THE ATTIC EPHEBIA IN THE FOURTH CENTURY B.C.

The organization of the Attic ephebia which is reflected in the

earliest inscriptions hitherto known from the years 334/3-323/2
must now be pushed back to the year 361 /o on the evidence of
inscription No. 1 (Mitsos, 'Apx. 'Eip. 1967, 131-32). For it praises
an official because ibte:µe:).~81) -rwv ve:ixvto-[xwv - - - of a tribe who are
identified as epheboi (lines 19-20). The honorary decree follows the
formulae and pattern of the tribal inscriptions of the period 334/3-
324/3 which praise the sophronistes of the tribe. Here, however,
the stoichedon line demands the restoration of the kosmetes rather
than the sophronistes. In any case there can be no question that a
non-military official is the supervisor of an organized body of
epheboi.
The inscription fulfills the expectation which was expressed by
Pelekidis in 1962 (Ephebie, 8) that an ephebic inscription would
some day be found securely dated before 336/5, and confirms his
and my position (published in 1952, T APA 83, 35-50) that the/
ephebia as a formal organization existed at least as early as the·
time of Aischines, 371/0. Nilsson rejected my interpretation in
1955 (Hell. Schule, 19-20 and Note 2) and repeated the idee fixe
resulting from Wilamowitz' assertion that the ephebia was es-
tablished in 336/5 by a law proposed by Epikrates as a reaction to
the defeat at Chaeronea two years earlier. This position had been
given wide currency by Marrou's arbitrary statement that "that
institution (the ephebia) did not receive its definite form until a
very much later date (than Aischines): in the days following the
defeat at Chaeronea (338) and in consequence of a law for which it
seems Epikrates was responsible, passed between 337-335" (H.
Marrou, Histoire de l' education dans l' antiquite 2 ; first edition, 1948,
152).
It must now, however, be unmistakably clear that the ixpxov-re:c;
to whom Aischines appealed as witnesses of his service (2, 167) as a
frontier guard along with his o-uv&ipl)~O~, can be no other than the
kosmetes, among others, and that the existence of the same or-
g~nization which is attested in 361 /o must be extrapolated at
least to ca. 371 /o, some ten years earlier.
The assertion of Wilamowitz that the ephebic organization
124 THE ATTIC EPHEBIA IN THE FOURTH CENTURY B.C.

was instituted de nova in 336/5 rested basically on the conflation

of two pieces of evidence in the light of Aristotle's newly discovered
Constitution of Athens: 1) the dating of several inscriptions concern-
ing the epheboi in the year 334/3 (JG 1!2 n56, n89, 2970) and 2)
the statement of Harpokration (s.v. 'Emxpch·t)i:;) that Lykurgus had
made mention in a speech on his administration of a man named
Epikrates who was said to have possessed property in the value of
600 talents and who had been honored with a bronze statue for his
law concerning the ephebia: ... , l-repoi:; 8' fo-rtv 'EmxpixTI)i:; ou
(LVlj(LOVEUEL Auxoupyoi:; EV -rcj:i 1tept 8LOLX~cmui:;, 'Aeywv we; :x,cx'Axoui:; E0"1'1X61j
oLCX
\l> '
1'uV
l voµov
, 1'0V
' 7tEpL' 1'W- V E(f)ljt'WV,
' 'A - 6CXL 1'CX/\CXV1'
15Vqicxcn XEX't'lj(j I'). WV Ec,0X0crLWV
•i: I

ouc;(cxv. This Epikrates is otherwise not identifiable. The nature

of his law can only be the subject of conjecture. Neither man nor
measure can be dated.
The statement of Harpokration is subject to two interpretations,-
one, Epikrates' law was responsible for the initial organization;
two, it introduced innovations in an existing organization. The
first is now untenable as applied to 336/5, since a formal organi-
zation existed as early as 361 /o and with the highest degree of
probability ca. 371 Jo.
A sweeping reappraisal of the place of the Athenian ephebia in
Athenian history is made necessary when we realize that the in-
stitution was in existence in the first quarter of the fourth century
and was not formed in response to Chaeronea. There remains the
second interpretation that Epikrates' law, or some other law,
introduced changes in an existing institution. To examine this sec-
ond interpretation and to bring into sharper perspective the
picture of the ephebia in the fourth century which is blurred by
the widely-held misconception about its origin, it will be well to
review what we know about the ephebia from the testimonia of this
century altogether apart from the description which Aristotle
gives us of the institution ca. 325 /4 (Ath. Pol. 42). The inscriptions
give us the titles of two ephebic archontes,-the kosmetes, the head
of the corps, the sophronistai, one for each of the tribes. There
are didaskaloi for each of the tribes who are apparently not fixed
in number, whose subject of instruction is not specified and who
were not necessarily Athenians. Only once is an instructor in a
special branch mentioned, the akontistes, instructor in javelin
throwing (No. 12, p. 43 in latere dextro, 5-6). The epheboi receive
praise for their guard duty at Eleusis by the Eleusinians themselves,