PRYTANE´UM
PRYTANE´UM (
πρυτανεῖον). The nearest approach that modern usage makes to the
Prytaneum of a Greek state may be found in the town-hall or
hôtel de ville; but the religious
character attaching to it gave it a much higher significance, and it had
also state purposes which were peculiar to cities of ancient Greece, being
non-existent even at Rome, where, as will be pointed out, we have a near
parallel on the religious side. The Prytaneum, so far as our evidence goes,
was a requisite for every Greek state (
Paus.
1.43;
5.15); but only in the capital, not
in
demes or villages attached to it. Its
archaic history appears to be as follows. Every Greek tribal settlement of
primitive times (and probably the same holds good for most nations of the
world) had a common hearth in the chief's house, where the fire was
scrupulously preserved, because of the difficulty in those days of procuring
fire at all. To pursue this question further is unnecessary here: any book
on the folk-lore and customs of almost any primitive nation will supply
examples: numerous references are given in a paper on the Prytaneum by Mr.
Frazer (
Journal of Philology, 14.28, 1885). The perpetual
maintenance of this fire was the duty of the chief, but delegated by him to
daughters or slaves; in Rome, no doubt, to daughters, who reappear in
history as the Vestals [
VESTALES]. If the settlement was moved, the firebrand was taken
carefully from the hearth and carried onward, a custom which Parkman has
particularly noted in the Indian tribes of America; and similarly, if a
swarm of colonists went out to settle elsewhere, they took fire with them.
What had in early times been a necessity became afterwards a religious
ceremony, and accordingly, we find practically the same usage--even, as it
seems, the
shape of the primitive chiefs
dwelling--surviving in civilised Greek and Roman states. When one state or
πόλις absorbed others, which had
previously had separate
πρυτανεῖα, the
chief town alone retained a
πρυτανεῖον
common to all: that is to say, a single
βασιλεὺς replaced the many chiefs, and his single palace
contained the common hearth for the sacred fire. That this is not mere
surmise may be seen from
Thuc. 2.15;
Plut. Thes. 24, where we are told of the
abolition of the separate
πρυτανεῖα, and
the establishment of the common
πρυτανεῖον
in the
ἄστυ: and though the single ruler
at Athens became
βασιλεύς, and not
πρύτανις, yet
[p. 2.514]even
this latter title in some states, as at Rhodes, continued to be the title of
the chief magistrate. It is reasonable then to assume that the Prytaneum in
Greek states was originally the house of the king or chief magistrate, and
that similarly at Rome the temple of Vesta was once part of the king's house
or Regia (see Middleton,
Rome, p. 181; Frazer,
op. cit.).
At Athens it is probable that there were several changes in the position of
the Prytaneum before the building which Pausanias knew by that name under
the northern side of the Acropolis (
Paus. 1.18).
Full discussions of these migrations of the state hearth will be found in E.
Curtius,
Attische Studien, and in an article by
Schöll in
Hermes, 5.340. We have
little doubt, though it cannot be proved, that the original Prytaneum of the
“Cecropian” city was upon the Acropolis, but of that no
trace in the ground, and little, if any, in literature, has been discovered
(Pollux, 9.40, however, seems to allude to this Prytaneum). It may, we
think, be now considered as fairly established that the historical Prytaneum
was in the
old Agora of the “Theseian”
city, i. e. of the city formed by the aggregation mentioned above; and this
Agora must be placed to the south of the Acropolis. Here it is likely that
there were both the Prytaneum or state hearth and dining-place for those
state-guests who will be described hereafter, and also an original
Thesmothesion for the archons to dine in.
Later on, when the city spread, and the Agora was shifted (perhaps, as
Curtius thinks, by Pisistratus), the Ceramicus quarter having become the
centre of Athenian life and business, the
θόλος was built near the
βουλευτήριον (
Paus. 1.57); and there
the Prytanes thenceforth dined, for the obvious reason that they could not
quickly pass from their business to their meals; and in that neighbourhood
also, for the convenience of the Archons, was their dining-place, the
Thesmothesion: here too was the
στοὰ
βασίλειος, the office of the Archon Basileus, which to some
extent represented the old
βασιλεῖον of
kingly times. A very fair inference has been drawn from the shape of the
Tholus, a round building with a pointed “umbrella-shaped” roof,
that it preserved the orthodox shape of the old Prytaneum; and so, further,
that
πρυτανεῖα represented the primitive
circular wattled huts, with peaked roof and hearth in the centre, where
dwelt the chief of the tribe: if this theory is correct, it will apply also
to the circular temples of Vesta. At a later time, probably after the Roman
conquest, the larger building was constructed which Pausanias (
1.18) describes as the Prytaneum on the northern
side of the Acropolis, containing the statue of Hestia, to represent the
sacred hearth of the state, the statue of Peace and the remains of Solon's
tables of law [
NOMOS] which
denoted its sovereign character, and some other statues.
There were then probably three Prytanea of different dates: (1) the oldest in
the Acropolis of prehistoric times; (2) that in the old Agora, south of the
Acropolis, which, even after the Tholos took part of its duties, remained as
the Prytaneum of the classical age, and was still the state hearth from
which fire was taken for colonies, having itself supplied the sacred fire
kept also for the altar in the Tholos; and (3) the Prytaneum of Pausanias,
which seems to have supplanted the older Prytaneum (No. 2) for all purposes,
unless we are to conclude from the way in which Pausanias speaks of
τὸ ἐν πρυτανείῳ καλούμενον δικαστήριον
(1.28), that the judicial court [see
PHONOS] of that name was not transferred to the new building. It
may be noted that in this court, as well as in the general term of
πρυτανεῖα for court fees, we seem to have a
relic of the old royal or palace jurisdiction.
At Athens the
πῦρ ἄσβεστον was, according
to
Plut. Num. 9, as also at Delphi, kept up
not by vestal maidens, but by aged widows (
γυναῖκες
πεπαυμέναι γάμων), who perhaps represented the female slaves
of the primitive chief, as the Roman Vestals represented the daughters. As
regards the supply of sacred fire for colonists starting to found a new
state, see above, and compare
COLONIA Vol. I. p. 474.
Sitesis.--It will be convenient to describe here all the
classes of persons who were entertained at the cost of the state, though it
must be understood that it is entirely erroneous to suppose that they all
dined in the Prytaneum--at any rate before the Roman conquest; whether they
did so later is open to dispute. We cannot doubt that in the invitation to
dine in the Prytaneum we have a relic of the custom that the
γέροντες or chief counsellors should dine at the
king's table, and that the hospitality should be extended to other honoured
citizens, or distinguished visitors. This custom was not peculiar to Athens;
for we have record of entertainment in the Prytaneum as belonging to various
Greek towns. Athenaeus mentions it in Thasos, Naucratis, and Mitylene (i. p.
32; iv. p. 149; x. p. 425): we hear of it also at Tenedos (
Pind. N. 11.8), Rhodes (
Plb. 29.5), Cyzicus (
Liv. 41.20),
and to this list many additions can be made from inscriptions. In fact, we
are brought to the conclusion that if
πρυτανεῖα as state hearths were probably universal in Greek
capital towns, the public entertainment of certain officials, citizens, or
foreign guests was at least general.
As regards the regulations of this entertainment at Athens, we are able still
to gather a good deal of evidence. Plutarch (
Symrp. 4.4, 1)
tells us that Celeus first had a daily entertainment of
εὐδόκιμοι καὶ ἀγαθοὶ ἄνδρες. Looking to
the connexion of Celeus with the Eleusinian rites, we may conjecture that
this tradition is the attempt to explain the right of the Eleusinian priests
to partake in the
σίτησις. There is at any
rate little doubt that the early rulers of Athens thus entertained three
classes of persons, viz. magistrates, priests, and unofficial guests, alike
distinguished Athenians and foreign princes or envoys. Those who
by right of office dined with the king (or, after
the end of the monarchy, dined together) were
σύσσιτοι (also
ἔνσιτοι):
those unofficial persons, who were invited to dine besides, were
παράσιτοι (cf. Plat.
Lach. p. 179
C), but this word became limited to the subordinates of the priests [
PARASITI]. The word
ἀείσιτοι or
αἴσιτοι is of later times (see below). We must carefully notice
also a threefold division of
place in
historical times: I. the Prytaneum, in which the unofficial guests dined;
II. the Thesmothesion,
[p. 2.515]where the Archons dined;
III. the Tholos. It is of course not impossible, as Schöll thinks,
that the Archons had a separate Thesmothesion for dining in the old Agora as
well as in later times; but on the whole it seems more likely that before
the alteration of the Agora all alike dined together in the Prytaneum; but
when, as stated above, the government offices were transferred along with
the busy life of Athens to the inner Ceramicus, the division of meals began,
and the Archons dined thenceforth in the Thesmothesion.
I. The meals in the Prytaneum continued as before, for (
a) foreign princes and envoys of other states, the formula for
whose invitation is
καλέσαι τοὺς πρέσβεις ἐπὶ
δεῖπνον (or
ἐπὶ ξένια)
εἰς τὸ πρυτανεῖον εἰς αὔριον, i.
e. for the day following their audience in the assembly, and as the
conclusion of their mission (Poll. 8.138; Dem.
F. L. p.
350.31; [Dem.]
de Halon. p. 81.20): the
invitation ran in the name of the senate,
ἡ βουλὴ
καλεῖ (
Aristoph. Ach.
124; Dem.
l.c.) or the
δῆμος (Dem.
Polycl. p. 1210.13): Demosthenes
says
ἐκάλεσα (
F. L. p.
414.234), as being the member of the senate who proposed it: (b) citizens
who had done good service; e. g. who had returned from a successful embassy:
(c) citizens honoured with this entertainment for life, the honour to which
Socrates refers in his
Apology. Such were (1) Olympic victors
(Plat.
de Rep. v. p. 465 D;
Plut.
Arist. 27;
Athen. 6.
237) and victors in the other great games (
Insc.
Ephem. 29, 2). Schöll appears to be right in his view that
this honour was given to an Athenian who won the chariot-race at Olympia,
or the gymnic contest at any of the four games;
(2) distinguished generals or statesmen (
Aristoph. Kn. 709; Aeschin.
F. L. § 80;
Dem.
Aristocr. p. 663.130); and lastly (3) the
representatives of certain families, in which the honour was hereditary:
thus we find it a privilege for the nearest representatives for the time
being of Harmodius and Aristogeiton (Isae.
de Dic. her.
§ 47); the nearest representatives of Demosthenes (
Plut. Dem. 31).
Schöll (in
Hermes, xxii. p. 561, 1887)
shows that the daughters of such persons were dowered by the state.
II. The meals of the Archons, as mentioned above, were transferred to the
Thesmothesion in the New Agora.
III. In the
Tholos or
Skias, for
the same reason which made the Archons dine in the Thesmothesion, that they
might be near their business, the Prytanes and certain other officials,
during their tenure of office, took their meals
together, after sacrifice offered at the state hearth; for the sacred fire
was now in the Tholos as well as in the Prytaneum. Who these officials were
may be gathered from the account of the
ἀείσιτοι, though it is possible that the number of offices so
privileged may have been greater in the period to which our extant lists
belong than in earlier times.
The
ἀείσιτοι (or
αἴσιτοι) are not found under that name before the second
century A.D.; and, though we cannot say when they
were first so called, it is clear from
Athen. 6.234 that
παράσιτοι was used in that sense by a pupil of Aristotle. It
must be particularly observed that
αείσιτοι
does not, as is often supposed, mean, those who had this privilege for life:
the element
ἀεὶ in the word means
for the time of his office: for example,
ὁ ἀεὶ γραμματεύων was
ἀείσιτος. No one who studies the lists of
ἀείσιτοι preserved in inscriptions can doubt
this for a moment. We have a number of Prytany lists dating from the middle
and latter half of the second century A.D. In these we find a list of the
Prytanes, and then a separate heading
ἀείσιτοι, under which came, first the Eleusinian priests,
Ἱεροφάντης, δᾳδοῦχος, ὁ ἐπὶ βωμῷ,
ἱεροκηρυξ, πυρφόρος (for these offices, see
ELEUSINIA Vol. I. p. 721);
then the lay officials connected with the Prytaneis, viz. the clerk of the
βουλή, the clerk of the Prytanes
(
ὑπὲρ τὸ βῆμα), the keeper of
records (
ἀντιγραφεύς), the under-clerk,
the custodian (or priest) of the Tholos (
ὁ ἐπὶ τῆς
Σκιάδος)=apparently the priest of the Phosphori, and lastly
the flute-player at the sacrifices (
ἱεραύλης). Now in these lists it is noticeable that, whereas
the Eleusinian priests, who held office beyond the year, appear under the
same name in various years, this is not the case with the lay
ἀείσιτοι. Take for instance the inscriptions,
C. I. A. 3.1029-1032, which range from the years 165 to
169 A.D., the four lists being shown to fit these
four different years. The Hierophant Flavius of 165 appears in 166; a Julius
replaces him in 167 and reappears in 168; the daduchus and hieroceryx bear
the same name in all four lists. But when we come to the various clerks, we
find that the same name never appears in two different years--(the
inscriptions 1032 and 1034 are for the same year, 168 A.D.). The same holds
good of the sacred officials of the Prytanes, the
ἐπὶ σκιάδος and
ἱεραύλης. It may be well, however, to say a word about the
former. He was apparently both the custodian of the Tholos or Skias, and
also the priest who offered the daily sacrifice at the state hearth for the
Prytanes. In an inscription of 180 A.D. (
C. I. A. 3.1042) he
is called
ἱερεὺς τῶν φωσφόρων καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς
Σκιάδος. Schöll explains the Phosphori as =
Dioscuri, but surely it is more likely that the word should mean the Light
Deities who were honoured in the torch-race [
LAMPADEDROMIA], and from whom the sacred fire was
derived.
The only point remaining for consideration is the condition of things in the
newer Prytaneum which Pausanias describes in the second century A.D., the larger and more elaborate building north
of the Acropolis, of which we have spoken above. Did the union of the
separate meals follow the erection of this larger Prytaneum, so that those
who were fed in the old Prytaneum and in the Tholos thenceforth amalgamated?
Curtius declares that it did; Köhler (in
Hermes, 5.340) denies it, and refers to the lists of the age of
Pausanias, which seem to imply that the Prytanes and the
ἀείσιτοι still dined apart in the Tholos. It
cannot be said, however, that the lists distinctly prove this; and the view
of Curtius may, after all, be correct. In other words, it is possible that
the Tholos was still a sacred place for the offering on behalf of the
Prytanes, with the
ἐπὶ σκιάδος, as
before, in charge of it, but was no longer used for their meals. (On the
subject of the Prytaneum and the
σίτησις,
see Frazer in
Journal of Philology, 14.28; Curtius,
Att. Stud. ii.; Schöll in
Hermes, v. and xxii.) [
G.E.M]
(Appendix). Ath. Pol. 62 notes
that the Athlothetae dined in the Prytaneum in the month in which the
Panathenaea was celebrated, from the 4th of the month onwards. It should be
observed also that this treatise (100.43) speaks of the prytanes as still
dining together in the Tholos (cf. p. 515
b).