previous next

BOU´KOLOI

BOU´KOLOI (βούκολοι), members of a religious college at Pergamum during the Roman empire, engaged in celebrating the mysteries of Dionysus καθηγήμων. There appear to have [p. 1.309]been colleges of a similar name throughout Ionia and Pontus (Lucian, de Salt. 79; cf. C. I. G. 2052). The chief was called ἀρχιβούκολος (cf. C. I. L. 6.504, 510, archibuculus dei Liberi); and a memorial raised by a college to its chief is to be found in Hermes, 7.39, with a commentary by G. Curtius. Certain members of the college appear therein to have been called σειλήνιοι, since the worship of Silenus was closely connected with that of Dionysus, and Silenus had a special grove in Pergamum (Paus. 6.24.8). As might be expected, seeing that the ceremonial largely consisted of religious dancing (Lucian, l.c.), there appear among them a χορηγὸς and ὑμνοδιδάσκαλοι, the latter corresponding to the ὑμνῳδὸς we find in an inscription of the mysteries at Smyrna (C. I. G. 3160). See P. Foucart, Les Associations religieuses chez les Grecs, pp. 114-116. [L.C.P]

BOULÉ (βουλή), a deliberative assembly or council. In the Heroic age, represented to us by the Homeric poems, the despotism of royalty is tempered by the βουλὴ or council of chiefs and the ἀγορὰ or general assembly of freemen. These two institutions, however, “are exhibited in the monuments of the legendary age as. opportunities for advising the king, and media for promulgating his intentions to the people, rather than as restraints upon his authority” (Grote, 1.461, where see the Homeric βουλὴ further described, and cf. AGORA 1).

In the free republics of historic times the βουλὴ assumed more of an executive character; it was the name of an “administrative committee” (Verwaltungsausschuss, Westermann ap. Pauly; cf. Hermann, Staatsalterth. § 125). This was especially the case among the Ionic race; the Dorian states, like Sparta and Crete, preferred the terms γερουσία, γέροντες, retaining, as is well known, the kingship of the Heroic age in a modified form [GEROUSIA, COSMI]. In Athens, at least from the time of Solon, there were two councils, the AREIOPAGUS (q. v.) and that called by Grote the “probouleutic or pre-considering senate.” It is of the latter council that the following article treats.

The first question that meets us is whether this body was first constituted by Solon or modified from one already existing. The direct authority of the ancients on points like this is of much less weight than their casual admissions; the orators in particular, and the grammarians who followed them, ascribed promiscuously to Solon all Athenian institutions whether earlier or later than his time, from the immemorial sanctity of the Areiopagus to the democratic changes of Cleisthenes or even of Pericles. As has been seen under AREIOPAGUS the best authorities (Grote, Meier, Schömann) regard that council as the legitimate descendant of the Homeric βουλὴ or council of old men (γέροντες); and, however shorn of its power in later times, it always enjoyed honorary precedence as ἄνω βουλὴ over that we are now considering, κάτω βουλή. There are indications, however, of the existence of more than one council in pre-Solonian Athens. Herodotus (5.71) tells us that in the time of Cylon (B.C. 620) Athens was under the direction of the presidents of the Naucraries (ναυκραρίαι), the number of which was forty-eight, twelve out of each of the four tribes. Moreover, we read of the case of the Alcmaeonidae being referred to an aristocratical tribunal of 300 persons, and that Isagoras, the leader of the aristocratic party at Athens, endeavoured to suppress the council, or βουλή, which Cleisthenes had raised to 500 in number, and to vest the government in the hands of 300 of his own party (Hdt. 5.72; Plut. Sol. 12). The reappearance of the number 300, as Thirlwall remarks (H. G. 2.41), can hardly have been a merely casual coincidence. It has been ingeniously conjectured by a recent writer that, under the government of the Eupatrids, there was a senate of 300 composed of 75 members from each of the four tribes, 25 from each of the phratries; and that Solon, wishing to give some political power to the unprivileged citizens, while retaining the preponderance of the aristocracy, added a fourth hundred of non-Eupatrid members, 25 from each tribe (Lange, Die Epheten und der Areopag vor Solon, 1874, p. 25 ff.). Hence, it is argued, the reactionists under Isagoras proposed to restore, in place of the Cleisthenean 500, not the Solonian 400, but the pre-Solonian 300. On the other hand, both Grote and Schömann tacitly assume that the second council originated with Solon. However this may be, it is admitted that Solon made the number of his βουλὴ 400, taking the members from the first three classes, 100 from each of the four tribes; and that its function with reference to the public assembly (ἐκκλησία) was also his work--to prepare matters for its discussion, to convoke and superintend its meetings, and to ensure the execution of its decrees (Grote, H. G. 2.322; Schömann, Antiq. p. 331, E. T.). The question whether the βουλευταὶ or senators were from the first appointed by lot as in after-times, may be regarded as practically decided in the negative by the consensus of scholars from Bishop Thirlwall downwards (Grote, Schömann l.c. in correction of his former view in the Assemblies, Westermann ap. Pauly, Caillemer ap. D. and S.). As the moderate and conservative nature of Solon's reforms is better understood, it is acknowledged that the κύαμος or lot formed no part of any of his institutions; and Plutarch expressly states that he designed the second council, no less than the Areiopagus, as an “anchor of the state,” using moreover the word ἐπιλεξάμενος to express the mode of appointment (Sol. 19). An election by open voting, where the influence of the Eupatrids would be felt, may be assumed as most in accordance with Solon's views. On the tribes being remodelled by Cleisthenes (B.C. 510), and raised to ten in number, the council also was increased to 500, fifty being taken from each of the ten tribes. It is to this period, and not to any earlier one, that the introduction of the lot must be referred; in the appointment of magistrates it is probable that this change dates from the more sweeping reforms of Pericles and Ephialtes. Cleisthenes, himself an Alcmaeonid by birth, was by no means an advanced democrat, and under his constitution the office of βουλευτής, though not technically an ἀρχὴ or magistracy, was confined to the three first Solonian classes ; that of archon being further limited to the Pentacosiomedimni or first class. All these restrictions were swept away by the law of Aristides about 477, and every office became open to every citizen (Grote, 4.32; Schömann, [p. 1.310]Antiq. p. 339; cf. ARCHON). The senators thus appointed were required to submit to a scrutiny or δοκιμασία, in which they gave evidence of being genuine citizens (γνήσιοι ἐξ ἀμφοῖν), of never having lost their civic rights by ἀτιμία, and also of being above 30 years of age. At the casting of lots two persons were selected for each post, the second as a reserve man in case the first should be rejected on the scrutiny: to draw the second lot was ἐπιλαχεῖν (Harpocrat.). After passing the δοκιμασία they took an oath of office (ὅρκος βουλευτικός), of which only a few phrases have been preserved. Among these are τὰ βέλτιστα βουλεύσειν τῷ δήμῳ τῷ Ἀθηναίων ([Demosth.] c. Neaer. p. 1346.4; cf. Lys. Or. 31 (Philon), § 1); and οὐδὲ δήσω Ἀθηναίων οὐδένα (Demosth. c. Timocr. p. 745.144, cf. § 147). They remained in office for a year, and sat probably every day except on some religious festivals, when they were “discharged from attendance” (ὄντων Κρονίων καὶ διὰ ταῦτ̓ ἀφειμένης τῆς βουλῆς, Demosth. op. cit. p. 708.26). A purely secular holiday seems to have been unknown. Boeckh, in estimating the probable cost of the senators' pay (μισθὸς βουλευτικὸς) to the state, assumes about 300 sittings in the year (P. E. p. 232). This payment was at the rate of a drachma for each day on which they sat. The date of its introduction has been disputed, but it may safely be referred to the same period as the payment of the popular assembly and the dicasts, i. e. the age of Pericles. During their sittings they wore a wreath of myrtle, which, as a religious emblem, would have to be laid aside when blood was to be shed ( βουλὴ . . . περιελομένη τοὺς στεφάνους ἀπέκτεινε, Lycurg. c. Leocr. § 122). In the theatre, at festivals, and in the public assembly, they had a place of honour (προεδρία), and for their year of office they were exempt from military service (cf. ATELEIA). If a senator were accused of a crime, he might be suspended by his colleagues during the investigation. The ballot for his removal was called ἐκφυλλοφορία, because the voting in it was taken with leaves of olive instead of with voting tablets or pebbles. If acquitted on the trial, he was reinstated; if convicted, the expulsion was not only made absolute, but the senate was entitled, and in some cases expected, to inflict punishment on its own account in addition to that awarded by the dicastery (Harpocrat. s. v. ἐκφυλλοφορῆσαι: Aeschin. Timarch. § § 111, 112; Schömann, Assemblies, p. 230, Antiq. p. 373). At the end of the year the whole body had to pass the examination called εὔθυναι, at once an audit of accounts and an inquiry into its general conduct in office: and if the result was satisfactory, the people decreed them a golden crown as the equivalent of a modern “vote of thanks ;” the crown, which was of no great value, together with the decree, being then preserved in a shrine as a consecrated offering. The laws specified certain cases in which the crown was to be refused; for instance, if the senate had failed to insure the building of a certain number of new triremes. The speech of Demosthenes against Androtion is a γραφὴ παρανόμων for the alleged illegal bestowing of this compliment when it had not been earned; Aeschines (Timarch. l.c.) mentions an instance in which it was actually refused.

This senate of 500 was divided according to tribes into ten sections of fifty each, and these served in an order of succession, determined by lot at the beginning of the year. The members of the section whose turn it was to serve were called Prytanes (πρυτάνεις), i. e. chiefs or presidents, because they presided both in the senate and the assemblies; their period of office was called a Prytany (πρυτανεία), and lasted in ordinary years 35 or 36 days, in intercalated years 38 or 39. These years consisting of 354 or 384 days respectively [CALENDARIUM], the four extra days were given to the tribes which drew the last lots (Schömann, Assemblies, pp. xvi., xxxiv.). From among the Prytanes an Epistates was chosen, also by lot, every day to preside as a chairman in the senate and the assembly of the people; during his day of office he had in his custody the keys of the citadel, the public archives, and the state seal, and was thus for twenty-four hours the nominal head of the government.

The attendance of the fifty Prytanes at each meeting of the senate was compulsory, that of other senators voluntary; and it may well have been that young men who aspired to the career of statesmen, when drawn as βουλευταὶ (as happened to Demosthenes more than once in early life), took every opportunity of attending in order to familiarise themselves with public business. It was provided, however, that all the tribes should at least be represented at every meeting of the senate; and this was done by the institution of the Proedri (πρόεδροι), nine senators chosen by lot, one from each of the non-presiding tribes, at the commencement of each sitting, under the direction of the Epistates of the Prytanes. The office of the Proedri seems at first to have been purely ceremonial, in order to give an air of completeness to the working senate as chosen from all the ten tribes (cf. Grote, 3.118). But the democratic jealousy of men in office, which at Athens showed itself in the multiplication of checks and counterchecks, at length discovered that the powers of a single tribe, prolonged for a period of five weeks or more, might be used (limited as those powers were) for the purposes of a clique; and the authority of the Prytanes and their Epistates was further restricted. From a date not earlier than the archonship of Eucleides (B.C. 403), but placed by Meier with great probability between the years 378 and 369, a second Epistates was chosen by lot from among the Proedri, and called ἐπιστάτης τῶν προέδρων, to whom the presidency both of the senate and the assembly was transferred, leaving to the former Epistates only the chairmanship of the Prytanes and the custody of the keys and seals, with an honorary precedence. At the same time the functions of the other Proedri seem to have been enlarged, so that they were in some way the “assessors” of their chief (Benseler, on Demosth. c. Timocr. p. 706.21),--his bureau, as Perrot calls them (Essai, p. 40). Some writers suppose that the nine Proedri were now first instituted; but it is altogether more probable that they were coeval with the division of the senate into Prytanies, and that their attendance had always been “necessary to constitute a valid meeting, and to ensure a constant representation of the collective people” (Grote, l.c.). Without pressing too [p. 1.311]far the comparison of the Roman constitutional forms, we may point to the thirty Curies which continued to be represented, if it were only by lictors, down to the latest times of the republic.

The true explanation of the functions of the Proedri and Epistatae is a comparatively recent discovery, which has only gradually won its way to general acceptance; and the traditional account, still to be found in works of great authority, must here be noticed. According to this, ten Proedri at a time were chosen from the Prytanes for seven days, and from among them the Epistates; so that there were two bodies of Proedri, each with its own Epistates, one of ten from the presiding tribe, another of nine from the non-presiding. This view may be read in most histories of Greece, as well as in the older works on antiquities, and was taught by Meier and Schömann in their earlier writings, and by K. F. Hermann in the early editions of his Staatsalterthümer. But in reality, besides being cumbrous to a degree of improbability, it has very slight authority in ancient writers, the principal being the Scholiast on Aeschines (Ctes. § 39) and the author of the Second Argument to Demosthenes against Androtion (not Libanius, but a later and inferior grammarian); and the three eminent scholars just named all lived to correct their published opinions. The first approach to a juster criticism was made by K. F. Hermann himself, in an anonymous pamphlet entitled Epicrisis quaestionis de Proedris apud Athenienses, Göttingen, 1843; he was followed by Westermann ap. Pauly, vi. s. v. Senatus, 1852, and by Meier, in a tract de Epistatis Atheniensibus prefixed to the summer programme of lectures at Halle, 1855. To these may be added, in proof of the unanimity with which the correction has been accepted by recent scholars, Schömann (Antiq. p. 377), Perrot (Essai sur le Droit Public d'Athènes, 1869), and Caillemer (ap. Daremberg and Saglio, s. v. Boulé). The clear and concise statement of Pollux (8.96) may be cited as very much to the point: ὅταν ολ̔ πρυτάνεις τὸν δῆμον τὴν βουλὴν συνάγωσιν, οὗτος (i. e. ἐπιστάτης τῶν πρυτανέων) ἐξ ἑκάστης φυλῆς πρόεδορον ἕνα κληροῖ, μόνον τὴν πρυτανεύουσαν ἀφιείς. Nor do Harpocration, Suidas, or any of the better grammarians know anything of a double set of Proedri, though some, including Pollux himself, recognise only one Epistates. In the confusion between the two officers, each bearing the name of Epistates, we have, as the present writer has pointed out elsewhere, the probable origin of the mistake: “It is easy to see that when the ἐπιστάτης τῶν προέδρων (Aeschin. Ctes. § 39) had become confused with the ἐπιστάτης τῶν πρυτανέων or Epistates properly so called, the result would be (1) the notion of 10 proedri as a subdivision of the 50 prytanes; (2) when it was discovered that the proedri must be distinct from the prytanes, as representing the other nine (non-presiding) tribes, the further notion that there were two distinct sets of proedri” (Note on Demosth. c. Timocr. p. 706.21).

Other officers of the senate were the secretaries (γραμματεῖς), of whom there were several. We find, in the first place, one who was appointed for each prytany by lot from among the Prytanes, and whose duty it was to prepare all the acts passed by the senate: this is the γραμματεὺς κατὰ πρυτανείαν, and the one whose name was prefixed to decrees in the formula δεῖνα ἐγραμμἁτευε [ECCLESIA]. A second secretary was elected by the senate itself on a show of hands, and apparently not for a single prytany only, but for the whole year: he is called in inscriptions γραμματεὺς τῶν βουλευτῶν, and by Pollux ἕτερος ἐπὶ τοὺς νόμους ὑπὸ τῆς βουλῆς χειροτονούμενος. Among his functions Schömann reckons the custody of the public archives (Antiq. p. 378); but Pollux expressly assigns them to the first secretary, and is followed by Boeckh (P. E. p. 186). The third secretary was elected by the people, and called γραμματεὺς τῆς πόλεως (Thuc. 7.10) or τῆς βουλῆς καὶ τοῦ δήμου (Inscrr.); his chief duty was to read out documents both in the senate and in the popular assembly. There were also under-secretaries (ὑπογραμματεῖς), concerning whom no trustworthy details have come down to us. Of more importance was the ἀντιγραφεὺς τῆς βουλῆς, one of the two controllers of accounts who were great public officers, and described under ANTIGRAPHEIS (Pollux, 8.98; Boeckh, P. E. p. 186; Schömann, Antiq. p. 378).

We now proceed to speak of the duties of the senate as a body. It is observed under AREIOPAGUS that the chief object of Solon in remodelling the senate and the Areiopagus was to control the democratical powers of the state. For this purpose he ordained that the senate should discuss and vote upon all matters before they were submitted to the assembly, so that nothing could be laid before the people on which the senate had not come to a previous decision. This decision, or bill, was called Probouleuma (προβούλευμα); and if the assembly had been obliged either to acquiesce in any such proposition, or to gain the consent of the senate to their modification of it, the assembly and the senate would then have been almost equal powers in the state. But besides the option of adopting or rejecting a Probouleuma, the people possessed and exercised the power of coming to a decision completely different from the will of the senate. Every one possessing the right to speak ( βουλόμενος, οἷς ἔξεστι) had also the right of proposing motions [ECCLESIA]. The motion might be an amendment to the Probouleuma, involving an extension or modification of it, and not merely a simple negative. Legally, however, a motion could be made only about such matters as had previously been dealt with in the senate and had formed the subject of a Probouleuma. As regards other matters the motion could consist only in a demand to the senate to discuss these, and draw up a Probouleuma relative to them, which was then to be laid before the assembly. It is clear, however, that this restriction was sometimes dispensed with in practice, and that ἀπροβούλευτα, or matters not previously referred to the senate, were not unfrequently put to the vote; especially when, as in the case of a compliment to the senate itself, the obtaining of its consent must have been a mere form (Demosth. c. Androt. pp. 594-5, § § 5, 6).

If a private person had anything to bring before the public, it was first necessary for the party to obtain, by written petition, the privilege of access to the senate (πρόσοδον γράψασθαι) and leave to propose his motion; and if the measure [p. 1.312]met with their approbation, he could then submit it to the assembly (Demosth. c. Timocr. p. 715.48; Isocr. Areop. § § 16, 84). Proposals of this kind, which had the sanction of the senate, were also called προβουλεύμαρα, and frequently related to the conferring of some particular honour or privilege upon an individual. Thus the proposal of Ctesiphon for crowning Demosthenes is so styled, as also that of Aristocrates for conferring extraordinary privileges on Charidemus, an Athenian commander in Thrace. Any measure of this sort, which was thus approved of by the senate, was then submitted to the people, and by them simply adopted or rejected ; and “it is in these and similar cases, that the statement of the grammarians is true, that no law or measure could be presented for ratification by the people without the previous approbation of the senate, by which it assumed the form of a decree passed by that body” (Schömann, Assemblies, p. 98).

When a Probouleuma came before the people it was read out by the γραμματεὺς (the third of those mentioned above), and the preliminary question was then put, whether the people agreed with it or desired to have the matter subjected to further discussion. The show of hands on this previous question was called προχειροτονία (Demosth. c. Timocr. p. 703.11). The subsequent stages of the discussion, and the forms in which the decrees (ψηφίσματα) of the people were drawn up at different times, are described under ECCLESIA The προβουλεύμαρα could only be brought before the popular assembly by the same senate that had drawn them up; their validity expired with its year of office. Hence when the matters to which they related could not be suffered to drop, a fresh beginning before the next year's senate and a new προβούλευμα became requisite. Other resolutions (ψηφίσματα) of the senate which did not belong to the class of προβουλεύματα, but had reference to public business within the competence of its administrative powers, and mostly requiring to be carried out at once, in like manner became invalid at the end of the year, unless re-enacted by the incoming senate. (Demosth. c. Aristocr. p. 651.92; Schömann, Antiq. p. 375).

The political powers of the senate were strictly limited. In the more important matters, and especially in foreign affairs, it had the right of initiating a policy, but not of finally deciding on the course to be pursued. Since, however, the senators were convened by the Prytanes every day, except on festivals or ἄφετοι ἡμέραι (Pollux, 8.95), it is obvious that they would be fit recipients of any intelligence affecting the interests of the state, and it is admitted that they had the right of proposing any measure to meet the emergency; for example, we find that Demosthenes gives them an account of the conduct of Aeschines and himself, when sent out as ambassadors to Philip, in consequence of which they propose a bill to the people (Demosth. Fals. Leg. p. 346.17=19). Again, when Philip seized on Elateia (B.C. 338), the senate was immediately called together by the Prytanes to determine what was best to be done (Demosth. de Cor. p. 284.169). But, besides possessing the initiatory power of which we have spoken, the senate was sometimes delegated by the people to determine absolutely about particular matters, without reference to the assembly. Thus we are told (Demosth. Fals. Leg. p. 389.154=170) that the people gave the senate power to decide about sending ambassadors to Philip; and Andocides (de Myst. § 15) informs us that the senate was invested with absolute authority (ἦν γὰρ αὐτοκράτωρ) to investigate the outrages committed upon the statues of Hermes, previously to the sailing of the Sicilian expedition.

But in some departments of state, especially the financial, naval, and military, the senate was entrusted with large administrative powers. The farming of the public revenues, the receipt of tenders for public works, the sale of confiscated properties and the like were carried out by the πωληταὶ [POLETAE] under the superintendence and subject to the ratification of the senate. The farmers of the taxes (τελῶναι), the lessees of the leasable revenues, i. e. public lands and especially mines (οἱ μισθούμενοι, Demosth. c. Timocr. § § 40, 59), the tax-collectors (ἐκλογεῖς, ἐκλέγοντες), and the sureties which all these classes of persons were required to furnish (οἱ ἐγγυώμενοι, οἱ τούτων ἐγγυηταί, Demosth. ll. cc.) might all be imprisoned if their payments were in arrear, or even as a precaution if default was to be feared; and this discretionary power is assigned to the senate by SchUmann (Antiq. pp. 372, 451) and Boeckh (P. E. pp. 338, 340), though some passages of Demosthenes rather imply that it was vested in the law-courts. (c. Timocr. p. 700.2, and elsewhere). In the presence and under the control of the senate, the ἀποδέκται [APODECTAE] made their payments into the different treasuries; the treasurers of the Acropolis (ραμίαι τῆς θεοῦ) and of other temples received from their predecessors and delivered to their successors, according to an inventory, the money and valuables under their protection. “The senate arranged also the application of the public money, even in trifling matters, such as the salary of the poets; the superintendence of the cavalry paid by the state, and the examination of the infirm (ἀδύνατοι) supported by the state, are particularly mentioned among its duties; the public debts were also paid under its direction. From this enumeration we are justified in inferring that all questions of finance were confided to its supreme regulation” (Boeckh, P. E. p. 154). Another very important duty of the senators. was to take care that a certain number of triremes was built every year (Demosth. c. Androt. § § 8, 17, &c.). To meet special expenses connected with the dignity of the senate, as for instance the sacrifices offered on behalf of its deliberations, it had a special treasury under a treasurer chosen by the Prytanes from their own number. The ταμίας τῶν τριηροποιῶν is mentioned by Demosthenes (op. cit. § 17) as an officer for whom the senate was responsible; but the exact mode of his appointment is nowhere stated. In general the fleet and all matters relating to the maritime empire of Athens were under the special control of the senate. It was bound to see that there was no want of the necessary stores, and in time of war to lend its aid in rapidly fitting out the ships; while its stimulated the zeal of the trierarchs by the prospect of a reward, the trierarchic crown [p. 1.313](Schömann, Antiq. p. 375; Boeckh, Seeurkunde, pp. 59, 63; Dem. de Cor. Trierarch. passim; cf. EPIMELETAE No. 5). The cavalry, again, which was kept embodied, and was exercised during peace as well as in war, was under its special supervision. It was bound to inspect these troops from time to time, and to provide for their pay, called κατάστασις (Boeckh, P. E. p. 250; Lys. pro Mantith. [Or. 16], § § 6, 7; Harpocrat., Suid., Phot., s. v. κατάστασις). Finally, in raising levies of men for war, a process undertaken in each deme independently, the senators might be ordered by decree of the people to assist the demarchs in making out the κατάλογοι or lists for service (Demosth. c. Polycl. p. 1208.6).

The senate had also its judicial functions, the most important of which was to receive εἰσαγγελίαι, or informations of extraordinary crimes for which there was no special law provided [EISANGELIA]. The senate in such cases either decided themselves or referred the case to a dicastery, especially if they thought it required a higher penalty than it was competent for them to impose, viz. a fine of 500 drachmas (Dem. c. Everg. et Mnes., p. 1152.43). It was also their duty to decide on the qualification of magistrates, and the character of members of their own body; the nine archons, in particular, being subjected to a double δοκιμασία and εὔθυναι, one from the senate and the other from the law-courts. In all these matters the senate, as the executive body, was itself responsible (ὑπεύθυνος) to the Demos or sovereign people.

The meetings of the senate were, as we learn from various passages of the Attic orators, open to strangers; thus Demosthenes (de Fals. Leg. p. 346.17= 19) says that the senate-house was, on a particular occasion, full of strangers (μεστὸν ἦν ἰδιωτῶν): in Aeschines (c. Cles. § 125) we read of a motion “that strangers do withdraw” (μεταστησάμενος τοὺς ἰδιώτας). To enforce these regulations they had at their disposal the services of the policemen, the so-called Σκύθαι or τοξόται, who were under the orders of the Prytanes [DEMOSII]. On some occasions private persons were invited by a special decree to come forward and give advice to the senate. The senate-house, situated in the Agora, was called βουλευτήριον, and contained two chapels (ἱερὰ), one of Ζεὺς βουλαῖος, another of Ἀθηνᾶ βουλαία, in which it was customary for the senators to offer up certain prayers before proceeding to business (Antiph. de Chorcut. § 45). We read also of Ἑστία βουλαία, whose altar stood in the senate-house (Harpocrat. s. v. βουλαία), and Ἄρτεμις βουλαία C. I. G. 112, 8; 113, 15) as among the gods thus invoked. A signal, probably a flag, was hoisted over the βουλευτήριον except on the few holidays; and when the sitting was about to begin, the members were summoned to enter by a herald: the flag was then struck (Andoc. de Myst. § 36). The right to receive the drachma for attendance, already mentioned, was checked by a ticket (σύμβολον), consisting of a small piece of stamped lead, such as was also used at the theatres, given to each senator on his entrance. Several varieties of these tickets are preserved in museums: the bouleutic are identified by the legend ΒΟΑΗ, i. e. βουλή, or ΒΦ, i. e. βουλὴ τῶν πεντακοσίων, and have been described in two recent monographs (Dumont, de plumbeis apud Graecos tesseris, 1870; Benndorff, Beiträge zur Kenntniss des Attischen Theaters, 1875, p. 62). It is tolerably certain that late comers, after the flag was struck, lost their drachma for the day: Schömann also thinks (Antiq. p. 378) that they forfeited their seat; but against this is the curious provision of the oath, quoted by Schömann himself, that they would keep the place assigned them by lot (καθεδεῖσθαι ἐν τῷ γράμματι ἂν λάχωσι, Philochorus ap. Schol. Aristoph. Pl. 973; ascribed to the year B.C. 410, the archonship of Glaucippus).

The Prytanes also had a building to hold their meetings in, sometimes called the prytaneum (πρυτανεῖον), but more usually θόλος, the “Dome” or “Rotunda,” from its shape. This must not be confounded with the more ancient prytaneum proper [PRYTANEION]. It was situated near the senate-house, so that the Prytanes could without inconvenience betake themselves from it to the full meetings of the senate. Before and after these meetings, however, they were present in the θόλος for the whole day, and also took their meals there, at a common table and at the public expense, with some other public officers, and with the privileged persons called ἀείσιτοι (Dem. de F. L. p. 419.249= 279; p. 442.314=361). Thucydides tells us (2.15) that before the time of Theseus every Attic city had its βουλευτήριον and πρυτανεῖον: but this is only another way of saying that in pre-historic Attica there were other “cities” besides Athens; in his time the possession of a βουλευτήριον and a πρυτανεῖον had become essential to the Greek idea of a πόλις.

The number of tribes at Athens did not always remain at ten; an alteration took place in B.C. 306, when Demetrius Poliorcetes had liberated the city from the usurpation of Cassander. Two were then added, and called Demetrias and Antigonis, in honour of Demetrius. and his father: later sycophancy changed the names to Ptolemais and Attalis, in compliment to kings of Egypt and Pergamus. The senate was now increased to 600 members, and the prytanies shortened accordingly; but when in the time of Hadrian a thirteenth tribe was added, the number of senators was again reduced to 500. The Athenians kept up the show of their former institutions down to the latest times of the Roman empire; cf. ARCHON (Schómann, Assemblies, 1819, passim; Antiq. Juris Publici Graecorum, 1838, pp. 210-218; Antiquities, Eng. Tr., 1880 (vol. i.), pp. 371-379 ; Hermann, Staatsalterth., § § 125-127; Perrot, Essai sur le Droit Public d'Athènes, 1869, pp. 10-36; Westermann ap. Pauly, s. v. Senatus; Caillemer ap. D. and S.) [R.W] [W.W]

(Appendix). The origin of the second or probouleutic council is now definitely ascribed to Draco: the number was 401, chosen apparently by lot from the whole body of citizens (ἐκ τῆς πολιτείας, 100.4); for the odd number compare the 51 Ephetae, and the juries of 201, 501, &c. dicasts. The additional member was omitted by Solon, who assigned an equal number to each of the four tribes (100.8); the ten Cleisthenean tribes and βουλὴ of 500 are described in the usual terms (100.21). The limitations on the powers of the ββουλὴ are insisted on: the people alone is sovereign, and governs by psephismata and dicasteries (αἱ τῆς βουλῆς βουλῆς κρίσεις εἰς τὸν δῆνομ ἐληλύθασιν, 100.41; οὐ κυρία δ᾽ κρίσις, ἀλλ̓ ἐφέσιμος εἰς τὸ δικαστήριον, 100.45). Compare Aristot. Pol. 4.4=p. 1292, 5. The control of the βουλὴ over naval matters through ἀρχιτέκτονες and τριηροποιοί, subordinate to itself, and the conditions of its receiving the annual compliment (δωρεάν, crown, or “vote of thanks” ), are in accordance with the text of Demosthenes (Androt. pp. 598-9, § § 17-20; cf. BOULÉ, p. 310 a; Ἀθ. πολ. 100.46). The “naval architects,” or “master ship-builders,” however, are mentioned only by our author. The ἀρχιτέκτων of Dem. de Cor. p. 234.28, is a different person.

The pay of the βουλευταί, usually stated as a drachma a day, is given as five obols (Ἀθ. πολ. 100.62). Under the oligarchy of 411 B.C. those of the Four Hundred βουλευταὶ who were absent without leave were to be fined a drachma a day (100.30).

The functions of the Prytanes, Proedri, and Epistatae are clearly and simply explained in accordance with the view now universally held [BOULÉ, p. 311 a]. There is only one set of Proedri, one from each of the non-presiding tribes, and there are two Epistatae (100.44). According to Aristotle (100.43), the four first prytanies were the longest, having the extra (thirty-sixth) day: our statement (p. 310 b) that the four last were the longest is based on an inscription of B.C. 410; but the rule may have changed between that date and the middle of the following century.

hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: