[ocr errors]

These rights of supervision by which during the year the senate, assembly, and jurymen, and at the end of it, the proper officers and the jury courts controlled the magistrates, we may conjecture to have belonged to the επίθετα δι' ών ήν ή της πολιτείας φυλακή,1) which Ephialtes took from the Areopagus, when in 462'1 B. C. he left it uova ta inèg toù ouuatos.?) Certain rights of supervision were restored to the Areopagus at 403,) but, as is clear from the testimony of Aristotle, not those with which we are concerned here. These remained distributed in the manner just indicated during the third and second centuries. Thus in the ephebe inscriptions belonging to the years 1221 B. C. (CIA, II 471), 11817 (CIA. II 469), 106/5 (CIA. II 470), and 104/3 (CIA. II 465) it is invariably stated in the decree of the senate and people in honor of the kosmetes that he stood his audit. In several cases the formula runs thus: και περί πάντων των κατά την αρχήν έδωκεν τας ευθύνας εν το δικαστηρίων κατά τον νόμον (CIA. II 469, 1. 60 f. ; 470, 1. 41 f.; 471, 1. 88; 465, 1. 45). It is extremely striking therefore that in the ephebe inscription for 100,99 B. C. (CIA. II 467) all mention of the audit is omitted and in place of it we find (1. 89 ff.) the statement: ¿nonoato δε και την απόδειξιν αυτών και τον απολογισμόν εν τη βουλή υπέρ των κατά την αρχήν και περί των εν τω ενιαυτό γεγονότων πάντων τοίς εφήβο[ις], ανθ' ών και οι έφηβοι βουλόμενοι τιμάν αυτόν αξίως της γεγονείας εις εαυτού[s] ειεργεσίας έστε[+]άνωσαν αυτόν εν τη βουλή. The ephebe year ended at the beginning of the third month of the civil year,“) Boedromion, so that it was to the senate of the year 100/99 that the kosmetes of the year 101/0 B. C. justified his conduct. There is no word of a judicial audit in this decree, nor in any of the ephebe inscriptions which belong to a subsequent period (CIA. II 466, 468, 478, 479, 480, 481, 482, c. 103 2 — c. 35 B. C.). It is true that many of these are damaged, but they all conform so closely to three undamaged types that we may be sure that reference to a judicial audit was

a lacking in all of them. And there was substituted for it the approbation of the ephebes (and their fathers), upon which after c. 103,2 B. C. the state acted in conferring marks of appreciation upon the kosmetes.5)

As has been said the ephebe year terminated at the first of Boedromion. It was usual for the senate and assembly to recognize the

. services of the ephebes by an honorary decree and the voting of a

This was done in 122/1 B. C. on the gth łußóheuos xat' dozovta

[ocr errors]


H. Francotte, La législation athénienne sur les distinctions honorifiques etc., Louvain, 1900, p. 64 f.; cf. Fr. Cauer, Berl. Phil. Woch. 1902, p. 1296 f.

1) Arist. Ath. Pol. 25, 2. 2) Lex Cantabr. Gilbert, 0. c. p. 155 n. 2.; cf. Ed. Meyer, Gesch. d. Altert. V p. VII. 3) See below p. 9 n. 5.

4) Gilbert, 0. C. p. 313. 5) Cf. Koehler at CIA. 478, p. 287.

[ocr errors]

= 9th zarà faóv of Boedromion, in 118 7 on the 10th, in 106/5 on the 14th, in 100/99 on the gth, in c. 80 (CIA. II 481) on the 6th and c. 35 (CIA. II 482) on the 4th of this same month. In the last two cases the

. senate alone passed the decrees. In the rest the vote was taken in the first èxxinoia xvoia of the third month. This accounts for the delay of a day or two noticeable in them.

On the other hand a decree in honor of the kosmetes could not be enacted until the jurors had passed his accounts. This necessitated a delay of a month or more. In 122/1 such a decree was passed on the 11th of the 4th month, in 118/7 on the gth of the gth month, in 106/5 on the 16th of the 4th month, and in 104/3 on the gth of the 6th month. But in 100/99 it was passed on the same day as that in honor of the ephebes, and in the subsequent years during which ratification by the people was at all necessary both decrees, together with a vote of acknowledgment for the public sacrifices offered by the kosmetes (which had earlier been passed during the ephebe year),') were voted upon at the same time in the third month.

The disappearance of any reference to a judicial audit, the substitution of the approbation of the ephebes for it, and the possibility of conferring insignia immediately, i. e. without at least a months delay - all three appearing for the first time after 1043 B. C. and before 100/99 B. C. -- admit of only one explanation, namely that in c. 103, 2

. a change was made in the constitution by which the supervision of the senate was made final and the jury courts were deprived of the right of auditing the accounts of the kosmetes and of giving a favorable verdict before a vote awarding distinctions could be passed by the ekklesia. A change of this kind cannot have affected the kosmetes alone. It must have affected the other magistrates including the senate and the Areopagus as well. It need hardly be remarked that thereby a fatal blow was given to the democratic constitution of Athens.

It is a small matter that at c. 103 2 B. C. proclamations of honors conferred came to be made at the Ptolemaia as well as elsewhere. It is likewise of little importance that in the ephebe decree of 100,99 B. C. we have the first dated sample of a new type of ephebe inscription. But it is not so trivial a matter that between the years 1043 and 100/99 B. C. the prytany secretary came to be chosen without regard to the tribe demanded by the official order.) And it is not merely a coincidence that between 1054 and 101 0 B. C. the official order came no longer to be observed in choosing the Athenian priests of Serapis at Delos.3) As Kirchner has already pointed out,') the official order was disregarded in

1) Cf. CIA. II 470, I. 6.3 ff. 2) Kirchuer, Gött. Gel. Anz. 1900, p. 475. 3) Cornell Studies VII, p. 46 ff.; X, p. 81. — 4) Gött. Gel. Anz. 1900, p. 475.

both cases at the same time.) The abandonment of it was probably

" due to the introduction of free election, which of course brought to office conspicuous individuals from any tribe whatsoever. The tribe had long since lost most of its political significance.

A reordering of the Pythias”) was made in 1032 B. C. whereby the "first enneeteris" began in the following year. "And never had so numerous and so brilliant a delegation" gone from Athens to Delphi as in 1021 B. C.) Since the official order was observed in 104/3 and dis

" regarded in 101/0, our choice of a year for its abandonment is thereby limited to 103/2 and 102/1 B. C. Hence, because of the reform of the Pythias I venture at this point to omit the "circa" which hitherto I have associated with 1032 B. C. and to ascribe to this year all the changes above detailed.

And these were not the only changes made at this time. Two things are quite noteworthy in the list of magistrates who made contributions to the Pythian Apollo during the "first enneeteris" i. e. from 102/1 to 95/4 B. C. inclusive. It is natural to find the priestships and other offices at Delos filled by rich and influential Athenians, to observe a tendency for the magistracies to be held in succession by the same men or by the same families, and indeed for several of the extraordinary positions to be held by the incumbent of an important ordinary magistracy.) But it is instructive to find that the otpatnyós ènì ta onha is regularly listed before the archons“) and that the ånapxń required of him is regularly twice as great as that required of these. It is significant, moreover, to find that the κήρυξ βουλής της εξ 'Αρείου Πάγου ranks as high as an archon. At a later date such a grading undoubtedly existed. The herald and the hoplite-general were then the most important officers in the city.

But in an ordinance“) regulating the weights and measures issued

[ocr errors]

1) It is noteworthy that in the extant lists of thesmothetai the official sequence of the tribes is wilfully disregarded once only, in 101/0 B. C. See Bates, Cornell Studies VIII, p. 4, group (17). It is hardly a matter of chance that in 112/1 and 107/6, men of known families (see below p. 11) obtained the secretaryship. The secretary for 100/99 Philion, Philion's son, of Eleusis (CIA. II 985 II D, 1. 24; 467) was himself an influential personage. The history of the secretaryship is similar to that of the archonship. Both offices came more and more, through the failure of candidates, into the hands of the rich, and finally the lot which became a mere form was done away with altogether.

2) Strabo, Geog. 422. See Bull. de Corr. Hell. [BCH.] XXIII (1899), p. 42. The enneeteris began with the Pythia of 01. 169, 3; it had nothing to do with Delos. That the Pythia was celebrated in 102/1 B. C. gave the reformers a chance to operate here as elsewhere.

3) See Colin (BCH. I. c.), who has had access to pertinent documents not yet published.

4) CIA. II 985. 5) Cf. Kirchner, Gött. Gel. Anz. 1900, p. 477. — 6) CIA. II 476.

in what is shown below to be probably 1032 B. C. the hoplite-general and the prytanes have executive duties in common. This was the generalship which the most powerful citizens held between 102/1 and 95/4 B. C.') In the last decades of the second century this general was chief of one section of the sacred embassy to Delphi and occasionally headed the whole theoria.-) In 88 B. C. Athenion was given control of affairs at Athens through election to this office.) Clearly the supreme importance of the στρατηγός επί τα όπλα antedates the reforms of Sulla in 86/3 B. C. The truth would seem to be that the exaltation of one general over the rest naturally followed the limitation of Athens' military equipment to the land army,) and that the marked superiority of the hoplite-general over the other magistrates of Athens began at the same time that the changes already noted occurred i. e. 1032 B. C.

That the importance of the herald of the Areopagus in the period 102/1495/4 B. C. involves increased duties on the part of that august body, is evident from the ordinance on weights and measures. The general date of this document is indicated by the fact that the commissioner appointed to arrange the weights and measures 5) Diodoros, Theophilos' son, from Halai was epimeletes ènì tòv huéva in 112/1 B. C.") His name also appears among some additions made in a list) of influential citizens posted at c. 125 B. C. In CIA. II 476, 11. 29—37 (the ordinance above cited), a ratio was established between certain drachmae Στεφανηφόρου and the μνα ή εμπορική.8) In the type of

[ocr errors]

1) Cf. Zhebelev S., On the History of Athens, p. 313 ff.; cf. Berl. Phil. Woch. 1899, p. 1023 tỷ.

2) BCH. XX (1896), p. 639 ff.; Hermes XXVIII (1893), p. 619 ff. Other inscriptions of this kind have apparently been lying unedited at Delphi for 10 years!

3) Athenaeus V 213 e.

4) This was a gradual process beginning at the end of the IVth century B. C.; cf. Gött. Gel. Anz. 1900, p. 477.

5) CIA. II 476, 1. 39. 6) CIA. II 475. 7) CIA. II 1047.

8) As a substitute for the unsatisfactory explanation of this fragment proposed by Boeckh, Staatsh. d. Ath. 2, p. 324 ff. I would suggest the following. The reforin of the weights required an adjustment between the system just recognized, i. e. the commercial system, and the old standard system, that used in the coining of silver money, i. e. Stegevrpógov = the temple of minting. The following practical rules

, i. Στεφανηφόρου were issued. The commercial mina should be regarded as containing 138 of the drachmae Eteqavrgógov. In business transactions 12 drachmae St. were to be added, as a ponú, to the commercial mina, so that a total of 150 drachmae Et. 14/2 old minae, would be reached. It was determined that the commercial mina should be understood where the other (apòs doyvolov) was not expressly mentioned. To readily convert the coinmercial five-mina weight into terms of the old system, one commercial mina was to be added to it so that a total of 84/4 (exactly 828/100) old minae would be reached. To readily convert the commercial talent into terms of the old talent, a commercial five-mina weight was to be added so that a total of 1, (exactly 119/100) old taleuts would be reached. The commercial mina 138 drachmae Er., the commercial five

[ocr errors]

ephebe inscription which begins after 1032 B. C. we observe that the ephebes are required by a state decree to dedicate & φιάλη από δραχμων Στεφανηφόρου εβδομήκοντα to the mother of the gods. 1) The weight of the piáhn dedicated to Demeter and Kore is also determined in drachmae Στεφανηφόρου. 2) The addition Στεφανηφόρου3) was no doubt made to make it clear that commercial drachmae were not meant. Indeed its absence would have implied the commercial system. This explanation prosupposes the existence after 103 2 B. C. of the two systems. The danger of ambiguity would seem to have arisen only after 106/5 B. C., in which year the weight of the pichai dedicated is given in drachmae simply.) Hence it is probable that it was in 1032 B. C. that the revision of the weights and measures took place, a conclusion with which the fact accords that in establishing the ratio between the two systems the commissioner cleverly brought about an easy transition from either, not only to the Phoenician stater, but also to the Roman libra. After 86 B. C. the need for the two systems can hardly have

. existed. At any rate the term Steqavnyógou is found only between 1032 and 86 B. C. Very specific penalties are threatened in the ordinance upon magistrates, private citizens, and public slaves alike for κακουργία επί τα μέτρα και τα σταθμά. The senate of the Areopagus is to have general supervision of the matters) and to punish the guilty

mina weight 690 drachmae Er., the commercial talent = 8280 drachmae Er. To express these alone in terms of the old system would involve bothersome fractions. Had the commissioner desired to define the porn throughout in terms of drachmae Er. he might have enacted one of 10 for the commercial five-mina weight, in which case the total would have been 7 old minae exactly, and one of 720 for the commercial talent, in which case the total would have been 14/2 old talents exactly. But in each case, taking the bulk weighed into consideration, the inaccuracy was so slight that he preferred the facility of using the commercial mina as the poań in the one case, and the commercial five-mina weight as the poań in the other.

And an additional advantage was gained by means of the plan adopted; for the commercial mina plus the pony equalled two Roman pounds exactly; moreover the commercial five-mina weight plus the porn five Phoenician minae; cf. Hultsch, Griech. und Röm. Metrologie? 1882, p. 135 ff. As has been frequently pointed out the commercial system was none other than the Aeginetan. The device by which Diodoros inade the Solonian (= Staqavrgógov), Aeginetan (= commercial), Phoenician, and Roman systems of weights and measures convertible one into terms of the other is admirable both for its simplicity and its ingenuity. Cf. also Hermes 36 1901, p. 113 where C. F. Lehmann has tabulated the results of his metrological investigations.

1) CIA. II 466, I. 35, 467, 1. 40, 468, 1. 24. – 2) CIA. II 466, 1. 28, 467, 1. 30, 468, 1. 18.

3) For a different explanation of Erzgavrgógov see Hill, Handbook of Gk. and Roman Coins, p. 130. Hill (following Beulé) thinks it means “fresh from the mint”, drachmae being coins not weights. All we know is that the mint was probably "attached to the shrine of the hero Stephanephoros"; cf. Boechi, 0. c. II, p. 325.

4) CIA. II 470, 1. 12f.
5) At the revision of the constitution after the downfall of the 30 tyrants the

[ocr errors]
« ͹˹Թõ