The words ἤ ναῦται omitted by some, converted into something else by others, are judiciously retained by Van Holst, de Eranis, c. ii. p 36, since they are in exact conformity with what Aristotle remarks. Ethic. Nicom. viii. 11. p. 470, seq. Victor. Footnote 302: Vandale having cited a passage from Pollux, iii. 52, stating that the temple in which the phratriæ assembled was denominated φράτριον, adds:—“quas φρατρίας Athenis duodecim numero existentes, ibi tum ulterius describit atque inter alia notat, illorum ad illos introitu virum (procul dubio ab ipsorum parentibus) distributum cæteris φράτορσιν fuisse. Huic οἰνηστήρια sicut et Themistius, Orat. xiii. notat, illos ante introitum, convocata concione probatos et publico annulo signatos fuisse.” Dissert. 9. p. 729. Footnote 303: Harpocrat. v. v. γεννῆται et τριττὺς. Herm. Polit. Antiq. § 98, seq. Schöm. Comit. p. 360. ----- In these Attic associations we discover the germs of those companies of merchants, guilds, &c.,[304] so familiar to the modern world; or rather similar wants in both cases gave rise to similar institutions. But with the trading companies we have, in this place, nothing to do; and if incidentally the other associations are noticed, it is simply for the purpose of more fully developing a system of which the Benefit Clubs formed a part. These evidently rose out of the Eranæ established originally for purposes of pleasure: that is, a number of individuals desirous of enjoying a more splendid entertainment than they could generally afford at home,[305] together with the society of their intimate friends, entered into a subscription[306] for the purpose of getting up a public dinner during the celebration of the great national festivals. In some cases the associations thus formed, pro tempore, did not outlast the occasion, while in others the taste for social pleasures, or the accidental meeting of congenial tempers, led to the establishment of a permanent club, the members of which grew naturally among a warm-hearted people to take an interest in each other’s welfare. The expenses of the sacrifices during these festivals were in part defrayed from the revenues of the sacred lands, but these not sufficing, it was generally necessary to raise a common fund by subscription.[307] ----- Footnote 304: A corresponding distribution of the humbler classes was effected at Rome by Numa: Ἠν δὲ ἡ διανομὴ κατὰ τὰς τέχνας, αὐλητῶν, χρυσοχόων, τεκτόνων, βαφέων, σκυτοτόμων, σκυτοδεψῶν, χαλκέων, κεραμέων. Τὰς δὲ λοιπὰς τέχνας εἰς ταὐτὸ συναγαγῶν, ἓν αὐτῶν ἐκ πασῶν ἀπέδειξε σύστημα Plut. Num. § 17. Cf. Schol. Nub. Aristoph. 179. Footnote 305: