Page:Philological Museum v2.djvu/60

50 50 Dr Arnold on the either became absolute or sank into insignificance, in Sparta the balance of the two powers was trimmed by the institu- tion of the Ephors. Although in the reign of Theopompus the power of the Ephors first reached its full extent, yet their existence may be traced to an earlier date; and the account of Herodotus, who classes them among the institu- tions of Lycurgus, merely means that they were retained in his legislation^^. Having rejected this statement in its plain and literal sense, Dr Arnold adopts with some variations a modern hypothesis on the origin of the Ephors, which I will now proceed to examine. Miiller (Dor. b. iii. c. 5. (^. 4) first conjectured that the number of the Ephors was derived from that of the five Kw/jiah or hamlets of Sparta, certain territorial divisions of the town. In what manner however he obtained more than the four Kw/mah Pitana, Limnae, Mesoa, and Cynosura, he did not explain. This difficulty was afterwards pointed out by Wachsmuth (Hell. Alt. Vol. ii. P. i. p. 19. n. 45.) ; and Boeckh, adopting the hypothesis of Miiller, attempted to remove it as follows : " Quintum putaverim Avjarjv fuisse. Hesych. Avfrntj, ev ^irapTrj (pvXrj Kac tottos^ ubi totto? con- jungendum esse cum ev ^irdprrj^ nee de urbe Achaiae cogi- tandum, docet sensus communis. Hujus vici cives a Dy- manibus, Dorica tribu, poterant diversi esse, ut Aat^aXi^cov gens Athenis a AaiSaXiScoi; demo, etc."" (Corp. Inscript. Vol. I. p. 609). This conjecture however must remain doubt- ful, because it is by no means certain that Av/mrj does not mean the tribe of the Dymanes, which may in the later times of Sparta have become a (pvXi^ tottlkt]; nor is there any other mention, than this brief notice in a very corrupt gram- marian, of this supposed kcojulvj^ whereas the other four are frequently mentioned. Much more satisfactory is the ex- planation of Miiller himself in the English translation of the Dorians, that he understood the five divisions of the town ^^ 'BWdvLKO^ fxev ovv 'Evpva-devt] /cat UpoKXea (t>V^^ SiaTd^ai ti^v iroXiTeiav* "E(po- /009 d' eiTLTLfxa (j)r}cras AvKOvpyov fxev avTov jULfjSa^ov fX€fxvi](Tdai, tol ^* eKeivov epya Tols fii] irpoa-nKovcTLv dvaTidevaLy Strabo viii. p. 366. The latter statement of Ephorus, whatever may have been its truth m this instance, taken in a general sense is the exact reverse of the truth : the tendency of tradition at all times has been to ascribe to celebrated names the works of unknown or obscure persons.