PHYLOBASILEIS
PHYLOBASILEIS (
φυλοβασιλεῖς). The
origin and functions of the Athenian officials called
“tribe-kings” are involved in great
[p. 2.389]obscurity. Unfortunately the data are exceedingly scanty; all that we know
about the office being drawn from the four or five meagre references here
given. Our oldest notice is that contained in Plutarch (
Plut. Sol. 19), who quotes the words of the
Thirteenth Axon of Solon,
ἐπιτίμους εἶναι πλὴν
ὅσοι ἐξ Ἀρείου Πάγου ἢ ὅσοι ἐκ τῶν Ἐφετῶν ἢ ἐκ
Πρυτανείου καταδικασθέντες ὑπὸ τῶν βασιλέων ἐπὶ φόνῳ ἢ
ἐπὶ σφαγαῖσιν ἢ ἐπὶ τυραννίδι ἔφυγον. Next comes the
ψήφισμα of Patrocleides, quoted by
Andocides (
de Myst. § 11), the wording of which is
evidently framed after the Solonian law,
ἢ ἐξ
Ἀρείου Πάγου ἢ τῶν Ἐφετῶν ἢ ἐκ Πρυτανείου ἢ
Δελφινίου ἐδικάσθη ἢ ὑπὸ τῶν βασιλέων, ἢ ἐπὶ φόνῳ τίς
ἐστι φυγή, ἢ θάνατος κατεγνώσθη, ἢ σφαγεῦσιν ἢ
τυράννοις. There can be no doubt that the
βασιλεῖς mentioned in these two passages cannot refer to the
Archon Basileus; for in the same passage Plutarch calls them by the name
πρύτανεις: and in the decree of
Patrocleides, when reference is made to the
ἄρχων
βασιλεύς, he is called in the singular
ὁ βασιλεύς. That these
βασιλεῖς are the same functionaries as the
φυλοβασιλεῖς will be made clear by Pollux, 8.111,
οἱ δὲ φυλοβασιλεῖς, ἐξ εὐπατριδῶν ὄντες, μάλιστα
τῶν ἱερῶν ἐπεμελοῦντο, συνεδρεύοντες ἐν τῷ βασιλείῳ τῷ
παρὰ τὸ βουκολεῖον: and further (8.120),
τὸ ἐπὶ Πρυτανείῳ δικάζει περὶ τῶν ἀποκτεινάντων,
κἂν ὦσιν ἀφανεῖς, καὶ περὶ τῶν ἀψύχων τῶν ἐμπεσόντων καὶ
ἀποκτεινάντων. προειστήκεσαν δὲ τούτου τοῦ δικαστηρίου
φυλοβασιλεῖς, οὓς ἔδει τὸ ἐμπεσὸν ἄψυχον
ὑπερορίσαι. Finally, Hesychius says,
φυλοβασιλεῖς: ἐκ τῶν φυλῶν αἱρετοί, οἱ τὰς θυσίας
ἐπιτελοῦντες.
The connexion between the
βασιλεῖς of Solon
and the
φυλοβασιλεῖς of Pollux is proved by
the connexion of the
βασιλεῖς in the one
case, and that of the
φυλοβασιλεῖς in the
other, with the Prytaneion. We have no information as regards their number;
but as they existed before the time of Cleisthenes and were elected from the
tribes, and as the name itself implies that there was only one for each
tribe, it is not unreasonable to infer that they were four in number. As
regards their functions, we may gather something from the lex of Solon and
the decree of Patrocleides. In the former three distinct tribunals are
mentioned--Areopagus, Ephetae, and Basileis; and also three distinct
crimes--murder, manslaughter, and aiming at sovereignty. As the Areopagus
tried murder cases, and the Ephetae (in the courts called Delphinion and
Palladion) cases of manslaughter, it would seem that the crime which
specially fell under the jurisdiction of the
βασιλεὺς was that of attempting to become a despot. The same
three tribunals and the same three crimes are mentioned in the same order in
the decree of Patrocleides. Solon had left to the Ephetae the duty of
sitting as judges in certain ancient courts,--the Delphinion, the Palladion,
the Court at Phreatto, and the Prytaneion. In the Prytaneion the Ephetae
solemnly tried inanimate objects which had taken a human life, and over the
Ephetae in this court the Phylobasileis presided; and if the object was
found guilty, it was their duty to convey the polluted object beyond the
frontier. This, of course, was much more a religious than a legal function.
Similarly, too, they acted as assessors to the Archon Basileus, sitting
along with him in the Basileion. Now, as the Archon Basileus dealt with all
cases of blood-guiltiness, whether murder or homicide, it is evident that
the functions of his assessors would be priestly rather than judicial. The
fact that the Phylobasileis were Eupatrids is of importance, when we
recollect that in cases of death by violence members of certain Eupatrid
families were consulted as
ἐξηγηταί (cf.
Plato,
Euthyphro, p. 4, D). From the priestly nature of their
functions it was natural that they were left untouched, both by the reforms
of Solon and of Cleisthenes. Whether their number was increased to ten by
Cleisthenes when he made his ten new tribes, we cannot now tell. Hesychius
seems to refer merely to their office of offering sacrifices on behalf of
their tribes. That such sacrifices were offered on behalf of the tribe (just
as they were offered for the phratry and genos) is very probable. With
reference to their origin we may suggest that just as the Archon Basileus
[cf.
REX SACRORUM]
represented the religious functions of the ancient king of united Attica, so
these “tribe-kings” represented the priestly functions of the
ancient chieftains of the several separate tribes which were ultimately
fused into a single community. In Homer the title
βασιλεὺς seems given to the chief of a tribe or clan; so,
for instance, Antinous and Eurymachus and other suitors are called
βασιλῆες (
Od.
1.394). Many traces of these ancient chieftains can be found
elsewhere in Greece as well as in Athens. For example, at Elis, there were
magistrates called
βασιλᾶες (
I. G.
A. 112), who had plainly judicial functions. So also at Cyme
there was a body called
βασιλεῖς under the
aesymnetes with judicial functions. Similar bodies likewise existed in the
islands of Mitylene and Siphnos, but as regards their numbers we have no
information.
[
W.RI]
