THE ATHENIAN BOULE P.J. RHODES OXFORD AT THE CLARENDON PRESSOxford University Press, Walton Street, Oxford OX2 6DP London New York Toronto Delhi Bombay Calcutta Madras Karachi Kuala Lumpar Singapore Hong Kong Tokyo Nairobi Dar es Salaam Cape Town Melbourne Auckland and associated companies in Beirut Berlin Ibadan Mexico City Nicosia Oxford is a trade mark of Oxford University Press Published in the United States by Oxford University Press, New York ISBN 0 19 814291 9 © Orford University Press 1972 First published 1972 Re-issued with additions and corrections 1985 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any meant, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of Oxford University Press Printed in Great Britain by Antony Rowe Lid, ChippenhamTO MY MOTHER IN MEMORY OF MY FATHERPREFACE In this book I give a detailed account of the organization and working of the Athenian boule, the council founded by Solon and remodelled by Cleisthenes which acted as a standing committee of the assembly. To make my analysis intelligible to the modern reader I have drawn the now-familiar distinction between legislative, administrative, and judicial functions, but this distinction would not have been familiar to the Athenians, and their boule was active in all three fields: this has inevitably led to some repetition and cross-reference. In a concluding chapter I summarize the history of the boule, and try to assess its im- portance in the machinery of the Athenian state. The book has been revised from the thesis which I submitted for the degree of D.Phil. of the University of Oxford in the summer of 1968. Dr. D. M. Lewis suggested the subject and supervised my work for most of the time, and with his extensive knowledge of the material and keen eye for detail has been able to draw my attention to much that I should otherwise have missed, and to save me from more inadequacies than I care to think of. Mr. G. E. M. de Ste Croix provided valuable en- couragement and guidance in 1964-5, when Dr. Lewis was in America. Before I submitted my thesis Mr. G. L. Cawkwell, Mr. W. G. G. Forrest, the late A. R. W. Harrison, and Mr. R. Meiggs read and helped me to improve substantial parts of it. Professor A. Andrewes and Professor R. J. Hopper served as examiners and made valuable comments, and Professor Andrewes has been generous with his help during the re- vision of the work for publication. At different stages my wife and Mr. M. D. Reeve helped me to avoid serious delays by their kindness in verifying references. Many others have helped me on a variety of points, and I have tried to acknowledge all specific debts in their place. From 1963 to 1965 I held a Craven Fellowship at Oxford Univer- sity, and a Hildebrand Harmsworth Senior Scholarship at Merton College, Oxford. As Craven Fellow I was able to visit Greece as a Student of the British School at Athens (and also to work in the libraries of the American School and the German Institute, and in the Epi- graphical Museum), and to visit Germany as a Gasthérer and member of the Historisches Seminar of the Eberhard-Karls-Universitat,viii PREFACE Tubingen. Since 1965 I have been a lecturer at the University of Durham, and my work on the boule has been continued with assistance from the University in the time that could be spared from my other responsibilities; the Joint Library of the Hellenic and Roman Societies and the Institute of Classical Studies in London has sent me books with admirable speed during term and has provided pleasant working con- ditions in vacation. Most of the works which I have found helpful are cited in the notes. The foundation for inquiries of this kind was laid by the great German students of Staatsaltertiimer; of more recent writers I owe most to Professor U. Kahrstedt and the late Professor A. H. M. Jones, and to the epigraphists who have worked on the inscriptions from the Agora, thanks to whom the volume of material bearing on Athenian institutions has been greatly increased in the last forty years, and it has become worthwhile to re-open old questions. In my thesis I tried to take ac- count of work published to the end of 1967; revision was undertaken in the latter half of 1969, when I did my best to pay due attention to more recent publications, in particular the welcome Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the End of the Fifth Century ».c, of R. Meiggs and D. M. Lewis. The Delegates of the Press have honoured me by their willingness to publish my work, and their staff has shown tact and skill in handling a difficult book and an obstinate author. Miss J. Martin and Mrs. I. Parkin did most of the typing, Dr. J. D. Thomas read the book in proof, and Mr. D. A. Scales compiled the indexes. The Managing Committee of the British School at Athens has given me permission to publish otherwise than under its auspices the results of work which I did as a Student of the School; the Johns Hopkins Press and the Publications Committee of the American School at Athens have given me permission to reproduce and adapt copyright diagrams. To all the institutions and individuals named above I offer my sincere thanks. Thanks are due no less for help of a more intangible kind: I could repeat names mentioned above and add others; and I am very grateful to all who have encouraged me and borne with me while this book has been in the making. P.J.R. Durham Long Vacation, 1971CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF PLANS ABBREVIATIONS I, MEMBERSHIP AND ORGANIZATION i. Qualifications and Appointment ii. Subdivisions of the Boule iii, Meetings and Meeting-Places Il, LEGISLATION i, vépot Decrees of the Boule and Demos iii. Decrees of the Boule IIL. ADMINISTRATION i, Finance Army and Navy iii. Public Works iv. Religion v. Secretaries and Attendants IV. JURISDICTION i, Internal Discipline ‘Official’ Jurisdiction iii. etoayyedia iv. Soxipacta APPENDIX. The Punitive Powers of the Boule Vv. CONCLUSION ADDITIONAL NOTES A. The Bouleutic Calendar B. M&L 69 (ATLA 9), 33-8 c. dudaxi} ris xépas and owrnpla ris médews D. of én 76 Bewpexdy xi xii xiii 16 30 49 52 82 88 113 122 127 134 144 147 162 171 179 208 224 229 231 235,i CONTENTS TABLES BIBLIOGRAPHY PLANS SELECT ADDENDA AND CORRIGENDA, 1984 INDEXES i, Literary Texts Cited ii, Epigraphic Texts Cited iii. General Index 241 285 299 305 gil 325, 347LIST OF TABLES A. The Size of Post-Hadrianic Lists of Prytanes amma ougo w ro Men serving twice in the Fourth-Century Boule Introductory Note to Tables C-L . Probouleumatic Decrees . Non-Probouleumatic Decrees Decrees of the Demos with Special Origins Decrees of the Demos moved by Prominent Fourth-Century Orators - Decrees of the Boule, other than the Ratified Probouleumata in Table C . Formulae in dor Decrees quoted with Formulae in Literary Texts Riders to Decrees Clauses requiring Immediate Action (airixa pda) . do éyafév Clauses 241 242 244 246 259 267 269 271 276 277 278 280LIST OF PLANS A. Area of Bouleuterium in the Last Quarter of the Sixth Century B. Area of Bouleuterium at the End of the Sixth Century . Area of Bouleuterium to the Middle of the Fifth Century (with Addi- tions to the Early Third Century) (Plans A-C are reproduced from Hesperia, Supplement iv 1940, figs. 13, 32, 62, by kind permission of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens) . Area of Bouleuterium in the First Century a.p. (with the Addition of the West Annexe) (Adapted to fit the current views of the excavators from Hesperia, Supplement iv 1940, fig. 63, by kind permission of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens) E. Old Bouleuterium : Restoration of Interior Arrangements (P. J. R.) New Bouleuterium: Restoration of Interior Arrangements (W. A. McDonald) (From W. A. McDonald, The Political Meeting Places of the Greeks, plate by kind permission of the Johns Hopkins Press) 299 300 gor 303 304,ABBREVIATIONS 1. Literary Texts The following abbreviations should be noticed: A. Aeschines. Ar. Aristophanes. Arist. Aristotle. AP. [Aristotle], Athenaion Politeia (see below). D. Demosthenes. H. Herodotus. Tsae. Isaeus. Is. Isocrates. LS, — Lexica Segueriana, in vol. i of Bekker, Anecdota Graeca (see Bibliography). 0.0. ‘Old Oligarch’: [Xenophon], Athenaion Politeia. Plat. Plato. Pl. Plutarch. T. Thucydides. X. Xenophon. Other abbreviations will, I hope, cause no difficulty. References in the form, 328 F 64, are to texts in Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker. Books of Aristotle’s Politics are numbered in manuscript order (as in the Oxford Text); speeches of Hyperides are numbered in the order of the Oxford and Loeb Texts; chapters of Plutarch’s Lives are divided into sections as in the Teubner Text. Except in the case of the two works called Athenaion Politeia, for which see the list of abbreviations above, when a work wrongly attributed to an author is cited immediately after a genuine work of the same author, the spurious work is distinguished by an asterisk (e.g. D. XXI. Mid. 32-3, 54, *XXVI. Aristog. it. 5). In most cases the question of authorship does not matter for my purposes, and I have been content to echo the judgements of editors. Among the works whose authorship I need not discuss I would rank the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia: it is enough that the treatise was completed between 329/8 and 323/2 (c.g. Gilbert, p. xxi) and that it is a product of the Aristotelian school, and I would rather err on the side of caution than buttress a weak point by claiming Aristotle’s authority for it. 2. Epigraphic Texts In addition to the standard abbreviations, I use the following (see Bibliography for full details: in each case, unless a page is specified, the numeral following the abbreviation represents the serial number of an inscription) : Maier, GMbi Griechische Mauerbauinschriften (texts are in vol. i). HMA Hill, revised Meiggs and Andrewes, Sources for Greek Historyxiv ABBREVIATIONS between the Persian and Peloponnesian Wars (texts of inscriptions are in Section B). M&L Meiggs and Lewis, A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the End of the Fifth Century 2.0. P Dow, Prytaneis: Hesp. Supp. i 1937- Sot Bengtson, Die Staatsvertrdge des Altertums (vol. ii). I have adopted two other conventions, which I hope may help the reader to pick his way through the forest of references. (a) While for most purposes, including page numbers and line numbers, I use ‘old style’ arabic numerals (1234567890), for the serial numbers of inscriptions I use ‘modern’ numerals (1234567890). (6) A great many Athenian inscriptions have been published in the periodical Hesperia, and in almost all cases these inscriptions have been given serial numbers (a main series, running through each volume, of inscrip- tions from the Agora, and a few other independent series). In citing these texts I identify the inscriptions by serial number whenever available (in the main Agora series, except where otherwise indicated), and not by page number, and to alert the reader I identify the volume on these occasions by number only and not by year; but when citing pages of Hesperia J identify the volume (as in all other references to periodicals) by both number and year. Thus: Hesp. x 1941, 320-6 = Hesp. x 1941, pp. 320-6. Hesp. vi 3, 19-20 = Hesp. vi 1937, no. 3 in the series of inscriptions from the Agora, lines 19-20. Hesp. vi (EM) 4 = Hesp. vi 1937, no. 4 in a series of inscriptions in the Epigraphical Museum. ‘The large number of publications in which texts are re-edited or reproduced from the editions of others makes for difficulties in citation. I have normally given one reference only, to the volume in which an up-to-date text has been most accessible to me (in particular, whenever possible I cite SEG rather than Hesp.), but in Index ii I incorporate a concordance of all texts which have been published in JG or in volume ii of ATL. The reader is warned that in quotations I adhere to the spelling on the stone even when my reference is to Tod. 3. Periodicals In general I use the abbreviations of L’Année philologique, with the usual English divergences ; but the publications of the German academies are abbreviated as Abh. Berlin, Sb. Wien, etc., and the Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archdologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung, as AM. Superior figures indicate the second and subsequent series of a periodical (e.g. CQ? xiii 1963). 4. Other Modern Works Full details of all works cited will be found in the Bibliography. The following works are cited by author’s name(s) only: Bonner and Smith — The Administration of Justice from Homer to Aristotle.Busolt and Swoboda Gilbert Hignett Jones ‘Lipsius Notice also: ATL Beazley, A.R.V2 GG HG Kahrstedt, 5.5.4. Kahrstedt, U.M.A. Wade-Gery, E.G.H. ABBREVIATIONS xv Griechische Staatskunde. The Constitutional Antiquities of Sparta and Athens. A History of the Athenian Constitution. ‘Athenian Democracy. Das attische Recht und Rechtsverfakren. Meritt, Wade-Gery, and McGregor, The Athenian Tribute Lists. Attic Red-Figure Vase Painters. Griechische Geschichte. Histoire grecque. Staatsgebiet und Staatsangehorige in Athen. Untersuchungen zur Magistratur in Athen. Essays in Greek History.MEMBERSHIP AND ORGANIZATION (i) Qualifications and Appointment THE fovdy, or Council, which is the subject of this book, was established by Cleisthenes in his reforms of 508/7 8.c., though there was very probably an earlier boule created by Solon.' The Cleisthenic boule may first have met in 501/o, the year when the boulcutic oath was first sworn.? Membership was based on the ten new tribes created by Cleisthenes: each tribe was to provide 50 of the boule’s 500 members.} Tribal repre- sentation of 50 was retained during the various tribal changes, so that there were 600 members after the creation of the two Macedonian tribes, 650 in the last quarter of the third century, and 600 again from 201/o ;4 but in a.D. 127, when a thirteenth tribe was again instituted, membership was reduced nominally to the original figure of 500 and in fact to about 520.5 In the later years of the Roman Empire various changes were made, and totals are attested of 600, 750, and 300.° As with other Athenian public offices appointment was made annually, from citizens who had reached the age of thirty:?7 though Aristotle writes of a ‘retired’ status for elderly citizens,* I know no evidence that 1 On the Solonian boule see Ch. V, pp. 208-9. 2 A.P, 22. ii; of. appendix to Ch. 1V, pp. 191-3. 3 AP. a1. iii, * 600, Pl. Demetr. 10. vi; 650, 1G ii? 687, 53, 847, 26; 600 again, JG ii# 1013, 7, 16, 1072, 10. 5 eg. IG ii* 4210. For the date, ef. J. A. Notopoulos, TAPA lxxvii 1946. The exact size of Hadrian's boule is uncertain: S, Dow, Hesp. Supp. i 1937, 196, assumed that 500 was the correct figure; P. Graindor, Athines sous Hadrien, 83-5, envisaged a total of about 540, with tribal contingents varying between 40 and 42; A. E. Raubitschek, Iépas Mvrwvfov Kepapo~ otMov, 242-55, believes in a boule of 13 x 40, or 520, and is followed in this by D. J. Geagan, Hesp. Supp. xii 1967, 95-6. Raubitschek argues that the wealthy patron who acted as Gdvupos to the tribe (cf. p. 14 with n. 5, below) should be regarded as a member of the prytany only in those prytany-dedications where he is named with the prytanes and not apart from them, and claims that there were 4o prytanes in each of the twelve complete lists which have survived from this period. I offer my own analysis of these lists in Table A, : regular lists of 40 cannot be obtained without forcing the evidence, and it seems it the possibility of variation. 6 Goo, IG iit 3664 (¢. A.D. 200—but at this time the boule retained its Hadrianic size, so if the date is right 600 must be a mason’s error); 750, 1G ii 3669 (269/70) ; 300, 1G ii? 3716, 4222 (C4). It has been suggested by D. J. Geagan, Hesp. Supp. xii 1967, 75, that from the third century all eligible citizens were admitted to the boule for life. 7X. M, 1. ji. 95, D. XXL, Andr. yp. i. 15 of. ‘Draco! in 4.P. 4. ii, ‘constitutions’ of 411 in A.P. 30. ii, 31. i. It is possible that the age requirement was not that a man should have reached the age of thirty but that he should have entered on his thirtieth year (and so should have reached the age of twenty-nine): cf. Ch, IV, p. 172. ® Arist. Pol. mt. 1275 A (2-)15-19. Professor J. H. Oliver claimed that citizens were not 8142919 B2 MEMBERSHIP AND ORGANIZATION an upper age limit for holding public office was ever enforced in Athens. Evidence that men were invited to volunteer as candidates is slight and less than cogent, but the lexicographers’ statement that the Athenians kAnpotar Tas épxds from the Anfvapyexd. ypappareia? is not enough to prove that all eligible citizens were automatically regarded as candidates. Not all citizens above the age limit were eligible : those who had stayed in Athens in 411 to perform military service under the Four Hundred were debarred, while prostitution disqualified a man for every aspect of public life, including pS yrdpny eindrw pndémore prpre ev rH Bovdy pire ev 7 Sijpw.4 In the first case membership of the boule is linked with speaking in the assembly, and in the second public offices in general are linked with speaking in the boule and assembly, so we may probably add to our list the other offences quoted by Aeschines from the Soxiacia énrépw 5 maltreatment of parents ; desertion from the army or throwing away one’s shield ; squandering one’s inheritance. According to Dinarchus Piropes and orparnyoé were required to have legitimate children and to own land within the boundaries of Attica, and this too may have been required of bouleutae. It should be assumed, though it is not stated in our ancient authorities, that membership was open to the first three property- classes—but viv émeSdv Epyra Tov peMovra KAnpodabal rw” dpyiv, mofov tos rere, 038’ dv els etroe Onttxdv.? (We may wonder also how far the other requirements were normally enforced: the career of Timarchus suggests that a man without alert enemies might be able to ignore his expected to serve as bouleutae after the age of sixty (The Athenian Expounders of the Sacred and Ancestral Law, 55-6), but his promised development of this point seems not to have appeared. Socrates, born in 469/8 (Apollod. and Dem. Phal. ap. D.L. 11. 44) was a member in 406/5 (X. A. 1. vii. 15, etc.). Notice also Plat. Legg. vt. 7554 4-B 2. © Lys. XXXI. Phil. 33, Harp, Suid., E.M. émAaxdy; ef. (on dpxat in general) [Lys.] VI. And. 4, Is. XV. Antid. 150. 2 Phot., Suid. s 3 And. I. Myst. 75. Cavalry service under the Thirty was probably made another bar to membership: Lys. XXVI. Evand. 10. + ALI. Tim. 19-20, cf. 29. 5 A. Tim, 28-30 5 cf. the questions asked at the 3oxpacta of archons (cf. Ch. IV, p. 176). A. I, 28-30 must in its present form be a product of the post-404 democracy, but the grounds of disqualification look older. On the quasi-official standing of frjropes in the fourth century, see S. Perlman, Athen xli 1963, esp. 353-4- © Din. I. Dem. 71. 7 A.P. 7. iv, There were of course periods after the death of Alexander when the poorer citizens were deprived of all political rights, including membership of the boule. D. J. Geagan suggests, Hesp. Supp. xii 1967, 76, that under the Roman Empire membership of the boule was restricted to those who had performed ephebic service, and in commenting on SEG xxi 509, a 6, 18 (pp. 86-7), he conjectures that only these men were entitled to speak in the assembly. At any rate ephebic service and membership of the boule came to form two normal elements in the Athenian cursus honorum, but J. H. Oliver (Hesp. 200 1961, 402-3) thinks that the requirements for of éxxdqoidlorres xard 7a vouitéuevra may have been less strict than for membership of the boule.QUALIFICATIONS AND APPOINTMENT 3 disqualifications.) Prospective bouleutae will have been interrogated on these points in their Sox:paoéa, conducted by their predecessors in office.! Most Athenian offices a man could hold only once in his life, but we are told that a man might serve twice in the boule :? up to seventeen men are thought to have served twice in the fourth century ;3 I have not systemati- cally checked the later lists, but I am not aware that any one served more often before the second century a.p., when (for example) the name of Vibullius Theophilus appears in three different lists.* Permission to serve twice was probably a concession granted because of the difficulty of finding 500 fresh bouleutae each year, and suggests that competition for places in the boule cannot have been very great.5 For the fifth century we have no evidence, but it is likely that before the Peloponnesian War the citizen population of Athens was larger than at any time during the fourth century,® so it should certainly have been possible to enforce the fourth century’s rule, and for a while before 431 an absolute ban on repetition may have been feasible.” Several prominent politicians are known to have served as bouleutae, sometimes at least in such crucial years that they must surely have chosen to stand at that particular time, and must unless the processes of fate were tampered with have been lucky 1 Cf. Ch, IV, pp. 176-8. Physical infirmity apparently disqualified a man from the archon- ship (Lys. XXIV. Pens. Inv. 13): this too may have applied to bouleutac. 2 ALP. 62. 2 They are Isted in Table B, pp. 242-3; for Demosthenes see below, p. 4 with n. 8 4 IG i 1772, 6 (162/3) ; 1773, 13 (166/7) ; SEG xxi 610, 13 (end Ca); cf. Geagan, Hesp. Supp. xii 1967, 75 (but Raubitschek, Mpas KepazonovMov, 244, writes as if the old rule still applied) : Geagan also cites Heliodorus Mprépavos KuBalzvaios, in Hesp. xi 15 (c. 160); 1G i? 1773 (166/7) ; 1776 (169/70); and also 2478 (mid C2)—but the last, a fragment with 9 names and no demotic, may not belong to a list of prytanes. Autobulus Avroaddov Zuradijr- -rios appears in IG ii? 2375 (before mid C4 3.c.) as well as in the two lists mentioned under his name in Table B, p. 242, but this list with 4 Zuma\frriot is probably not a list of bouleutae, It is likely that the oligarchic regimes of the late fourth and early third centuries had to relax this rule: cf, Ferguson, Hellenistic Athens, 25-6. 5 In the democratic constitution imposed on Erythrae perhaps in 453 a man might serve once in four years (M&L 40, 12)—but pace Kahrstedt (U.M.A., 135-6) this need have no implications for practice in contemporary Athens. © Gomme, Population of Athens, 26, and Ehrenberg, The Greek State?, 31, have estimated the numbers of adult male citizens as follows (Gomme’s figures do not include men over 60) : Gomme Ehrenberg ¢. 480 35,000 25,000-30,000 6. 432 43,000 35,000-45,000 ©. 400 22,000 20,000-25,000 ©. 360 — 28,000-30,000 323, 28,000 = 313 21,000 21,000 7 So Larsen, Representative Government, 10-11. But against the larger citizen population must be set the lack until about the middle of the fifth century (pp. 5-6, 13-14 below) of pay- ment to compensate for loss of earnings and so to encourage the poorer citizens to serve: a total ban on repetition is thus likelier in the 430s than in the 490s.4 MEMBERSHIP AND ORGANIZATION either in the lot or in the absence of competition. Cleon was bouleutes in a year before 424;' it is an attractive possibility that the year was 427/6,? when after the production of the Babylonians Cleon denounced Aristo- phanes in the bouleuterium,? the year to whose beginning may probably be ascribed the debates on the fate of Mytilene.* Hyperbolus was already a well-known figure when he became a bouleutes,‘ for it is suggested in the comedian Plato’s Hyperbolus that his émAaydv is bound to be appointed to the seat in his place,* but Cleon’s death may have made an office which would keep Hyperbolus in the public eye particularly desirable at this time. In the fourth century Androtion served twice ;7 Demosthenes was a member in 347/6, when the Peace of Philocrates was made with Philip* (Philocrates himself seems not to have been a member that year) ; Demades, who played so important a part in easing Athens’ relations with Macedon in the years after Chaeronea, is found in a bouleutic list for which 336/5 has been suggested as the most likely date ;° and Lycurgus, vital to Athenian administration during the reign of Alexander, was a member in or before 329/8.'° But, inevitably in a council whose member- ship changed every year, many bouleutae were men who made no mark: of the 248 members listed in SEG xix 149, no less than 13 bear names which had not previously been found in Attica. This prompts us to ask in more general terms how far the boule was representative of the Athenian people. We shall see later in this chapter that appointment was by lot, at any rate from the middle of the fifth century, and that seats were allocated to the demes in proportion to their size. The boule could thus have contained a fair cross-section of the citizen body, and it was indeed described by one scholiast as puxpa 7éAts."! Nevertheless scholars have claimed to detect in it an undue bias towards ¥ Ar. Ey. 774-6. 2 Stated as a fact by Wilamowitz, Aristoteles und Athen, i. 129 n. 11. 3 Ar, Ach. 379-81: it is not certain that Cleon did this as a bouleutes, * Cf. the chronological tables in Henderson, Great War, 494, Gomme, Hist. Comm. Thuc., iii, 718. 5'In 421/o: IG i? 84, 5 with 44. 6 Plat. Com, firs. 166-7 (Kock). 7 ‘Before 378/7°: 1G ii 61, 6-7 (for possible years before and after 378/7 see D. M. Lewis, BSA xlix 1954, 34); and in or before 356/5: D. XXII. Andr. 38 (for 356/5, B. R. I. Sealey, REG \xviii 1955, 89-92, G. L. Cawkwell, C&M xxiii 1962, 50-53 for 359/8, D. M. Lewis, BSA xlix 1954, 43-4, cf. E. Schweigert, Hesp. viii 1939, 12-17). ® D, XIX. FL. 154, 234, A. II. FL. 17, etc., ef. 8. Perlman, Athen. xli 1963, 343. It has been supposed on the basis of A. III. Ctes. 160, Pl. Dem. 22. i that he served again in 337/6, but Kabrstedt (U.M.A., 196 n. 3) has shown that the evidence is far from compelling. ° SEG xix 149, 144; cf. the original publication by S. Charitonides, Hesp. xxx 1961. I am not convinced by the arguments of J. A. O. Larsen, CP Ivii 1962, for an earlier date. 10 IG ii? 1672, 302 (cf. Ch. II, p. 63 with n. 3, and Ch, III, p. 108 n. 4). 1 Schol. A. TIT. Ctes. 4.QUALIFICATIONS AND APPOINTMENT 5 the rich: the Finnish scholar Professor Sundwall, applying somewhat haphazard tests to the known bouleutae of the fourth century, thought that the very rich occupied almost twice as many places as their numbers entitled them to, and that the very rich and the ‘propertied’ together filled up to 425 places in a boule of 500." More recently, Professor Larsen has written: It isstill possible to argue . . . that the poorer members of the community did not serve on the council. The evidence is difficult to interpret, and all will not agree, but there seems some reason to believe that a disproportionally large number of men of property served in the council. . . . Yet the number of those available for service was not such that the tendency can have been excessively great A certain amount of bias towards the rich must have been inevitable. As we shall see, pay for bouleutae can hardly have been introduced before the 450s; we do not know how generous the fifth-century rate was, but in the 320s the daily fee of 5 obols was less than the 1 or 14 drachmae paid for attendance at the assembly, and less than even an unskilled man could earn in a day’s work. Active membership of the boule must have involved some financial sacrifice for most men, and it is likely enough that many poorer citizens will have been reluctant to abandon their normal occupation for a year. Clearly we cannot place much reliance on arguments from the retention in theory of a law that was not observed in practice, but the fact that in the full, self-conscious democracy thetes remained legally debarred from holding public offices suggests that there were not large numbers of poorer citizens who wanted to participate as actively as this in the running of the state. For the fifth century we have no usable evidence,$ buta number of bouleutae are known from the fourth century, and in particular we have in SEG xix 149 a list naming 248 of the members for one year (probably 336/5). The institution of trierarchy enables us to apply a simple test. Periander’s symmory law of 357° made the richest 1,200 citizens liable for trierarchic service ; Demosthenes in 354 1 J, Sundwall, Epigraphische Beitrage, ch. i. 2 J. A. O. Larsen, Representative Government, 11, 2°A.P. 62. ii, G. T. Griffith, in Ancient Society and Institutions, 123, notes that the hias towards the rich must have been considerable before the introduction of pay for members. 4 In the accounts of the Eleusinian epistatae for 329/8 unskilled labourers are paid 14 drachmae a day, skilled 2 or 24 drachmae (JG ii? 1672, ef. Jones, 143-4 n. 86) ; in the Erech- theum accounts of 409-7 unskilled workers received 3 obols and skilled 1 drachma (IG i 373-4, cf. Gomme, Hist. Comm. Thuc., ii. 45). 5 Most of the bouleutae of 405/4 were saficently congenial to the Thirty to be reappointed for 404/3 (Lys. XIII. Ag. 20), but what happened in the last years of the Peloponnesian War when the fleet was absent from Athens cannot be regarded as typical. 6 [D,] XLVIL. Ev, et Mnes. 21.6 MEMBERSHIP AND ORGANIZATION contemplated extending the list to 2,000," but in fact in 340 reduced it to 300 ;? before 340 tricrarchs were roughly the richest 4 per cent of the citizens; after 340, the richest 1 per cent. If this list of half a boule is representative of the demos, we should expect it to contain about ten men who were liable for trierarchic service under Periander’s law, two or three of whom would still be liable under Demosthenes’ law. Our knowledge of Athenian trierarchs is of course very far from complete, but even so five of the men in this list are perhaps to be identified with known trierarchs,? and four to six others belong to families known to have supplied one or more trierarchs between 360 and 320.* Fortunes fluctuate, and are not evenly distributed in all branches of a family, but it seems likely that if we were more fully informed we should find men with trierarchic fortunes represented in more than their due proportion. At the other extreme, thirteen of the 248 bear names not otherwise found in Attica :5 obscurity need not mean poverty,® but at least we are shown that the boule contained men who were inactive enough to leave no other trace of their existence. ‘We must turn now from the members of the boule to the mechanism. by which they were appointed. Immediately before the revolution of 411 appointment was by lot, and this seems to have been regarded as an essential characteristic of a democratic boule, since both Thucydides and the Athenaion Politeia stress that the council expelled by the Four Hundred was eiAnxuiav 7 xudyy.7 The successor to this council is said to have been appointed in a three-stage co-optation,® though the oligarchs may per- haps have intended that if their regime lasted the boule should in future be chosen or allotted from zpéxprro: elected by tribesmen, with forty members from each Cleisthenic tribe. Alcibiades on Samos was prepared * D. XIV. Symm. 16. 2 A. IIL. Ctes, 222, Hyp. fr. 134 (Kenyon), Din. I. Dem. 42. ? On all these bouleutae, sce Charitonides’ notes in Hesp. xxx 1961. I have also consulted J. K. Davies, Athenian Propertied Families, and bracket here and in the following footnote the three bouleutae whom he does not include in his Register. Trierarchs under Periander’s Jaw: Callias (SEG xix 149, 11), Philocrates (281) (discharges a trierarchic debt for someone else, 1G ii* 1622, 247). Trierarchs under Demosthenes’ law: Anytus (3), [Pythodorus (76)], Demades (144) (auvredfs). + Related to trierarchs under Periander’s law: [Pythiades (14)], [Leontius (36)]. Related to trierarchs under Demosthenes’ law: Athemion (7), Cleon (74), Timotheus (289), Auutoclides (307). $ Homophron (9), Pythiades (14), Blepes (33), Blepsias (140), Midocrates (164), Damias (230), Eubiodemus (232), Onesion (256), Dipolis (260), Epagrus (274), Ergomeles (275), Euchirides (295), Calliphemus (315). © Note that Pythiades (14) may come from a trierarchic family. 7 T. vin. 69. iv, AP. 32.1. ©. vn. 67. iii, ° A.P. 31. i. I imagine that A.P, 31 is a regularization of the Four Hundred’s position for future use ; A.P, 30 is a promise made to appease those who were unhappy about the extremeQUALIFICATIONS AND APPOINTMENT 7 to accept the restriction of the franchise to 5,000, but éxéAevev adrods ... kabiordvar riy Bovdiy donep Kal mpdrepov, rods mevraxogious.' We may assume that a boule of 500 was appointed after the fall of the Four Hundred, but this may have been elective.? If this is correct, sortition will have been restored with the full democracy in 410,? and after the rule of the Thirty‘ it continued during the fourth century ;$ election probably returned during the later oligarchic interludes, but sortition is men- tioned again in 256/5.° There is no direct evidence for the method of appointment before 412, or for any change of method, but since the archonship was elective in the time of Cleisthenes and sortition was introduced or reintroduced in 487/67 the possibility that Cleisthenes’ bouleutae were elected ought not to be ruled out. But the introduction of the lot can hardly be later than the 450s.8 There is evidence from the late fifth and the fourth centuries that, at the same time as the bouleutae were appointed, émAaxévres, or deputies, were appointed also, so that a man would be available to take the place of a member who died or was rejected in the Soxtpaofa.? The comedian Plato’s remark that the man who is émAaydév to Hyperbolus is bound to gain admission to the boule suggests that each émAayev was made understudy to a particular member. A year as émAaxdv should not have counted against the two years’ actual membership which a man was allowed (unless he was called on to fill a vacancy), but all émAaxévres must presumably have been eligible for actual membership, and if each member had his own understudy the Athenians will have needed to find a thousand eligible men each year. Yet it is probably because of the difficulty in finding bouleutae that men were allowed to serve twice in their lives, and we shall see shortly that even under this rule some small oligarchy, a promise which few of the oligarchs intended to keep (i.¢. an authentic document published by the Four Hundred but not a genuine statement of intent). I hope to discuss the revolutions of 411 more fully elsewhere. 1 T. vm. 86. vi. 2 Hignett, 372, cf. 378, on And. I. Myst. 96. Cf, G. E, M. de Ste Croix, Hist. v 1956, 22. 3 And. I. Myst. 96-8, with M&L 84; cf. B. D. Meritt, Athenian Financial Documents, 106-9. + Who appointed congenial men as bouleutae: cf. X. H. 1 and Lys. XIII. 4g. 20. - HP. 43. pi LIX, Neaer. 3, A. IIL. Ctes. 62. 6 1G ii# 514, 5-6, 678, 11. not the place for a discussion of the problems (see, most recently, oheten CQ? xix 1969), but I see no reason to doubt that election played some part in the appointment of archons before 487/6. 4 We can safely argue (with Larsen, Representative Government, 9) from this clause in the decree for Erythrac, M&L 40, 8-9. G. T. Griffith, Ancient Society and Institutions, 123, regards, appointment by lot as Cleisthenic. * Harp, Suid., E.M. émaxdér, LS, 256. 3, Schol. Ar. Thesm. 808-9 = Plat, Com., frs. 166-7 (Kock), A. III. Cies. 62 with schol.; perhaps cf: [D.] LVIII. Theocr. 29. 2, 11 (quoted pp. 29-30),8 MEMBERSHIP AND ORGANIZATION . demes may occasionally have been unable'to return a member.’ We are entitled, I think, to wonder how regularly émAayévres were appointed and how numerous they were: perhaps they were appointed whenever there happened to be more candidates than seats, and one man may have been regarded as deputy to all members from his deme, or from a group of demes. There is one aspect of appointment to the boule on which the American excavations in the Agora have greatly added to our store of information. We have a large number of inscribed lists of mpurdvets (one tribe’s con- tingent of bouleutae), and also some lists of bouleutae from more than one tribe. In these lists the members are not merely given their demotics but are grouped by demes,? and in the carly part of the boule’s existence the numbers of bouleutae from the different demes show a considerable degree of consistency. Apart from a late fifth-century dedication by the prytanes of Erechtheis,? our evidence begins with lists set up by the prytany which had won the annual prize offered by the demos, early in the fourth century. These monuments gradually give way to decrees honouring a prytany and its officials (more than one prytany may now be honoured in the year), to which a list of members is appended : docu- ments of this kind are found from the third to the first century. From about the time of Sulla these in turn give way to lists of prytanes and officials inscribed on a statue base.‘ For the tribe Erechtheis,5 in addition to the fifth-century dedication that I have mentioned, we have four fourth-century lists of the ten-tribe period, two of them more or less complete.§ No changes in representation are apparent from these four lists, except that the small demes [apBw- tdSa and LvBpiSac may have taken it in turns not to be represented.” From the end of the fourth century various changes will have been needed 'Ohp.in 2 For the few exceptions to this rule cf. p. 12 and nn, 1-2 below. In the fourth century the allocation of seats in the boule to demes is confirmed by A.P. 62. i 2 DAA 167, + On the different kinds of prytany-inscription cf. S. Dow, Hesp. Supp. i 1937, 1-29. 5 In working on this topic I compiled tables showing the deme-representation in all lists Published to the end of 1967 and a few unpublished lists seen by Dr. D. M. Lewis which are or may be lists of bouleutae. These tables appear in the second volume of my D.Phil. thesis, a copy of which has been deposited in the Bodleian Library, Oxford; a forthcoming work by Dr. J. S. Traill, which will tabulate all the evidence now available, makes their inclusion here unnecessary. In these notes I shall therefore cite the most important texts only. Dr. Traill has read what I have written on the subject of deme-representation, and has enabled me to bring my observations up to date: I am very grateful for his co-operation. © (Figures are based on texts known to me; Traill tells me that other fragments, not yet published, do not alter the general picture.) Hesp. xxxvi 34 (381/0), Hesp. xi 43 (67/6: come plete), SEG xix 149 (2336/5: complete), 1G ii* 1700 (335/4). 7 There are noticeable differences between these and our one fifth-century list.QUALIFICATIONS AND APPOINTMENT 9 as the boule was enlarged or reduced to admit or exclude new tribes: Erechtheis lost three half-demes to Antigonis in 307/6 (and recovered two in 201/0), one deme to Ptolemais in 224/3, and one to Hadrianis in A.D. 126/7 (when the size of prytanies was reduced from 50 to about 40). A coherent pattern can still be made out in the third century 8.c.; after that our evidence is slight, but the system seems to be breaking down. For Aegeis there are five relevant documents from the ten-tribe period, and each of the two complete lists seems to have contained only 49 members. In this tribe there are some changes in representation to note: about 350 there were two Bareeis, four or more Pyyateis, two "IwviSar, and one Kv8av7i8ys; in our later lists representation of the first three was reduced to one, three and one, but the number of KvSavri8ac was increased to two. In 341/o there were six "Epy:eis, but in 336/5 we find six names and space for a seventh. We have one substantial list and two more fragmentary from the period of the Macedonian tribes,? differing inevitably from the earlier lists but not to a greater extent than the loss of some demes will justify; but fragments from the second century .D. reveal no system at all. Pandionis provides no less than eight documents earlier than 307/6, four of them complete lists. In them we see KvSa@nvatets move down from twelve representatives to eleven and then up again to twelve; AyyedjGev from three to two, and perhaps later up to three again; Mvppwovo.or from seven down to six, and even to five; Ku6:jpproi rise from no representatives, or perhaps one, to two; and possibly JTpoBaAiotor from four to five. For our next complete list we have to wait until the middle of the second century, where we have a list not very different from those of the fourth century ;* but a list published early in the reign of Augustus is markedly different from the earlier ones,5 and thereafter there is no real system, though the lists of a.v. 166/7 and 169/70 are very similar.® For Leontis we have five documents of the ten-tribe period, and of the two complete lists one again has only 49 names:7 the blank space in this 1 IG ii# 1747 (c. 350), 1749 (41/0: complete list of 49), SEG xix 149 (?396/5: complete list of 49-+1 vacat), 1G iit 1700 (335/4), SEG xxi 520 (31/0 or 330/29). 2 SEG xxiii 86 (304/3), P 10 (256/5: substantial), SEG xxi 595 (after mid C3) 3 IG ii? 1740 (carly C4: complete), SEG xxiii 87 (first qr. C4: complet} Ic i= 2370 (before mid C4), 1751 (after mid C4: complete), 1748 (348/7), SEG xix 149 (2336/5: com- plete), 1G ii? 1700 (335/4), SEG xxiii 89 (before 307/6: so Gomme, Population of Athens, 51-2 1, 2, 58, misreported as ‘after 307/6° by D. M. Lewis, BSA! 1955, 19 with n. 20), + P84 (155/4). 5 P 116 (¢. 20). IG ii 1773, 1776. 7 IG ii 1742 2370/69: so B.D. Meritt, Hesp. xvi 1947, 151: complet), 1744 (before mid C4), 1752 (after mid C4), SEG xix 149 (?336/5: complete list of 49-+1 vacat), IG ii* 1700 (335/4)-10 MEMBERSHIP AND ORGANIZATION list for the ninth ®pedppios is the only anomaly. In the next century, for which we have two complete lists and three smaller fragments, reasonable consistency seems to have been maintained,’ and a list of about 160 suggests that the principle of deme-representation had not yet broken down entirely.? Acamantis has left us a number of small fragments, but not much substantial information. One list, perhaps to be assigned to the end of the fourth century, seems to have contained no representatives of several small demes, and an unusually large number from some of the others.3 The lack of system in the second century a.D. is shown by two full lists of consecutive years, 167/8 and 168/9, which are very different in composition.* Little apart from fragments has survived from Oeneis, and we have only one complete list, in which the large deme Ayepveis accounts for 22 of the 50 members.’ The representation of various demes seems to have changed about the middle of the fourth century. Records for Cecropis are again numerous but fragmentary, and again there is only one complete list, this time of the second century a.p.° Nothing can fairly be noted apart from fluctuations in the number of Zumadjrror. . For Hippothontis we are no better served in the fourth century, though it is clear even from the small fragments which survive that there were changes during the century. Fragments from the period of the Macedonian tribes show reasonable consistency, but in the second cen- tury three complete lists and a substantial fragment show considerable discrepancies.” Aiantis began with only six well-attested demes, and lost one each to Ptolemais, Attalis, and Hadrianis. Epigraphic remains are poor, but though there was little scope for variation it is surprising to find two apparently identical lists as late as the first century B.c.8 In Antiochis, there were six [JaMnveis and two Etreato: in 335/4, seven ITaMAqveis and one Etreaios a year later.9 As in other tribes there 1 SEG xxiii 86 (304/3), Hesp. xxvii 1968, 1~24 (303/2), Hesp. ix 22 (mid C3: complete), P 26 (¢, 240-230), P 36 with Hesp. ix 1940, 78 (212/11: 47-+3 vacant). 2 P77 (complete). 2 PA (after 307/6: so J. S. Trail, Hesp. xxxv 1966, 231 ; but see below, p. 11 n. 3). 4 IG iit 1774, 1775 (both complete). 5 IG ii 1745 (360/59). sete ie al fe Hesp. ix 24 (176-169), 25 (16: + complete Lis SEG ci 101 eee plete), Hesp. 76-169), 25 (165/4-150: complete list of 49), ® P98 (before 60), 102 (¢. 50). 9 IG i 1700 (335/4), 1750 (334/3: complete).QUALIFICATIONS AND APPOINTMENT wn is reasonable consistency in the third century, a breakdown in the second century, and no system at all under the Roman Empire. Little survives from the five post-Cleisthenic tribes, but what informa- tion we have fits the pattern that has already emerged. In the fourth and third centuries, the figures are consistent enough to suggest that repre- sentation in the boule was organized on the basis not simply of tribes but of demes, and that the demes were given seats in proportion to their size— measured most easily by the numbers of citizens on their registers.! If there were general redistributions of seats based on up-to-date population figures, some tribes must have survived some redistributions without change (which is of course by no means unlikely); but some of the variations may represent more or less private arrangements made if a small deme was unable to fill all its seats:* in particular the non-representation of various demes of Acamantis in P 1 may have to be explained in this way? Recently discovered inscriptions have made it clear that a tribe might on occasion have fewer than fifty members, though DAA 1674 and P36, with Hesp. ix 1940, 78,5 are our only instances of a list with more than one vacancy. The difficulty experienced by small demes is reflected also in the practice of making some share a seat (ITapBwrdSar and ZuBpiSaz in Erechtheis; perhaps TvppefSar and ‘IamoropdSat in Oeneis).° Such diffi- culties will have increased in the Hellenistic period, when more bouleutae had to be found (though the bouleuterium, which could with difficulty hold 500 members, was never enlarged’) and Athens’ reduced political significance must have made membership less attractive: this no doubt is largely responsible for the breakdown of the representational system which is apparent in the second century, and for the lifting of the restric- tion on repeated terms of office by the second century a.p.; it may also have been one reason for the reduction of the boule to not far above its 1 Totals of demesmen, adapted from the lists in Prosopographia Attica, were given by Gomme with the tables in his Population of Athens, 55-66. Revised totals will be given in Traill’s forth- coming book. 4 So Larsen, Representative Government, 8. The possibility of general redistributions, both for the fourth century and for the third, is rejected by S. Dow, TAPA xcii 1961, 71-2. 3 P 1 used to be dated 327/6, with the famine from which Athens suffered invoked to explain the non-representation of some small demes. In Hesp, xxcxv 1966, 231, Traill dated the list after 307/6: he tells me that he now ascribes it to 05/4 and believes that it contained no abnormalities. See the cautionary note of S. Charitonides, Hesp. xxx 1961, 96 n. 10. + (Erechtheis, 408/7.) Here it seems that the demotics were inscribed on a pattern that would leave room for 50 members, and the names of some but not all of the prytanes were added under their demes, Raubitschek writes (DAA, p. 190): ‘It must have been an inten- tional act on the part of these prytaneis whose names are omitted, to cancel their participa- tion in the common dedication’ ; but the mystery remains. 5 (Leontis, 212/11.) Under Kpwmi8at we have one member and three vacancies. © So Schoeffer, RE, v. 9, 28, s.v. Biot. 7 Cf p. gt and n, rbelow.12 MEMBERSHIP AND ORGANIZATION Cleisthenic total of 500. Yet in all but a very few late lists members continue to be grouped by demes," and in half of the exceptions they are still given their demotics :? while this could be merely a matter of habit or fiction, it is possible that the demes were always involved in some way in appointments to the boule. For the fifth century we have no evidence except DAA 167, which for all its difficulties does at least show that bouleutae could be grouped by demes before the regime of the Thirty, It is natural to suppose that Cleisthenes, who created the demes as political entities no less than the ten tribes, was responsible for this principle of deme-representation ; and though it is dangerous to suppose that anything which fits our idea of Cleisthenes’ policy must be the work of Cleisthenes there is no reason in this case to deny Cleisthenic authorship. As I have already remarked, though sortition had become established as an important principle before the end of the fifth century, it is possible that the demes originally elected their representatives. Having secured appointment, the prospective bouleutae had to undergo a Soxipacia, conducted certainly when the Athenaion Politeia was written and probably at all other times by their predecessors in office.? Presumably they were required to satisfy their examiners that they were citizens over go years old, and were not disqualified from membership on any of the grounds which I mention on pages 2-3 above: in effect they will have had to demonstrate fairly generally that they were satis- factory citizens, and intangible considerations of loyalty and thinking the right thoughts may have counted for more than the legal requirements.* When their appointment had been confirmed the new members took an 1 In the following lists members are given their demotics but are not grouped by demes (all dates here and in the following footnote are A.D.) : Panpionis IGii* 1826 222/3 Ornets 1803 215-20 Hierottontis 1808 170-6 1819. 200 Provemats Hesp. xi 25 180-92 2 In the following lists members are not given their demotics: Axniocuts IGi# 1817. 220 ATTALIS 1824 aai/2 1825 2aa/3 1827 23/4? 1828 224/5 ‘Haprianis 1832 agi/2 > For Soxipacfa: conducted by the boule, cf. Ch. IV, pp. 171-8. Notice in particular the questions asked at the archons’ Soxzacta, p. 176. ‘Notice the arguments employed in Lys, XVI. Mant, (N.B. § 9), XXX. PhilQUALIFICATIONS AND APPOINTMENT 13, oath of loyalty to the state,! and the bouleutic year began with inaugural sacrifices, eiovrntrpia, of which we know scarcely more than that they were performed as usual by the Four Hundred when they entered office late in 412/11.2 Bouleutae, like other dpxovres, wore a myrtle crown as a,badge of office,3 and were entitled to seats of honour in the theatre.* Though they were not required to remain in Athens during their year of office, they were exempted from military service. By 412/11 members were paid for their service in the boule: in that year the democratic boule, which still had nearly a month to serve, was given its salary up to the end of the bouleutic year, so that the Four Hundred could take over the running of the state.? When the Athenaion Politeia was written bouleutae were paid 5 obols a day,® with an extra obol as subsistence allowance for mémbers of the tribe in prytany® and conceivably a larger allowance for the émotdrns of the day.?? At this time the payment for attendance at the assembly was 1 or 14 drachmae (lower rates having been introduced in the 3gos),! and jurors were still receiving the 3 obols paid a hundred years earlier.” It is at any rate possible that the original rate of payment to bouleutae was lower than that of the 320s. Bouleutic pay was pre- sumably instituted in the time of Pericles’ supremacy :¥ his introduction of jury pay seems to have been the first instance of Sqpoo/a tpod}," and it 1 For the content of the oath at different times see the appendix to Ch. IV, pp. 190-9. 2 T. vi, 70. i; ef, also D. XIX. F.L. 190, XXI. Mid, 114. 2 Lye. Leocr, 122 (other dpyat: Lys. XXVI. Evand. 8, D. XXI. Mid. 32-3, 54, *XXVI. Aristog. ii. 5). + Ar. Av. 794 with schol, Hes, Bovdeurixév, Suid. Bovdeurixés, Poll. 1v. 122 (this last pas- sage is oddly explained by W. A. McDonald, Political Mecting-Places of the Greeks, 147). For tokens which could have been used in this connection see M. Crosby, Tokens, 79-80, 112-13. 5 Demosthenes in his year of office served on the first and second embassies to Philip of Macedon (A. II. F.L, 18-20, 94, D. XIX. F.L. 12-13, 154-5, etc.) j in 411 the Four Hundred, who began by threatening fines for non-attendance (‘future constitution’ in A.P. 30. vi, cf. “Draco” in A.P. 4. iii), found it convenient to grant leave of absence to their less enthusiastic members (cf. Lys. XX. Poly. 14, 16). © Lye, Leoer, 37. 7 T. va, 69. iv. $ Presumably this was payment for attendance, not an automatic daily grant. 10 Foucart's restoration (RPI# xii 1918) of a corrupt passage in A.P. 62. ii has won little favour, and does not seem very likely (cf. p. 24 below). MAP. 41. iii with Ar. Eecl. 184 sqq., etc. 12 A.P. 62. ii with Ar. Eg. 797-800, etc. The view that Cleon had raised the fee from 2 obols rests on the emphasis given by Aristophanes to the tpusBooy, schol. Ar. Vesp. 300 and an emended version of schol. 88. 13 G, T. Griffith, Ancient Society and Institutions, 125, dates the introduction of bouleutic pay not long after 462. % Ie is assumed that this is why jury pay was taken to be symbolic of the EupsoBos méks, as in A.P. 27. iii-iv. (On the date when jury pay was introduced, see H. T. Wade-Gery, AJP lix. 1938, 131-4 = E.G.H., 235-8, reaffirmed in E.G.H., 1973 Hignett, 342-3.)14 MEMBERSHIP AND ORGANIZATION should not have been necessary to introduce a salary in war time for an office which conferred exemption from military service on the holder. In the Hellenistic and Roman periods rich officials were expected to contribute to the expenses of their office, and the poorer bouleutae no doubt counted on having rich colleagues who were prepared to bear the cost of the corporate sacrifices,’ but against this we may set some special endowments from which the bouleutae benefited. About A.D. 120 Claudius Atticus and his wife established a special fund for bouleutae of their own tribe, presumably to subsidize the activities of the prytany,? and later they made similar endowments for other tribes ;30n their death, however, these endowments were recovered by their son Herodes,* and from A.D. 138 we find individual tribes appointing a rich member to be their éneévupos, or patron.’ In some later documents Athena Polias is linked with the human patron,’ and it is assumed that a grant was made to the prytany from the Treasury of Athena. Another fund was endowed about A.D. 135-40 by a Cretan, Flavius Zenophilus, to provide gifts for bouleu- tae at some major festival, perhaps the Eleusinian Mysteries ; we possess a decree of the Areopagus, of about 165, providing for the reinvestment of the accrued surplus and for additions to the list of recipients, among them Flavius’ son Xenion.’ Somewhat earlier, we have four decrees from the middle of the second century 3.c. which reveal that the boule was given a xaGéopov, or attendance fee, by the dywvobérns of the Thesea :® presumably this payment was needed to secure the members’ attendance at the festival. Individual members who distinguished themselves in office were some- times rewarded ;° and at the end of the year the whole boule like any 1 Cf. S. Dow, Hesp. Supp. i 1937, 14-15, on the treasurer of the prytanes. There might be other liabilities too: the second-century A.p. regulations of the Iobacchi make membership of the boule one of many offices for which, if he was appointed to it, a member of the guild was required to offer a worthy onovby (IG ii# 1368, 131). ‘We learn from Cassius Dio (taux. 16. ii) that under a law of Hadrian bouleutae were for- bidden to engage in tax-farming. 2 P 121, 12-15, with J. H. Oliver, AJP lox 1949, 302. > Cf. IG iit 3597, * Cf. Fronto, Ad M. Cass. iii. 3 (= i. 64, Haines). 5 J.H. Oliver, Hesp. xi 1942, 30, cf. AJP lxx 1949, A. E. Raubitschek, Mépas Kepazomovaov, 242-55, D. J. Geagan, Hesp. Supp. xii 1967, 98-100. Hesp. xxdi 1963, 73-4, inscription I, may commemorate special help given by Hadrian, © eg. IG ii? 1817. 7 SEG xii 95 with J. H. Oliver, Hesp. xxi 1952, 381-99. * IG iit 956, 14, with commentary; 957, 9-10; 958, 12; 959, 11-12. ° Towards the end of 343/2 the boule honoured its best speaker and invited the demos to join in the honours (IG ii? 223 A); in 290/89 the demos crowned the three best bouleutae of the year (JG ii? 2797) ; and about the same time the boule was honoured by one of its members (SEG xxi 360).QUALIFICATIONS AND APPOINTMENT 15 individual dpywy was subjected to a process of e¥@uvat,! and if it was found to have discharged its duties satisfactorily it was entitled to a Swped,? which seems to have taken the form of a gold crown. Professor Kahr- stedt rejected this view and tried to distinguish between a legally pre- scribed Swped, in the form ofa cash donation for a sacrifice or dinner, and a merely customary crown.* However his argument that crowns were not legally provided for runs into difficulties with 6 véyos xeAever in IG ii 415, 28; and since the word Swped certainly could be used of a crownS as well as of various other honorific awards® it seems perverse to force a distinc- tion between crown and Swped here. When Androtion proposed that the boule in which he had served his second term? should receive the usual Swped, it was customary for the retiring boule to ask for its reward by putting the question: 6n the assembly’s agenda late in its own year of office.8 The prosecution of Androtion by Euctemon and Diodorus seems to have had little immediate effect on this practice: the boule of 343/2 was certainly crowned in its year of office for successful management of the Dionysia,° and it may also have received the general award for satisfactory conduct before the end of the year.?° But in the 330s there was further trouble over the award of a crown to an official who was still dev@vvos, when Aeschines prosecuted Ctesiphon for his proposal to crown Demosthenes. For individuals, Aeschines claims, there used at one time to be no restriction on ématror and. xnp¥ypara, but when it was found that such votes of thanks were prejudicing the euthynae a law was passed SapprjSnv dmayopevovra Tobs dievOdvous pt) orepavodv. A way round this provision was soon discoveres the proposer of an award had only to add the clause ée:Sav Adyov Kat BL. Quaest. Conv. 628 EF. + The decree of Miltiades is one of several documents purporting to be of the early fifth century of which texts seem to have become current in Athens about the middle of the fourth century (cf. C. Habicht, Hermes booxix 1961 ; on this decree, pp. 17, 20). 1t may be daubted whether a text of this kind (ordering immediate action on a single occasion), antedating Xerxes’ sack of Athens, is likely to have survived; it is certain that if such a text did survive a later generation of Athenians would have been capable of adding such details as the tribe in prytany, in the interests of supposed verisimilitude (cf. the decree of Themistocles, M&L 23, whose staunchest champions must admit the overwhelming probability that Themistocles’ patronymic and demotic have been added in this way: cf. M&L, p. 50). Professor Habicht makes the ‘anachronistic’ mention of the prytany his chief reason for condemning the text which Plutarch knew, thus begging the question which I am asking; the fairest comment is perhaps that of Macan (Herodotus, IV-VI, vol. ii, p. 219, cf. Hignett, Xerxes’ Invasion of Greece, 14): ‘It may be granted more probable that such a psephism was passed than that Miltiades was the mover, more probable that Miltiades was the mover than that the Aiantis, was in office,” 5 1Gi* 4, 21-5. 6 E.G.H., 180-200, on M&L 31. I explain my reasons for doubt in Ch. IV, p. 204 a. 1. If this inscription can be dated c. 450 the earliest epigraphic reference to prytanes may be M&L 37 (458/72) or HMA 21 (c. 4572). Another possible piece of evidence for pryta~ nes before 462 is the ‘Xanthippus Ostracon’ as interpreted by A. Wilhelm, Anz. Wien bocxvi 1949, but his explanation seems a little too ingenious to be credible. For other attempts to 8142919 c18 MEMBERSHIP AND ORGANIZATION Closer study of the Hecatompedon Inscription provides further reasons for doubt: the decrees are dated simply to an archon-year,' whereas later it was normal to date by the bouleutic calendar ;? and they order the Treasurers of Athena, whose duties were later regulated by the bouleutic calendar, to check the contents of the Hecatompedon three times a month.3 The special meeting of the demos in the Agora to hold an ostracism was presided over not by the prytanes but by the nine archons and the whole boule,‘ and Professor Kahrstedt used this fact asthe chief peg on which to hang his argument that the prytany system was created in 462/1.5 This point, however, is irrelevant. The ostracism-assembly was not a normal ecclesia, though a normal ecclesia had first to be held to decide whether there should be an ostracism-assembly.® It was, we may imagine, especially likely to get out of hand, and it may well have been given a larger presiding body simply for that reason. Nevertheless the inscriptions that I have cited make the possibility that prytanies were a product of the Ephialtic reform worth considering, and I believe the case can be strengthened by a study of the building which was erected for the prytanes, the Tholos. This is dated by the excavators of the Agorac. 465,’and the Old Bouleuterium, to the north of it, they assign (with Cleisthenes in mind) to the end of the sixth century. The Tholos and Old Bouleuterium replaced earlier buildings on the same site: the complex CDE on the site of the bouleuterium is thought to have been begun (building C) about the time of Solon, enlarged (D) under Pisistra- tus, and altered (D abandoned and E built) in the last quarter of the sixth century; FGHI, on the site of the Tholos, were erected about 525, and at the end of the sixth century, about the time when the Old Bouleu- terium was built, part of F was demolished and J was erected. These buildings, it is suggested, served more or less the same purpose as their successors, except that as there is no building suitable for the purpose the actual meetings of the Solonian boule must have been held in the open.'° solve this problem see A. E, Raubitschek, O. Broneer, E. Schweigert, AJA? li 1947, lii 1948, lili 1949. My disinclination to believe in pre-Ephialtic prytanes is not much weakened by Plat. Gorg. 516 p-E, or by Teleclides’ comedy, purdveis (Ath. x11. 553 2). 1 1G i? 3, 16-173 4, 26-7. 2 On the bouleutic calendar see Additional Note A, pp. 224-9. 3 IG? 4, 17 sqq. + Phil. 328 F 30, schol. Ar. Eg. 855, Pl. Arist, 7. iv-v, cf. [And.] IV. Ale. 7. 5 S.S.A., 125 n. 1, U.M.A., 88, Klio xxiii 1940, 10-11. 6 CLAP. 43. v. 7 Agora Guide, 45; ¢. 470, Hesp. Supp. iv 1940, 126-8, 153. ® Hesp. vi 1937, 134-5, 212, cf. Hesp. Supp. iv 1940, 27, 153- On the date of the Old Bouleu- terium, see further p. 30 n. 11 below. ® See my Plans A and B, and Hesp. Supp. iv 1940, 8-44, 153- 10 Hesp. Supp. iv 1940, 43.SUBDIVISIONS OF THE BOULE 19 However, there is no evidence for any kind of prytany system in the Solonian boule: I should have expected the archons to preside, but in any case the use of tribal contingents of roo seems unlikely. FGHI present a far more complicated unit than the later Tholos, and though these were no doubt public buildings it seems unsafe to insist that they must have stood in the same relationship to the buildings to the north of them as did the Tholos to the Old Bouleuterium. The smallest of changes in the excavators’ date would be needed to make the Tholos a post-Ephialtic building, newly erected to serve the needs of the new standing com- mittee made necessary by the extra duties acquired by the boule after Ephialtes’ attack on the Areopagus.' The arguments I have used here cannot be decisive, but if I succeed in showing that there may have been no need for prytanies before Ephialtes, then we ought not to persist in ascribing the prytany system to Cleisthenes merely because it accords with our idea of what he was trying to do.? - When this subdivision of the boule was made the order of the prytanies during the year was determined by lot? in such a way that except in the penultimate prytany of the year it was not known in advance which would be the next tribe in prytany:* in other words, in the course of the year there must have been nine (more after the creation of the new tribes) separate sortitions to determine the order of prytanies. This is the earliest method of arranging the prytanies for which we have any evidence,$ and its use continued under democratic regimes at any rate until the third century.* One year in which it seems likely that a different system was DW have been helped in this matter by correspondence with Professor H. A. Thompson and Professor E. Vanderpool. Thompson tells me that the archaeological evidence would permit a date anywhere within the decade 470-460, and Vanderpool reminds me that the earlier ‘buildings seem better suited than the Tholos to the needs of the prytanes—which remains ‘a problem regardless of when prytanies were instituted and when the Tholos was built.{] Won the pre-Ephialtic boule see the appendix to Chapter IV, pp. 190 sqq., and on the problem in general cf. Chapter V, pp. 209-10. )4.P. 43. ii. For an allotment-machine which could have been used for this purpose, see Professor Dow's wlnpuriipior I, Hesp. Supp. i 1937, 198-202, 210-11. {See W. S. Ferguson, Athenian Secretaries, 19-27. The decisive phrase is rods n[plurdved{s t dv rvyydva]or mpuravedovres werd x[}]y Olmm[iba pudfv] (IG ii? $53, 16-17). Kahrstedt (Klio xcodii 1940, g-10) maintained that the system was introduced at the time of the Peloponnesian War in place of a single sortition which had been used to determine the order for the whole year: but /G i? 166 is no longer restored with the text on which he relied (cf. SEG x 96), and all the fifth-century evidence we possess now seems compatible with the practice of separate sortitions (cf. B. D. Meritt, AJP Ixix 1948, 69-70). ‘The latest inscriptions I know which seem to betray ignorance of the next tribe in prytany are IG ii? 806, 1-3 (largely restored) (c. 230) and perhaps 808, 20-1 (239-229) (there is no positive evidence that any of the regimes under which Athens passed c. 300 used a different system). The order of prytanies in different years continued to vary as long as we have any evidence, and it may be assumed that the lot continued to be used (D. J. Geagan, Hesp, Supp. xii 1967, 96).20 MEMBERSHIP AND ORGANIZATION tried is 408/7: for this year four prytanies are known, the fifth and the seventh to the ninth, and the tribes which occupied them are Oeneis (VI), Leontis (IV), Pandionis (III) and Aegeis (II). While this could have re- sulted from the normal sortitions the coincidence is impressive and it may be that in this one year the prytanies were filled in reverse tribal order." The primary duty of the prytanes was to convene the boule and ecclesia. They fixed the agenda for the boule, as the whole boule did for the ecclesia, and were ultimately responsible for ensuring that the boule placed on the ecclesia’s agenda matters which by law had to come before the demos.? It is possible (though our evidence is limited to two entries in the lexica) that they were required to give five days’ notice of an ordinary meeting of the ecclesia, specifying the time and place, and perhaps also the agenda.* They inevitably became the first recipients of envoys, messengers, and applicants for a hearing in the boule and assembly, and when the right of mpécoSos pds rv BovAty Kai rév Sfjpiov was conferred on a foreigner the prytanes naturally figured among those who were to see that he was able to enjoy this right.’ Demosthenes gives us an account of their arrangements to summon an extraordinary assembly in 339/8, when the news reached Athens that Philip II had occupied Elatea : eongpa piv yap Ty, xe 8 dyyéMww ris ds rods mpurdvers ds "Eddreva xarelhy= mat. Kal perd rai6” of pcv edOds eLavacrdvres perafd Seumvodvres Tous 7° éx TOV oxnydv ray Kard Thy dyopdy eeipyo Kal ra yépp” dvenerdvvoay, of 82 rods orparnyois perentumovro Kal rév cadmeriy exddow- Kal BopiBou mins Fv 4 mdhs. 198? Sorepala, dua 7H udpe, of ev mpurdvers hv Bovdty exddowv els +6 Bovreuriipiov, Spets 8 els riy exxdnolay eopeveade, xal-mpiv éxeiqy xpnnarioar Kal mpoPovreGoar mas 6 Siyos dvw xabjro. Kal werd radra ds ANDev 4 Bout xal dmjyyeday of mpurdves ra mpoonyyeduer” éavrois Kal rdv ‘fxovra aphyayoy Kaxetvos elev, jpdra pov 6 Kfipvé “rls dyopasew Bovherar;”® 1 Tod 92 with W. S. Ferguson, Athenian Secretaries, 26 n. A, B. D. Meritt, TAPA xcv 1964, 203. W. K. Pritchett, BCH boxxviti 1964, 467-70, refuses to make the inference. 2 AP. 43. iii-vi, 44. iv, cf. 45. iv, D. XXI. Mid. 8-9. In citizenship grants under some fourth-century and third-century regimes the prytanes were ordered to Sodvat wept 708 Seivos hy diigon ev 7h apairn éxxAqolg (presumably to order and organize the meeting, as the proedri now presided) : references given at IG ii* IV. i, p. 61, sv. mpurdvais. Cf. also M&L 46, 35-7, 40; 09, 26-31, 33-8. 3 L.S, 296. 8, Phot. mpéneuara. 4 Our best evidence for advance publication of agenda is in connection with voyobeoia (D. XXIV. Tim. 23, cf. 18, XX. Lept. 94), but in a system where for example ixernplat were permitted at one ecclesia in each prytany (4.P. 43. vi) there must surely have been some notice of what matters were to come up on which occasions. The last sentence of A.P. 43. iii might be read as evidence that the boule received advance notice of matters to be discussed, and in the law for rebuilding the walls usually dated to 37/6 the boule is to be given the opportunity to study in advance the evyypagaf on which it will have to vote (IG ii# 244, 6-9). 5 References in IG, p. 369. .V. mpdrans, IG ii? rv. i, p. 60. ii (paragraphs 6-7) s.vv. apvrayela xr). 6 D, XVIIL, Cor, 169-70. dvenerdvvucay is Girard’s conjecture, cf. schol. Ar. Ack. 22; the MSS, read éveriumpacay.