) was the title of
the chief magistrates in many Greek states. The wide diffusion of the name
is attested by a multitude of inscriptions. We find it in Boeotia applied
both to federal and city magistrates ; at Delphi, where a long list of
archons is preserved, and other towns of Phocis; towns in Thessaly, with
three archons to each; in Locris, in many islands of the Aegaean, and in
outlying cities like Cyzicus and Olbia. At Athens, according to tradition,
royalty was abolished on the death of Codrus, B.C. 1068, and his son Medon
became the first archon for life. The archonship remained hereditary in the
line of Medon and twelve successors, and must have been a slightly modified
royalty under another name; but there is no sufficient ground for the
conjecture (presently to be noticed) that neither the name nor the
attributes of royalty underwent any change at all. The next step, dated Ol.
7.1, B.C. 752, was to limit the continuance of the office to ten years,
still confining it to the Medontidae, or house of Codrus, in whose family it
was hereditary. Seven decennial archons are reckoned,--Charops, Aesimides,
Cleidicus, Hippomenes, Leocrates, Apsandrus, Eryxias; but only the four
first of these were of the ancient royal race. In 713 a further revolution
threw open the chief magistracy to all the Eupatridae (Heracl. Pont. fr. 1,
4, ed. Müller; Herm. Staatsalterth.
4; Dict. Biogr.
s. v. Hippomenes
). With Kreon, who succeeded Eryxias, the archonship
was not only made annual, but put into commission and distributed among nine
persons. It is from this date, B.C. 683, that trustworthy Athenian
chronology begins; and these nine archons annually changed continue
throughout the historical period, interrupted only by the few intervals of
political disturbance and foreign domination (Grote, ch. x., init.
The essentially legendary character of these accounts of early times would
seem to render any criticism of their details, from the historical point of
view, more or less unprofitable. The broad fact remains that at Athens, as
elsewhere in Greece, hereditary monarchy passed into a commonwealth which at
the dawn of authentic history was still in its oligarchic stage. But when we
find, in works of high authority, attempts to reconstruct the Athenian
constitution for the four centuries assumed between Codrus and the annual
archons, some notice of them seems demanded. It has been maintained, as the
result of a critical inquiry, that “the monarchy existed at Athens,
without essential modifications, until B.C. 752; the hereditary
successors of Codrus had therefore, during three centuries, the same
powers as their illustrious ancestor” (Caillemer, ap. D. and S.,
following Lugebil, Zur Geschichte der Staatsverfassung von
Leipzig, 1871). We must therefore briefly touch upon the
questions how far (1) the powers and (2) the name of royalty were really
affected by the change traditionally associated with the death of Codrus.
The received view is thus stated in an often-quoted passage of Pausanias
): “The people first deprived
the successors of Melanthus [the father of Codrus], who were called
Medontidae, of the greater part of their authority, and changed the
monarchy into a responsible government (ἀρχὴν
); they afterwards further limited their
government to ten years.” On this M. Caillemer raises the
objection, that we know of no political body to whom the archons can have
been responsible. The answer [p. 1.166]
is obvious, to the
general body of the Eupatridae, who were at this time and long afterwards
at Athens, the only fully
enfranchised citizens. Even in the Heroic age the royal power had its limits
(ἐπὶ ῥητοῖς γέρασι,
); and when the halo of divinity which
attached to the name of βασιλὺς
disappeared with the change of title, the controlling influence of the
nobles was doubtless augmented. Probably, like the barons in feudal
monarchies and the Venetian nobles under the early doges, they at least
exercised the right of deposition. We can hardly, therefore, accept the
assertion that “the powers of royalty were not limited ;” the
prestige of royalty had vanished, though Athens, like other ancient
republics, granted a large amount of arbitrary authority, even in matters of
life and death, to her chief magistrates. And as regards the mere name, too
much has been made of Plato's essentially rhetorical and dramatic language
238 D; Sympos.
208 D), and of the
casual expressions of a writer so late as Pausanias, who couples the phrase
τοὺς ἀπὸ Μελάνθου βασιλεύσαντας
with the statement that Theseus introduced the democracy! (1.3.3; cf. 7.2.1
;) or the still later and more uncritical Aelian (Ael. VH 5.13
). It is enough
to say with Westermann (ap. Pauly, s. v.) that the archons are some-times
called by the Beiname,
familiar or nickname, of βασιλεύοντες.
The single archon, whether
perpetual or decennial, of course discharged those priestly duties of the
old kings which were afterwards assigned to a subordinate member of the
Nine, the second or king-archon; and this circumstance is quite sufficient
to account for the occasional use of the name.
The nine annual archons during nearly the first century of their existence
were still chosen from the Eupatridae exclusively, and by show of hands
). They still in reality stood at the
head of the state as the supreme magistracy, combining the chief
administrative and judicial functions. It is probable that a law of Draco
(621) transferred the jurisdiction in cases of homicide from the archons and
court of Areiopagus to the Ephetae; but, with this exception, the entire
judicial system seems to have been in their hands. At the time of Cylon's
revolt (about 612) they still managed the greater part of the public affairs
). This arrangement continued
till the timocracy established by Solon, who made the qualification for
office depend not on birth, but property, still retaining the election by
suffrage. Two important changes remained to be made, before we arrive at the
developed democracy as it stood from the age of Pericles to that of
Demosthenes: the abolition of the property qualification, and the election
by lot. The date and authorship of the former of these changes are matters
of little doubt. Aristides, who had himself been archon in 489, the year
after Marathon, under the old rule as a πεντακοσιομέδιμνος
years later, when all classes of citizens had been drawn together in
enthusiastic resistance to the Persian invader, proposed and carried a law
that the archonship and other offices should be open to all Athenians
without distinction (ib. 22). The effect of this chance was less sweeping
than at first sight appears. We must remember that the Solonian constitution
had reckoned only income from land, not personal property, in classifying
the citizens; and the actual effect of Aristides' law was solely to get rid
of the monopoly of these offices by the larger landed proprietors, in favour
of the trading classes and of capitalists in general. Besides, the
devastation of Attica by the Persian invader had compelled many who had
hitherto been rich to part with their lands, and had created a dangerous
class of discontented Eupatrids who were not only impoverished but saw their
political rights diminished, and were ready to conspire against the
constitution (Plut. Arist. 13
p. 339, E. T.).
The question at what time the election by lot was introduced is both
difficult and obscure, owing to the conflict of ancient authorities; and
recent scholars have arrived at very different conclusions. The notion that
this change was due to Solon may be at once dismissed; it rests only on the
loose statements of orators, who flattered their hearers by ascribing all
democratic legislation to the great lawgiver (Demosth. c.
p. 484.90; c. Androt.
p. 602.30; Grote, ch.
xi., where examples are collected in an excellent note, 2.324, ed. 1862 ;
s. v. Solon
And Aristotle expressly states that Solon made no change in the ἁλρεσις
or mode of election, but only in the
qualification for office (Pol.
introduction of the lot is ascribed to Cleisthenes by Westermann, Curtius
, E. T.), H. Sauppe, and with special
reference to the arguments of Grote by SchUmann in his latest writings
(Const. Hist. of Athens,
p. 73, E. T.;
p. 337, E.T.). Among those who have upheld a later
date are Niebuhr (Lect. on Anc. Hist.
2.24, E. T.) and Grote
(ch. 31.3.122, n.); some regarding it as anterior to the battle of Marathon,
others as connected with Aristides' admission of all classes to the office,
and therefore later than the battle of Plataea. In favour of the earlier
date are the statements of Herodotus that Callimachus, the polemarch at
Marathon, was ὁ τῷ κυάμὡ λαχών
(6.109); and of Plutarch, who uses the same words of Aristides' archonship
in 489 (Plut. Arist. 1
). But the dates of
political changes were, as has been seen, so speedily forgotten by the
Athenians themselves that we cannot be surprised if Herodotus, a foreigner,
made a mistake on this point though writing in the next generation; while
Plutarch mentions that the historian Idomeneus (circ.
310-270) had stated that Aristides was elected by suffrage. We
may grant to Schömann that “Plutarch had no doubt that the
lot was the rule,” and yet argue that Idomeneus may have
preserved a genuine tradition which Plutarch, who records it, did not know
how to explain. There is, we think, a strong case to be made out in favour
of the view of Lugebil and Caillemer (ubi
), that this was one of the reforms of Ephialtes, the friend
of Pericles, about 461-458. We may be allowed to see, though Herodotus did
not, the absurdity of supposing that Callimachus, as an archon appointed by
lot, could have had equal authority with the ten generals; and the fact
that, in the early part of the century, the ablest Athenian
statesmen--Themistocles, Aristides, Xanthippus the father of Pericles--were
all eponymous archons, while afterwards neither Pericles himself nor any
Athenian known to history enjoyed that [p. 1.167]
fairly be balanced against the testimony of uncritical writers, however
numerous. On the whole, this late date for the change may be accepted, not
as certain, but as by far the most probable.
The frequent occurrence at Athens of boards of ten men, one from each tribe,
and the tribal constitution of the senate of 500 and its prytanies, have led
to the suggestion that the nine archons also belonged each to a different
tribe. This conjecture of H. Sauppe's is approved by Schömann
p. 410, E. T.). The tenth tribe may have been
represented by the γραμματεὺς
as suggested by Télfy (Corp. Juris Attici,
471), rather than by the hieromnemon, as Sauppe thought. There is evidence
that the γραμματεὺς
was on some occasions
associated with the archons as a tenth man, e. g. in drawing lots for the
dicasts among the tribes (Schol. Aristoph. Pl.
Still,, after the removal of the old restrictions, some security was left to
insure respectability; for, previously to an archon entering on office, he
underwent a double dokimasia (not, like other magistrates, a single one
]) before the
senate and before a dicastery. Pollux calls this inquiry ἀνάκρισις
: but that word has another technical
sense, and in the Orators we only find the verb ἀνακρίνειν
(Dem. c. Eubul.
p. 1319.66, p.
1320.70; Deinarch. in Aristog.
§ 17; Pollux, 8.85).
The archon was examined as to his being a legitimate and a good citizen, a
good son, and his having served in the army, and, it is added, being
qualified in point of property (εἰ τὸ τίμημά
Poll.); but this latter condition, if it
existed at all after the time of Aristides, soon became obsolete. We read in
Lysias (Or. 24, pro Inval.
§ 13) that a needy old
man, so poor as to receive a state allowance, was not disqualified from
being archon by his indigence, but only by bodily infirmity ; freedom from
all such defects being required for the office, as it was in some respects
of a sacred character. Yet, even after passing a satisfactory δοκιμασία,
each of the archons, in common with
other magistrates, was liable to be deposed, on complaint of misconduct made
before the people, at the first regular assembly in each prytany. On such an
occasion, the ἐπιχειροτονία,
as it was
called, took place; and we read (Dem. c. Theocrin.
1330.28; Pollux, 8.95; Harpocrat. s. v. κυρία
that in one case the whole body of θεσμοθέται
was deprived of office for the
misbehaviour of one of their body: they were, however, reinstated, on
promise of better conduct for the future.
We are enabled, by means of inscriptions, to trace the archonship through the
greater part of the Roman period. Athens as a libera
) was freed from the duty of receiving a Roman
garrison, and had the administration of justice (jurisdictio
) according to its own laws. But, as with the
consulate at Rome, the archonship now became merely honorary, and the
dignity of ἐπώνυμος
was given by way of
compliment to distinguished foreigners, like king Rhoemetalkes of Thrace and
the emperor Hadrian. In these instances, at least, it would seem that
election by lot was no longer the rule.
With the growth of democracy, the archons gradually lost the great political
power which they had possessed as late as the time of Solon, perhaps even of
Cleisthenes. They became, in fact, not as of old, directors of the
government, but merely municipal magistrates, exercising functions and
bearing titles which we will proceed to describe.
It has been already stated that the duties of the single archon were shared
by a college of nine. The first or president of this body was called
by way of pre-eminence; and
in later times ἐπώνυμος,
from the year
being distinguished by and registered in his name. But this phrase, contrary
to the general opinion, did not come into use until after the Roman
conquest. The second was styled βασιλεύς,
or the king-archon; the third, πολέμαρχος,
or commander-in-chief; the remaining six, θεσμοθέται,
or legislators. As regards the duties of the
archons, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish what belonged to them
individually and what collectively. It seems, however, that a considerable
portion of the judicial functions of the ancient kings devolved upon the
who was also constituted a sort of state
protector of those who were unable to defend themselves. (Lex ap. Dem.
p. 1076.75; Pollux, 8.89.) Thus he had to
superintend orphans and their estates, heiresses, families losing their
representatives (οἶκοι οἱ
), widows left pregnant, and to see that they were
not wronged in any way. Should any one do so, he was empowered to inflict a
fine of a certain amount, or to bring the parties to trial. Heiresses,
indeed, seem to have been under his peculiar care ; for we read (Lex ibid.
p. 1069.54) that he could compel the next of
kin either to marry a poor heiress himself, even though she were of a lower
class, or to portion her in marriage to another. Again we find (Lex ibid.
p. 1055.16; Pollux, 8.62) that, when a person
claimed an inheritance or heiress adjudged to others, he summoned the party
in possession before the archon-eponymus (ἐπιδικασία
: cf. HERES
), who brought the case into court, and made arrangements for
trying the suit. We must, however, bear in mind that this authority was only
exercised in cases where the parties were citizens, the polemarch having
corresponding duties when the heiress was an alien. It must also be
understood that, except in very few cases, the archons did not decide
themselves, but merely brought the causes into court, and cast lots for the
dicasts who were to try the issue. (Dem. c. Steph.
1136, § § 22, 23.) Another duty of the archons was to
receive informations against individuals who had wronged heiresses, children
who had maltreated their parents, and guardians who had neglected or
defrauded their wards. [KAKOSIS
] The various modes of prosecution, by ἀπαγωγή, ἐφήγησις, ἔνδειξις, εἰσαγγελία,
came as a rule before all the archons
indiscriminately; but we find the ἔνδειξις
especially connected with the office of the thesmothetae (Dem. c.
p. 707.23). The last office of the archon which we shall
mention was of a sacred character; we allude to his superintendence of the
greater Dionysia and the Thargelia, the latter celebrated in honour of
Apollo and Artemis. (Pollux, 8.89; cf. Meier, Att. Process,
p. 41 ff.; Hermann, Staatsalterth.
§ 138, 6.) [p. 1.168]
The functions of the βασιλεύς,
were almost all connected with religion: his
distinguishing title shows that he was considered a representative of the
old kings in their capacity of high priest, as the Rex Sacrificulus was at
Rome. Thus he presided at the Lenaean or older Dionysia ; superintended the
mysteries and the games called λαμπαδηφορίαι,
and had to offer up sacrifices and prayers in the
Eleusinium, both at Athens and Eleusis. Moreover, indictments for impiety,
and controversies about the priesthood, were laid before him; and, in cases
of murder, he brought the trial into the court of the Areiopagus, and voted
with its members. His wife, also, who was called βασίλισσα
had to offer certain sacrifices,
and therefore it was required that she should be a citizen of pure blood,
and not previously married. His court was held in what was called ἡ τοῦ βασιλέως στοά.
p. 1370, § § 74, 75; c.
p. 601.27: Lysias, c. Andoc.
where the duties are enumerated; Elmsley, Ad Aristoph.
1143, et Scholia; Harpocr. s. v. Ἐπιμελητὴς τῶν μυστηρίων
ad init. et Theaet.
ad fin.; Pollux,
was originally, as his name denotes, the
commander-in-chief (Hdt. 6.109
; Pollux, 8.91); and we find him discharging
military duties as late as the battle of Marathon, in conjunction with the
: he there took, like the
kings of old, the command of the right wing of the army. This, however,
seems to be the last occasion on record of this magistrate being invested
with such important functions; and in after ages we find that his duties
ceased to be military, having been in a great measure transferred to the
protection and superintendence of the resident aliens, so that he resembled
in many respects the praetor peregrinus at Rome. In fact, we learn from
Aristotle, in his “Constitution of Athens,” that the polemarch
stood in the same relation to foreigners as the archon to citizens. (Arist.
ap. Harpocr. s.v. Pollux, 8.91, 92.) Thus, all actions affecting aliens, the
isoteles and proxeni, were brought before him previously to trial; as, for
instance, the δίκη ἀπροστασίου
for living in Athens without
a patron; so was also the δίκη ἀποστασίου
against a slave who failed in his duty to the master who had freed him.
Moreover, it was the polemarch's duty to offer the yearly sacrifice to
Artemis, in commemoration of the vow made by Callimachus at Marathon, and to
arrange the funeral games in honour of those who fell in war. The functions
of the three first archons are very clearly distinguished in a passage of
Demosthenes, c. Lacr.
p. 940.48. These three archons--the
--were each allowed two assessors
) to assist them in the
discharge of their duties.
The Thesmothetae did not act singly, but formed a collegium
Hyperid. pro Eux.
col. 22). They appear to have been called
“legislators” (Thirlwall, 2.17), because in the absence of
a written code they might be said to make laws (θεσμοί,
an older word for νόμοι
), though in reality they only declared and explained them.
They were required to review, every year, the whole body of laws, that they
might detect any inconsistencies or superfluities, and discover whether any
laws which had been repealed were wrongly retained in the public records
(Aeschin. c. Ctes.
§ § 38, 39). Their
report was submitted to the people, who referred the necessary alterations
to a jury of sworn dicasts impanelled for the purpose, and called νομοθέται.
In the Athenian legal system the thesmothetae had a more extensive
jurisdiction than the three archons who, in point of dignity, enjoyed
precedence over them. It may be said, indeed, that all cases not specially
reserved to other magistrates came naturally before them. Their duties
included the receiving of informations, getting up cases as juges d'instruction,
and presiding at the trial
before a jury (ἡγεμονία δικαστηρίου
following are instanced as being under their jurisdiction: ἔνδειξις, εἰσάγγελία
other than κακώσεως
(see above), προβολαὶ,
the Dokimasia of magistrates generally and the
Euthynae of the Strategi; among public causes, γραφαὶ
ἀγραφίου, ἀγράφου μετάλλου, ἀδικίου, ἀπατήσεως τοῦ δήμου,
βουλεύσεως, δεκασμοῦ, δωροξενίας, δώρων, ἐξαγωγῆς, ἑταιρήσεως,
καταλύσεως τοῦ δήμου, μοιχείας, νομίσματος διαφθορᾶς, ξενίας,
προαγωγείας, προδοσίας, συκοφαντίας, τυραννίδος, ὕβρεως,
: among private ones, δίκαι ἀγεωργίου, ἀμελίου
(an obscure case
hardly to be distinguished from ἀγεωργίου
ἀναγωγῆς, ἀργυρίου, βεβαιώσεως, βλάβης,
ἐγγύης, ἐνοικίου, ἐξούλης, κακηγορίας, κλοπῆς, παρακαταθήκης,
συμβολαίων παραβάσεως, χρέους
: and finally, all δίκαι ἐμπορικαί, μεταλλικαί, ἐρανικαί,
δίκαι ἀπὸ συμβόλων
Pauly; Meier, Att. Process,
ff.; Pollux, 8.88). We also find, in the Orators, informations laid before
the thesmothetae in the following cases:--For breach of the law against
cutting down olive-tress (Dem. c. Macart.
conspiracy to defeat the ends of justice (Dem. c. Steph.
p. 1136.35 f.); if a foreigner married a citizen, or a man gave in marriage
as his own daughter the child of another, or confined as an adulterer one
who was not so (Dem. c. Neaer.
p. 1350.17; p. 1362.52; p.
1367.66). If a man banished for homicide returned without a legal pardon,
the thesmothetae might order him to summary execution (Dem. c.
p. 630.31). The name thesmothetae is sometimes applied
to all the nine, and not merely to the six minor archons: mostly, no doubt,
in late inscriptions (C. L. G.
380) and grammarians
to Dem. c. Androt.
p. 589, 1), but
occasionally even in classical writers. For instance, in Dem. c.
p. 1319 § 66, the phrase τοὺς θεσμοθέτας ἀνακρίνετε
must be equivalent to τοὺς ἐννέα ἄρχοντας ἀνακρίνετε
concluding section of the speech. On the other hand, the words ἀρχαὶ
are used in reference to magistrates in general, not
to the nine exclusively. Thus in Isaeus, Or.
§ 14, certain ἄρχοντες
of who in § 15 are shown to be the ἀστυνόμοι.
In their collective capacity the archons also superintended to ἐπιχειροτονία
of the magistrates, held every
prytany (ἐπερωτῶσιν εἰ δοκεῖ καλῶς
), and brought to trial those whom the people deposed, if
an action or indictment were the consequence of it. Moreover, they attended
jointly to the annual ballot for the [p. 1.169]
jurymen, and presided in the assemblies for the election of strategi,
taxiarchs, hipparchs, and phylarchs (Pollux, 8.87, 88; Harpocrat. s. v.
The places in which the archons exercised their judicial power were, with the
exception of that assigned to the Polemarch, without doubt all situated in
the market. That of the first archon was by the statues of the ten Eponymi;
that of the archon Basileus beside the so-called Bucolium, a building not
otherwise known, in the neighbourhood of the Prytaneum, or else in the
so-called Hall of the King; that of the Thesmothetae in the building called
after them Thesmothesium, in which they, and perhaps the whole nine, are
said to have dined at the public expense. The Polemarch had his office
outside the walls, but quite close to the city, adjoining the Lyceum
p. 411 f., E. T.). In their oath
of office the archons promised faithfully to observe the laws and to be
incorruptible, and in the case of transgression to consecrate at Delphi a
golden statue of the same size as themselves (ἰσομέτρητον,
235 D). Suidas
improves upon this, making them three statues instead of one, at Athens,
Delphi, and Olympia (s. v. χρυσῆ εἰκών
The simplest explanation of this absurdity is Schömann's, that it
is an ancient formula used to denote an impossible penalty, the non-payment
of which of necessity entailed Atimia (Antiq.
p. 414, E. T.
For another explanation, see Bergk in N. Rhein. Museum,
13.447; or Dr. Thompson on Plato, l.c.
A few words will suffice for the privileges and honours of the archons. The
greatest of the former was the exemption from the trierarchies--a boon not
allowed even to the successors of Harmodius and Aristogeiton. As a mark of
their office, they wore a chaplet or crown of myrtle; and if any one struck
or abused one of the thesmothetae or the archon, when wearing this badge of
office, he became ἄτιμος,
or infamous in
the fullest extent, thereby losing his civic rights (Dem. c.
p. 465.28, c. Meid.
p. 524.33; Pollux, 8.86).
The archons, at the close of their year of service, when they had delivered
their account and proved them-selves free from blame, were admitted among
the members of the Areiopagus. [AREIOPAGUS
The Archon Eponymus being an annual magistrate at Athens, like the consul at
Rome, it is manifest that a correct list of the archons is an important
element in the determination of Athenian chronology. Now from Creon
(B.C. 683), the first annual archon, to
(B.C. 499), we have the names of
about thirty-four. From B.C. 495 to 292, Diodorus and Dionysius of
Halicarnassus furnish an almost unbroken succession for a period of nearly
200 years. After B.C. 292, about 166 names have been recovered, mostly from
inscriptions, and many of them undated, down to the latest Roman period; the
latest with a date being A.D. 485 (Meier, Index Archontum eponymorum
qui post Ol.
121.2 eum magistratum
Marin. Vit. Proc.
. Against the
received tradition that the Medontidae, the early successors of Codrus, held
office for life, but without the title of king, the contention of Lugebil
and Caillemer (see ARCHON
) that both the name and the attributes of
royalty survived almost unchanged, has now received important confirmation.
In Ἀθ. πολ.
100.3 it is stated that
“in the times before Draco” the head of the state was
and ruled for life; next
to him was a πολέμαρχος,
commander-in-chief, who indeed dates back to the period of the real kings;
thirdly, an ἄρχων,
or chief civil
magistrate. These two officers were probably elected for a term of years by
the Eupatrids, and formed an important check on the autocracy of the titular
king. Mr. Kenyon remarks: “The abolition of the title of king as that
of the chief magistrate of the state probably took place when the
decennial system was established. The name was then retained only for
sacrificial and similar reasons, and, to mark the fact that the kingly
rule was actually at an end, the magistrate bearing the title was
degraded to the second position, while the Archon, whose name naturally
suggested itself as the best substitute for that of king, was promoted
to the titular headship of the state.”
Fresh light is also thrown on the question discussed at p. 166 b,
as to the time when the election by lot was
introduced. We find “the following stages in the history of the method
of election to this office: (1) prior to Draco, the archons were
nominated by the Areopagus; (2) under the Draconian constitution they
were elected by the ecclesia; (3) under the Solonian constitution, so
far as it was not disturbed by internal troubles and revolutions, they
were chosen by lot from forty candidates selected by the four tribes;
(4) under the constitution of Cleisthenes they were directly elected by
the people in the ecclesia; (5) after 487 B.C. they were appointed by
lot from 100 (or 500, see below) candidates selected by the ten tribes;
(6) at some later period the process of the lot was adopted also in the
preliminary selection by the tribes” (Mr. K., pp. 59-60; Ἀθ. πολ.
100.22). As regards the number of
candidates selected under the arrangement of 487 B.C. the MS. here gives
500, but the writer had previously stated (100.8) that each tribe chose ten
candidates, making a total of 100. It is probable that for πεντακοσίων
we should read ἐκατόν
After the expulsion of Damasias, who in a two years' archonship (B.C. 582-1)
tried to establish a tyranny, we have for one year the unprecedented [p. 1.1064]
number of ten
archons, of whom five were Eupatrids, three ἄγροικοι
= Geomori, and two Demiurgi (100.13). The conjecture
mentioned at p. 167 a,
that the tenth tribe,
which did not elect an archon, was compensated by having the appointment of
the secretary (γραμματεύς
), is stated as a
fact (Ἀθ. πολ.
The received account of the abolition of the property qualification (ARCHON
p. 167 a
) must also be modified. If, according to Plutarch's
account, Aristides in 479 B.C. widened the area of eligibility, he may at
most have extended it from the πεντακοσιομέδιμνοι
to the ἱππεῖς.
It is now definitely stated (Ἀθ. πολ.
100.26) that the ζευγῖται
first became eligible in 457 B.C.,
“five years after the death of Ephialtes” : which shows
incidentally that the murder of Ephialtes must have taken place immediately
after the triumph of his democratic legislation in 462. It is a further
curious fact, that the property qualification was never entirely abolished
by law. The θητικὸν τέλος
or lowest class,
was still in theory ineligible for any office, but in the time of Aristotle
a member of that class was allowed to represent himself as a ζευγιτης
by a legal fiction (100.7).
In the archons' oath we get a rational explanation of the χρυσῆ εἰκὼν
without the absurd addition
p. 169 a
). The archons and, it would seem, the diaetetae also, swore
that if they accepted bribes they would dedicate a golden image--presumably
of equal value to the amount received, though this is not explicitly stated.
A somewhat similar explanation is given by Thompson on Plat.
235 D (Ἀθ. πολ.
It has generally been held, as by Schömann (Antiq.
1.401-2, E. T.), that all magistracies (ἀρχαὶ
in the technical sense) were unpaid at Athens (cf. HYPERETES
p. 986 a
). The treatise before us mentions, on the
contrary, the pay of many public officers; and there is reason to think that
that of the archons was four obols a day, though the passage (Ἀθ. πολ.
100.62) is mutilated and the words