geklärt sie verfolgte auch die Fäden zurück und deckte die Zusammenhänge der Gewichte und der Wertverhältnisse der Edelmetalle im gesamten Altertum bis zurück zu ihrem Ausgangspunkt in Babylonien auf. Für Mommsen waren Numismatik, Metrologie, Chronologie keine stiefmütterlich zu behandelnde Hülfswissenschaften". Und die römische Geschichte selbst hat Mommsen wie allbekannt, stets so betrieben, dass sie in der Forschung wie in der Darstellung aus sich heraus über sich hinaus führte", um eine Wendung Paul de Lagardes zu gebrauchen. Seinem Bruder August gegenüber hat er allerdings im Vorwort zur römischen Chronologie die Notwendigkeit, die Forschung zunächst auf den Kreis der einzelnen Nation zu beschränken, betont. Aber weit entfernt die internationale Forschung, wie er sie dort nennt, gänzlich abzuweisen, hält er vielmehr nur deren verfrühtes Einsetzen bei der Aufhellung mancher historischen Erscheinungen für einen methodischen Fehler. Er hat wie im römischen Münzwesen so in der römischen Geschichte, vor allem im fünften Bande, und in zahlreichen Einzeluntersuchungen auf die griechisch-orientalische Welt zurückgegriffen, auf der die hellenistische und ihre Erbin, die römische Kultur erwachsen ist und hat andererseits die spätere Kaisergeschichte in die germanische Staatenwelt des Mittelalters hinein fortgeführt. Und was Mommsen für die Kirchengeschichte geleistet hat, wie er in Wahrheit in den letzten Lebensjahren vorwiegend Kirchenhistoriker gewesen ist, das hoffen wir noch einmal aus der Feder des Berufensten besonders geschildert zu sehen. Die Geschichte aller antiken Völker und ihrer Religionen fliesst in der Geschichte Roms wie in einem grossen Sammelbecken zusammen, alle mittelalterlich-moderne Geschichte auf unserem Kontinente geht von ihr aus. Rom vermittelt zwischen der süd- und nordeuropäischen Menschheit. Wer Roms Geschichte uns erschlossen hat, hat die Brücke geschlagen vom Altertum zur Neuzeit und zugleich uns die Bahn gewiesen, die wir fernerhin wandeln müssen. Es heisst nicht nur die Fäden rückwärts verfolgen, die von Rom über Alexanders grossartige Gestalt und über die Griechen hinüberführen zu den altorientalischen Kulturstaaten Vorderasiens, sondern zugleich muss der Weg vorwärts gegangen werden von Rom aus und zwar nicht bloss auf abendländischem Boden. Von Rom aus weiterschreitend müssen wir suchen Byzanz verstehen zu lernen. In den orientalischen Provinzen dieses Reiches haben alte Geschichte und alte Kultur ihre letzten Ausläufer, wie sie einstmals dort ihren Aus

gang genommen hatte. Neben Mommsen hat in diesem Zusammenhange Alfred v. Gutschmid, sein jüngerer aber lange vor ihm abberufener Zeitgenosse, ein Recht darauf, als früher Vertreter universaler Forschung auf altgeschichtlichem Gebiete dankbar genannt zu werden.

Zwischen zwei Sonntagen hat sich Mommsens gesegnetes Leben abgespielt, und er selbst hat gern darauf hingewiesen, dass er ein Sonntagskind war. Seine sonntägliche Erscheinung wird unerreichbar bleiben, aber als vorbildliche Mahnung in Forschung und Lehre, in Pflichttreue und Arbeitsfreudigkeit soll sie unsere Alltagswochen dauernd erhellen.

Seine des Kleinsten achtende Arbeitstreue ebenso wie die stets auf das Grosse gerichteten Weite der Anschauung soll uns voranleuchten, ob wir uns zunächst in Mykene oder in Memphis, am Tigris oder am Tiber, in Campanien oder in Tunis, am Kaukasus oder am Rhein heimisch machen. Vor allem aber mögen wir Jüngeren uns erfüllen mit jenem heissen nie rastenden Schaffensdrang und jener glühenden Begeisterung für die Wissenschaft, die nach dem mutigen Bekenntnis des greisen Jünglings voraussetzungslos ist und der nur ein Ziel gesetzt ist: das ist die Wahrheit!

Berlin und Tübingen, Dezember 1903.

1

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.1) 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.4)

Certainly from 511,0 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.") 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; ef. also οἱ νομοθέται οἱ πεντακόσιοι, οὓς οἱ δημόται είλοντο, Andocides I 84.

6) Cf. Ed. Meyer, Gesch. d. Altertums III, § 198; Busolt, Griech. Gesch. II2, p. 637 ff.; Beloch, Griech. Gesch. I, p. 360 ff.; Bury, Hist. of Greece p. 262.

Beiträge z. alten Geschichte IV 1.

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.1) 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.5) After c. 103/2 B. C., as before 487/6 B. C., distin

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 Medeios1) 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 112/3 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. In Ath. Pol. 62, 3 he says: ἄρχειν δὲ τὰς μὲν κατὰ πόλεμον ὀρχὰς ἔξεστι πλεονάκις, τῶν δ ̓ ἄλλων οὐδεμίαν, πλὴν βουλεῖσαι 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:5) οὐδ ̓ ἀρχὴν καταστήσω ὥστ ̓ ἄρχειν ὑπεύθυνον ὄντα ἑτέρας ἀρχῆς καὶ τῶν ἐννέα αρχόντων καὶ τοῦ ἱερομνήμονος καὶ ὅσαι μετὰ τῶν ἐννέα ἀρχόντων κυαμεύονται ταύτῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ, καὶ κήρυκος καὶ πρεσβείας καὶ συνέδρων, οὐδὲ δὶς τὴν αὐτὴν ἀρχὴν τὸν αὐτὸν ἄνδρα, οὐδὲ δύο ἀρχὰς ἄρξαι τὸν autòv Ev tập avto viavto. 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 583/0 B. C.) not violated during the 6th, 5th, 4th, 3rd, and 2nd Centuries B. C. Then in 100/99, 91/0, 90/89,

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 CIA. II 985. My reason for so doing will appear in this paper.

2) Cf. P.-W. II, p. 577f. - 3) Perikles IX: Αὗται γὰρ αἱ ἀρχαὶ κληρωταί τε ἦσαν

ἐκ παλαιοῦ κτλ.

p. 583.

ai

4) Arist. Ath. Pol. 31, 3. 5) Demos. XXIV (Timoer.),

7) Arist. Ath. Pol. 13, 2; Marm. Par. 38.

8) Arist. Ath. Pol. 4, 3.

170. 6) P.-W. II,

1*