54

Αγχίσης (fr·4)

relatively common in comedy (e. g. Nicoch. fr. 18.1; Philetaer. fr. 7.5; Dionys.
Com. fr. 3.15; Alexand. Com. fr. 3.3 [all line initial followed by δε, με or σε]);
cf. Arnott 1996 on Alex. fr. 243.3. For the conjunction with εις τρίτην, cf. E.
Ale. 320 with Dale 1954 ad loc.
Σουνιεΐς Cf. E. Cyc. 293-4 ή τε Σουνίου / δίας Αθάνας σώς ύπάργυρος
πέτρα (‘And safe is divine Athena’s silver-veined rock of Sunium.’), which
suggests that the main point is an equation of Sunium with Laurion and its
rich silver mines and, by extension, the personal wealth of its demesmen.
Almost certainly correct, even if largely ignored, is the conclusion of Kordellas
1894. 243 (discussing IG II2 1180) that Anaxandrides used Σουνιεΐς to mean
‘extremely wealthy’; cf. Haussoullier 1884. 197, who on the basis of this frag-
ment suggested that the wealth of the Sunians was proverbial. For a real-life
instance of a rich mine-owner losing his wealth, see [D.] 42 (probably dating
to the 320s; see Usher 1999. 268 n. 84).
Silver mining at Laurium was revived in this period, suggesting that the
deme of Sunium was flourishing economically and thus could easily have been
associated with wealth. Evidence that at least some of the wealth extracted
from the mines stayed in the area is provided by IG II2 1180, which indicates
that a building program of some sort was in progress in the deme in the mid-
fourth century. Kordellas used this inscription as evidence for placing the
deme centre at Laurium (a conclusion reiterated by Stanton 1996. 342-53);
if true, this might ease the use of the demotic Sounieis to refer to the wealth
derived from the mines. But the stone was not found in situ, and Goette 1995.
171-4 locates the deme centre on the Sunium promontory. For the mines
and their exploitation, see X. Vect. 4; D. 37 (cf. Finley 1985. 32-5) offers a
glimpse into how financing may have worked. For modern literature, see
esp. Kakovogiannes 2005; much of relevance and further bibliography (par-
ticularly in the accompanying bibliography of the honorand) can be found
in Sekunda 2010. Standard older discussions include Photos-Jones and Jones
1994; Conophagos 1980; Hopper 1953; Hopper 1968; Ardaillon 1897.
The interpretation of this line has proven strangely problematic and a
fundamental misconception remains prevalent. Although providing no sup-
porting evidence, Casaubon made the essentially correct claim that the men
of Sounion are here mentioned ‘ceu nobilissimos inter Athenienses cives’,
to which suggestion Schweighauser offered a lengthy but ultimately uncon-
vincing rebuttal. Bothe, following Casaubon, adduced H. Od. 3.278 (άλλ’ δτε
Σούνιον ίρόν άφικόμεθ’, άκρον Αθηνέων [‘But when we came to holy Sunium,
the tip of Athens’]) and Ar. Nu. 401, neither of which is relevant, while Blaydes
1896.121 simply did away with the problem through irresponsible emendation
to δεσπόται, κατ’. Far more pervasive has been Meineke’s conjectural remark