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]
colleges of a similar name throughout Ionia and Pontus (Lucian, de
79; cf. C. I. G.
2052). The chief was
(cf. C. I.
6.504, 510, archibuculus dei
); 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
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
), there appear among them a χορηγὸς
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,
), 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
In the free republics of historic times the βουλὴ
assumed more of an executive character; it was the name of
an “administrative committee”
Westermann ap. Pauly; cf. Hermann,
§ 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
) 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 ἡ ἄνω βουλὴ
over that we are now considering, ἡ κάτω βουλή.
There are indications, however,
of the existence of more than one council in pre-Solonian Athens. Herodotus
) tells us that in the time of Cylon
(B.C. 620) Athens was under the direction of the presidents of the
), 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
). 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.
2.322; Schömann, Antiq.
p. 331, E. T.).
The question whether the βουλευταὶ
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
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
to express the mode of
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,
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
p. 1346.4; cf. Lys. Or.
§ 1); and οὐδὲ δήσω Ἀθηναίων
(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.
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 (ἡ 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
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. 373). At the end of the year the whole body had
to pass the examination called εὔθυναι,
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,
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,
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.
reality, besides being cumbrous to a degree of improbability, it has very
slight authority in ancient writers, the principal being the Scholiast on
§ 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
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
p. 377), Perrot (Essai sur le Droit Public
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 ἢ τὴν βουλὴν συνάγωσιν,
(i. e. ὁ ἐπιστάτης τῶν
) 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
§ 39) had become confused with
the ἐπιστάτης τῶν πρυτανέων
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.
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 ὁ κατὰ
and the one whose name was prefixed to decrees in the
formula ὁ δεῖνα ἐγραμμἁτευε
]. 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,
Pollux ἕτερος ἐπὶ τοὺς νόμους ὑπὸ τῆς βουλῆς
Among his functions Schömann
reckons the custody of the public archives (Antiq.
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
) 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
one of the two controllers of accounts who were great
public officers, and described under ANTIGRAPHEIS
(Pollux, 8.98; Boeckh, P.
p. 186; Schömann, Antiq.
We now proceed to speak of the duties of the senate as a body. It is observed
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
); 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 (ὁ βουλόμενος,
) 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,
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.
703.11). The subsequent stages of the discussion, and the forms in which the
) of the people were
drawn up at different times, are described under ECCLESIA
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
became requisite. Other
) 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.
651.92; Schömann, Antiq.
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
(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.
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.
389.154=170) that the people gave the senate power to decide about sending
ambassadors to Philip; and Andocides (de Myst.
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
] 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
Demosth. c. Timocr.
§ 40, 59), the tax-collectors (ἐκλογεῖς,
), and the sureties which all these classes of
persons were required to furnish (οἱ ἐγγυώμενοι,
οἱ τούτων ἐγγυηταί,
) 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.
p. 700.2, and elsewhere). In the presence and under the
control of the senate, the ἀποδέκται
] 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
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]
pp. 59, 63; Dem. de Cor.
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.
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.
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
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.
p. 346.17= 19) says that the senate-house was, on a particular
occasion, full of strangers (μεστὸν ἦν
): in Aeschines (c. Cles.
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
who were under the orders of the
]. 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
and contained two
), 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,
i. e. βουλὴ τῶν πεντακοσίων,
and have been described
in two recent monographs (Dumont, de plumbeis apud
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.
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 ᾧ 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
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.
419.249= 279; p. 442.314=361). Thucydides tells us (2.15) that before the
time of Theseus every Attic city had its βουλευτήριον
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
1819, passim; Antiq.
Juris Publici Graecorum,
1838, pp. 210-218;
Eng. Tr., 1880 (vol. i.), pp. 371-379 ; Hermann,
§ § 125-127; Perrot,
Essai sur le Droit Public d'Athènes,
10-36; Westermann ap. Pauly, s. v. Senatus;
Caillemer ap. D. and S.) [R.W
. 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
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᾽ ἡ κρίσις, ἀλλ̓ ἐφέσιμος
εἰς τὸ δικαστήριον,
100.45). Compare Aristot. Pol. 4.4
=p. 1292, 5. The
control of the βουλὴ
over naval matters
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.
§ § 17-20; cf. BOULÉ,
p. 310 a;
100.46). The “naval
architects,” or “master ship-builders,” however, are
mentioned only by our author. The ἀρχιτέκτων
of Dem. de Cor.
234.28, is a different person.
The pay of the βουλευταί,
usually stated as
a drachma a day, is given as five obols (Ἀθ.
100.62). Under the oligarchy of 411 B.C. those of the Four
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.