FRIES, C., Zur babylonischen Feuerpost

117-121 HILLER v. GAERTRINGEN, F., Stand der griechischen Inschriftencorpora 252-256 KORNEMANN, E., Die neue Livius. Epitome .

261 KAZAROW, G., Zur Religion der alten Thraker

116 LEHMANN, C. F., Aus und um Kreta.

387-396 Die diesjährige akademische Leibnizsitzung

262-263 Jacoby's Apollodor

122-124 Keilinschriftliches zur Sphärenmusik?

256--259 Nochmals die Chronologie des chremonideischen Krieges . 121-122 Sarapis contra Oserapis

396—401 Weiteres zur altorientalischen Chronologie

260-261 Zum Salzburger Historikertag (Lykurg)

263-264 SEYMOUR DE RICCI, Zur Sammlung der griechischen Inschriften 401 - 402 WILCKEN, U., Die angebliche Abdankung Euergetes' I.

386 WILLRICH, H., Der Geburtstag des Antiochos Epiphanes

116--117 Personalien

124, 261, 102

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Namen- und Sachverzeichnis (H. THÜMMEL)

403 - 108


The oligarchic revolution at Athens of the

year 1032 B. C.

By William Scott Ferguson.

It is probable that from some undeterminable date until 487 6 B. C. the archons at Athens were elected by show of hands. At any rate that is the conclusion urged upon us by the personnel of the extant list.") The inference of Aristotle) that Solon introduced allotment from a previously elected list of forty is almost demonstrably unwarranted. It is at variance moreover with his own conclusion made from the various anarchies of 594 582 B. C., from the tyrannical designs of Damasias, and the compromise of the year which followed that the archonship as the chief object of political ambition was at that time bitterly fought for.") No contest could have occurred had the lot determined the holder of it. Aristotle, however, thought that this scheme of partial allotment was continued in use until the expulsion of Hippias.“)

Certainly from 5110 to 487,6 B. C. the archons were elected. In 487 6 B. C. a change was made. Five hundred candidates were to be chosen, fifty from each tribe, from among the pentakosiomedimnoi and the hippeis, and the elections were to be held in the demes. Doubtless each deme was to choose as many candidates as senators.5) Then the lot was to designate the nine officers. This innovation was made in the midst of the struggle between Themistocles and the various noble families which had been thrown together through opposition to Miltiades.") It was undoubtedly accompanied by a transfer of political and military duties to other officers, such as the generals. To motive the change various suggestions have been made. By it a restraint upon the ekklesia

1) See Pauly-Wissowa II, p. 583 ff. 2) Ath. Pol. 8. --- 3) Ath. Pol. 13, 2.

4) Ath. Pol. 22, 5. That no one can believe, and it confirms the view that the ordinance attributed to Solon by Aristotle had no documentary warrant and was simply an inference. A chronicle (the only alternative to the poems and laws of Solon) would have explained Damasias' tyranny as well as Solon's reform of the archonship, had it treated of either.

5) This is the illuminating suggestion of V. von Schoeffer in P.-W. II, p. 573; cf. also οι νομοθέται οι πεντακόσιοι, ούς οι δημότει ειλoντo, Andocides I 84.

6) Cf. Ed. Meyer, Gesch. d. Altertums III, § 198; Busolt, Griech. Gesch. 11", p. 637ff.; Beloch, Griech. Gesch. I, p. 360 ff.; Bury, llist. of Greece p. 262. Beiträge 7. alten Geschichte IV 1.


would be removed: the popular leader would be enabled to control the government: the Areopagus would come to receive average not extraordinary ability: the old families would lose influence. Another may be added. The archonship was tenable only once in a lifetime. To admit re-election would diminish the numerical strength of the Areopagus: it would foster tyranny: it would enable magistrates to sit in judgment upon their own acts: it would, moreover, be contrary to the spirit of the time which was in favor of throwing the offices open to a larger proportion of the people. Without a far-reaching reform, therefore, the archonship was not available, as e. g. the generalship was, to give a show of legality to the position of the προστάτης του δήμου, while its tenure by his rivals would enable them to frustrate his plans. Themistocles had been chief-archon in 493/2 B. C.) Did that disqualify him for the polemarchy? The nine archons together with a secretary formed a board of ten, and probably allotment to the board, which preceded, or by its sequence determined, the designation of archon, king, polemarch, thesmothetai, and secretary, counted as one tenure of the office and hence made a second impossible.

The mode of determining the archons was again changed somewhere between 487/6 B. C. and Aristotle's time. In the fourth century the number of candidates was 100 not 500, and of them 10 were alloted from each tribe as a whole not 50 elected by the demes of each tribe.?) When the alteration was made we do not know. In 457/6 B. C. the zeugitai were granted the right of holding the office, and since the Solonian census shortly became obsolete all citizens were eligible in the fourth century.")

This method of selecting the archons seems to have prevailed during the whole of the third and second centuries B. C. The archon-list from Aristotle's time“) to c. 103,2 B. C., as from 487,6 B. C. to Aristotle's time, lacks the names of the men, whom we know to have been most influential in the city. The office was honorable enough, but custom attached some financial burdens to the holder of it, so that it frequently, perhaps ordinarily, fell through the failure of candidates into the hands of wealthy men.') After c. 103/2 B. C., as before 4876 B. C., distin


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

1) Dion. Hal., Ant. VI 34; cf. Thucy. I 93, 3. The substantial agreement of Beloch (I, p. 362 n. 5), Busolt (II, p. 642 n. 1), Meyer (III, § 182 A), Wilamowitz (Aristoteles u. Athen I, p. 142), and Bury (p. 263) makes a discussion of this question no longer necessary.

2) Arist. Ath. Pol. 8. - 3) Arist. Ath. Pol. 26, 2.
4) Cf. P.-W. II, p. 588 ff.; Cornell Studies X, p. 91 ff.; Gött. Gel. Anz. 1900, p. 479 ff.

5) Cf. Cornell Studies X, p. 44f. Xenon in c. 135 and Sarapion in 104/3 are cases in point. The absence of Eurykleides and Mikion from the archon-lists of the period 230/29 B. C. and ff. (CIA. II 859) stands in marked contrast to the presence in guished citizens obtained the archonships. Thus in 97/5 Argeios, in 100/99 and 91/88 Medeios') and c. 62/1 Medeios his son, in c. 94/3 Apolexis, in c. 36 Diokles of Melite, in 37/8 A. D. Rhoimetalkas, in c. 88 Domitian, c. 94 Antiochos Philopappos, in 1123 Hadrian, 127 8 Herodes Atticus?) held the office. This indicates clearly that election had replaced allotment, and in Plutarch's time we know that the lot was no longer used.")

It has been already stated that the archonship was tenable only once in a life time. Aristotle is quite explicit on this point. [n Ath. Pol. 62, 3 he says: άρχειν δε τας μεν κατα πόλεμον όρχάς έξεστι πλεονάκις, των δ' άλλων οι δεμίαν, πλήν βουλείσαι δίς. The same prohibition was contemplated in the constitution of the extreme oligarchs in 411 B. C.,“) and is alluded to frequently by the ancient writers. It was contained in the oath administered to the jurors, which ran as follows:") οίδ' αρχήν καταστήσω ώστ' άρχειν υπεύθυνον όντα ετέρας αρχής και των εννέα αρχόντων και του ιερομνήμονος και όσαι μετά των εννέα αρχόντων κυαμεύονται ταύτη τη ημέρα, και κήρυκος και πρεσβείας και συνέδρων, οίδε δίς την αυτήν αρχήν τον αυτόν άνδρα, ουδε δύο αρχας άρξαι τον avtov ļv to avto èviauto. The prohibition did not always exist, however. Thus in 664/3 and 659,8 B. C. Miltiades was archon.") In 583 80 Damasias held the archonship for two years and two months and was then ejected by violence.") The forceful deposition of Damasias and the characterization of him as a tyrant in embryo indicate that in 583 0 it was irregular for him to monopolize the office as he did. The data given above would seem to substantiate Aristotle's statement that it was Draco who forbade duplication of the archonship. But the extant list of archons is so defective that from it no conclusion on this question is warranted for the period prior to Solon, and the statement of Aristotle comes in such dubious companionship and such questionable shape as to bid us pause before accepting it. We may conjecture that it was Solon who introduced the prohibition.

It was apparently (except in 5830 B. C.) not violated during the 6th, 5th, 4th, 3rd, and 2nd Centuries B. C'. Then in 100 99, 910, 90,899,

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

them of Medeios and Argeios in the period 103/2 B. C. ff. But as far as the archonlist is concerned the time c. 103, 2 is largely arbitrary.

1) I accept Kirchner's dating in Gött. Gel. Anz. 1900, p. 479 ff. in preference to my own in Cornell Studies X, p. 91, for the group of archons found in ('L1. 11 985. My reason for so doing will appear in this paper. 2) Cf. P.-W. II, p. 577f. – 3) Perikles IX: Aitar yig ci cozei xir porci te ouv

. 3) : Λύται γερ τε εκ παλαιού κτλ.

4) Arist. Ath. Pol. 31, 3. 5) Demos. XXIV Timocr.), 170. 6) P.-W. II,

P. 583.

7) Arist. Ath. Pol. 1:3, 2; Marm. Par. 38.
8) Arist. Ath. Pol. 4, 3.


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

89/8 B. C.,') four times in eleven years, Medeios was archon and at about the same time Argeios held the office twice in succession in 97/6 and 96/5 B. C. Since it is likely that the possibility was granted not long before Medeios and Argeios availed themselves of it, since indeed it was no doubt the demand which obtained the possibility, we shall not go far astray in assuming that the prohibition was removed in c. 103 2 B. C. It was, however, again enacted, in all likelihood after the capture of the city by Sulla in 86 B. C.; for at a subsequent period its existence is proved by the fact that to evade it the offices of archon, polemarch, and king were regarded as distinct, and hence conferable in sequence upon distinguished individuals.) Repetition of the office for several years in succession presupposes the abolition of allotment as the mode of selection, - a conclusion urged upon us for c. 103/2 B. C. by another reason already mentioned.

It was necessary in the fourth century B. C. for most of the magistrates, especially for those who handled sums of money, to submit their accounts for every prytany to the auditing committee of the senate. This committee consisted of ten senators, called logistai, and its report was subject to the endorsement, first of the senate, and then, in case of appeal, to that of the jury courts. This supervision of the magistrates by the senate was quite distinct from 1) the monthly vote of the people on the conduct of the officers and the immediate reference in case of condemnation to the jury courts,4) and 2) the audit which the senators as well as every magistrate without exception had to stand at the expiry of the civil year. This latter scrutiny was particularly close. A magistrate had thirty days after his term expired within which to file his accounts.5) They were filed with the ten logistai and the ten synegoroi and these had to examine and pass upon them in succession. Their findings were presented as a grand juror's report to a dikasterion of 501 members. At the trial evidence was heard and an adverse decision was final.“) When the decision was favorable, an interval of three days was granted within which the ten euthynoi might receive and weiglı further accusations, and if satisfied of wrong doing, they referred the case once more to a jury court.:) It was not until all these proceedings had closed that it was permissable to vote a crown or any insignia to an officer of the state.)

1) For these and all following archon dates for the 2nd & 1st cents. B. C. I refer the reader to Cornell Studies X, & Gött. Gel. Anz. 1900, p. 433 ft.

2) v. Schoeffer in P.-W. II, p. 578. 3) Arist. Ath. Pol. 45, 2; 48, 3. 4) Arist. Ath. Pol. 43, 4f.; 61, 2. 5) Harpocration s. v. 20716tai; cf. Pollux 8, 45.

6) Arist. Ath. Pol. 54, 2. – 7) Arist. Ath. Pol. 48, 4.

8) Aeschin. Ctes. 9 f.: ουδείς έστιν ανυπεύθυνος των και οπωσούν προς τα κοινά ng06827.vtógov; cf. the jurors' oath, p. 3 supra. Gilbert, Greck Const. Ant., p. 224;

« ͹˹Թõ