Scanned text contains errors.
vavv SJ/cijUoy Kal evreXf} irapafiovi/at. Consequently the statement in the oration against Mi-dias (p. 564. 22) that when Demosthenes was quite young (b. c. 364) the Trierarchs paid all the expenses themselves (rd dvaXwfjLara ck t&v i8to>*>) only implies that they defrayed the expenses which were customary at that time, and which were afterwards diminished by the regulation of the sym-moriae ; but not that they supplied the ship, or pay and provisions for the crew. The whole expenditure, says Bockh, means nothing more than the equipment of the vessel, the keeping it in repair, and the procuring the crew which was attended with much trouble and expense, as the Trierarchs were sometimes obliged to give bounties in order to induce persons to serve, foreign sailors not being admissible. From the oration of Demosthenes against Polycles (b. c. 361), we learn the following particulars about the Trierarchy of that time. The Trierarchs were obliged .to launch their ship ; the sailors were supplied from particular parishes (S^uot), through the agency of the demarehi ; but those supplied to Apollodorus the client of Demosthenes were but few and inefficient, consequently he mortgaged, his estate (viroQetvcu t^v ova-lav}, and hired the best men he could get, giving great bounties and premiums (TrpoSoffeis). He also equipped the vessel with his own tackle and furniture, taking nothing from the public stores (e/c
ovStv eAaSoj/. Compare the Speech on the Crown of the Trierarchy, p. 1229). Moreover in consequence of his sailors deserting when he was out at sea, he was put to additional and heavy expenses in hiring men at different ports. The provision money for the sailors (<riTi)p&(riov) was provided by the state, and paid by the strategi, and so generally speaking was the pay for the marines (eTrtgarcu) : but Demosthenes' client only received it for two months, and as he served for five months more than his time, (from the delay of his successor elect,) he was obliged to advance it himself for fifteen months, with but an uncertain prospect of repayment. Other circumstances are mentioned which made his Trierarchy very expen-&ive, and the whole speech is worth readimj^-as showing the unfairness and hardship to whiclTa rich man was sometimes subjected as a Trierareh. The observation that he took no furniture from the public stores, proves that at that time '(b.c. 361), the triremes were fitted out and equipped from the public stores, and consequently by the state ; but as we learn from other passages in Demosthenes, and the inscriptions in Bockh (Urkunden, No. iii.), the Trierarchs were obliged to return in good condition any articles which they took; in default of doing so they were considered debtors to the state. That the ship's furniture was either wholly or in part supplied by the state, also appears from another speech (c. Euerg. et Mnesib. 1146): but Trierarchs did not always avail themselves of their privilege in this respect, that they might have no trouble in settling with the state. It is evident then, that at the time referred to (about b.c. 360), the only expenses binding upon the Trierarchs were those of keeping in repair the ship and the ship's furniture ; but even these might be very considerable, especially if the ship were old, or exposed to hard service and rough weather. Moreover, some Trierarchs, whether from ambitious or patriotic motives, put themselves to unnecessary expense in fitting out and rigging their ships, from which the
state derived an advantage. Sometimes, on the other hand, the state suffered, by the Trierarchs performing their duties at the least possible expense, or letting out their Trierarchy (nia-dtoaat ttjv tetrovpyiav) to the contractor who offered the lowest tender. (Dem. de Coron. Trierar. 1230.) One consequence of this was, that the duties were inadequately performed; but there was a greater evil connected with it, namely, that the contractors repaid themselves by privateering on their own account, which led to reprisals and letters of marque being granted against the state. (sylae : Dem. Id. 1231.) It seems strange that the Athenians tolerated this, especially as they were sometimes inconsistent enough to punish the Trierarchs who had let out their Trierarchy, considering it as a desertion of post (AewroTa£ioi/, Id. 1230).
We may here observe, that the expression in Isaeus (de Apoll. Hered. 67), that a Trierareh " had his ship made himself" (ti)i/ vomv iroi^ad^e-vov), does not mean that he was at the cost of building it (z/auTn^rjo-d^ei/os), but only of fitting it up and getting it ready for sea. That the ships always belonged to the state, is further evident from the fact that the senate was intrusted with the inspection of the ship-building (Dem. c. Androt. 599. 13) ; and is placed beyond all doubt by the 46 Athenian Navy List" of the inscriptions in Bockh. ( Urlmnden, &c.) Some of the ships there mentioned are called dvetriKX^puroi^ whence it appears that the public vessels were assigned by lot to the respective Trierarchs. A rpitfprjs eirtSoal^ /uos was a ship presented to the state as a free gift, just as rpi^pTf] in&ovvai means to present the state with a trireme (Dem. c. Mid. 566, 568). The duration of a Trierarchy was a year, and if any Trierareh served longer than his legal time, he could charge the extra expenses (rti eirirpitipdp* X^a) to his successor. To recover these expenses an action (IjriTpiiripapx'tfiJ.a.TOs 6^/07) might be brought against the successor, of which we have an example in the speech 0f Apollodorus against Polycles, composed by Demosthenes for the former. •^ II. On the expenses of the Trierarchy. These would of course depend upon circumstances; but except in extraordinary cases, they were not more thanJiJQ-f-ilbr less than 40 minae: the average was about 501 Thus about the year b. c. 360, a whole Trierarchy was let out for 40 minae ; in later times the» general amount of a contract was 60. (Dem. c. Mid. 539, 564. 20, de Coron. 260, 262.)
III. On the different forms of the Trierarchy. In ancient times one person bore the whole charge, afterwards it was customary for two persons to share it, who were then called Syntrierarchs (crvv-rpnqpapxoi). When this practice was first introduced is not known, but Bockh conjectures that it was about the year 412 B. c., after the defeat of the Athenians \in Sicily, when the union of two persons for the Choregia was first permitted. The most ancient account of a syntrierarchy is later than 410 (Lys. c. Diogit. 907, 909), and we meet with one so late as B. c. 358, the year of the Athenian expedition into Euboea. (Dem. c. Mid. 566. 24.) The syntrierarehy to which we allude was indeed a voluntary service (eTr^Sotrty), but there can be little doubt that it was suggested by the ordinary practice of that time ; and even under the next form of the service, two Trierarchs were sometimes employed for the immediate direction of the Trierarchy. The syntrierarchy, however, did
4 £ 4