cf. BSA XXXIII, p. 121 line 40: nor does in the aspirated Argive inscription, Schwyzer 83 B.24, nor αλια in the Delphic, Schwyzer 323 A.21.

^{page 266 note 1} Bonner, and Smith, Administration II 1938 p. 232Google Scholar: ‘If the ephesis depends upon the volition and action of the losing party in the original proceedings, it is to all intents and purposes an “appeal” as it is known in Anglo-American law and practice. But if the ephesis is required by law, it is in no sense an appeal.’

^{page 266 note 2} (Harpok. ). This represents the classical practice.

^{page 267 note 1} For justification of this usage, see the last paragraph of the Appendix.

^{page 267 note 2} The reading in IG I² 41.1, is extremely doubtful.

^{page 268 note 1} Also in Praecepta ger. reip. 13 (807b). The variants are hardly material:

^{page 268 note 2} I owe this reference to Mr. Tod.

^{page 268 note 3} For see G. M. A. Richter Ancient Furniture 3 ff. It means simply a fine chair, but especially a chair of honour. As a judge's chair, Hdt. 5. 25, and (Persia); Aesch. Eum. 511–2, v. King's chair (and so, ‘office’), Soph. Ant. 166; cf. Aesch. Prom. 909–12, and (Zeus and Kronos). In the Parthenon frieze, I conceive that Zeus alone sits on a thronos, the other gods on diphroi: and thus I imagine in Eum. 629. The tamias Alkimachos sits on a diphros: Acropolis no. 629 (Payne and Young AMS PL 118, 3–5) with IG I² 548 + 663, cf. JHS 58 p. 217. Theognis 1281.

^{page 269 note 1} 6.104.2, evidently for 492/1. There is no reason to think this refers to the election of 490; Miltiades is evidently strategos continuously, from his return to his death.

^{page 269 note 2} 6.21.

^{page 269 note 3} Plut. Arist. 2.5, etc. For clubs in elections, Thuc. 8.54.4, Calhoun, Athenian Clubs, 127 ff. In Ἀθ π. 20.1. meant in fact that Isagoras was elected archon.

^{page 270 note 1} Miltiades was accused of ‘tyranny’: this was presumably a charge analogous to and would, later, have come before the Thesmothetai. But while the magistrate still had discretion, and such cases were consequently worth hearing, I imagine the archon took his pick.