393 The Introduction of the Secretary-Cycle. By William Scott Ferguson. A list of the prytany-secretaries for the period between 363/2 and 322/1 B. C. was drawn up by me sixteen years ago in my Athenian Secretaries1). It has, however, been long in need of revision. A revision is now rendered all but superfluous by the recent appearance of Kirchner's first volume of the Inscriptiones Graecae2). There the Attic decrees, which yield the names of the secretaries, are arranged and restored in such a way that my old list can easily be brought up to date. Kirchner, however, still adheres in this publication to the view expressed by me in the Athenian Secretaries that it was in 352/1 B. C. with Erechtheis, the first tribe, that rotation of the secretaryship among the tribes in their official order first began3). This view of the matter is no longer tenable. A glance at the following table will show, what the attribution of Πάνθιος Σωκλέους ἐξ Οἴου to Leontis, instead of to Hippothonthis, obscured1), that the secretary-cycle started with Kekropis in 356/5 B. C. 5) The secretary in IG II, 1, 190 is o[vvov]. That he is the same person as Povvov Aɛv[zovoɛvç], secretary in IG II, 1, 152, has been conjectured by Sundwall, Nachträge zur Prosopographia Attica, p. 168. IG II, 1, 190 had either five or four letters according as Klio, Beiträge zur alten Geschichte XIV 4. The archon-name in 26 2 I was led to assign Pandios son of Sokles (355/4 B. C.) to the Leontid rather than to the Hippothontid Oion by the observation that in that case none of the secretaries for the ten years prior to 352/1 B. C. with or without the v. That may be restored IG II2, 1, 107 and 152 show clearly. Only four archons come into consideration: Mikon (402/1 B. C.), Laches (400/399 B. C.), Nikon (379/8 B. C.), and Chion (365/4 B. C.). That Chion should be restored is suggested by the simularity of formula in IG II2, 1, 190 and in IG II2, 1, 248, of which the date is 359/8 B. C. It is proved, I think, by the content of the two decrees in which Phrynon is mentioned as secretary. Indeed, from the sole fact that in one of them, IG II, 1, 190, proxenia and euergesia were conferred upon Π......τὸν Πε]λαγόνων βα[σιλέα], Eduard Meyer Gesch. des Altertums V, p. 458 ff.) has already inferred that the document belongs in the campaign waged on the coast of Macedon by Iphicrates and Timotheos in 368-363 B. C. It is the forerunner of the document (IG II, 1, 110; cf. Ditt., Syll. 103) in which in 363/2 B. C. Menelaos son of Arrhabaios, ПIɛλayóv, appears as the comrade-in-arms and banker of Timotheos in the war of Athens against the Chalcidians and Amphipolis. That diplomatic relations with Ainos, such as IG II, 1, 152 presupposes, accord well with the Athenian enterprises in Thrace in 365/4 B. C., needs only be mentioned. Ainos entered the Second Athenian League in 375 B. C. 1) IG II2, 1, 248; cf. Wilhelm, Wiener Studien, 1912, p. 421. 2) The following secretary may belong in one of the vacant years of this cycle: [. . . . . . . 'Oivatos (Hippothontis) IG II2, 1, 145. On the other hand, the following secretaries belong before 366/5 B. C.: [.......]s Evggovos Pvλ[áσios] (Oineis) IG II, 1, 157; [... ... Plavzinno 'Arnvevs (Antiochis) IG II, 1, 158; Νικόξενος Νικοκλέος Χολλήθης (Leontis IG II, 1, 159. 3) The tribe being Aiantis and the spaces nine, only one demotikon, 'Aqidvatos, is possible. A Procleides of Aphidna was trierarch in 323/2 B. C. Kirchner, P. A. 12198. The two men doubtless belonged to the same family. belonged to the same tribe 1); the conclusion being drawn therefrom that before the introduction of the secretary-cycle the ten tribes were given the office of secretary in an order determined by lot. This conclusion. is still valid. We have only to substitute 357/6 B. C. for 353/2 B. C. as the year in which the period of allotment ended. This substitution enables us to make a further observation of some importance: namely, that when we give all the tribes one chance at the secretary-ship prior to 356/5 B. C. we reach with 367/6 B. C. the year in which in all probability the annual secretaryship was first created. We have known hitherto that in 368/7 B. C., as theretofore, a new secretary appeared in the preamble of decrees with each new prytany, and that in 363/2 B. C., and thereafter, all the prytanies of the year were served by the same secretary. Unfortunately, no decrees existed to fix the alteration from a secretary changing with the prytany to a secretary changing annually in any one of the four intervening years. Now, however, we may affirm with considerable assurance that there were ten secretaries in each year for the last time in 367/6 B. C. Since we have already known that the ten secretaries were elected by show of hands and the one by lot, and that the ten were members of the senate, designated probably by the senate, and the one an official of the people, elected, like the civil officials of Athens generally, from outside the membership of the senate, we observe that the change made by the Athenians in 367/6 B. C. in the management of their public records was a very great one. The change was in the direction of a more radical democracy. In one further department the theory was then put into force that one citizen was as competent as another to cope with the duties of public office; in another respect the authority of the boule was reduced and the power of the demos advanced. No one of the four years that come into question is more appropriate for such a change than 367/6 B. C.; for that is the year in which the régime of Kallistratos of Aphidna came to an end, and an opposition party took possession of the government2). His downfall was due primarily to dissatisfaction with his foreign policy. He and his adherents had lost to Thebes the goodwill and support of the Persian king despite all their efforts to retain it. Moreover, from their loyalty to the principles of the Second Delian League the Athenians, after a trial of ten years, had made no political gains to compensate them for 1) Since then the other secretary given to Hippothontis, ллoç Zuzv[do Keigiάons], has been transferred from the archonship of Eucharistos (359/8 B. C.) to the archonship of Nikomachos (341/0 B. C.), and has been transformed into Ονήσιππος Σμικύ[90] 'Αραφήνιος See IG II, 1, 220. 2) Judeich, Kleinasiat. Stud. p. 198 ff., Beloch, Griech. Gesch. II, p. 272 ff.; Meyer, Gesch. des Altertums V, p. 451 ff.; Kirchner, IG II2, 1, 108, note. 26* the materials losses, actual and prospective, which they had accepted in 378/7 B. C. as the price of the union. They had hoped for the hegemony of all Greece and, as it proved, had squandered money to no purpose in fighting for others, and wasted opportunities in defending allies when they might have exploited them. In addition, they had just lost Oropos to Thebes. For all these failures they held Kallistratos responsible. The outcome was that in 366 B. C. Timotheos the son of Conon took his place as the dominant personality in Athens, and with his ascendency came that of the old imperial democracy with its policy of the firm hand in the Confederacy, the forceful reduction of seceders, the founding of cleruchies etc. The contest with Persia was cautiously renewed. Athens was set „full steam ahead" for the revolt of the allies and Social War. In a state organized like Athens the official who kept the minutes of the boule and ecclesia, wrote them up in Biß2ia or roaμuaτeta for permanent record, transcribed them on stone if ordered to do so, and safeguarded them in the public archive against fraud, loss, and confusion, was of sufficient importance to come within reach of a governmental crisis such as occured in 367/6 B. C. Earlier the secretary had been a man of standing and capacity: võv dè, says Aristotle, yέyove xλnowtós. Earlier he had been responsible to the senate and had served for a prytany only: now, Aristotle might have added, he has become responsible to the people and serves for an entire year. For Aristotle identifies unmistakably the γραμματεὺς τῆς βουλῆς of the period which ended in 367/6 B. C. with the 70auuates ò xaτà лovτaveiar of the period after 367/6 B.C. And this identification need not depend any longer upon Aristotle's authority alone. We may now assert that Aristotle was entirely in the right in identifying them; for the continuity of the office is established also by the consideration that after 367/6 B. C. the secretaryship called narà лQvτareiar was distributed among the ten tribes of Athens in precisely the same way as the secretaryship of the senate had been distributed before 367/6 B. C. That is to say, each tribe was given the office in turn in an order established by lot, the sole difference being that before 367/6 B. C. the office went the round of the tribes in the course of a single year, whereas after 367/6 B. C. ten years were needed to complete the circuit. Then, in 357/6 B. C., when one such circuit was completed, a further change was made, in that thenceforth, not an alloted order, but the official order, determined the rotation. The lot was used for the last time in this connection with the result that the tribe which began the second cycle in 356/5 B. C. was Kekropis. Until the change was made in 367/6 B. C. there existed a good and sufficient reason why the official order should not be used to assign the consecutive secretaries of the senate to the tribes; to wit, care had then to be given that the secretaryship was not possessed by the prytany in office at any given moment; for the constitution required that the secretary of the senate, while a ẞovλevτýs, should not be a лоуταviç1). This requirement2), however, could not have been met, had the secretaries of the senate succeeded one another in the official order of their tribes, while at the same time the order of the prytanies was determined wholly by lot, as it was and had to be. For in that case coincidences between the tribe of the secretary and the tribe of the prytany could not have been avoided 3). The use of the alotted order after the office of secretary had become annual was, however, unnecessary. It was none the less maintained during the first subsequent decade (366/5-357/6 B. C.)4). In view of the administrative difficulties thereby occasioned, we have a right, I think, to look upon this as being simply the continuation of an old custom. Allotment was, accordingly, superceded by the official order at the earliest possible moment at the beginning of the second cycle. Athens. 1) Pol. Ath. LIV, 3. 2) Caillemer (Daremberg et Saglio, s. v. Grammateis, p. 1648) and Penndorf (Leipz. Stud. XVIII, 1898, p. 135 f.) accused Aristotle of having made a mistake; but see Brillant, Les secrétaires athéniens, (Bibl. de l'école des hautes études, 191), , p. 41 ff. 3) Athenian Secretaries, p. 26; Brillant p. 25. 4) Athenian Secretaries. p. 19f.; Schultheß, Pauly-Wissowa, s. v. Grammateis, d. 1717f.; Brillant, p. 22. |