382 HISTOKY OF GREECE. to her political power. That excellent harbor, commodious as a mercantile centre, and now again safe for the residence of metics and a half per cent, upon imports or exports, or upon the produce of the mines of Laureion ; or it might mean a cheap coinage or base money, some- thing in the nature of the Chian TeaaapaKoarai (Thucyd. viii, 100). All that the passage really teaches us is, that some financial proposition was made by Euripides which at first seemed likely to be lucrative, but would not stand an attentive examination. It is not even certain that Euripides promised a receipt of five hundred talents ; this sum is only given to us as a comic exaggeration of that which foolish men at first fancied. Boeckh in more than one place reasons (erroneously, in my judgment) as if this five hundred talents was a real and trustworthy estimate, and equal to two and a half per cent, upon the taxable property of the Athenians. He says (iv, 8, p. 520, Engl. transl.) that " Euripides assumed as the basis of his proposal for levy- ing a property -tax, a taxable capital of twenty thousand talents," and that " his proposition of one-fortieth was calculated to produce five hundred talents." No such conclusion can be fairly drawn from Aristophanes. Again, Boeckh infers from another passage in the same play of the same author, that a small direct property-tax of one five-hundredth part had been recently imposed. After a speech from one of the old women, calling upon a young man to follow her, he replies (v. 1006) : 'A3A' OVK uvdyKt] fiovariv, el fj^i TUV eptiv TTJV TrevraKoaioaTTjv KarE^rjua^ TTJ irdTiei. Boeckh himself admits (iv, 8, p. 520) that this passage is very obscure, and so I think every one will find it. Tyrwhitt was so perplexed by it that he altered k(iuv into kruv. Without presuming to assign the meaning of tho passage, I merely contend that it cannot be held to justify the affirmation. as a matter of historical fact, that a property tax of one-five-hundredth had been levied at Athens, shortly before the representation of Ekklesiazusa;. I cannot refrain here from noticing another inference drawn by Sievers from a third passage in this same play, the Ekklesiazusae (Geschichte Griechenlands vom Ende der Pelop. Kriegs bis zur Schlacht von Mantineia, p. 101.) He says, " How melancholy is the picture of Athenian popular life, which is presented to us by the Ekklesiazusas and the second Plutns, ten or twelve years after the restoration of the democracy ! What an impres- sive seriousness (welch ein erschiitternder Ernst) is expressed in the speech of Praxagora!" (v. 174 seqq.). I confess that I find neither seriousness, nor genuine and trustworthy coloring, in this speech of Praxagora. It was a comic case made out for the purpose of showing that the women were more fit to govern Athens than the men, and setting forth the alleged follies of the men in terms of broad and general disparagement. The whole play is, throughout, thorough farce and full of Aristophanic humor. And it is surely preposterous to treat what is put into the mouth of Praxagora, the leading feminine character, as if it were historr:al evidence as to the actual condition or management of -A th
