Μαρικάς (fr. 210)

219

fr. 210 K.-A. (195 K.)
Harp. p. 286.14-16 = T 2 Keaney
εΐσί δε τινες καί των {ιερών} τριήρων ταμίαι, ώς ό αύτός φιλόσοφός φησιν ([Arist.]
Ath. 61.7). ότι δε κ α I τοΐς τριηράρχοις παρείποντο τ α μ ί α ι δεδήλωκεν
Εϋπολις έν Μαρικα
There are certain treasurers of the {sacred} triremes as well, as the same philosopher
says ([Arist.] Ath. 61.7). And Eupolis in Marikas makes it clear that treasurers
were also assigned to the trierarchs
Discussion Bergk 1838. 354; Davies 1971. 517
Citation context From a general note on Athenian ταμίαι (official state
financial administrators, “treasurers”). The same material, but without the
play-title, is preserved at Phot, τ 36 = Suda τ 59 - Et.Gen. AB (drawn from
the Epitome of Harpocration). Poll. 8.116 ταμίας έκάλουν τούς ταΐς ίεραΐς
τριήρεσι λειτουργούντας, άλλους ή τριηράρχους, τούς τε έκ τής Παράλου
καί τής Σαλαμινίας (“they used the term tamias for the men whose liturgy
involved funding the sacred triremes, who were different from trierarchs,
and for those from the Paralos and the Salaminia”) may well go back to the
same source.
Interpretation Harpocration apparently believed that there were both tamiai
elected by the Athenian people to manage the two Athenian sacred triremes,
the Paralos and the Salaminia, as [Aristotle] says (Ath. 61.7), and other men
with the same title charged with supervising the wealthy citizens required
to fund individual warships for a year (the city’s trierarchs). This is the only
evidence for the latter sort of tamiai, and Harpocration or his source may well
have misunderstood something Eupolis said about the commanders of the
Paralos and the Salaminia and their relationship to the trierarchs.
For the sacred triremes and their commanders, cf. Ar. Av. 147, 1204; Ra.
1071-2 (where the commanders whose authority the crews of the Paralos chal-
lenge are presumably the tamiai)·, Th. 3.33.1-2; D. 21.171-4 with MacDowell
1990a. 388-9; IG II3 299.7-8 (347/6 BCE); II2 1254 (4th c. BCE); 1623.225 (333/2
BCE); 1628.8, 79 (326/5 BCE); Harp. p. 159.3-5 = 15 Keaney, citing Philoch.
FGrH 328 F 47 and Androt. FGrH 324 F 24; Phot, τ 34; Bochk 1886 1.213 n. a;
Busolt-Swoboda 1926. 1208; Dain 1931. 298 line 1; Jordan 1975. 153-83, esp.
181-3. For the trierarchs, [X.] Ath. 3.4; Gabrielsen 1994. 43-169; Bubelis 2010;
Rutherford 2013. 178-82.
Kassel-Austin follow Bergk and Davies 1971. 517 in interpreting the com-
bination of this fragment, fr. 207 and Ar. Th. 836-45 to mean that Hyperbolos